Chinahand Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Obviously this topic is over simplifiying, but I'd like to know people's opinions on this. At the extremes its easy: Stalin and Mao Zedong were all for policies that resulted in Wealth being Re-Distributed while the policies of Maggie and Reagan were all for Wealth Creation (ok that's a simplification, but you get my drift!). In the middle its harder, but I think you'd say Gordon Brown was more in favour of wealth re-distribution than Tony Blair, while David Davis definately goes for wealth creation What do we need in the Isle of Man? Should our policies be more geared towards social security and providing for the needy, or towards rewarding those who create wealth via low taxes and incentives to invest? In the last few weeks and months I've read posts talking about greed and social deprevation on the Island, but our low taxes and lightly regulated financial sector has created wealth on a large scale in the last 10 years: don't forget we are now richer, on average, than the UK, while we were lots poorer 15 years ago. Is the balance in our politics correct between these two extremes? Should they be shifted more towards wealth creation, or more towards redistribution. I don't want to debate revolutions, I'll leave that to MEC VANNIN, but what about policy shifts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Whee! Adam Smith's got a manx following. I'm all for the wealth creation, the pampered bourgoise capitalist parasite that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I'd vote for wealth creation if that includes appropriate training geared towards that aim rather than geared towards doing a job for others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Which would raise my standard of living the further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Only you can do that dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Very Zen Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Which one would give me more money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I think that the example that you have used is flawed. The re-distribution "Should our policies be more geared towards social security and providing for the needy" At the end of August unemployment stood at 569, a rate of 1.4% of the economically active population. Source: Job Market Statistics August 2005 "or towards rewarding those who create wealth via low taxes and incentives to invest?" It's a very basic outlook on things and there has to be a balance that takes account of shifting environments. Politics shouldn't favour one regime or another. We live in a democratic society and we elect the representatives in the hope that they will give a fair and just decision on all aspects of the social community. One thing that the island has always been good at is adapting to new socio-economic climates. I personally don't think that we should look one way or another. We should keep our eye on the ball and make the appropriate changes to stay ahead of the field. Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me, either. Just leave me alone! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul H Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Wealth creation is about getting up off your backside and working without being dragged down by high taxation brought about by having to subsidise those who wont or don’t work. The only thing the Government have any control over is how much they take from one and give to another. As there will always be people who work hard and create wealth we have to maintain a balance that will attract such people to contribute to our economy in order to pay for those who do not. Therefore, if we do not create an environment for wealth creation no body is better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I don't think that wealth creation and re-distribution have to be mutually exclusive. Providing suitable and appropriate conditions for the creation of wealth should, unquestionably, be the priority of government - without it there would be no wealth to re-distribute for those incapable of taking care of themselves. The first problem really lies in what proportion of the created wealth ought to be apportioned for the needy; while the second, and most contentious problem, lies in defining who the recipients of such assistance should be. Low rates of unemployment, in conjunction with low taxation would initially suggest that the government has, up until now, managed to maintain a reasonable balance. At the same time, it would be necessary to take into account the 'hidden' charges such as the costs of fuel and general provisions. Reluctant though I may be to offer any credit to the Fools On The (Prospect) Hill, I have to admit that they seem to have muddled through pretty well so far, but whether or not they can deal with the recession that is slowly beginning to bite is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 I'm quite surprised by the responses so far. I'd expected there to be more support for more social policies on the Island. So far little has been said about raising some taxes to spend on social support for the needy, or the elderly. Improving social housing or the buses. Reading previous posts I'd got the impression there were quite alot of angry people on the Island who wanted something done about social exclusion. Either I'm wrong, or more likely they're bored to death of my b*llsh*t and can't be bothered to vote or express an opinion. I definately hadn't expected only 1 out of every 4 people who could be bothered to vote to say they thought more wealth re-distribution and social spending was needed. 3/4 of us basically happy capitalists! As has been said before Adam Smith's clearly got a Manx following! Maybe we are an enterprise Island successfully implementing the correct policies to ensure continuing prosperity in a global world ... sh*t makes me sound like TinkerBell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Reading previous posts I'd got the impression there were quite alot of angry people on the Island who wanted something done about social exclusion. Either I'm wrong, or more likely they're bored to death of my b*llsh*t and can't be bothered to vote or express an opinion. The problem (if there is one) might simply be one of semantics. 'Wealth Creation' sounds attractive, and cool in an alchemy-lite kind of way, whilst 'wealth redistribution' is threatening to anyone who makes over a fiver a week. Results might have been different had you referred to 'Wealth Creation' as "The b*stard government keeping taxes low just so english whorepig-executives can come over here and build fookin' swimming pools in their fat cat houses when the chip shop down the road wont even accept my I.O.U.'s" and 'Wealth Redistribution' as "Taxing those fat cat, brown envelope stuffers till they squeak our national anthem, so I can buy some fookin' boss trainers with the money raised". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 Results might have been different had you referred to 'Wealth Creation' as "The b*stard government keeping taxes low just so english whorepig-executives can come over here and build fookin' swimming pools in their fat cat houses when the chip shop down the road wont even accept my I.O.U.'s" and 'Wealth Redistribution' as "Taxing those fat cat, brown envelope stuffers till they squeak our national anthem, so I can buy some fookin' boss trainers with the money raised". True, but I had expected someone else to say it ... and now they have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Not aimed specifically at Vinnie but any who go with his second broad definition - if you want a pair of Boss trainers get off your ass, get a job and spend your own hard-earned cash on them viz the wealth you have personnally created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The trainers I already own have enough bossisity as it is, without having to get my money from the state, thank you. They're Ascots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.