BREAKING: Margaret Thatcher dead at age 87

Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#81
Because Behrou jan, the above is cognitive dissonance. No person who bases their values on conservative/libertarian economics cares directly for the rich nor is it a system [just] for the rich. It benefits the rich because they tend to be the most economically active, and that kind of system gives them even more incentive to be active. On the other hand, it also benefits anyone who takes upon themselves to show a greater level of responsibility.

I think the problem is something Behrooz touched upon: even though a lot of socialistic programs are based on good intentions or are seen as "no big deal"...they open up a pandora's box creating even more havoc. What becomes a helpful aid is now an expectation and a right. That's where a lot of misplaced anger resides and where a lot of politicians do a good job tapping up for votes.
100% With you on the 2nd paragraph bro. Social programs are definitely nice to have, but they have to be administered well and not open to abuse. They're benefits, not entitlements - I would even go as far as saying that people should be responsible for their own old age security - it's all about being responsible earlier in life.

I'm also 90% (or more ;)) with you on the 1st paragraph. My issue with the system is not about being economically active - I think to some extent everyone who works is economically active, but the gap between the average salaries in corporations and the CEO's has been consistently going up in the Western world. And again, I don't have an issue with "responsible" leadership, but greed and stupid leadership - which led us to the financial crisis in 2008 and most Euro countries are still struggling with that.

My only other issue with the system is the tax loopholes that are available to the super rich and big corporations that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people like us to take advantage of - reducing their effective tax rate and therefore resulting in an unfair and unequal contribution compared to the middle and upper middle class. Don't know if you saw this article from a few days ago, but it's definitely worth reading (I was going to post it earlier in this thread, but forgot!):

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/12/uk-eu-tax-vanrompuy-idUKBRE93B0R520130412

Just goes to show the extent of the problem when all Euro zone bailouts (being paid for by the middle class) are in the 0.5 trillion range and uncollected taxes are double that!
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#82
My only other issue with the system is the tax loopholes that are available to the super rich and big corporations that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people like us to take advantage of - reducing their effective tax rate and therefore resulting in an unfair and unequal contribution compared to the middle and upper middle class.
You are not talking about Obama's tax return, are you? After haranguing Romney for two years we now find out he is paying about the same, but I digress

What you are saying is a talking point. Name a few of those "tax loopholes that are available to the super rich".
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#83
@ Behrou

But the thing is mate...no matter how well you administer a social program or a bureaucracy, it isn't an entity that will go away when it's not needed or is losing too much money. That's why I call it a pandora's box. Once people feel they have a right to some service, then it becomes politically expedient to fund it (conversely, inexpedient to want to remove it)...and fund it even more when it loses any competitive advantage it may have. So they increasingly rise in cost until they're unsustainable. The double-edged sword is that despite the good it can do, people become so reliant on such services that they lose an inherent sense of ingenuity to solve their problems because that skill has been dormant for so-long. People become so indoctrinated to the existence of these programs that they view them as one and the same of the aim the programs are trying to accomplish. For instance, the Dept. of Education in America only came into existence in 1980... but if you were to call for its removal or downsizing people will associate that with a retraction in education itself. Removing the DoE doesn't remove education anymore than removing FEMA removes any help for people in emergencies.

As for taxes/tax codes: as long as people/government have the power to redistribute wealth they will do so. And as long as that power is there, it will be used to the advantage of a segment of people. And that's putting aside the argument of what "good redistribution" is anyway. The indoctrination I mentioned earlier is in the article title itself: "EU losing 1 trillion euros a year to tax dodging". The EU isn't losing anything because it doesn't own anything nor is the argument settled as to if they even have a right to that money. It is this kind of rhetoric that leads people to believe that they don't actually own what they make from their own labour...it is the government allowing them to have it. Which really, to me, is the definition of tyrannical. It's a perverted stockholm syndrome.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#84
I haven't looked at her record in great detail but I know Thatcher was deeply influenced by Friedman and Hayek. I'm surprised then to see you agree with her moves. Kudos to you Behrooz jan for being pragmatic and not ideologically immovable.
It is not just about pragmatism. Behrooz has moved decidedly to the right side. Good for you Behrooz on multiple fronts. It is not just that the individual freedom is the only way, and the right side of issues, it is also that you have been able to develop your thoughts instead of repeating the same mantra.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#85
"EU losing 1 trillion euros a year to tax dodging". The EU isn't losing anything because it doesn't own anything nor is the argument settled as to if they even have a right to that money.
Great point. The only way the government can "lose" money is if it claims the money in the first place. Practically, it does. They get the whole paycheck, keep what they want and only THEN you'll see your share and purely out of their generosity. The other bastardization of language is when the Washington press corp reports that a tax cut "costs" the government such and such. The government has nothing to begin with.
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
#87
I haven't looked at her record in great detail but I know Thatcher was deeply influenced by Friedman and Hayek. I'm surprised then to see you agree with her moves. Kudos to you Behrooz jan for being pragmatic and not ideologically immovable.
It is not just about pragmatism. Behrooz has moved decidedly to the right side. Good for you Behrooz on multiple fronts. It is not just that the individual freedom is the only way, and the right side of issues, it is also that you have been able to develop your thoughts instead of repeating the same mantra.
Well I was always a Conservative voter in the UK anyway. I first came here in 1989, so I caught the tail end of Thatcher as PM. Thatcher's legacy in my view is that she shifted the political middle ground so far to the right and people in general accept this nowadays and don't want to go back to the 70s when the left dominated. British people are more conservative than they realise.

But my various discussions on here opened my eyes, and Kaz introduced me fully to Friedman's thinking. Surprisingly I found I already agreed with much more of what he said that I had imagined. It all just makes a lot more sense than socialism. I would say that Hayek's the Road to Serfdom is the most influential book I have read in a long time.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#89
You are not talking about Obama's tax return, are you? After haranguing Romney for two years we now find out he is paying about the same, but I digress
What you are saying is a talking point. Name a few of those "tax loopholes that are available to the super rich".
Well, Obama's not in the super-rich category and I think he's underpaid anyway, but sure take that as an example. What was his effective tax rate, around 12%?! What's was Romney's, 14%? What was Trump's? What are Google and Apple paying compared to small corporations? If I remember correctly from a Forbes article (a couple of years ago), the average tax rate for the richest 400 Americans was 18%! What was yours, 40%+?

And that's the money that's actually being reported, not sent over to some tax haven. As far as the loopholes, I don't know what they are in the US, but we have plenty here that most middle class would not be able to take advantage of - most Canadians don't fill up their retirement plans or TFSA's (tax free savings accounts), then there's a venture capital tax break, the capital gains tax rate is much lower than earned income, etc. etc. These are all investment tax breaks that most ordinary people simply do not have enough money to take advantage of. As far as large corporations, they shift their operations to countries with lower tax rates, because they have the means to do so. Most of these shifts are in a grey area, but without having the means to legally challenge tax authorities, they are completely useless to small businesses.

@ Behrou

But the thing is mate...no matter how well you administer a social program or a bureaucracy, it isn't an entity that will go away when it's not needed or is losing too much money. That's why I call it a pandora's box. Once people feel they have a right to some service, then it becomes politically expedient to fund it (conversely, inexpedient to want to remove it)...and fund it even more when it loses any competitive advantage it may have. So they increasingly rise in cost until they're unsustainable. The double-edged sword is that despite the good it can do, people become so reliant on such services that they lose an inherent sense of ingenuity to solve their problems because that skill has been dormant for so-long. People become so indoctrinated to the existence of these programs that they view them as one and the same of the aim the programs are trying to accomplish. For instance, the Dept. of Education in America only came into existence in 1980... but if you were to call for its removal or downsizing people will associate that with a retraction in education itself. Removing the DoE doesn't remove education anymore than removing FEMA removes any help for people in emergencies.

As for taxes/tax codes: as long as people/government have the power to redistribute wealth they will do so. And as long as that power is there, it will be used to the advantage of a segment of people. And that's putting aside the argument of what "good redistribution" is anyway. The indoctrination I mentioned earlier is in the article title itself: "EU losing 1 trillion euros a year to tax dodging". The EU isn't losing anything because it doesn't own anything nor is the argument settled as to if they even have a right to that money. It is this kind of rhetoric that leads people to believe that they don't actually own what they make from their own labour...it is the government allowing them to have it. Which really, to me, is the definition of tyrannical. It's a perverted stockholm syndrome.
You lost me a bit there bro. Are you suggesting that there should be no social programs at all? What about unemployment? Welfare? Healthcare? Old age security? Let's talk about the top ones where your tax money is going to - specific programs. I'm sure Australia is very similar to Canada. If you had a choice, would you remove all those programs altogether?

And on the 2nd paragraph, are you arguing the case for not having a government?
 

Behrooz_C

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2005
16,650
1,566
A small island west of Africa
#90
If I may interject, the answer to your last question is negative. Kaz is a Libertarian not an anarchist. He believes in a minarchy in which government role is minimal. I believe the only responsibility of the government as they see it is to protect the borders, provide security and courts of law. Under such a system you would still pay taxes but very much less than you do now so IRS is probably the only government department that would survive I am afraid :p
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#91
Well I was always a Conservative voter in the UK anyway. I first came here in 1989, so I caught the tail end of Thatcher as PM. Thatcher's legacy in my view is that she shifted the political middle ground so far to the right and people in general accept this nowadays and don't want to go back to the 70s when the left dominated. British people are more conservative than they realise.

But my various discussions on here opened my eyes, and Kaz introduced me fully to Friedman's thinking. Surprisingly I found I already agreed with much more of what he said that I had imagined. It all just makes a lot more sense than socialism. I would say that Hayek's the Road to Serfdom is the most influential book I have read in a long time.
This is not surprising. The difference is that you have discovered who you are and honest enough to acknowledge it. Reagan is quote saying that Hispanics are Republicans. They just don't know it. You look in to how the most ardent liberals live in their daily lives. The live no different than conservatives. They are careful with their money. They take advantage of every tax law to reduce their taxes. They don't teach their children to hate the family across the street because they live in a big house. They have strict discipline in the house and encourage and reward hard work. When election time comes, they turn right around and vote for a liberal who opposes every thing they believe in.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
#92
This is not surprising. The difference is that you have discovered who you are and honest enough to acknowledge it. Reagan is quote saying that Hispanics are Republicans. They just don't know it. You look in to how the most ardent liberals live in their daily lives. The live no different than conservatives. They are careful with their money. They take advantage of every tax law to reduce their taxes. They don't teach their children to hate the family across the street because they live in a big house. They have strict discipline in the house and encourage and reward hard work. When election time comes, they turn right around and vote for a liberal who opposes every thing they believe in.
Or it could be that he wants the best for England and the worst for America - as most Euros do!!

Anyways - I hear Obama is not sending any US officials to her funeral........I don't know if I can criticise him - I like it when an individual does not kiss ass just because it is the protocol. She was everything he is not - and she stood for everything he wants to ruin.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#93
This is not surprising. The difference is that you have discovered who you are and honest enough to acknowledge it. Reagan is quote saying that Hispanics are Republicans. They just don't know it. You look in to how the most ardent liberals live in their daily lives. The live no different than conservatives. They are careful with their money. They take advantage of every tax law to reduce their taxes. They don't teach their children to hate the family across the street because they live in a big house. They have strict discipline in the house and encourage and reward hard work. When election time comes, they turn right around and vote for a liberal who opposes every thing they believe in.
Since you keep calling democrats liberals, let me clarify the few things you brought up as far as real liberals are concerned (not the American wannabe's ;) - at least based on my observations and trust me my family has been split on the liberal/conservative line since before the Iranian revolution:

* They live no different than conservatives: Yes they do! There's a huge religious/traditional aspect in the conservative lifestyle that does not exist in real liberal house holds. There's a huge difference in social interactions, being non-judgemental and accepting of others and personal freedoms (other than having guns!). The emphasis in a real liberal household is not for the kids to follow a set of predetermined instructions (be it social or religious), but rather to have the freedom to decide those things on their own. That's a HUGE difference.

* They are careful with their money. They take advantage of every tax law to reduce their taxes: Yes, everyone takes advantage of tax laws to reduce their taxes, but there's a huge difference, between how liberals and conservatives treat money and that comes straight from the definition of liberal and conservatives - liberals are more "liberal" with their money and the focus in life is not the collection of wealth and the number of digits in your bank account, but on how you use that wealth to enjoy your life. Conservatives are just that with their money, "conservative". They judge mankind's achievement in terms of how much money is being earned, collected and net worth, how big your house is (as you even alluded to in your post) and what kind of car you drive.

* They don't teach their children to hate the family across the street because they live in a big house: No, because the aspects of humanity that are most important are not summarized in the square footage of your house. The fact that the conservatives bring up the "big house" issue in every debate, just goes to show hoe much importance they put in superficial things, such as the size of your salary, size of your car and size of your house. When my mom for example talks about anyone in her family, those are the 3 things she always mentions and the good kids in the family are those who have those things even though they were completely shunned by the family when they chose to live a different lifestyle and didn't have those things.

* They have strict discipline in the house and encourage and reward hard work: Absolutely not! Strict discipline and hard work being the basis of your upbringing is a conservative thing. Encouragement and free style of thinking, importance in the arts and humanities is the drive for liberals. That doesn't mean there's no discipline, but it's not the focus of everything.

But the biggest and most important difference to me is that liberals don't look down on other people who may have not been as fortunate. They don't look down at someone because they didn't or don't choose the same lifestyle. As a liberal, I appreciate that people are different, they have lived a different life, had different opportunities, grew up in different households, etc. etc. etc., so I don't pick my friends based on how much they make, what car they drive or who they voted for - to me they're just different people and I judge them not on those things, but their intelligence and humanity. Don't get me wrong, I do like that certain friends work hard and are successful or earn good money, but that's not the main reason I'm friends with them. And just to save you the hassle of asking the question or jumping to judgement ;), I have dabbled in the top 5% of the earners in Canada since I was 26 and as high as the top 1% last year - of course that's based on official numbers and those people who actually report their income and pay their taxes! ;)
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#95
Well I was always a Conservative voter in the UK anyway. I first came here in 1989, so I caught the tail end of Thatcher as PM. Thatcher's legacy in my view is that she shifted the political middle ground so far to the right and people in general accept this nowadays and don't want to go back to the 70s when the left dominated. British people are more conservative than they realise.

But my various discussions on here opened my eyes, and Kaz introduced me fully to Friedman's thinking. Surprisingly I found I already agreed with much more of what he said that I had imagined. It all just makes a lot more sense than socialism. I would say that Hayek's the Road to Serfdom is the most influential book I have read in a long time.
Like I said, good for you. Just witness this board to see how few are those who make a change in their views. People tend to stick to their views even if they truly discover that they have been wrong. They just hide from their own conscience.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#96
Well I was always a Conservative voter in the UK anyway. I first came here in 1989, so I caught the tail end of Thatcher as PM. Thatcher's legacy in my view is that she shifted the political middle ground so far to the right and people in general accept this nowadays and don't want to go back to the 70s when the left dominated. British people are more conservative than they realise.

But my various discussions on here opened my eyes, and Kaz introduced me fully to Friedman's thinking. Surprisingly I found I already agreed with much more of what he said that I had imagined. It all just makes a lot more sense than socialism. I would say that Hayek's the Road to Serfdom is the most influential book I have read in a long time.
On Thatcher, there is a reason why people do not want to go back to the 70s. In 1974 the total value of all publicly held UK businesses had dropped to an astonishingly low $50B. This is how bad things were. This meant that Iran could essentially buy all of the publicly held UK companies. This is why the Shah at the time was beating up on the Brits. Keeping the UK off of the Euro, in my opinion, will prove to be even a bigger deal than freeing the UK from the grip of the unions. It was Friedman who first and best predicted the fate of the Euro. I do not think there has ever been a person who understands money itself better than Friedman. But he was not an elected official. Thatcher was. And she was brave enough to stand up and pay the price for making the right choice.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#97
@BH:

Look how quickly the enlightened liberal Bostonians behave like a "racist", paranoid, southern Republican when put in the same position.

"A plane headed to Chicago was brought back to the gate at Logan Airport, after some passengers — who also participated in the marathon — expressed concern over two men, who were apparently not sitting next to each other but were speaking in Arabic, Fox 25 reports. The men were escorted off the plane.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/boston-marathon-logan-airport-90146.html#ixzz2QeKNC6s6"
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#98
@BH:

Look how quickly the enlightened liberal Bostonians behave like a "racist", paranoid, southern Republican when put in the same position.

"A plane headed to Chicago was brought back to the gate at Logan Airport, after some passengers — who also participated in the marathon — expressed concern over two men, who were apparently not sitting next to each other but were speaking in Arabic, Fox 25 reports. The men were escorted off the plane.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/boston-marathon-logan-airport-90146.html#ixzz2QeKNC6s6"
Dude, we've had this discussion a few times. Everyone who votes for the democrats or in this case lives in Boston ;) is not a liberal. Being liberal means being free from prejudice and/or restraint in your thought or actions, which normally leads to being open to reform or improvement, not both on a personal level but for society as a whole. If I had one more spot left on an Ark to save one more liberal before an impending disaster for mankind, you can rest assured that I would take you and not touch the guy in the above incident with a 10' pole! ;)

The guy in this incident is pure conservative bigot! You're mixing up conservative thinking, traditions, religion and values with conservative fiscal policy. One has nothing to do with the other. There's nothing conservative about the Republicans spending habits. And not all republicans are conservative people in their social lives. Didn't Arnold play in porn or GW a coke head?! The problem down there is that everyone has categorized everything into the two political parties and the meanings of the words are completely lost.

Here in Canada, liberal means being socially liberal. It doesn't mean being fiscally irresponsible. In fact, we've had our most conservative fiscal policies under Paul Martin who was a liberal and reduced the deficit in ways Republicans could only dream of. Meanwhile, the Conservatives spent $2-4 billion just on security for the G8 and G20 summits, while we are running a deficit. But heaven forbid if they agree to selling liquor outside designated spots or legalizing weed, even though 70% of the Canadian population is for it.

I'm 100% for conservative fiscal policies, smaller governments and closing loopholes (whether in social programs or taxation) that people take advantage of. I think our old age security will be bankrupt. I think our healthcare spending is out of control and run by special interest groups who have produced a generation of zombie addicts to make huge profits at the expense of the tax payers. I don't like unions becoming too powerful or holding society hostage. None of that means that I'm not a liberal. If anything, being open (without prejudice or restraint) to policies that make sense make me more liberal - not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#99
It is not just about pragmatism. Behrooz has moved decidedly to the right side. Good for you Behrooz on multiple fronts. It is not just that the individual freedom is the only way, and the right side of issues, it is also that you have been able to develop your thoughts instead of repeating the same mantra.
FP jan I didn't want to be presumptuous and assume Behrooz has changed so much of his views that he's abandoned them...I was hedging my bets and saying that at least he has been pragmatic. From what I read he has changed his views more than I've credited to him, and good for him. Whenever I discussed these issues with Behrooz I had a hunch that he might not be completely familiar with all that I was saying so I'd plough on hoping to strike a chord. It only takes one. Everything else then makes sense like orchestrated music.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
You lost me a bit there bro. Are you suggesting that there should be no social programs at all? What about unemployment? Welfare? Healthcare? Old age security? Let's talk about the top ones where your tax money is going to - specific programs. I'm sure Australia is very similar to Canada. If you had a choice, would you remove all those programs altogether?

And on the 2nd paragraph, are you arguing the case for not having a government?
Behrou jan, to address your first question, I'll quote a favourite Simpson's line of mine: short answer; yes with an if...long answer; no with a but.

I think the things I like about libertarian/conservative values - especially those espoused by the Austrian economists - is that there are maxims we all basically know to be true, yet are afraid to go with all the way. i.e. we know government is wasteful and comes without the competitive mechanism of something like a market so it will always be wasteful in the end.

Ultimately, no, you don't want those social programs or "safety nets" as liberals/the left like to claim. In a society which is far more free, with the power in the hands of the individual, these things aren't going to be a concern anyway. It is hard to imagine it if you don't appreciate the big picture. This is why it is so easy to demagogue those for limited government. Things will get cheap enough that even the basic necessities of life won't be worried for. I remember a Friedman speech where he basically names that every huge government program (like ones for medical care) did not have hoards of people protesting in the streets because they were dying without it. In fact, medical care was so cheap almost everyone could afford it and when people couldn't the churches took up the costs. I've also mentioned it before that the greatest rise in eleemosynary activities occurred/started before the progressive era, which also coincided with the greatest movement of poor to the rich. This was a period of far less government intervention, and maybe the closest to the 'ideal'. But the left love to paint the apocalypse, as if that is the guaranteed result.

Having said that, would I want all these programs to disappear overnight? No, I don't think that's a sound plan. I think it will cause too much pain in such a short time and even if it does fix things in the long-run the backlash will be so bad that people will actively hate the policies. I imagine that is where a lot of the hate with someone like Thatcher comes from as well. I think these programs should be removed in great strides though, with due care to peoples' unfortunate dependence on them. For these plans to succeed and do so for the benefit of all I point back to the cultural shift. People need to understand their rights, history (political, governance, economical, etc) to actively want these things to happen. People need to understand that the world is not a utopia and that a politician claiming to "fix the economy" or "educate everybody" or "give everybody a home" is a moron at best and a charlatan at worst. People need to understand that there is 'no free lunch'. That we are responsible for ourselves and if we can we should have the spirit to help others as well. Once they do, creating and sustaining a small/limited government will be far easier. People will actually look at the problems rather than politicising them.

The second question is pretty easy: no, I am not an Anarchist. I am for a very limited form of government - what you may call a libertarian.
 
Last edited: