What’s in a Name

As far as Borough Councils are concerned, Noblesse might oblige respect; Royalty obviously does not.

Today, Tomorrow

BEFORE

 

AFTER

             

 

 

150 Metres from the World Heritage Sites of Greenwich, where, until only a few days ago, natural life and beauty continued to provide a welcome to visitors and a soothing breath of Nature to inhabitants. Now, only this memorable image remains to remind us that, historic and beautiful amenities of the past need to be protected and preserved, rather that sold off to those whose life purpose seems to be to see how many more buildings they can cram in to every least piece of, as yet, unobliterated, place of natural beauty. (Not, of course, without some monitory reward!)

L’Affaire Assange

It seems likely to become the cause celebre of the day.

Not only does it contrast “The law is an ass” Common Sense standpoint which we in Britain, with our long history of legal controversy, have learnt to recognise, with foreigners’ outlandish legal contrivances, and show how embedded in apparent irrelevant circumstances legal matters can become, quite (or nearly quite) fortuitously, on a world wide basis; it also evokes one or two literary connections:

Firstly, with its cavalier use of the word “rape”, it calls to mind Humpty-Dumpty’s claim to semantic authority.

Secondly, the whole terrifying picture of the innocent-until-proved-guilty individual trapped in the machinations of unscrupulous Authority inevitably reminds one of Kafka and “Nineteen Eighty Four”.

A Choice for the Rich

Despite the enormous financial and economic troubles of most people today, (and most countries), there are a small proportion (but a large number) for whom getting money is not really a problem.

The income – revenues they achieve are so large there is no way it could reasonably be claimed that they have personal needs for such incomes. As inhabitants of this country they are provided with all the facilities and benefits giving them the freedom, safety, comfort and convenience to earn such incomes. Therefore it is both necessary and appropriate that they give financial contribution proportional to the size of such incomes in order to keep the whole system going. The principal way, in which such contributions are derived by society from the individual, is in the form of taxation, at a rate and under the conditions, established from time to time by the elected government.

This is pretty well beyond dispute, but even people of very modest income sometimes, though they have no quarrel with the system in broad terms, have objections, (for reasons which they hold to be justifiable,) to government expenditure on particular things, or for use in particular ways. Occasionally, some who feel this way, deliberately and openly withhold a proportion of the tax they are due to pay in respect of these things, (not so much to avoid payment, as to register and publicise their objections). The system cannot, and does not, make allowance for this kind of individual choice.

However it is widely, and I think appropriately, recognised that those who by, their effort and industry (or, indeed by any legitimate means) achieve a very substantial income, which gives rise to obligations to make very considerable income tax payment, ought to be allowed at least some choice as to how this tax money is used.

To this end, the government allows such tax payers to, in effect, give money to charities of which they approve, with an equivalent reduction in the tax payable.

This represents only a very small proportion of the revenue available to the government to be spent in the usual way. Some of these government ways are well known to be far from astute or good value for money. This alternative way of disposing of the credit available for the public benefit can be recognized as a very good way of funding causes which we can all endorse, and which the government, almost by definition, does not see to.

In the circumstances which obtain in this country at present; there seems to be no sensible reason to disagree with this arrangement.

In public life, however, it sometimes seems that rhetoric, the catchy self-validating phrase or cliché, rules not only the mob (which fortunately holds little sway in Britain) but, too frequently, many who, (if at all educated, as they appear to be) should know better. The faults are often logical but logical faults don’t always involve invalid inference. They can arise from the simple misuse of words.

George Osborne nearly monopolised the headlines recently, as showing how London’s “Super Rich” are “avoiding Income Tax” and how he is determined to crack-down on wealthy “Tax Dodgers” and those who avoid paying any income tax.

These statements are substantially misleading.

They appear to non-controversially show that certain people are, with the intention of making personal savings or gains, avoiding part of their income becoming, as it otherwise would be, available for the public gain and benefit. This is, in the context in which these claims are made, (which concerns allowances for donations to charity) completely untrue.

The fact is, that in the circumstances referred to, they are choosing to make certain considerable sums of money available for the public benefit in a way which (possibly correctly) they believe to be more effective.

Such use of language is similarly misleading to the use of the phrase “Have you stopped doing such and such yet?” to someone who has never started to do such and such.

In a similar way, a rather smug female participant in a discussion with Jeremy Paxman, said of someone who preferred to give some of his tax money to Charity “He’s just doing this to pay low tax”. What an absurd statement! What benefit is there to him personally in lowering his tax, if he pays the money to a charity?

Paying less tax is never a benefit in itself if the money is to be paid elsewhere. The attribution of motives by one person to another is often unreliable and should always be at least plausible.

You’re a big disappointment Ed !

Despite the enormous financial and economic troubles of most people today, (and most countries), there are a small proportion (but a large number) for whom getting money is not really a problem.

The income – revenues they achieve are so large there is no way it could reasonably be claimed that they have personal needs for such incomes. As inhabitants of this country they are provided with all the facilities and benefits giving them the freedom, safety, comfort and convenience to earn such incomes. Therefore it is both necessary and appropriate that they give financial contribution proportional to the size of such incomes in order to keep the whole system going. The principal way, in which such contributions are derived by society from the individual, is in the form of taxation, at a rate and under the conditions, established from time to time by the elected government.

This is pretty well beyond dispute, but even people of very modest income sometimes, though they have no quarrel with the system in broad terms, have objections, (for reasons which they hold to be justifiable,) to government expenditure on particular things, or for use in particular ways. Occasionally, some who feel this way, deliberately and openly withhold a proportion of the tax they are due to pay in respect of these things, (not so much to avoid payment, as to register and publicise their objections). The system cannot, and does not, make allowance for this kind of individual choice.

However it is widely, and I think appropriately, recognised that those who by, their effort and industry (or, indeed by any legitimate means) achieve a very substantial income, which gives rise to obligations to make very considerable income tax payment, ought to be allowed at least some choice as to how this tax money is used.

To this end, the government allows such tax payers to, in effect, give money to charities of which they approve, with an equivalent reduction in the tax payable.

This represents only a very small proportion of the revenue available to the government to be spent in the usual way. Some of these government ways are well known to be far from astute or good value for money.

This alternative way of disposing of the credit available for the public benefit can be recognized as a very good way of funding causes which we can all endorse, and which the government, almost by definition, does not see to.

In the circumstances which obtain in this country at present; there seems to be no sensible reason to disagree with this arrangement.

In public life, however, it sometimes seems that rhetoric, the catchy self-validating phrase or cliché, rules not only the mob (which fortunately holds little sway in Britain) but, too frequently, many who, (if at all educated, as they appear to be) should know better. The faults are often logical but logical faults don’t always involve invalid inference. They can arise from the simple misuse of words.

George Osborne nearly monopolised the headlines recently, as showing how London’s “Super Rich” are “avoiding Income Tax” and how he is determined to crack-down on wealthy “Tax Dodgers” and those who avoid paying any income tax.

These statements are substantially misleading.

They appear to non-controversially show that certain people are, with the intention of making personal savings or gains, avoiding part of their income becoming, as it otherwise would be, available for the public gain and benefit. This is, in the context in which these claims are made, (which concerns allowances for donations to charity) completely untrue.

The fact is, that in the circumstances referred to, they are choosing to make certain considerable sums of money available for the public benefit in a way which (possibly correctly) they believe to be more effective.

Such use of language is similarly misleading to the use of the phrase “Have you stopped doing such and such yet?” to someone who has never started to do such and such.

In a similar way, a rather smug female participant in a discussion with Jeremy Paxman, said of someone who preferred to give some of his tax money to Charity “He’s just doing this to pay low tax”. What an absurd statement! What benefit is there to him personally in lowering his tax, if he pays the money to a charity?

Paying less tax is never a benefit in itself if the money is to be paid elsewhere. The attribution of motives by one person to another is often unreliable and should always be at least plausible.

Tent City

“Tent city could mar Olympics and Queens Jubilee”.

Evening Standard. Nov 1^st

 

Well, yes – Really? — and what possible recondite system of calculation could, in as few words give the remotest idea of the needless deprivation, national and international chaos and misery caused by the unrestricted uncontrolled and uncaringly thoughtless and entirely self seeking practice of capitalistic banking an ancillary activities.