The so-called "trickle down effect" that the above capitalist whore talks of is about as real as Saddam's WMDs.

that 'trickle down' economics doesnt happen unless you make it, i.e. by redistributive taxation (or insurrection).

The only thing I want trickling down from those scum is their blood....

Three comments from those who were not old enough to be around pre Thatcher when the "tax the rich" philosophy held sway. She arrived just in time to save the country from nutter ideas just like that.

Realist can tell peoples ages by a few line of their writing!

So your saying if we redistribute, no one wins and if we do't redistribute, the already rich win. That sounds like a great system.

Of course capitalism was designed by an already rich elite to transfer wealth to them, so we shouldn't be surprised that it does so very effectively. However, the pyramid scam that capitalism is heading lemming like towards a big cliff. The pressure for constant growth is going to either deplete affordable oil stocks before we can adapt or destroy the environment. Like all pyramid schemes, it will collapse. At least then we don't have to worry about redistributive taxation and laffer curves anymore.

Your comments are about as realistic as the idea that capitalism and Thatcher could benefit anybody except a few elite at the top. Your comments also show a mind-boggling ignorance - I actually feel sorry for you...

Under labour in the seventies the top rate of tax was changed from 60 pence in the pound (after the first £100'000 a year) to 80 pence in the pound. As a result many in the managerial class, entrepreneurs and other investors in the economy left the country. What Thatcher did was to swing the pendulum too far the other way by getting rid of the top income band altogether leaving those at the top (£100'000) paying just 40 pence in the pound.
I would be in favour of bringing back the band for those earning more than 100'000 and pegging it at 60 pence in the pound because our tax system would be fair again (and proportional to what people earn). I floated the idea with someone once who, unknown to me at the time was earning more than £100'000. He seemed quite agitated when I suggested people like him could afford to pay a tiny little more tax. What makes me laugh is the fact that he harked back to the old days and the way things used to be like it was so wonderful, yet in the "good ol days" of (corporal and capital punishment for example) he'd have been paying more tax.

Yep thats the laffer curve - set tax at 0% and revenue is 0%, set tax at 100% and revenue is 0 (assuming money is the sole reason people work, perhaps an illustration that capitalism ain't meant to be fun). Somwhere in between lies the level that maximises revenue. Right-wing economists have used this to suggest taxing the rich is counterproductive (not true per se). The problem with redistributive taxation is that it attempts to tinker with a system designed so that 'money makes money', i.e. wealth concentrates upwards. Any growth in the economic pie also accumulates upwards accordingly, and taxation is a crude method for treating symptoms, not causes.

In fact, have you noticed as GDP grows relentlessly year on year, we are constantly told 'theres not enough money' for hospitals, schools etc. Bigger GDP does not make us better off in itself, its just a figure saying how much we're exchanging/earning. If we're exchanging crap goods that need replacing every 6 months GDP will reflect this by *increasing* as production/consumption of crap disposable goods increases. Don't be a slave to abstractions. (I highly recommend reading Michael Rowbotham's 'The Grip of Death' on the issue of the scam of modern 'growth'). Interestingly, Bhutan has started to try and measure 'Gross National Happiness' as a key indicator of success. Can't see the rulers of this prozac-pumped isle following suit . . .

Thanks for that anticap, I'll check 'The Grip of Death' out.

Michael Rowbotham is also a 'genuine moderate' and his solutions to the very well explained problems he identifies are very reformist, but reading the book made me realise how much economics is a result of hidden mechanisms (like money *creation* by banks) rather than free choice. I've never seen anyone debunk his argument either, they just ignore it. When I was at uni I asked an economic lecturer about it, we had a bit of a debate about it, he told me Marx was wrong (I didn't mention marx, marxism or socialism in any way!) then stopped replying to my emails. The sign of a paradigm shifting argument methinks. Good book.

Lol thats exactely what thatcher used to say about the whole of the labour party!