Pages:

Author

Topic: David Cameron: Taxes will rise unless we can raid bank accounts (Read 2676 times)

PhydeauxLeChien

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 100

Quote from: bigtimespaghetti on May 15, 2014, 10:50:42 AM

As an aside and back on topic. Why would Cameron come out with this now? Hardly anyone wants more taxes- at least those who have to pay them.

Well, this isn't a new tax. This is a new power that the tax authority can use to collect unpaid existing taxes in extreme cases.

Why is he doing it? Because UK polls consistently show that people are angry about tax evasion, and going after individuals who owe a few thou is easier than doing anything about tax avoidance by corporations and the super-wealthy.

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Quote from: 5flags on May 12, 2014, 03:51:23 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10819885/David-Cameron-Taxes-will-rise-unless-we-can-raid-bank-accounts.html

It's like Cyprus, only with a British accent.

They already have this ability in the US. I am surprised that the UK is more strict on taking money out of people's accounts by the government than the US.

Perhaps people in the UK should revolt against such American ideas.

Bit_Happy

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1040

A Great Time to Start Something!

Quote from: 5flags on May 12, 2014, 03:51:23 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10819885/David-Cameron-Taxes-will-rise-unless-we-can-raid-bank-accounts.html

It's like Cyprus, only with a British accent.

The Treasury select committee warned that allowing HM Revenue and Customs to remove cash from bank accounts without court orders is "very concerning" because of its history of mistakes.
WTF?
Is the construction of Bitcoin Island starting soon?
Let's hurry we seem to be running out of time...

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: practicaldreamer on May 15, 2014, 11:47:06 AM

A family of 8 lets say - £10k per child per annum school fees (ish ?) = £60k . Plus £2k (ish ?) Bupa family health cover. £62k per year. Bloody hell, for an anarchist you aren't short of a few quid are you Grin

? And there I was picturing you more like Rick from the Young Ones.

Well, I'm near the top of my game in the software development world and command a pretty high price for consultancy and development work, so in that respect, I'm very lucky.

I'm working on two Bitcoin projects right now, so if I can switch to working on those full time, I will be deliriously happy.

Quote from: practicaldreamer on May 15, 2014, 11:47:06 AM

Still, with a bit of luck, with that public school education behind them one of them might go on to Oxford, hey Wink

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not send them to school at all. If I was independently wealthy, I wouldn't, I would home educate them. I'm sure you can imagine my curriculum

But unfortunately, with the ages of the kids it's hard for She Who Must Be Obeyed to dedicate time to tutoring, and I work in Formula 1 and am usually spread pretty thinly - so we view private school as ever so slightly less statist than state schools.

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hazir on May 15, 2014, 12:54:06 PM

It is like 'History repeats itself because nobody listens' and 'History repeats itself because the world doesn't learn' and soon we will all learn our lesson. I am afraid our next war won't be with Russia or China. It will be war with our own governments. Something needs to be done about how we are exploited by our governments and financial systems in today's world.

we are the many, we are the muted. i doubt anything's going to really happen in our favor. the money and influence are just too much for commonfolk to overcome. at this point, all we can do is wait for an economic collapse and a modern day "dark age." maybe we'll come out better after that.. but until then, we are helpless.

Hazir

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1005

★Nitrogensports.eu★

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

someone should really send david cameron a copy of the book "1984." i think i might despise him more than i do piers morgan.

practicaldreamer

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: 5flags on May 15, 2014, 10:22:07 AM

I avoid the state where I can. For example, I pay for private schooling and private healthcare at considerable cost to myself (I have 6 young children).

? And there I was picturing you more like Rick from the Young Ones.

Still, with a bit of luck, with that public school education behind them one of them might go on to Oxford, hey Wink

?

I've got to be honest - I'm dead against private education and money buying a step up the ladder. I love my kids as much as any man - but anything they achieve in life will be on the basis of their merits - not privilege.

bigtimespaghetti

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1057

bigtimespaghetti.com

As an aside and back on topic. Why would Cameron come out with this now? Hardly anyone wants more taxes- at least those who have to pay them.

Is it a warning to his buddies to get out of dodge while they can?

I'm tempted to see it as a foreshadow of things to come.

bigtimespaghetti

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1057

bigtimespaghetti.com

So a prisoner should be thankful for the food he is served since he is 'benefiting' from it?

Many people have no choice but to use the system- like the NHS, this does not mean they are 'benefiting' from it, unless you like waiting months for treatment.

I use the roads, but I would not call being stuck in gridlock everyday 'benefiting' from it, I simply have no viable choice but to use the roads that apparently we are unable to build or maintain without the 'wisdom' of a central authority. Please do not start me on the trains.

I'm happy to pay for things I use, I don't expect others to pay for them. Unfortunately the freeshit crowd disagrees so much that they are willing to use their greater numbers to make me foot the bill.

But I understand we can't turn a switch and suddenly live in a voluntaryist utopia- shit, I'd be happy to live in a socialist country, let's just not use debt to fund the shortfall and we wouldn't need these crazy tax grabs

A flat tax is a start, but this whole spaghetti mess called democracy in the UK means that the main parties play this tug of war over people's emotions every few years.

I'm pretty shocked at the support for Milliband, his policies seem destructive to me.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 10:04:32 AM

Mandela was imprisoned. King was shot. They suffered for what they believed in.

Indeed. HMRC will try to imprison me inside of 12 months, possibly less.

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 10:04:32 AM

You aren't standing up for the underclasses or the repressed, you are trying to avoid paying your share of taxation.

Again, that's dishonest. I'm standing up for myself, for my principles, for everyone shook down by the state, for the victims of our wars, of our policies. Have you ever seen a child blown apart by British munitions? Do you really want to fund that? I know I don't.

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 10:04:32 AM

Just because you think something is unjust doesn't mean I have to agree.

Of course it doesn't. Life would be pretty dull if we agreed on everything, particularly considering how much I enjoy debating

I don't believe in violent coercion. I'm completely accepting of the fact that most people are OK with it. Many a thinker has noted that the vast majority of people are perfectly content in the herd.

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 10:04:32 AM

I think that fact that you are benefiting from all the services paid for by taxation without contributing to it to be unjust.

Only by virtue of the state's ubiquity, and by state enforced monopolies. I avoid the state where I can. For example, I pay for private schooling and private healthcare at considerable cost to myself (I have 6 young children). But your argument is also equivalent to the Mafia - we keep your family safe, so pay your protection money.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: 5flags on May 15, 2014, 09:31:00 AM

Quote

Alternatively: Sod off and live somewhere else.

Aar yes, the run-off-in-the-face-of-injustice approach. And as I said earlier in the thread; if Mandela and King had just decided to "sod off and live somewhere else" instead of fighting injustice?

Mandela was imprisoned. King was shot. They suffered for what they believed in.
You aren't standing up for the underclasses or the repressed, you are trying to avoid paying your share of taxation.
[Besides, Mandela is a poor example of non-violent protest, considering that he participated in several bombings.]

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 09:15:50 AM

Do you think you should be able to ignore the law with impunity?

Do you think I should acquiesce in the face of injustice just because that injustice has been committed to the statute books? That's a very odd argument.

Just because you think something is unjust doesn't mean I have to agree. I think that fact that you are benefiting from all the services paid for by taxation without contributing to it to be unjust.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 09:15:50 AM

Then you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions.
It is easy to take a moral stand when there are no consequences.

Indeed. I currently live in the UK and "owe" (from their perspective) over £500,000. When I advocate tax resistance, I do so from the front lines, so to speak.

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 09:15:50 AM

Alternatively: Sod off and live somewhere else.

Aar yes, the run-off-in-the-face-of-injustice approach. And as I said earlier in the thread; if Mandela and King had just decided to "sod off and live somewhere else" instead of fighting injustice?

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 09:15:50 AM

Do you think you should be able to ignore the law with impunity?

Do you think I should acquiesce in the face of injustice just because that injustice has been committed to the statute books? That's a very odd argument.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yes, they are similar in that they are both taxes.

Indeed they are.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Everyone understands that you view all taxation as equally bad, that any forcible redistribution of wealth whatsoever is wrong.

Yes, I view wealth confiscation on threat of violence to be wrong.

Quote from: ?? on ??

This is literally the most extreme view it is possible to have on the matter, and the vast majority of people don't agree.

You don't view confiscation on threat of violence extreme?

Quote from: ?? on ??

As most people understand, some taxes are worse than others.

Some robberies are worse than others. They are still robberies.

Quote from: ?? on ??

In Cyprus, they imposed a one-off, regressive, shock tax for which no-one voted, that was automatically confiscated from people's savings.

As opposed to the UK where taxes are regularly taken from people, confiscated directly from pay packets. Voting is irrelevant. It is taken by employing the threat of violence. If taxes were so great, we'd all be voluntarily paying more than we needed to.

Quote from: ?? on ??

In the UK, the proposal is to automatically take money for (relatively) fair, progressive taxes that have been imposed and revised by various parliaments of elected representatives, on which parties have won and lost elections, that are consistently applied, and the money is only taken if you have repeatedly failed to pay on your own, and you have enough to afford it.

In other words, if the threat of violence doesn't work, they will just take it.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Step out of your libertarian fantasy-world, and think about actual negative effects of each tax on ordinary people, and you will see that one is worse.

I've seen the hideous crimes that our taxes fund. I won't ever do that again.

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: 5flags on May 15, 2014, 05:18:23 AM

Quote from: zetaray on May 15, 2014, 04:43:23 AM

If a person owes taxes, and have the money in their bank account, gov should be allowed to take the money out of his account, instead of wasting time and money in courts or raising taxes.

And if you refuse to pay tax because you feel that funding the state is morally repugnant?

Then you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions.
It is easy to take a moral stand when there are no consequences.
Alternatively: Sod off and live somewhere else.

Quote

Or are you opposed to non-violent, civil disobedience?

Do you think you should be able to ignore the law with impunity?

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 04:55:29 AM

Btw, the equivalent US powers are massively more draconian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_levies

On this we agree. But then the US is arguably THE most aggressive confiscator of personal wealth on the planet.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 05:11:25 AM

In one case there is a debt owed that is being collected. In the other there wasn't.

There was a debt owed the second the regime in Cyprus decided a debt was owed.

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 05:11:25 AM

One is targeted to just those who actually owe debts. The other wasn't.

It was decided that certain depositors "owed" 40% of their balance.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: zetaray on May 15, 2014, 04:43:23 AM

If a person owes taxes, and have the money in their bank account, gov should be allowed to take the money out of his account, instead of wasting time and money in courts or raising taxes.

And if you refuse to pay tax because you feel that funding the state is morally repugnant?

Or are you opposed to non-violent, civil disobedience?

murraypaul

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: 5flags on May 15, 2014, 04:59:32 AM

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 04:13:54 AM

In Cyprus, the banks became insolvent, and customer deposits took a haircut to refinance them. For customers who had done nothing wrong.
In the UK, if you owe taxes, and have refused to pay them after being contacted several times, and you have enough money to pay, they will take what you owe.

They are more similar than you care to admit. They both represent wealth confiscation. They are both non-voluntary. Both confiscations occur under the banners of necessity and state-sanctioned legitimacy.

In one case there is a debt owed that is being collected. In the other there wasn't.
One is targeted to just those who actually owe debts. The other wasn't.
They aren't the same.
If you happen to disagree with taxes per se, that is a different matter.

5flags

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Professional anarchist

Quote from: murraypaul on May 15, 2014, 04:13:54 AM