Blairites staging a coup...

[Stom]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I'd argue that misses the point...

If I had stayed in the UK, I would have had far fewer assets than my parents at the same age. What's better, an extra 30 quid a week/month, or a house?

[Zhivago]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I guess you don't count suicides caused by financial problems as hurting anyone? I guess wars for corporate profit is not hurting anyone? Get out of your bubble.

[Digby]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I'd argue that misses the point...

If I had stayed in the UK, I would have had far fewer assets than my parents at the same age. What's better, an extra 30 quid a week/month, or a house?

I'd agree there's a problem in housing, I commented elsewhere I've a big problem in particular with the direction we've taken on social housing and the knock on effect to housing costs and then actually with private landlords the costs of rent in social housing, and too I think there's a social and financial cost to not having a much higher standard to social housing such so many feel isolated/forgotten. But all those are social issues arising from political decisions, and could easily have been very different whilst still having what many would label a free market driving the core of the economy.

As to what's better a house or money, well it depends on house prices and the various costs, and it also depends on whether you're querying Vs home ownership or a mortgage.

[Digby]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I guess you don't count suicides caused by financial problems as hurting anyone? I guess wars for corporate profit is not hurting anyone? Get out of your bubble.

I don't think you can show me a lefty system that doesn't have financial problems that hurt people. And as the saying goes, if communism reaches the Sahara then soon the sand shortages will commence. I will agree the free market can often be capricious and thus we need regulation and safety nets, but I'd remain 100% sold on the importance of an approach which largely incorporates the positives of a free market.

And I don't think wars don't hurt people, but if we look back through history we note more than a few wars, and really by any reasonable measure wars are currently a much smaller influence on us and on our economy than ever before.

[Sandydragon]

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I'd argue that misses the point...

If I had stayed in the UK, I would have had far fewer assets than my parents at the same age. What's better, an extra 30 quid a week/month, or a house?

I'd agree there's a problem in housing, I commented elsewhere I've a big problem in particular with the direction we've taken on social housing and the knock on effect to housing costs and then actually with private landlords the costs of rent in social housing, and too I think there's a social and financial cost to not having a much higher standard to social housing such so many feel isolated/forgotten. But all those are social issues arising from political decisions, and could easily have been very different whilst still having what many would label a free market driving the core of the economy.

As to what's better a house or money, well it depends on house prices and the various costs, and it also depends on whether you're querying Vs home ownership or a mortgage.

We desperately need to buy more fricking houses. It really is that simple. Schemes for first time buyers are good, but a lack of resources is driving the prices up.

[Zhivago]

I'd argue that misses the point...

If I had stayed in the UK, I would have had far fewer assets than my parents at the same age. What's better, an extra 30 quid a week/month, or a house?

I'd agree there's a problem in housing, I commented elsewhere I've a big problem in particular with the direction we've taken on social housing and the knock on effect to housing costs and then actually with private landlords the costs of rent in social housing, and too I think there's a social and financial cost to not having a much higher standard to social housing such so many feel isolated/forgotten. But all those are social issues arising from political decisions, and could easily have been very different whilst still having what many would label a free market driving the core of the economy.

As to what's better a house or money, well it depends on house prices and the various costs, and it also depends on whether you're querying Vs home ownership or a mortgage.

We desperately need to buy more fricking houses. It really is that simple. Schemes for first time buyers are good, but a lack of resources is driving the prices up.

Oh, shouldn't the Invisible Hand take care of that?

[Sandydragon]

I'd agree there's a problem in housing, I commented elsewhere I've a big problem in particular with the direction we've taken on social housing and the knock on effect to housing costs and then actually with private landlords the costs of rent in social housing, and too I think there's a social and financial cost to not having a much higher standard to social housing such so many feel isolated/forgotten. But all those are social issues arising from political decisions, and could easily have been very different whilst still having what many would label a free market driving the core of the economy.

As to what's better a house or money, well it depends on house prices and the various costs, and it also depends on whether you're querying Vs home ownership or a mortgage.

We desperately need to buy more fricking houses. It really is that simple. Schemes for first time buyers are good, but a lack of resources is driving the prices up.

Oh, shouldn't the Invisible Hand take care of that?

Or perhaps we could make it easier for developers to build?

[Zhivago]

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

I guess you don't count suicides caused by financial problems as hurting anyone? I guess wars for corporate profit is not hurting anyone? Get out of your bubble.

I don't think you can show me a lefty system that doesn't have financial problems that hurt people. And as the saying goes, if communism reaches the Sahara then soon the sand shortages will commence. I will agree the free market can often be capricious and thus we need regulation and safety nets, but I'd remain 100% sold on the importance of an approach which largely incorporates the positives of a free market.

And I don't think wars don't hurt people, but if we look back through history we note more than a few wars, and really by any reasonable measure wars are currently a much smaller influence on us and on our economy than ever before.

There has not been any true 'lefty system' that has existed without an active existential threat by capitalist society. But let's deal with what we have currently, which are all capitalist systems with varying degrees of socialism - We see that those at the far right end such as USA have far greater misery and disfunctional society than those with the largest influence of socialism (e.g. the scandinavian countries).

You lose all credibility by saying that wars are currently a smaller influence on us and our economy than ever before. It's a ludicrous claim - just look at Syria and you can trace the impact clearly - largest refugee inflows since WWII, the rise of right wing nationalism, economic turbulence caused by resulting reactionary politics... and all for a proxy war for control of an oil/gas pipeline route.

[Zhivago]

We desperately need to buy more fricking houses. It really is that simple. Schemes for first time buyers are good, but a lack of resources is driving the prices up.

Oh, shouldn't the Invisible Hand take care of that?

Or perhaps we could make it easier for developers to build?

The housing crisis is caused by too much effective demand, not too little supply

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This place really is a parallel world.

"Listen to experts" goes the cry. Which experts? Because they sure as hell don't gree. To think that they do suggests that you are looking at only 1 set of sources. In fact the vast majority of economists would say that we are in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Yes those can be dismissed as being part of the neoliberal establishment conspiracy but to pretend they don't exist is just bizarre.

I love the idea that the preference for "true" socialism is an exercise of pure logic and anyone who doesn't subscribe must be brainwashed. You see to many others that level of zeal, some might even say religious revelation, that only the true believers "get it" is much more suggestive of brainwashing than acknowledging that politics is about choices and one chooses what to aim at based on one's underlying preferences and one chooses from the competing theories as to how those aims might be achieved.

Finally on elections. To say that Kinnock wasn't elected because he fell over or that Hague wasn't elected because he is bald is to miss the point. Brexit won despite having 4 or 5 of the most punchble people in Christendom on their side. It doesn't matter what the papers right unless it resonates with the public.

[Digby]

There has not been any true 'lefty system' that has existed without an active existential threat by capitalist society. But let's deal with what we have currently, which are all capitalist systems with varying degrees of socialism - We see that those at the far right end such as USA have far greater misery and disfunctional society than those with the largest influence of socialism (e.g. the scandinavian countries).

You lose all credibility by saying that wars are currently a smaller influence on us and our economy than ever before. It's a ludicrous claim - just look at Syria and you can trace the impact clearly - largest refugee inflows since WWII, the rise of right wing nationalism, economic turbulence caused by resulting reactionary politics... and all for a proxy war for control of an oil/gas pipeline route.

Syria is an awful situation, but I'm still going to contend the effect of the war in Syria is having less of an effect on the UK economy that say WWI or WWII, indeed it's massively smaller. And just to really please the lefties out there I'm going to contend there aren't any refugees from Syria, just millions of conscientious objectors, and that the various stipulations we take refugees don't remotely apply to the millions pouring over the borders, rather they were intended to cover the odd academic and their family who'd done something to upset the ruling elite.

[Zhivago]

There has not been any true 'lefty system' that has existed without an active existential threat by capitalist society. But let's deal with what we have currently, which are all capitalist systems with varying degrees of socialism - We see that those at the far right end such as USA have far greater misery and disfunctional society than those with the largest influence of socialism (e.g. the scandinavian countries).

You lose all credibility by saying that wars are currently a smaller influence on us and our economy than ever before. It's a ludicrous claim - just look at Syria and you can trace the impact clearly - largest refugee inflows since WWII, the rise of right wing nationalism, economic turbulence caused by resulting reactionary politics... and all for a proxy war for control of an oil/gas pipeline route.

Syria is an awful situation, but I'm still going to contend the effect of the war in Syria is having less of an effect on the UK economy that say WWI or WWII, indeed it's massively smaller. And just to really please the lefties out there I'm going to contend there aren't any refugees from Syria, just millions of conscientious objectors, and that the various stipulations we take refugees don't remotely apply to the millions pouring over the borders, rather they were intended to cover the odd academic and their family who'd done something to upset the ruling elite.

That's patently absurd. Get back under your bridge.

[Digby]

There has not been any true 'lefty system' that has existed without an active existential threat by capitalist society. But let's deal with what we have currently, which are all capitalist systems with varying degrees of socialism - We see that those at the far right end such as USA have far greater misery and disfunctional society than those with the largest influence of socialism (e.g. the scandinavian countries).

You lose all credibility by saying that wars are currently a smaller influence on us and our economy than ever before. It's a ludicrous claim - just look at Syria and you can trace the impact clearly - largest refugee inflows since WWII, the rise of right wing nationalism, economic turbulence caused by resulting reactionary politics... and all for a proxy war for control of an oil/gas pipeline route.

Syria is an awful situation, but I'm still going to contend the effect of the war in Syria is having less of an effect on the UK economy that say WWI or WWII, indeed it's massively smaller. And just to really please the lefties out there I'm going to contend there aren't any refugees from Syria, just millions of conscientious objectors, and that the various stipulations we take refugees don't remotely apply to the millions pouring over the borders, rather they were intended to cover the odd academic and their family who'd done something to upset the ruling elite.

That's patently absurd. Get back under your bridge.

Meh. Europe went through centuries of strife to deliver the circumstances or close to the circumstances we enjoy today, from reformations to political reform, to the rise of the secular... just about all of that was painful, and thousands if not millions of people suffered through the process. Now we've got a bunch of people who've allowed the extremists their ascendancy and rather than fixing their country are running away. On an individual level the running away makes sense, for the societies they're leaving and looking to run to not so much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, though helping looks problematic and then some. But even if we took into Europe every refugee already in Europe or left in some god awful camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on we'd still only be scratching the surface, and why help those who've left over those still there, and then too beyond Syrian and Afghanistan what's the plan for where we put the billions across Africa, the rest of Middle East and China?

[Zhivago]

Syria is an awful situation, but I'm still going to contend the effect of the war in Syria is having less of an effect on the UK economy that say WWI or WWII, indeed it's massively smaller. And just to really please the lefties out there I'm going to contend there aren't any refugees from Syria, just millions of conscientious objectors, and that the various stipulations we take refugees don't remotely apply to the millions pouring over the borders, rather they were intended to cover the odd academic and their family who'd done something to upset the ruling elite.

That's patently absurd. Get back under your bridge.

Meh. Europe went through centuries of strife to deliver the circumstances or close to the circumstances we enjoy today, from reformations to political reform, to the rise of the secular... just about all of that was painful, and thousands if not millions of people suffered through the process. Now we've got a bunch of people who've allowed the extremists their ascendancy and rather than fixing their country are running away. On an individual level the running away makes sense, for the societies they're leaving and looking to run to not so much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, though helping looks problematic and then some. But even if we took into Europe every refugee already in Europe or left in some god awful camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on we'd still only be scratching the surface, and why help those who've left over those still there, and then too beyond Syrian and Afghanistan what's the plan for where we put the billions across Africa, the rest of Middle East and China?

Think you'll find most sensible people are mostly focusing on not having the wars that cause these problems in the first place. I don't think being a refugee is a life choice...

[Sandydragon]

This place really is a parallel world.

"Listen to experts" goes the cry. Which experts? Because they sure as hell don't gree. To think that they do suggests that you are looking at only 1 set of sources. In fact the vast majority of economists would say that we are in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Yes those can be dismissed as being part of the neoliberal establishment conspiracy but to pretend they don't exist is just bizarre.

I love the idea that the preference for "true" socialism is an exercise of pure logic and anyone who doesn't subscribe must be brainwashed. You see to many others that level of zeal, some might even say religious revelation, that only the true believers "get it" is much more suggestive of brainwashing than acknowledging that politics is about choices and one chooses what to aim at based on one's underlying preferences and one chooses from the competing theories as to how those aims might be achieved.

Finally on elections. To say that Kinnock wasn't elected because he fell over or that Hague wasn't elected because he is bald is to miss the point. Brexit won despite having 4 or 5 of the most punchble people in Christendom on their side. It doesn't matter what the papers right unless it resonates with the public.

Ok mr pedantic, there was a lot more to the loses of kinnock nd Hague, the size of their opponents majority playing no small part. Yet ridicule plays a part, being a smooth media operator is worth plenty of votes.

[Digby]

That's patently absurd. Get back under your bridge.

Meh. Europe went through centuries of strife to deliver the circumstances or close to the circumstances we enjoy today, from reformations to political reform, to the rise of the secular... just about all of that was painful, and thousands if not millions of people suffered through the process. Now we've got a bunch of people who've allowed the extremists their ascendancy and rather than fixing their country are running away. On an individual level the running away makes sense, for the societies they're leaving and looking to run to not so much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, though helping looks problematic and then some. But even if we took into Europe every refugee already in Europe or left in some god awful camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on we'd still only be scratching the surface, and why help those who've left over those still there, and then too beyond Syrian and Afghanistan what's the plan for where we put the billions across Africa, the rest of Middle East and China?

Think you'll find most sensible people are mostly focusing on not having the wars that cause these problems in the first place. I don't think being a refugee is a life choice...

An excellent notion to focus on such. It doesn't deal with the reality of the millions of refugees/conscientious objectors/migrants in transit, and those who'll follow, but if anyone has an idea to stop future wars then yes that would be nice.

[Zhivago]

Meh. Europe went through centuries of strife to deliver the circumstances or close to the circumstances we enjoy today, from reformations to political reform, to the rise of the secular... just about all of that was painful, and thousands if not millions of people suffered through the process. Now we've got a bunch of people who've allowed the extremists their ascendancy and rather than fixing their country are running away. On an individual level the running away makes sense, for the societies they're leaving and looking to run to not so much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, though helping looks problematic and then some. But even if we took into Europe every refugee already in Europe or left in some god awful camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on we'd still only be scratching the surface, and why help those who've left over those still there, and then too beyond Syrian and Afghanistan what's the plan for where we put the billions across Africa, the rest of Middle East and China?

Think you'll find most sensible people are mostly focusing on not having the wars that cause these problems in the first place. I don't think being a refugee is a life choice...

An excellent notion to focus on such. It doesn't deal with the reality of the millions of refugees/conscientious objectors/migrants in transit, and those who'll follow, but if anyone has an idea to stop future wars then yes that would be nice.

How about enforcing international law for starters?

[Digby]

Think you'll find most sensible people are mostly focusing on not having the wars that cause these problems in the first place. I don't think being a refugee is a life choice...

An excellent notion to focus on such. It doesn't deal with the reality of the millions of refugees/conscientious objectors/migrants in transit, and those who'll follow, but if anyone has an idea to stop future wars then yes that would be nice.

How about enforcing international law for starters?

Most of which doesn't exist, whose international law? who enforces it? who pays for it? And if we think there were complaints about the EU not representing our views it's as nothing Vs going for a global position

[Stom]

This place really is a parallel world.

"Listen to experts" goes the cry. Which experts? Because they sure as hell don't gree. To think that they do suggests that you are looking at only 1 set of sources. In fact the vast majority of economists would say that we are in a period of unparalleled prosperity. Yes those can be dismissed as being part of the neoliberal establishment conspiracy but to pretend they don't exist is just bizarre.

I love the idea that the preference for "true" socialism is an exercise of pure logic and anyone who doesn't subscribe must be brainwashed. You see to many others that level of zeal, some might even say religious revelation, that only the true believers "get it" is much more suggestive of brainwashing than acknowledging that politics is about choices and one chooses what to aim at based on one's underlying preferences and one chooses from the competing theories as to how those aims might be achieved.

Finally on elections. To say that Kinnock wasn't elected because he fell over or that Hague wasn't elected because he is bald is to miss the point. Brexit won despite having 4 or 5 of the most punchble people in Christendom on their side. It doesn't matter what the papers right unless it resonates with the public.

It's no surprise you hold that view. And it's no surprise that you take words out of context.

That's the whole point! That the experts don't agree. So read them. And read others who aren't experts but who write well on the subject. Read Ayn Rand. Read Yaris Varoufakis. Read The Communist Manifesto. Read Adam Smith.

Have a look at what historically formed core economic theory and why those principles were thrown out.

Have a look at when modern concepts came into reality.

And only then make up your mind.

I've read all of the above. Not all of their work, sometimes hardly any. But I read at least some small amount. I would read more given more time, but things are busy.

We don't actually know what true socialism is. No-one has ever actually implemented it. Which is a crying shame. Based upon sound capitalist theory, there is no reason it could not work. The zeal comes because our ideas and beliefs are shot down so quickly and rapidly without any thought or specialist knowledge.

And having both the mods as rather right leaning individuals does open it up to cries of censorship.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Or it would if, you know, we actually censored any views. Or didn't have a left wing owner. Trifling details like that.

Ah, no true socialism has ever existed. That's marvellous. After each failure the socialists come out and say "Ah, but that wasn't TRUE socialism" despite what they may have said at the time.

[Stom]

Or it would if, you know, we actually censored any views. Or didn't have a left wing owner. Trifling details like that.

Ah, no true socialism has ever existed. That's marvellous. After each failure the socialists come out and say "Ah, but that wasn't TRUE socialism" despite what they may have said at the time.

There were various socialist, or socialist leaning states early on in the 20th century, but these states were torn apart by the WW1. Since the fall of communism, socialism has always been allied to neoliberal economic theory, meaning that it cannot be true socialism. Until we see a country utilising a different form of capitalism, combined with social democracy, we cannot say we have seen a modern, true socialist state.

We may well get one soon, though.

So name me a failure?

[Digby]

By such measures there may never have been a failed socialist state, it'd still leave socialism as an experiment almost no one wants to try, even a huge number of those on the left want modified social policies bolted onto a free market. It's possible at some point there'll be a desire to adopt socialism, but I can't see it moving beyond a very fringe movement for certain oddities in the various student unions to shout in the face of those other oddities who think even a 10% income tax little more than theft of their hard earned money

[Stom]

By such measures there may never have been a failed socialist state, it'd still leave socialism as an experiment almost no one wants to try, even a huge number of those on the left want modified social policies bolted onto a free market. It's possible at some point there'll be a desire to adopt socialism, but I can't see it moving beyond a very fringe movement for certain oddities in the various student unions to shout in the face of those other oddities who think even a 10% income tax little more than theft of their hard earned money

The question is, though: do we really have a free market? Considering state aid to corporations, I'd suggest not. And that's the problem. We don't practice capitalism, we practice feudalism under a different name.

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

[Digby]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

[Stom]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.