Sir Tony Blair Wades In To The Fray

threespires said:
I know you're joking but I think we have a real issue that any attempt to discuss something that might genuinely assist in improving the lot of what we used to call the working and middle classes is painted as some sort of extremism.

I don't want to kill anyone, rich or otherwise :-) but I would like a public discussion on the potential for an incremental wealth tax on people worth more than £10million rising from 1% to 3% depending on their level of wealth. I'd like to discuss the potential benefits that could have alongside the risks and technical complexity of implementation. I'd like to discuss this for both economic and political reasons.

But instead people want to shut down the debate before it even gets started on the grounds of extremism or impracticality.

Meanwhile our former PM has in effect said it was a mistake for the current government to try and offer the most basic of living wages.

Which of us is the extremist?
Click to expand...
Got to assume that that the rich includes people of every age?
If we are only thinking of older pensioners then maybe they pay a lot more income tax than is realised.
 
Postman Pep said:
Regarding the bolded bit.


I'm sure to tonight's QT panel will get to the bottom of it ...
View attachment 193589
Click to expand...

I've not yet read the link you've posted but I presume it joins the dots of TBI being a broker that connects authoritarian regimes with technology firms who are happy to service those regimes ?

You won't know that from how Laura Gilbert will talk tonight, she'll paint a rosy and plausible future around health care outcomes and similar things whilst all the while in effect being bankrolled by states and companies that want to use AI to perfect surveillance societies. She's a bright and capable person but what a waste of a good mind.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Some valid points, although the wealthy moaning about the inefficiency of the state is nothing new.
Click to expand...
It is the fact that its inefficiency is nothing new that is the most damning when asking for more!
gordondaviesmoustache said:
And no, public services are not improving any more. But there are lots of people in the public sector trying their absolute best who should not be abandoned.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is trying to abandon those in the public sector doing their best. On the contrary, those people are the ones not only lauded, but showing the starkest contrast with those that are not, and those they serve who possibly should not be existing on the public purse on the first place.
gordondaviesmoustache said:
A civilised society needs a strong public sector. If that means some inevitable waste then so be it.
Click to expand...
There will always be waste and inefficiency, of course. The question is whether addressing such inefficiencies is even attempted, while simultaneously asking for more from a sliver of society…many of whom are the most efficient people we know.
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s plenty of waste in the private sector that none of that cohort seem to moan about. Large organisations can be wasteful - it’s inescapable.
Click to expand...
The difference, as you clearly know and identify, is that public and private sector institutions are both funded and spend monies from entirely different sources! One is free choice, the other is codified confiscation!!!
gordondaviesmoustache said:
So people should pony up.
Click to expand...
Not sure I’ve been convinced to the point of “So…” but that’s semantics. I agree that a civilized and organized society needs funding to maintain both of those imperatives. The problem, of course, is we seem to be funding neither, with ever more “other people’s” treasure.

To paraphrase, “when do you stop spending other people’s money before THEY run out…not of money, but patience and preference of location?”
gordondaviesmoustache said:
One thing Blair was correct about, however, was the welfare bill where there will have to be some painful choices. The current trajectory is simply not sustainable.
Click to expand...
The most important word spoken by either of us is your choice of the word “welfare.”

The hard question that needs a satisfactory answer…if one exists…is where does that start and end in an ACTUAL civilized, caring and yet efficient society?

For me, too many people readily accept their cheque while pointing to others they believe unworthy of such monies. None of that has anything to do with the purveyor of the largesse, but the recipients, who seem to not only persistently grow in number, but also expectation!

While an efficient civil service might seem a pipe dream beyond even the longest reach, reining in the expectations of an entire class of people for whom the public purse is deemed their personal piggy bank, for their use as desired, remains the most difficult problem to address.

Votes cost money and we all know where that money comes from. There are not enough “rich people” in the country (willing to stay in the country!) to fund the expectations of the cohort that votes their own financial self-interest and drains the public coffers out of want rather than need…which is where that most important word returns to the fore.

What does welfare actually mean to reasonable people?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
For ‘AI Pioneer’, read ‘****’.
Click to expand...

Quite early in his tech career he moved from being technical into sales and that's pretty much what he is: a salesperson. Nothing inherently wrong with that but the last people you want to be taking governance advice from are the sales guys!
 
expatblue said:
There needs to be a way to keep prices down including rent and the cost of living rather than improve wages, improving wages will just mean that the rest of our stuff will go up in price because the people who set prices know people have more money.

I'd rather peoples rent was cut by a third than have an increase on an hourly rate.
Click to expand...
Prices usually go up due to increased demand. Unfortunately, in more recent years, globally we have faced a period of short, sharp lack of demand followed by a more expensive period of supply, compounded by a rapidly increasing demand that immediately followed.

This drives up prices, and even when the balance moves towards a more reasonable state, the supply cost doesn’t decrease because the cost of downstream demand gets included in it via increased wages to address price inflation and increased input costs for everything except (perhaps) the one raw material the company might have under their control!

As for the choice of price caps or manipulation, this can only last so long before one or more parts of the system collapse under the weight of the effects of the manipulation.

Capitalism makes holding down one cost, or price, while all those around you increase, completely unsustainable, because future capital flows will steer clear of the forced pricing. This then leads to further public sector need and we are off to the races on yet another private to public cost, which is the expected to be borne by the “rich” to assist the “poor.”

There are only so many people willing to play Robin Hood’s foil before they leave the forest or use their money to change the system under which Robin flourishes ( and looks like the good guy) while they’re caricatured as the bad guy!
 
Last edited:
I agree with him on this nett zero bollocks, we can impact less than1% but are willing to destroy our economy doing so. China, India and America account for over 50%, until they commit to serious reductions we are pissing in the wind. With the charge towards AI and data centres they wont have any will to do so.
 
threespires said:
I've not yet read the link you've posted but I presume it joins the dots of TBI being a broker that connects authoritarian regimes with technology firms who are happy to service those regimes ?
Click to expand...
More a combination of his messiah complex, treating African countries as lab rats and a fair bit of institutional capture by 'Uncle Larry' ....


Marvin Akuagwuagwu worked as a data analyst for TBI’s Africa Advisory unit in 2022 and 2023, focusing on Covid vaccine delivery. He said that legitimate concerns he raised, such as a lack of power supply and cybersecurity threats, when introducing new technologies to African countries were dismissed by more senior colleagues. He also described how TBI would push technology and AI solutions on countries with far more fundamental issues to contend with: “They have issues around hunger, poverty, mass unemployment – and we’re getting them to commit towards some fancy projects like using drones and AI.”

Blair argues that such opposition to Big Tech – and those who have made their fortune from its success – stops progressive political parties grappling with the trade-offs and benefits of the unfolding AI revolution. The former PM certainly believes that cutting-edge technology can be used to improve governance in some of the poorest countries on Earth, saving lives in the process.


Still, the disconnect between such lofty aspirations and the challenges facing some countries where the TBI operates can be striking. In Ethiopia, with the country on the brink of civil war in 2020, the TBI was working on a draft AI policy, seen by this investigation, which called for the introduction of self-driving cars. The paper cites the “enormous global market potential that lacks access to experimental settings” and the country’s “ideal terrain variations and regular real-world testing opportunities”. One of the authors appears to catch the dissonance, writing in a visible comment: “So we’re saying test in Ethiopia because of its challenging terrain…?”

Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, with its UN headquarters and large diplomatic presence, was an important hub for TBI. But former staff complain that a previously broad range of work shrunk to pushing Oracle technology. Kenyan government officials had Oracle pitched to them so often, one recalled, that they would refer sarcastically to “Uncle Larry”.
 
threespires said:
I would like a public discussion on the potential for an incremental wealth tax on people worth more than £10million rising from 1% to 3% depending on their level of wealth.
Click to expand...

Considering “wealth” usually includes invested monies that have never had their gain realized, let alone liquid, how does one ascribe wealth?

Is someone who has saved their entire life (and, ANY TIME you see the word “saved” substitute the word “sacrificed their immediate pleasure and enjoyment for the potential of future pleasure or enjoyment!”) to be able to afford a home and a decent nest egg that has reached seven figures considered wealthy?

Or, is it only those who often sacrificed everything in an attempt to build a successful business, which is the lifeblood of every local economy?

Or, are we really talking about actually writing tax laws that FORCE companies raising revenues in the UK to use some of those revenues to support the market in which they’re creating their money?

I can get behind the latter, but the former examples are indicative of what is wrong with the massive hangover from the Gilded Era of us vs them. Brits need to stop being so precious of the class system of yore, even though there is still a significant long shadow, and even some holdover, and get on with creating a 21st century Britain FOR the 21st century that is passing them by.

Foreign corporations that book revenues from British businesses and consumers should have a minimum level of taxation on REVENUES, if they even attempt to literally hide profits offshore…or be barred from engaging in commerce in the UK.

People have had no problem castigating all and sundry entertainers using the tax code to their advantage, and even shamed them into paying up. However, the tax laws that allow that behavior are the problem, not the people using the tax laws AS WRITTEN to save more of their hard earned income!
 
BlueNomad said:
I doubt it is the “tax system” that keeps many in their home country, but rather what is done with said taxes!
Click to expand...
The argument against Zack and other proponents of a wealth tax is that it has to be international to work otherwise the wealthy will (and indeed always have) simply move around to where the levy is less burdensome.
 
johnny crossan said:
The argument against Zack and other proponents of a wealth tax is that it has to be international to work otherwise the wealthy will (and indeed always have) simply move around to where the levy is less burdensome.
Click to expand...
The bigger problem is that their readies are under mattress waiting for confiscation, they’re often literally all over the world, creating jobs, supporting economies, and keeping the wheels of commerce moving.

Let’s face it, this is really all about the Tech Twats who laugh in our faces at the billions they print. Well, we need to get over our precious selves and focus on REAL SOLUTIONS TO ACTUAL PROBLEMS!!

You want affordable housing? Start opening up public lands and allowing private lands to be sold and built on.

I look at land in the UK all the time. Far too much of it is leasehold for 99 years, no mineral rights (so you are “buying” an expensive lease on the surface) and zero chance of ever being able to build a home.

Planning permission is an absolute fucking joke in Britain. Get out of the smoke and there is literally green as far as the eye can see. Been that way for 1,000 yrs, and it’s the landed class that still sneers at the thought of building homes for plebs.

I have a friend who looks at problems, suggests solutions OR simply says, “That’s beyond human scale given how people feel about it.” THAT is England and its problems today.

Someone needs to have the bravery to suggest real solutions, but the democratic process might have reached a tipping point that doesn’t allow for hard choices to be made!
 
BlueNomad said:
You want affordable housing? Start opening up public lands and allowing private lands to be sold and built on.
I look at land in the UK all the time. Far too much of it is leasehold for 99 years, no mineral rights (so you are “buying” an expensive lease on the surface) and zero chance of ever being able to build a home.
Planning permission is an absolute fucking joke in Britain. Get out of the smoke and there is literally green as far as the eye can see. Been that way for 1,000 yrs, and it’s the landed class that still sneers at the thought of building homes for plebs.

I have a friend who looks at problems, suggests solutions OR simply says, “That’s beyond human scale given how people feel about it.” THAT is England and its problems today.
Someone needs to have the bravery to suggest real solutions, but the democratic process might have reached a tipping point that doesn’t allow for hard choices to be made!
Click to expand...
Property developers to the rescue eh? Well the Sheikh and Manchester seem to have prospered without despoiling our green and pleasant land.
gordondaviesmoustache said:
We are at war tbf.
Click to expand...
Must have missed the declaration.
 
So this is what the founding director of Trump's Board of Piss does?

He has zero credibility and relevance these days and is as much as a political whore as Liz Truss.
 
BlueNomad said:
Considering “wealth” usually includes invested monies that have never had their gain realized, let alone liquid, how does one ascribe wealth?

Is someone who has saved their entire life (and, ANY TIME you see the word “saved” substitute the word “sacrificed their immediate pleasure and enjoyment for the potential of future pleasure or enjoyment!”) to be able to afford a home and a decent nest egg that has reached seven figures considered wealthy?

Or, is it only those who often sacrificed everything in an attempt to build a successful business, which is the lifeblood of every local economy?

Or, are we really talking about actually writing tax laws that FORCE companies raising revenues in the UK to use some of those revenues to support the market in which they’re creating their money?

I can get behind the latter, but the former examples are indicative of what is wrong with the massive hangover from the Gilded Era of us vs them. Brits need to stop being so precious of the class system of yore, even though there is still a significant long shadow, and even some holdover, and get on with creating a 21st century Britain FOR the 21st century that is passing them by.

Foreign corporations that book revenues from British businesses and consumers should have a minimum level of taxation on REVENUES, if they even attempt to literally hide profits offshore…or be barred from engaging in commerce in the UK.

People have had no problem castigating all and sundry entertainers using the tax code to their advantage, and even shamed them into paying up. However, the tax laws that allow that behavior are the problem, not the people using the tax laws AS WRITTEN to save more of their hard earned income!
Click to expand...

Don't disagree that wide scale tax reform is required and am in total agreement that foreign owned VLOPs and the like need to be made to pay their way.

When it comes to individual wealth I don't think it's a matter of class, it's how we get the economy working better for the benefits of the maximum number of people rather than the stupendously rich and short tail of the quite rich. So to your point I would for instance differentiate significantly between the treatment of wealth that is accrued from hoarding non productive assets and wealth that is accrued through sustainable productive investment in the economy.

If we started the discussion about wealth taxes for those worth over £10 million we are taking about less than 1% of UK households so I don't think that's an unreasonable start point for the debate.

You're right to say we need to be clear on what we mean by wealth and it's different types but that's part of the debate. There's more than enough examples around the world to learn from in terms of approaches and outcomes. If you take exit taxes as an example (something we need to look at if we think capital flight is a real risk) there's already multiple systems we can exam. The UK, Canada and Ireland all operate quite different approaches (I keep meaning to educate myself on the Irish system because they actually include unrealised gains in their model and calculation). You've even got the US approach that you can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

My point to Johnny though was that the debate is shut down with scare tactics before we ever get to substantive discussion.
 
threespires said:
My point to Johnny though was that the debate is shut down with scare tactics before we ever get to substantive discussion.
Click to expand...
Good point. People shouldn’t be afraid of discussion. If we don’t have a common point of reference, it makes it very difficult to even get any serious discussion off the ground.

One of my primary concerns with the direction in which Britain appears to be heading (and is already far down the road) is that the level of taxation is already quite high, the level of public spending is higher, and the trajectory of the benefits system in Britain is in danger of bankrupting the country.

Accordingly, I fear the solutions under consideration are about simply outpacing the acceleration of benefits with taxation, rather than curtailing the growth of benefits (and possibly even reducing it) while finding better ways to cover the efficient delivery of benefits (including health, schooling, hard infrastructure, etc.) to the wider society in a way that is sustainable.

Good luck to us all. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top