Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

But perhaps time for a bit of honesty. What you're actually pitching for here is "Vote for Corbyn" and it will all be sorted. For "free" of course.

I am trying to explain why a manifesto / vision like labours is for me more attractive than the Conservatives. If we are being honesty here then me doing this is no more or less a 'pitch' for 'vote for Corbyn' than your posts are a pitch for 'vote for Johnson'. I personally would prefer to get on to discussing the ideas and concepts that I think inform and shape the basis for why my identity is as it is and the ideas and concepts that inform the identities of people with different views to mine than just throwing around accusations about the individual character of others.

Noted that you evade the fact a vast number of people, many of whom have crossed the breadth of Europe, want nothing more than the chance to live in the UK. I believe the net migration figure has been running at about a quarter of a million a year. It's recently surfaced that there are some 1.2 million illegal immigrants in the UK. AFAIUI that's a quarter of the total for the whole EU.

Your proposition, as far as I understand it, is that the degree to which immigrants chose one country over another is an indication of how 'good' that country vs another ? Or how good those immigrants perceive it to be at least. At the simplest level and and zoomed out scale I have no intrinsic disagreement with that theory / proposition. I think it basically holds and across scale as well. If more people migrate from the north of England to the south than visa versa then that is an indication that the south is 'better' or 'more attractive'.

As for you figures that 1/4 quarter of all illegal immigrants in the EU have chosen as their final destination the UK over all the other countries in the EU, my gut reaction to this is they do not seem like credible figures to me. Nor do I chose to spend my limited time zooming in on that area. I am willing to spend my limited time looking at any evidence that you might provide on such figures and taking a view but I am not going to just accept them on the basis that you alone claim them and without showing any supporting evidence to back up those claims.

I note that you are very good at noting when others do not answer the question you ask of them, do not address the points you make but appear considerably less good at noticing when you do this yourself.

Ohh - do stop obfuscating with "relative poverty". If you've been to India then you will realise what real poverty actually is. The richer a country becomes the more the poverty threshold rises. In the US of course "poverty" is endemic but nevertheless they're arguing about building a wall, to keep millions more illegal immigrants from flooding in to seize the opportunity of living there.

I have given very clear explicit definitions of how I am using the terms I have used so far with regards to poverty. That is the opposite of obfuscation. You are the one who has taken those clearly defined technical definitions like 'relative poverty', ignored them and then started talking about a different to the previously clearly defined one. I want clarity. It feels like you want obfuscation from where I am sitting. I do not care what labels are used in such definitions. I care that there is a common understanding as to which is being used. Label them Poverty definition A, b and C if you want.

Poverty definition A - the degree to which an individual income relates to some kind of average across a group, with the group typically being a nation when discussing poverty within that nation. Commonly labelled by 'professionals' , and here by both me and CG, as 'relative poverty'.

Poverty definition B - the degree to which a given individual anywhere and regardless of the sate of any other individual anywhere has to struggle to provide for themselves and their dependants basic human needs like food, shelter and warmth.

These are the two definitions that have been used to date in this thread and discussion that is titled and about 'poverty in the UK'.

You are now introducing a third definition

Poverty definition C - the degree to which an individual can be consider in poverty in absolute terms relative to any other individual on the planet.

I have no issue in discussing this definition of poverty and am not seeking to avoid such in any way. However for you to introduce this definition of poverty and call it relative, when both I and CG have given you definition A already and then accuse me of being the one seeking to actively 'obfuscate' the issue is more than a little disingenuous as far as I am concerned.

In terms of discussing poverty definition C in the context of poverty in the UK, if you have an argument other than 'because it is worse there we therefore do not need to worry about poverty in the UK at all' then please do make it for if you have tried to do so already I certainly have missed such. If for example you want to argue that poverty, using definition C, is so much worse in other countries than the UK, therefore what UK taxpayers money we do seek to assign to the issue of poverty should be spent in other countries and not the UK, then that would be an argument I personally have a considerable degree of sympathy for. It is not however one I suspect you have much sympathy for ?

As far as Turkish immigrants are concerned. Is that not because the EU are paying them a fortune to coral 4 million Syrians? Those attempting to escape Assad's benevolent rule? It seems Ms Abbot might wish to offer them "safe passage" to the UK. That's a lot of Labour voters of course.

Turkey being a country with largest immigrant population in the world relative to its population size pre dates the deals done with the EU whereby the EU pays Turkey to keep such immigrants in Turkey and not let them transit on to Eu countries.

I may be the only one to see a significant degree of 'irony' in you starting this post talking about 'let's be honest here' and talking about my 'pitching for Corbyn' and you ending it with an attack on Ms Abbot. Then again I might not be the only one to see such irony.

[erolz66]

well if you want to spend your limited time doing the things that interest you, no matter how economically viable or productive they may be.

You can do it in a democratic, capitalist system.

You just have to earn the right to do that. Who do you expect to pay for it?

There is a difference between saying 'this system allows you to do this to a significant degree' and 'this is the only system possible that can allow you to do this and the degree to which it allows such is the highest degree possible'.

Is the degree to which I can have what I want the same if I am in the UK as it is if I am in Sweden ?

If enough people choose to do that, there will be a huge economic problem. Then everyone will be living in poverty.

And that to me is a massive IF. We are not all the same. We are individuals. In an imagined system whereby everyone's basic needs are meet as a starting point, the idea that no one would then be motivated to do anything other than sit around musing the mysteries of the universe and that no one would seek having things beyond the basics needs of enough food to not be hungry, a home and to be able to provide warmth, seems to me pretty unlikely. I think in such a system there will still be people who want more than just enough food to avoid hunger, more than just a simple home, more than just enough wealth to keep themselves form cold.

if you want to provide duty to the poor, start an organization, and donate everything you believe you don't need.

For me there is a 'scale jump' going on here. I posed the question 'what is civilisation if not ...' That is a question at a zoomed out scale of 'humanity'. In reply you pose the question 'what is stopping me as an individual doing x, y or z. With respect I do not find that reply particularly satisfying in terms of the question I originally posed and the scale it was at. I find it to a a large degree to be a response predominately predicated on you, having divided the universe in to the two binary camps, chosen your side, seeking to prove you chosen camp is 'right' by making the point that I as an individual can live a life that is compatible with the zoomed out ideal. Your reply does not, for me, talk to or about the ideal itself at the zoomed out scale it was originally presented in at all.

There are even systems in place to allow people to pay more tax than they are legally required.

But surprisingly, very few do so...

Do you have any evidence that informs this opinion of yours ? Evidence that shows no individuals or no significant number of individuals ever chose to not seek to minimise to the maximum degree how much tax they personal can avoid ? That some know they could, with complex structures and gaming the system and the like, reduce their tax liability but knowing this chose not to (or the degree to which they do it) ? Or is it an opinion based on you just extrapolating what you do and pasting that on to everyone else for no other reason that that is what you chose to do ?

[cyprusgrump]

There are even systems in place to allow people to pay more tax than they are legally required.

But surprisingly, very few do so...

Do you have any evidence that informs this opinion of yours ? Evidence that shows no individuals or no significant number of individuals ever chose to not seek to minimise to the maximum degree how much tax they personal can avoid ? That some know they could, with complex structures and gaming the system and the like, reduce their tax liability but knowing this chose not to (or the degree to which they do it) ? Or is it an opinion based on you just extrapolating what you do and pasting that on to everyone else for no other reason that that is what you chose to do ?

It is an absolute fact actually...

Not the twisted version of what I said that you have clumsily tried to pin on me...

But the fact is that despite many saying they are willing to pay more tax, HMRC has a system enabling them to do so and few do.

I think they call that expressed preferences...

You seem to have an infinite amount of time on your hands to do your 'research' and to 'inform yourself', why not look it up instead of posting shite and attributing things to me which I clearly did not say or claim...?

If you can't, I'll look it up when I have time and prove what I actually claimed is correct...

Deal...?

[erolz66]

There are even systems in place to allow people to pay more tax than they are legally required.

But surprisingly, very few do so...

Do you have any evidence that informs this opinion of yours ? Evidence that shows no individuals or no significant number of individuals ever chose to not seek to minimise to the maximum degree how much tax they personal can avoid ? That some know they could, with complex structures and gaming the system and the like, reduce their tax liability but knowing this chose not to (or the degree to which they do it) ? Or is it an opinion based on you just extrapolating what you do and pasting that on to everyone else for no other reason that that is what you chose to do ?

It is an absolute fact actually...

Not the twisted version of what I said that you have clumsily tried to pin on me...

How is what you accuse me of here any different to your earlier claim in this thread that "So you agree it is a minor problem yet you could not let is pass...? Amazing that you agree that but couldn't bring yourself to correct posters that claimed it was a bigger problem eh? Pathetic." ? When I made no such agreement and you simply attributed something to me which I clearly imo did not say or claim ?

But the fact is that despite many saying they are willing to pay more tax, HMRC has a system enabling them to do so and few do.

Are you saying that the only mechanism by which an individual could chose to pay more tax than they have to is via use of the government scheme you talk about ? That there are no other ways and individual might chose to pay more tax than they have to other than via this specific scheme ?

.....I'll look it up when I have time and prove what I actually claimed is correct...

Go right ahead should you feel so motivated. However if you find the scheme and find evidence that it is not used and then try and present that to me as proof that no one ever seeks to pay more tax than they have too, despite what they might say on the subject, I will still find that claim dubious if all the other ways an individual might chose to pay more tax than they have to, other than this singular specific mechanism, are to be ignored and excluded.

[cyprusgrump]

There are even systems in place to allow people to pay more tax than they are legally required.

But surprisingly, very few do so...

Do you have any evidence that informs this opinion of yours ? Evidence that shows no individuals or no significant number of individuals ever chose to not seek to minimise to the maximum degree how much tax they personal can avoid ? That some know they could, with complex structures and gaming the system and the like, reduce their tax liability but knowing this chose not to (or the degree to which they do it) ? Or is it an opinion based on you just extrapolating what you do and pasting that on to everyone else for no other reason that that is what you chose to do ?

It is an absolute fact actually...

Not the twisted version of what I said that you have clumsily tried to pin on me...

How is what you accuse me of here any different to your earlier claim in this thread that "So you agree it is a minor problem yet you could not let is pass...? Amazing that you agree that but couldn't bring yourself to correct posters that claimed it was a bigger problem eh? Pathetic." ? When I made no such agreement and you simply attributed something to me which I clearly imo did not say or claim ?

But the fact is that despite many saying they are willing to pay more tax, HMRC has a system enabling them to do so and few do.

Are you saying that the only mechanism by which an individual could chose to pay more tax than they have to is via use of the government scheme you talk about ? That there are no other ways and individual might chose to pay more tax than they have to other than via this specific scheme ?

.....I'll look it up when I have time and prove what I actually claimed is correct...

Go right ahead should you feel so motivated. However if you find the scheme and find evidence that it is not used and then try and present that to me as proof that no one ever seeks to pay more tax than they have too, despite what they might say on the subject, I will still find that claim dubious if all the other ways an individual might chose to pay more tax than they have to, other than this singular specific mechanism, are to be ignored and excluded.

Prove a negative eh?

Why don't you provide proof...?

I'll give you this...

Two-thirds of Britons would pay more income tax to fund the NHS, poll finds

...and this...

Just 200 voluntary payments of extra tax received in UK since 2000

...as mine. Now prove your claim...

[erolz66]

I'll give you this...

Two-thirds of Britons would pay more income tax to fund the NHS, poll finds

...and this...

Just 200 voluntary payments of extra tax received in UK since 2000

...as mine. Now prove your claim...

OK I think I understand your proposition better now. It is along the lines of 'people say they are willing to pay more tax, yet when given an opportunity to do so they do not actually do this.' Would that be a fair description of the point you are making ?

Assuming it is I see a couple of pretty glaring 'problems' with the evidence you are offering in support of that proposition.

Firstly the survey in the first link asked if people would be willing to pay an extra 1p in the pound on the proviso that that extra money would spent on the NHS and not say on nuclear weapons or adding 25% to any sums donated to public schools. If the government scheme to allow people to pay extra tax allowed those doing so to chose where that extra money was spent, then I think it is highly likely more people would use such a scheme.

Secondly saying you would be willing to pay an extra penny in the pound on income tax, if everyone had to do so along with you, is not to my mind the same as saying you would be prepared to do so on a purely voluntary basis regardless of if anyone else did as well or not.

As to 'prove my claim' what claim is it you think I have made that needs proof / evidence ?

[Paphitis]

I believe most people are good at at least in one thing to make a living if the opportunity exists, who then from that point, they can move onto bettering themselves financially with other opportunities. One needs to start working somewhere to develop the working skills in making a living, which then becomes the driving force to move onto other things to make more money as we want more material things to makes us happy, especially true to young males in our society. Most people in all developed countries do succeed in taking care of themselves and their families financially, so the capitalist system does work, but not for all at all times. For those who fall through the cracks for whatever reasons, the state must be prepared to help get these people back on their feet, which does not always happen.

It is said, that in the USA, the king of capitalism, most wage earners are one pay cheque away from being homeless. There are homeless people all over California, which if it were a country, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world. Total disgrace that homelessness exists in the USA, let alone in California. Therefore, a little “socialism” is needed in developed countries to balance the books with capitalism for the good of that nation and it’s citizens. It should not be seen as throwing good money after the “losers” of our society, but investment into the future of our society. Communism and socialism had the right idea, but unworkable in practice, but too much capitalism is too unworkable for a health society in any country, especially the developed ones.

Perhaps the US can do with a little more social security. It's probably not the best but certainly not the worst either.

As for the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, well there is already a lot of social security in place already. How far are we suppose to go with it? Pay for everything and tax the working more and more? That isn't the answer either as that only drives the economy down.

Social Security is thgere to only give people a leg up when needed, and not become an incentive for people not to work.

No, the answer is not to tax the people more, but to better distribution of the taxes already collected. Spending so much money on unnecessary wars and weapons is a good place to start cutting to funding more social programs. Putting less people in prisons for petty crimes where more prisons are being built and more prison guards are hired to hold them is another way to cut to fund more social programs. Many people turn to crime because of desperation as they feel that they are no better off outside than being on the inside. Children growing up in broken homes may well follow examples set in their bad neighbourhoods versus kids growing up in better neighbourhoods. In the end, we all pay the price one way or the other, regardless how successful one may well be in their own lives.

We got no chooce but to spend money on our Armed Forces.

China, has an expansionist policy in the Pacific which seeks to cut vital Australian and NZ trade routes. How are they doing this? They are practically buying out small Pacific island States like the Solomans which are strategic to vital trade links.

It's not possible to neglect military spending I am afraid. It's actually vital to our economies and maintaining the strategic balance against an increasingly petulant China.

I agree that less people should go to prison. They don't, at least in Australia. So many things can occur like community service and good behaviour bonds to capture low level crimes. In USA, the situation is different.

[Kikapu]

I believe most people are good at at least in one thing to make a living if the opportunity exists, who then from that point, they can move onto bettering themselves financially with other opportunities. One needs to start working somewhere to develop the working skills in making a living, which then becomes the driving force to move onto other things to make more money as we want more material things to makes us happy, especially true to young males in our society. Most people in all developed countries do succeed in taking care of themselves and their families financially, so the capitalist system does work, but not for all at all times. For those who fall through the cracks for whatever reasons, the state must be prepared to help get these people back on their feet, which does not always happen.

It is said, that in the USA, the king of capitalism, most wage earners are one pay cheque away from being homeless. There are homeless people all over California, which if it were a country, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world. Total disgrace that homelessness exists in the USA, let alone in California. Therefore, a little “socialism” is needed in developed countries to balance the books with capitalism for the good of that nation and it’s citizens. It should not be seen as throwing good money after the “losers” of our society, but investment into the future of our society. Communism and socialism had the right idea, but unworkable in practice, but too much capitalism is too unworkable for a health society in any country, especially the developed ones.

Perhaps the US can do with a little more social security. It's probably not the best but certainly not the worst either.

As for the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, well there is already a lot of social security in place already. How far are we suppose to go with it? Pay for everything and tax the working more and more? That isn't the answer either as that only drives the economy down.

Social Security is thgere to only give people a leg up when needed, and not become an incentive for people not to work.

No, the answer is not to tax the people more, but to better distribution of the taxes already collected. Spending so much money on unnecessary wars and weapons is a good place to start cutting to funding more social programs. Putting less people in prisons for petty crimes where more prisons are being built and more prison guards are hired to hold them is another way to cut to fund more social programs. Many people turn to crime because of desperation as they feel that they are no better off outside than being on the inside. Children growing up in broken homes may well follow examples set in their bad neighbourhoods versus kids growing up in better neighbourhoods. In the end, we all pay the price one way or the other, regardless how successful one may well be in their own lives.

We got no chooce but to spend money on our Armed Forces.

China, has an expansionist policy in the Pacific which seeks to cut vital Australian and NZ trade routes. How are they doing this? They are practically buying out small Pacific island States like the Solomans which are strategic to vital trade links.

It's not possible to neglect military spending I am afraid. It's actually vital to our economies and maintaining the strategic balance against an increasingly petulant China.

I agree that less people should go to prison. They don't, at least in Australia. So many things can occur like community service and good behaviour bonds to capture low level crimes. In USA, the situation is different.

And how do you propose the west with it's Trillions of Dollars of military hardware is going to stop China from expanding, because China is expanding!

Does anyone thinks that they can push China around?

Most definitely not Australia or even the mighty USA.

Trade route will always be there for the west in all the areas China wants to be. Hell, USA has maximum trade with China now despite having close to $50 Billion trade deficit per month with China. The truth is, no country in the world can do without trading with China, because of the profit margins on the goods they buy from China. Money will always talk and bullshit will always walk, and the Chines wrote the book on this. Oh, one more thing, China will become the world largest economy pretty soon in the next few years, and then what, boycott their goods?

[Lordo]

that is the whole point. as soon as trum put the tariffs up it was hurting us people far more than china. this idea that once outside we would be able to increase our trade with china is a joke. we trade more with finland than china. anything we trade with china is our loss. there is nothing wrong because they have make a living too but lets not boast that it is to our advantage. what we should be doing is trying to get china to improve the chinese workers lives. now thats socialism.

[Paphitis]

I believe most people are good at at least in one thing to make a living if the opportunity exists, who then from that point, they can move onto bettering themselves financially with other opportunities. One needs to start working somewhere to develop the working skills in making a living, which then becomes the driving force to move onto other things to make more money as we want more material things to makes us happy, especially true to young males in our society. Most people in all developed countries do succeed in taking care of themselves and their families financially, so the capitalist system does work, but not for all at all times. For those who fall through the cracks for whatever reasons, the state must be prepared to help get these people back on their feet, which does not always happen.

It is said, that in the USA, the king of capitalism, most wage earners are one pay cheque away from being homeless. There are homeless people all over California, which if it were a country, it would have the 5th largest economy in the world. Total disgrace that homelessness exists in the USA, let alone in California. Therefore, a little “socialism” is needed in developed countries to balance the books with capitalism for the good of that nation and it’s citizens. It should not be seen as throwing good money after the “losers” of our society, but investment into the future of our society. Communism and socialism had the right idea, but unworkable in practice, but too much capitalism is too unworkable for a health society in any country, especially the developed ones.

Perhaps the US can do with a little more social security. It's probably not the best but certainly not the worst either.

As for the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, well there is already a lot of social security in place already. How far are we suppose to go with it? Pay for everything and tax the working more and more? That isn't the answer either as that only drives the economy down.

Social Security is thgere to only give people a leg up when needed, and not become an incentive for people not to work.

No, the answer is not to tax the people more, but to better distribution of the taxes already collected. Spending so much money on unnecessary wars and weapons is a good place to start cutting to funding more social programs. Putting less people in prisons for petty crimes where more prisons are being built and more prison guards are hired to hold them is another way to cut to fund more social programs. Many people turn to crime because of desperation as they feel that they are no better off outside than being on the inside. Children growing up in broken homes may well follow examples set in their bad neighbourhoods versus kids growing up in better neighbourhoods. In the end, we all pay the price one way or the other, regardless how successful one may well be in their own lives.

We got no chooce but to spend money on our Armed Forces.

China, has an expansionist policy in the Pacific which seeks to cut vital Australian and NZ trade routes. How are they doing this? They are practically buying out small Pacific island States like the Solomans which are strategic to vital trade links.

It's not possible to neglect military spending I am afraid. It's actually vital to our economies and maintaining the strategic balance against an increasingly petulant China.

I agree that less people should go to prison. They don't, at least in Australia. So many things can occur like community service and good behaviour bonds to capture low level crimes. In USA, the situation is different.

And how do you propose the west with it's Trillions of Dollars of military hardware is going to stop China from expanding, because China is expanding!

Does anyone thinks that they can push China around?

Most definitely not Australia or even the mighty USA.

Trade route will always be there for the west in all the areas China wants to be. Hell, USA has maximum trade with China now despite having close to $50 Billion trade deficit per month with China. The truth is, no country in the world can do without trading with China, because of the profit margins on the goods they buy from China. Money will always talk and bullshit will always walk, and the Chines wrote the book on this. Oh, one more thing, China will become the world largest economy pretty soon in the next few years, and then what, boycott their goods?

Yes I think we can push China around.

Yes I do believe that the US with its 700 Billion Military Machine is stronger than China. And I also believe it is necessary to provide the necessary deterrence for China to move against Taiwan and Japan.

I also believe that Japan, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam have a critical role to play as well and also need to build up their military power because it is all of them facing the Chinese onslaught.

We are happy to trade with them, but we do not trust them. Hiawei, and Chinese corporates are a front for Chinese espionage and are deeply entrenched in the Communist Party. We will not buckle over because of trade. If China continues, then they will destabilize the area and they risk war with many countries if they go for broke and that will involve many countries - hence the deterrence.

Rich countries like America have a big role to play and we welcome them to play that role in our region. Heck, even Vietnam wants the Yanks in the area. The communist regime of Vietnam with which we had a war with is closer to the US than China. Go figure! now why is that the case.

Well, the Vietnamese know that the US isn't a threat to them. they know the US will not invade them or start a war with them. But the Chinese are already invading Vietnam as we speak in the South China Sea. They like it when they see US Warships and Aircraft enforce the freedom of navigation in areas claimed by China illegally.

We trade with the Vietnamese as well.

BTW, the US Government only spends about 4% of GDP on its military. And most of that money is spent with US owned firms, employing hundreds of thousands of people who will not be in poverty.