Liz Truss

Churchlawtonblue said:
Without a doubt we wont be able to tax all the big energy companies either upstream or downstream, but those that can should pay more. These are profits that they were not expecting to make. Therefore this additional taxation should be seen as temporary and not punitive.

As an aside IMO big international companies get a very easy ride from most western governments with regards to taxation and the power and influence they wield.
Click to expand...


BP and Shell have paid zero corporation tax for the last three years.
 
KS55 said:
@Brewster's millions said he was having a hard time not equating Tories with vermin.
He needs to grow up and produce some political arguments. Calling people you disagree with vermin, scum etc is childish. God knows there is enough to castigate Tories for anyway. Try writing about their competence.
Click to expand...
Given that you got the poster wrong you should edit the original. Also the poster you meant to have a go at actually provided detailed reasoning for his opinion so you look a bit daft. Might be best just deleting the post altogether.
 
KS55 said:
@Brewster's millions said he was having a hard time not equating Tories with vermin.
He needs to grow up and produce some political arguments. Calling people you disagree with vermin, scum etc is childish. God knows there is enough to castigate Tories for anyway. Try writing about their competence.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I regret my earlier post and should not have concluded with that point. ‘Othering’ people, reducing them to the status of an ‘out group’ never goes well. It’s a step in the way to making it acceptable to use violence against them. So I went too far.

Still think what Truss’s approach illustrates is what a lot of people these days implicitly recognise, that we all now exist to serve the needs of the market rather than the other way around.

So if a country tries to regulate the private sector or to increase taxation to pay for, say, health and welfare services, they run the risk of the currency traders, stock and bond traders, and those who make investment decisions for multinational companies heading off in a different direction, taking with them the investment capital that countries covet.
When capital is internationally mobile, raising taxes to pay for public services therefore runs the risk of triggering capital flight to places with comparable investment prospects but lower taxation.

What bothers me is how this situation has been allowed to develop in such a way to begin with. Am not in favour of abolishing markets, only attempting to restrain them, as there is some evidence that capitalism has actually reduced poverty in some of the very poorest countries (though not the situation of the poorest of the poor). But maybe that is no longer possible.

This is something that the economist Joseph Schumpeter appears to have foreseen in the sense that he recognised that off-the-leash capitalism does not work to maintain the cohesion of society. Left to its own devices, it is corrosive of that cohesion because of the inequalities that it generates. That is why he thought that capitalism needs restraining. Government intervention is required to balance the dynamism of capitalism with social stability. The same is true of global markets at the present time.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.