I didn't think so, just because there isn't really enough detail there to derive any logical outcomes and debate it, beyond saying it sounds bloody awful.
It does sound bloody awful.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I didn't think so, just because there isn't really enough detail there to derive any logical outcomes and debate it, beyond saying it sounds bloody awful.
It does sound bloody awful.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Define competent.
Theonik
Member
That's actually a Tory quote when they first showed the snooper's charter.Has echos of David Von Doom
Daffy Duck
Member
If Labour were in Government and pulled that stunt people and the Tories would tear them apart.
this is another thing where GAF kind of has a niche view of the internet, because we are ultimately nerds who are comfortable with technology.
Its the people who's knowledge of computers amounts to "click on the blue E to get internet" that wont give a toss about this, and they are more common in the demographics that vote than they are in ours.
Spuck-uk
Banned
That's why he titled it 'David von Doom'
Yes, David Von Doom. The former PM
Theonik
Member
D'oh forgot actual Doom was called Victor.
Why don't you want to vote for any of them?
You thought Dr. Doom's initials were DVD?
Huw_Dawson
Member
See, this is why I drag explanations out of people, because you get good answers. I can tick over those links and become better informed.
I thought over your thesis, Crab, the way I am reading it is that you'd raise tax by the exact amount you'd pay back in WFA, but only for specifically those people who are receiving the benefit in the first place? Because otherwise you are taking money out of taxpayers pockets to fund WFA *except* for the person most able to pay - a redistribution of wealth to the old. That lead onto an interesting logic spiral that I typed out below to figure out:
Most of the following is based on a logic chain. It is probably a wonky logic chain. This is, fortunately, not my third year dissertation on a comparison of capitalist and communist economics, so I am OK posting it for your amusement.
---
Only the people who don't need the WFA pay it back via the specific tax. Let's call this the Alan Sugar Tax.
Because we're using the word tax, not the word mean-tested, we can pretend it has absolutely no cost to implement. All is well - we get winter fuel payments out of some other public investment and definitely-doing-no-work-to-figure-out-if-we-should-be-taxing-this-person is free. It isn't a payment if they don't have enough money - it is a tax if they have too much! Very different.
And this lead me down an amusing path. (This is a joke, don't take it seriously)
You just raise tax on the entire chunk of people who are as wealthy as Alan Sugar, and only pay back Alan Sugar with the WFA, and there is this big pile of money you can thus spend as the government. Because absolutely everybody except Alan Sugar pays it, let's call it the Not Alan Sugar Tax.
Now you have a big pile of extra cash for the government with absolutely no waste. Tax-and-spend, all very John McDonell. Naturally you and I agree that there is no evidence at all, of course, that government investment is *less* good at growing the economy than private investment, so taxing everyone more is a good thing because it makes everything obviously more efficient.
We're still in agreement? Let's look at the optimal way of applying this logic. The government should own all the wealth, naturally, as only it can efficiently distribute out that wealth equally to everyone, which we naturally need to do because means testing is wasteful. But we immediately should take that money back because the people will spend it inefficiently.
---
So my point is this. On the one hand you have the concept that there is a price difference between means testing a payment to a set of people and collecting the same amount in tax from the same set of people. I do not buy that that is not a 1:1 ratio if done properly.
The waste would be in the assessment, but it should be the same assessment to decide if someone is eligible for the benefit or eligible to be taxed. Benefits are, essentially, negative taxation.
As such I think you have conflated 'means testing' and 'bureaucracy'. All tax is means tested. I think youu're actually just relabeling means testing as tax and pretending there is a difference.
Or you are doing what Labour is doing, which is just paying people who don't need it £300 a year out of the pot of taxes and claiming they can't do anything about it, despite having an entire tax system based on figuring about how much money to extract and pump into the economy.
I thought over your thesis, Crab, the way I am reading it is that you'd raise tax by the exact amount you'd pay back in WFA, but only for specifically those people who are receiving the benefit in the first place? Because otherwise you are taking money out of taxpayers pockets to fund WFA *except* for the person most able to pay - a redistribution of wealth to the old. That lead onto an interesting logic spiral that I typed out below to figure out:
Most of the following is based on a logic chain. It is probably a wonky logic chain. This is, fortunately, not my third year dissertation on a comparison of capitalist and communist economics, so I am OK posting it for your amusement.
---
Only the people who don't need the WFA pay it back via the specific tax. Let's call this the Alan Sugar Tax.
Because we're using the word tax, not the word mean-tested, we can pretend it has absolutely no cost to implement. All is well - we get winter fuel payments out of some other public investment and definitely-doing-no-work-to-figure-out-if-we-should-be-taxing-this-person is free. It isn't a payment if they don't have enough money - it is a tax if they have too much! Very different.
And this lead me down an amusing path. (This is a joke, don't take it seriously)
You just raise tax on the entire chunk of people who are as wealthy as Alan Sugar, and only pay back Alan Sugar with the WFA, and there is this big pile of money you can thus spend as the government. Because absolutely everybody except Alan Sugar pays it, let's call it the Not Alan Sugar Tax.
Now you have a big pile of extra cash for the government with absolutely no waste. Tax-and-spend, all very John McDonell. Naturally you and I agree that there is no evidence at all, of course, that government investment is *less* good at growing the economy than private investment, so taxing everyone more is a good thing because it makes everything obviously more efficient.
We're still in agreement? Let's look at the optimal way of applying this logic. The government should own all the wealth, naturally, as only it can efficiently distribute out that wealth equally to everyone, which we naturally need to do because means testing is wasteful. But we immediately should take that money back because the people will spend it inefficiently.
---
So my point is this. On the one hand you have the concept that there is a price difference between means testing a payment to a set of people and collecting the same amount in tax from the same set of people. I do not buy that that is not a 1:1 ratio if done properly.
The waste would be in the assessment, but it should be the same assessment to decide if someone is eligible for the benefit or eligible to be taxed. Benefits are, essentially, negative taxation.
As such I think you have conflated 'means testing' and 'bureaucracy'. All tax is means tested. I think youu're actually just relabeling means testing as tax and pretending there is a difference.
Or you are doing what Labour is doing, which is just paying people who don't need it £300 a year out of the pot of taxes and claiming they can't do anything about it, despite having an entire tax system based on figuring about how much money to extract and pump into the economy.
I think this is exactly the point though isn't it? Instead of having to do extra work to decide who you give the benefits to, you just give it to everyone and everything is resolved on the taxing end instead. Rather than having two separate systems, one to decide who to give money out to, and one to decide who to take money from, which is what creates the inefficiency? I don't know, but it makes sense to me.
It also has the advantage of framing the situation as taking from the people who don't need it and giving to everyone. Rather than taking from people and giving it to the few that can't provide for themselves (which can cause resentment).
Yeah this is essentially the argument.
its a much easier system to manage. its just difficult to explain to people as it seems daft to give money out just to take it away again
Theonik
Member
I don't read comic book drivel. Don't hurt me!
The difference is you already have a progressive taxation system that is able to perform the same task. Means testing would be a system that goes on top. You could say means testing could piggyback on the taxation system that might reduce administration costs but the truth is you are still implementing two systems to perform the same exact function. Thus you can have a significantly simpler and more efficient administration with less bureaucracy if you eliminate these extra processes.
I saw on Twitter that apparently the Tories have removed the promise to end UK ivory trade from their manifesto
The only news article I found saying similar was this from a week ago, Conservative manifesto removes promise to end Ivory Trade so it might not be accurate, bit if it's true then fucking lol, they have no shame right now
The only news article I found saying similar was this from a week ago, Conservative manifesto removes promise to end Ivory Trade so it might not be accurate, bit if it's true then fucking lol, they have no shame right now
CyclopsRock
Member
So far the Tories campaign has been total dog shit. They're obviously going to win but I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect.
Theonik
Member
Well there is something can do about it.
Pyramid head
Banned
The reality in which that horrid little Nazi shitrag is the most popular newspaper in the country. The shit they spew is lovingly slurped down by the millions of people who flood their social media with pictures of poppies, St. George's cross and 'Justice for Marine A!', but would all apparently be much happier if we had lost WWII.
Huw_Dawson
Member
This was exactly how I felt going through it in my head.
My ultimate thought is that sufficiently efficient government should not incur any significant expense from being able to tell if someone needs a benefit which it does not also incur from the collection of tax to offset that benefit. But I can understand Crab's point that a perfect tax system with zero waste would balance out as delivering the most value.
Seems to be true:
Conservative manifesto 2015
Ctrl+F "conservation": 2 results
Ctrl+F "ivory": 1 result
Conservative manifesto 2017
Ctrl+F "conservation": 1 result
Ctrl+F "ivory": 0 results
Theonik
Member
Efficiency in government is achieved by having less bureaucracy not more. In that sense what you are describing is inherently less efficient and will always be. It's hard to debate otherwise.
I don't think Crab was talking about only taxing the people who would receive the benefit. I could be wrong though.
One of us definitely is
CyclopsRock
Member
Vanguard of the people? Violent coup? Hemp-based Kibbutz?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Tough for you, I imagine. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have moved pretty far from their Coalition positions. You're even less represented than I am, and that's no mean feat!
CyclopsRock
Member
Fortunately I can bury myself in a world of East-London-media-based fuckery, easily obtainable drugs and our wonderful HR policy of exclusively employing attractive girls in their early 20's. I'll be OK.
Theonik
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
And takes away our women? Never!
There are American libertarians (so the real crazy ones) who advocate for universal basic income. Because then they'd be able to eliminate the entire bureaucracy of the welfare state in favor of simply mailing out a check to everyone every month and letting the free market take care of the rest.
So even anarcho-capitalists who fantasize about dismantling the state think that means-testing is net wasteful.
CyclopsRock
Member
Kind of. I used to be - and to some degree still am - of that bent, and my main thought behind it was that it wasn't really about means testing but more about giving people the power they need to make decisions free of (most) coercion. If you give people enough money to basically live and they spunk it all on clothes and expensive saucisson-sec from Waitrose, so be it. They have the ability to pay for food, energy, shelter and opted not to (and for this reason, healthcare was typically maintained as a state funded entity because it's use isn't dependent on choice and can be unaffordable depending on how dinged up you are). It has the benefit of not needing to means test, but it was mostly about meaning people who wanted to go to university could opt to spend their money on that, where as those who didn't could spend it on a nicer house or air conditioning or whatever.
Edit: it's an extension of the argument that there's no need for a minimum wage under a UBI system because no one *needs* to work and thus the decision on whether work is worth the money being offered is largely free of coercion - you can work for 50p a day if you want because the decision to do so isn't based on "wage slavery" (ugh). So too with other benefits, where - when you're an adult - you can make an informed decision about where to put the money you get.
Thanks for not being a lazy git like me, and actually verifying
Corbyn should start working on an election poster about Tories using it to construct their towers
A big motivation, at least over here, certainly is about the elimination of the bureaucratic state, and the sub-optimal incentivizing that means-testing (and the very existence of welfare) encourages. What you're describing is moving from political economy over to moral philosophy.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well I think it all derives from the idea that the market provides the most efficient allocation of resources, that individuals know what they want more than one-size-fits-all government schemes do and without a profit motive it's hard for governments to understand what's most valuable to people. As such, putting those decisions in the hands of the people whilst giving them the resources to make a decision leads to a more efficient allocation of resources even without worrying about means testing. So it is about shrinking the state but it comes from the idea that the state is inefficient in all cases, even when not means testing.
Or that's what it was in my day. The good old days. About 8 years ago. Ah what a funny kid I was.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, if back-to-basics, Church-going, traditional morality Toryism is making a comeback...
RedSparrows
Member
Sign me up.
I think anarcho-capitalists would prefer there to not even be UBI. They just see it as a lesser evil when compared with the existing Leviathan with its boot on our necks.
CyclopsRock
Member
Back to fucking our secretaries and children, then.
Well yeah, maybe the anarcho anarcho ones, but I think a lot of Libertarians generally can get behind the idea of using the power of the state to give people power in a market (as opposed to giving them power by directly providing them with stuff like housing, energy, education etc).
Theonik
Member
Well. May does want to be Donald Trump's friend...
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
Yeah boyo, lets do some voting. Pretty sure Labour will win in my area anyway, but no harm in guaranteeing it.
Theresa May has the gall to say the Tories are back on the CENTRE GROUND. So Cameron was a right winger for the last decade.
OK.
Bringing in ID cards, Snoopers Charter and Regulating the Internet doesn't scream authoritarian at all.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The Lib Dems were able to make a coalition work with Cameron for five years. That would be a distant idea now.
Postal votes go out next week! How exciting.
The Tories have badly exposed themselves thanks to their manifesto. I wonder if folks are as sure now about voting for May given what she is actually offering to do?
As much as I dislike Corbyn, I would love the catharsis of the Tories being denied a thundering majority by their own incompetence.
On the Lib Dem side the game now is clearly to see if soft Tories are put off by the Tory manifesto or not, and to see if our own manifesto made an impact.
In Scotland the party is managing to poll 6% and still look to be gaining up to five seats in traditionally strong areas (woo Rennie). So it won't be a washout this election even if it is disappointing.
Of course he's me feeling slightly cheery and some poll will come along with the Tories still on 45% and us squeezed on 7% and I'll feel miserable again.
But ultimately we have a good manifesto out, and three weeks of intense campaigns to go. Anyone who's not wanting a Tory landslide can hope we do well in our Tory-facing targets and defences in England. And it'll be an entertainig fight with Labour. On to the weekend!
Postal votes go out next week! How exciting.
The Tories have badly exposed themselves thanks to their manifesto. I wonder if folks are as sure now about voting for May given what she is actually offering to do?
As much as I dislike Corbyn, I would love the catharsis of the Tories being denied a thundering majority by their own incompetence.
On the Lib Dem side the game now is clearly to see if soft Tories are put off by the Tory manifesto or not, and to see if our own manifesto made an impact.
In Scotland the party is managing to poll 6% and still look to be gaining up to five seats in traditionally strong areas (woo Rennie). So it won't be a washout this election even if it is disappointing.
Of course he's me feeling slightly cheery and some poll will come along with the Tories still on 45% and us squeezed on 7% and I'll feel miserable again.
But ultimately we have a good manifesto out, and three weeks of intense campaigns to go. Anyone who's not wanting a Tory landslide can hope we do well in our Tory-facing targets and defences in England. And it'll be an entertainig fight with Labour. On to the weekend!
Theonik
Member
He did that to himself. And now May will do it upon the country.
I expect the next Conservative party re-branding to happen post-brexit, and will involve a little animation of Theresa May chopping down that tree in their logo and replacing it with a CCTV camera.
I saw the news the other day still using that Tory tree logo and was a bit surprised. Thought they'd reverted back to the ol' nationalism-don't-vote-kipper one.
Miles Quaritch
Member
The same lower middle class that were more than happy to throw people with even less under the bus?
These people came out to give the Conservatives a majority, they came out to deliver Brexit...All the while watching on as those less fortunate were screwed, thinking they were protected.
Actions have consequences. Their action in giving the Tories a majority and voting Leave set their fates, now they should deal with the consequences.
They should learn not to be sore losers and just deal with it.
Theonik
Member
Which is why their control of the media is vital.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked