I hate religion. I am disgusted when people promote or defend religion. I dispair when people express even vaguely 'spiritual' beliefs. Why on earth would believe in a sky fairy? Sadly, in recent years religion has become increasingly prominent in British public life.
My consolation is that the term 'recent years' chronologically speaking is a tremendously parochial term. Obviously the human race is becoming increasingly secularist. What else would it do with hundreds of years of intellectual development? "Oh well, we know there is this thing called 'science' that has given us all of the benefits that we experience constantly, but nevertheless we'll choose to regress to an earlier time of ignorance". No, reason will win the day. But for short bursts, superstition appears to gain the upper hand. And, despite the bigger picture, that makes me sad.
Consolation? That very few people actually believe the crap spouted by the men in dresses. They just become more... tolerant to it. Especially when the prevailing public mood is negative (thanks George; thanks UKIP).
So come on people, cheer me up. Tell Cameron that you're not going to fall for his Big Society bollocks. That religion should not get tax breaks. That you want policy based on reason, not magic.
Friday 30 November 2012
Friday 16 November 2012
Hey Hey We're The Monkees
Now that the poppy charity collectors
have disappeared, the Pudsy brigade are out in force. I had to run the gauntlet of guilt and shame
in Euston Station this morning by not giving a contribution to any of the numerous bucket rattlers.
However, there was a
man collecting at Mansion House tube station for this:
which I thought was dedicated and brave, given the emotional
blackmail emanating from the massed ranks of Children In Need collectors (most of
whom, incidentally, I assume are good people acting for what they consider are all
the very best reasons).
It’s always also worth noting that the Government should be
funding Children In Need’s UK causes, and world governments should be funding
their 3rd world causes. In
other words the wealthy and big business should be paying their share, rather
than relying on the regressive taxation of charity giving (as we all know, the
poor contribute more proportionately than the rich to charity, therefore any
charity that should reasonably be funded by Government is, in fact, a regressive
form of tax). Uncomfortable as this is, the Conservative Government, the wealthy and large corporations are delighted whenever you give to charity. It delays for another day the time when they have to pay just a little more tax.
The apes of Asia are unlikely to get any
material support from government. So I gave the orangutan man what change I had and in doing so noticed that his collection box was empty. I guess people had already given their money to more high profile causes.
Wednesday 14 November 2012
Mutter
Apparently the Republic of Ireland would rather let a healthy young woman die than terminate a foetus of dubious viability.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Ah, how I dispise all those bastards in the Catholic hierarchy that think this is an acceptable state of affairs. No country is perfect, but the imposition of medieval superstitions on a modern western country would be shocking beyond belief, were it not a widely recognised fact.
When will the Irish grow up and demand that abortion is legalised? Surely it can't be long, given the rapid decline in religious belief in Ireland and across the world. Tragically it will be too late for Praveen Halappanavar, whose young wife is dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Ah, how I dispise all those bastards in the Catholic hierarchy that think this is an acceptable state of affairs. No country is perfect, but the imposition of medieval superstitions on a modern western country would be shocking beyond belief, were it not a widely recognised fact.
When will the Irish grow up and demand that abortion is legalised? Surely it can't be long, given the rapid decline in religious belief in Ireland and across the world. Tragically it will be too late for Praveen Halappanavar, whose young wife is dead.
Tuesday 13 November 2012
Standing In The Way Of Control
I expect the blogosphere (i.e. the bits of it that other people actually read) is awash with outrage that Islamist Abu Qatada cannot be deported form the UK to Jordan.
Certainly that is my gut reaction. I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes. I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.
However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'. Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:
"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;
"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;
"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders." Sounds like a terrorist, right? But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?
"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999." It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.
So lets have a think about this. Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK. He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us. However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him. And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing a murder charge in Amman?)
Is outrage really the most appropriate response? Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?
Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?
Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?
* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'. Those people are morons. I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'. The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men. Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun. Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo. I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.
Certainly that is my gut reaction. I despise what Qatada supposedly stands for - superstitious beliefs, enforced compliance with those beliefs on others, suppression of women, wearing silly clothes. I'd prefer that he wasn't in my country.
However, Qatada is clearly being demonised to satisfy a national craving for hatred of 'the other'. Reading the BBC's summary*, a slightly more balanced appraisal than you may find in most print media, Qatada:
"emerged as a key voice in the Islamist movement in London..." which, unless we want to restrict freedom of expression, is fine;
"... which advocated strict Islamic government in Muslim countries..." I have a problem with this, but again, freedom of speech;
"... and armed struggle against despots and foreign invaders." Sounds like a terrorist, right? But how would you describe the German or French resistance during World War II?
"He was tried and found guilty in his absence of terrorism offences in Jordan in 1999." It would be nice to hear some details around this, but I think it is safe to assume that the Jordanian courts are capable of passing political judgements as opposed to ones based entirely on jurisprudence.
So lets have a think about this. Qatada, as far as we can tell (and the British Government has not acted against him), has committed no crimes in the UK. He undoubtedly has some unpleasant beliefs and (I assume) would like to impose his backward, medieval superstitions on the rest of us. However, the only intelligent criminal objection we can raise against him is that the Jordanians want him. And we'd trust their legal system as far as we can throw it (how would YOU feel about facing a murder charge in Amman?)
Is outrage really the most appropriate response? Haven't the European Court and, most recently, SIAC actually made the right decision in ruling that Qatada may not get a fair trial in Jordan and, by extension, should not be deported?
Isn't it possible to despise what Qatada stands for and still be proud that British (and European) justice has prevailed in this case?
Or shall we just be angry that the black man is still in our country?
* some may say that the BBC is a leftist propoganda machine that 'is racist against white people'. Those people are morons. I actually read that the other day - 'racist against white people'. The writer appeared oblivious to the fact that the BBC is run by middle-aged, middle-class white men. Those who accuse it of left-wing bias have apparently never read The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express or The Sun. Or watched Dragon's Den, or the multitude of other programmes on the Beeb that implicitly or explictly support the capitalist status quo. I assume that, as sentient moral beings, John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman have socially-liberal and economically-conservative leanings in their private lives, but to accuse them and their colleagues of left-wing bias in their professional lives is stupid and contrary to the mass of daily evidence.
Wednesday 7 November 2012
Tears Of A Clown
I see that Romney supporters were booing and boo-hooing when it became clear that Obama had been re-elected.
Of course, I would expect Democrats to be distraught had the result been reversed. However, when there is such a public display (and they were doing it for the cameras) of dismay from the GOP's side I can't help wondering whether this was the 1% that would have benefitted massively from a Romney reign. Or were they members of the 99% that would have continued to be fucked sideways by the Republican establishment's particular version of the American dream, and just too stupid to realise they are like turkeys voting for Christmas.
I do find it funny/exasperating that the American people are so cynical about politicians and yet so many of them continue to vote for a party that blatantly tells the biggest lie of them all - 'redistribution of wealth from the masses to the elite will be good for the masses'. What is it about that formulation that they just don't get? They bandy around the phrases trumpeted by right demagogues... 'supply side'.... 'trickle down'.... as if these idealist concepts actually carried any weight against the contrary evidence of 32 years of disastrous economic desertification.
To those people who were booing the President of the USA, I say rejoice! You've dodged a bullet. You actually have a President who will try and help the 99%, rather than fucking them sideways. Isn't that a cause for celebration? Or are you simply sociopathic members of the 1%... a fucker rather than a fuckee?
Of course, I would expect Democrats to be distraught had the result been reversed. However, when there is such a public display (and they were doing it for the cameras) of dismay from the GOP's side I can't help wondering whether this was the 1% that would have benefitted massively from a Romney reign. Or were they members of the 99% that would have continued to be fucked sideways by the Republican establishment's particular version of the American dream, and just too stupid to realise they are like turkeys voting for Christmas.
I do find it funny/exasperating that the American people are so cynical about politicians and yet so many of them continue to vote for a party that blatantly tells the biggest lie of them all - 'redistribution of wealth from the masses to the elite will be good for the masses'. What is it about that formulation that they just don't get? They bandy around the phrases trumpeted by right demagogues... 'supply side'.... 'trickle down'.... as if these idealist concepts actually carried any weight against the contrary evidence of 32 years of disastrous economic desertification.
To those people who were booing the President of the USA, I say rejoice! You've dodged a bullet. You actually have a President who will try and help the 99%, rather than fucking them sideways. Isn't that a cause for celebration? Or are you simply sociopathic members of the 1%... a fucker rather than a fuckee?
Tuesday 30 October 2012
God, Guns and Government
Browsing the interweb (a word I invented, by the way) it comes to my attention that the National Rifle Association in the good ol' US of A goes out of its way to 'endorse' individual political candidates for the Senate, and presumably much else.
That just prompts me to contemplate that anyone who runs a glorified gun club and believes they are justified in advising its members how to cast their political votes is dangerously deluded. To be fair, I expect they acknowledge somewhere that they are a special interest group, and that their endorsement relates solely to this area. But how can they conceivably believe that this has any bearing on elections for the legislature that deals with the economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, education, welfare, internal security, infrastructure investment and so on.
The only argument I can think of is that gun ownership is essential in protecting society. But obviously that would be laughably stupid.
Regarding any members that act on the NRA's advice? Well frankly they must be somewhat slow-witted. But as one US politician once noted with horror, it has been found that 50% of Americans do have below average intelligence.
In the unlikely event that anyone reads this, perhaps I should point out that that last sentence was deliberately ironic. The politican and his response were, however, real. I think he was a Republican. Ah yes, I looked it up - President Eisenhower.
That just prompts me to contemplate that anyone who runs a glorified gun club and believes they are justified in advising its members how to cast their political votes is dangerously deluded. To be fair, I expect they acknowledge somewhere that they are a special interest group, and that their endorsement relates solely to this area. But how can they conceivably believe that this has any bearing on elections for the legislature that deals with the economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, education, welfare, internal security, infrastructure investment and so on.
The only argument I can think of is that gun ownership is essential in protecting society. But obviously that would be laughably stupid.
Regarding any members that act on the NRA's advice? Well frankly they must be somewhat slow-witted. But as one US politician once noted with horror, it has been found that 50% of Americans do have below average intelligence.
In the unlikely event that anyone reads this, perhaps I should point out that that last sentence was deliberately ironic. The politican and his response were, however, real. I think he was a Republican. Ah yes, I looked it up - President Eisenhower.
Monday 29 October 2012
Tax Exile On Main Street
A list of 2,000 Greeks with Swiss bank accounts has been published. Have the Greek authorities responded by launching an investigation into what is clearly (let's be sensible) a case of mass tax evasion? Don't be stupid. They've arrested the journalist who published the list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20116548
Greece is in trouble due, in part, to tax evasion. The authorties are responding, in part, by cracking down on it and increasing taxes. Except for those that can afford to have Swiss bank accounts apparently. The list is reported to include politicans and business men. Well duh!
Of course, this list is just the tip of the iceberg, and only includes accounts at HSBC. It seems that the list was originally leaked by an employee (give that man a medal) and found its way to the Greek authorities two years ago. The apparent lack of follow up action is surely justification for the journalist's actions.
The authorities have responded to the latest reporting by saying there is no evidence of illegal activities by those on the list. Yeah, and there is no evidence that the Pope is responsible for African AIDS victims.
Two points. One - You will not find any evidence of anything unless you look for it. Two - even if there is no evidence of a 'crime', there is the more important question of moral responsibility. There is really only one reason people hold Swiss bank accounts - because they wish to hide their assets from someone. That can be due to illegality at some stage in the cash trail, whether simple tax evasion, corruption, fraud or organised crime. However, it can also be due to embarrasment. For example, a current or former Government minister wishing to hide the fact that he earns small fortunes from lobbyists and special interest groups. No doubt it can also just be due to 'prudent' tax planning, but how many of these latter people would be happy for normal tax payers to know that they do not pay as much tax as the spirit of their country's legislation expects?
The fact is that if you have a Swiss bank account you are either up to something dodgy or you are avoiding contributing your fair share to society. Or Swiss.
If the Greek authorities fail to ackowledge this fact and act on it, how can anyone trust them to resolve their country's financial problems? And if their only response seems to be to shoot the messenger, why should we trust them at all?
Thanks to John Foxx for his twist on The Rolling Stones' album title.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20116548
Greece is in trouble due, in part, to tax evasion. The authorties are responding, in part, by cracking down on it and increasing taxes. Except for those that can afford to have Swiss bank accounts apparently. The list is reported to include politicans and business men. Well duh!
Of course, this list is just the tip of the iceberg, and only includes accounts at HSBC. It seems that the list was originally leaked by an employee (give that man a medal) and found its way to the Greek authorities two years ago. The apparent lack of follow up action is surely justification for the journalist's actions.
The authorities have responded to the latest reporting by saying there is no evidence of illegal activities by those on the list. Yeah, and there is no evidence that the Pope is responsible for African AIDS victims.
Two points. One - You will not find any evidence of anything unless you look for it. Two - even if there is no evidence of a 'crime', there is the more important question of moral responsibility. There is really only one reason people hold Swiss bank accounts - because they wish to hide their assets from someone. That can be due to illegality at some stage in the cash trail, whether simple tax evasion, corruption, fraud or organised crime. However, it can also be due to embarrasment. For example, a current or former Government minister wishing to hide the fact that he earns small fortunes from lobbyists and special interest groups. No doubt it can also just be due to 'prudent' tax planning, but how many of these latter people would be happy for normal tax payers to know that they do not pay as much tax as the spirit of their country's legislation expects?
The fact is that if you have a Swiss bank account you are either up to something dodgy or you are avoiding contributing your fair share to society. Or Swiss.
If the Greek authorities fail to ackowledge this fact and act on it, how can anyone trust them to resolve their country's financial problems? And if their only response seems to be to shoot the messenger, why should we trust them at all?
Thanks to John Foxx for his twist on The Rolling Stones' album title.
Thursday 11 October 2012
Kill all humans
There are days when the despair hits you. Goodness knows how it will be when a literal black cloud fills the sky. For now it is more than enough that a metaphorical or, if you like, existential rain cloud appears on the horizon.
Today I read that 57.5% of the Ukrainian population has "entirely negative" attitudes towards homosexuality (according to a poll reported at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19881905).
The usual parade of religious/nationalist bastards are claiming there is a gay conspiracy to take over the world. And the same parade of bastards are implicitly encouraging a wave of violence against homosexuals in Ukraine (substitute Russia, Uganda, Qatar here as you see fit).
I appreciate that the principals behind these movements don't give a fuck, but haven't the masses that express their passive support heard of Hitler? Don't they realise that by ticking the "I hate" box they are giving tacit support for the cattle trucks that will deliver people to the gas chambers when the time comes? Maybe they do, in which case the despair just gets deeper.
And so, of course, the politicians play the game. The Ukrainian parliament is waving through legislation that will, amongst other things, ban the screening of films like Brokeback Mountain (incidentally one of the finest films ever made).
This would be kind of OK if I knew that our Government was taking a stand. If we were saying to these regimes that as long as they languish in the dark ages they will be outside our club. We'll withhold the golden goose of globalisation. But of course we don't.
So if we give our implicit support to this quasi-facism, what next? I'm not gay. I'm not Jewish. I'm not a communist. I'm not ginger-haired. I'm not a Slav. But I do support a free press. I do support a liberal society. I do like industrial rock music. I like disco. I'm opposed to UK/US extradition treaty. I'm safe at the moment, but can I assume that there will never be a brick thrown through my window, a midnight knock at the door? How do I know that one day I won't be in the minority marked "enemies of society" or "trouble makers". How do you? Maybe you are a "paragon" of "upstanding" "morality" beyond "reproach".
If that sounds ridiculous, consider how most German's felt in 1932. If you don't get it, try reading Orwell or Kafka. And if you still dismiss my concerns out of hand then I guess there is no hope. At least that is how it feels on days like today.
Today I read that 57.5% of the Ukrainian population has "entirely negative" attitudes towards homosexuality (according to a poll reported at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19881905).
The usual parade of religious/nationalist bastards are claiming there is a gay conspiracy to take over the world. And the same parade of bastards are implicitly encouraging a wave of violence against homosexuals in Ukraine (substitute Russia, Uganda, Qatar here as you see fit).
I appreciate that the principals behind these movements don't give a fuck, but haven't the masses that express their passive support heard of Hitler? Don't they realise that by ticking the "I hate" box they are giving tacit support for the cattle trucks that will deliver people to the gas chambers when the time comes? Maybe they do, in which case the despair just gets deeper.
And so, of course, the politicians play the game. The Ukrainian parliament is waving through legislation that will, amongst other things, ban the screening of films like Brokeback Mountain (incidentally one of the finest films ever made).
This would be kind of OK if I knew that our Government was taking a stand. If we were saying to these regimes that as long as they languish in the dark ages they will be outside our club. We'll withhold the golden goose of globalisation. But of course we don't.
So if we give our implicit support to this quasi-facism, what next? I'm not gay. I'm not Jewish. I'm not a communist. I'm not ginger-haired. I'm not a Slav. But I do support a free press. I do support a liberal society. I do like industrial rock music. I like disco. I'm opposed to UK/US extradition treaty. I'm safe at the moment, but can I assume that there will never be a brick thrown through my window, a midnight knock at the door? How do I know that one day I won't be in the minority marked "enemies of society" or "trouble makers". How do you? Maybe you are a "paragon" of "upstanding" "morality" beyond "reproach".
If that sounds ridiculous, consider how most German's felt in 1932. If you don't get it, try reading Orwell or Kafka. And if you still dismiss my concerns out of hand then I guess there is no hope. At least that is how it feels on days like today.
Wednesday 22 August 2012
Fuckwit or Scumbag?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362
Todd Akin, a Republican candidate for a soon-to-be-vacant Missouri Senate seat, has apologised. Kind of.
Akin is (no surprise here - Missouri.... Republican....) a strong opponent of abortion. When asked in a recent TV interview whether he would support abortions for women who had been raped, Akin said: "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Is it just me, or does he sound like a moron? Well, he may sound like a moron, but it is also possible that he is cynically dissembling in order to maintain a stance that he knows will help bring out the base on election day. Dissembling, despite the fact that his lies/half-truths would cause torment for women that have become pregnant as a result of rape: "if what Todd Akin says is true, then I wasn't really raped - perhaps I invited it??"
Obama responded in his usual thoughtful manner, along the lines that Akin had illustrated why (mostly male) law-makers in Washington should not be legislating on, as he puts it, women's health issues. Romney was also critical and, after a day's prevarication, called on Akin to stand aside form the Senate race.
So to the apology. As I understand it, Akin is apologising solely for the use of the word 'legitimate'. He has said that he mistakenly used "one word in one sentence on one day". Admittedly, in a subsequent statement Akin has said: "I used the wrong words in the wrong way, and for that I apologise" (emphasis mine). However, he still seems to be saying that his only mistake was a slip of the tongue giving the impression he thought not all rapes were really rapes. It appears that he stands behind the substance of his original comments, i.e. pregnancy is very rarely the result of rape, if ever, because a woman who has been raped has some physiological means of preventing pregnancy.
I need hardly note that the relevant US medical association has refuted Akin's comments. So who were these doctors that mis-informed Akin? Do they exist? Did Akin make them up? Is Akin a moron or just a liar? Or is he both? I don't know, but I do know that his half-hearted, lily-livered, P.R.-scripted apology is disgusting. He is seeking to relaunch his political career by appearing to eat humble pie. The reality is that he is accusing others of overracting to a slip of the tongue. He is avoiding addressing his real offence, which was to suggest that women who become pregnant as a result of a alleged rape could not really have been raped. And thereby also avoids having to answer the original question.
Akin, do you or do you not support abortion in cases of rape?
Thursday 21 June 2012
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Rant mode...
Comedian Jimmy Carr is in the news for using a tax avoidance scheme. He has allegedly sheltered £3m per annum in the scheme, thereby probably avoiding tax in excess of £1m each year.
I have a small amount of sympathy for Carr. Clearly he has been unfairly singled out when such practices are common place. Apart from wealthy celebrities, practioners include major corporations (who will often be close in various ways to successive Governments), friends and families of politicians, and even the media proprietors whose newspapers occasionally expose this sort of thing. The fact that none of these have received the Government opprobrium that has been heaped on Carr by the Prime Minister and others is a cause of interest.
However, Carr has made the news and I don't want to sit on the fence here. What he has done is shitty. It is stealing from you and me. Admittedly, we have probably all done that in a small way at some point. But that doesn't make it alright and it doesn't detract from the fact that Carr is a very rich man who has made his wealth largely from the British people and who has systematically taken (apparently) several million pounds that rightfully belong to you and me.
Most of us pay a full'ish amount of tax and I hope most of us decline to defraud the country when the opportunity arises (for example when the plumber offers a discount for cash). Some will consider that naive, but bear in mind that if you are one of those people, then your actions are significantly worse than Carr's. At least what he did was legal.
And there is the crux of the matter. Although what Carr did was legal, it was clearly unethical. What is it that people don't understand about taxes? Why do people think they are a bad thing? Is it because they read The Sun and Rupert Murdoch tells them that it is so? Taxes are necessary unless we want to live in a state of anarchy.
We can argue about the right rates and how they are spent, but in the meantime we should pay the amounts that the spirit of the law dictates (and here I'm talking to you, Vodafone, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Philip Green, Tony Blair, etc, etc).
As I understand it, Carr is either a UK resident or makes the bulk of his earnings from the UK. Therefore, if he is earning on the order of £3m each year his marginal rate should be 52%. At least that is what the current tax legislation intends. Until his scheme was reported by The Times, Carr was apparently paying a marginal rate of somewhere around zero. As many people have pointed out, that was within the bounds of the letter of the law. Some people have gone further and argued that he is blameless for exploiting a loophole that is the responsibility of Government. They are wrong. Ethics are real. We make moral choices all the time that have nothing to do with "the letter of the law".
How many ways does it need to be said? "Carr should pay 52%"; "Carr should pay a higher rate than someone on average wage"; "Carr should pay the same rate as someone on average wage"; "Carr should pay some tax"??? Take your pick depending on your political bent. But don't tell me that it is OK to pay 0% on three million. Not even George Harrison believed that.
Comedian Jimmy Carr is in the news for using a tax avoidance scheme. He has allegedly sheltered £3m per annum in the scheme, thereby probably avoiding tax in excess of £1m each year.
I have a small amount of sympathy for Carr. Clearly he has been unfairly singled out when such practices are common place. Apart from wealthy celebrities, practioners include major corporations (who will often be close in various ways to successive Governments), friends and families of politicians, and even the media proprietors whose newspapers occasionally expose this sort of thing. The fact that none of these have received the Government opprobrium that has been heaped on Carr by the Prime Minister and others is a cause of interest.
However, Carr has made the news and I don't want to sit on the fence here. What he has done is shitty. It is stealing from you and me. Admittedly, we have probably all done that in a small way at some point. But that doesn't make it alright and it doesn't detract from the fact that Carr is a very rich man who has made his wealth largely from the British people and who has systematically taken (apparently) several million pounds that rightfully belong to you and me.
Most of us pay a full'ish amount of tax and I hope most of us decline to defraud the country when the opportunity arises (for example when the plumber offers a discount for cash). Some will consider that naive, but bear in mind that if you are one of those people, then your actions are significantly worse than Carr's. At least what he did was legal.
And there is the crux of the matter. Although what Carr did was legal, it was clearly unethical. What is it that people don't understand about taxes? Why do people think they are a bad thing? Is it because they read The Sun and Rupert Murdoch tells them that it is so? Taxes are necessary unless we want to live in a state of anarchy.
We can argue about the right rates and how they are spent, but in the meantime we should pay the amounts that the spirit of the law dictates (and here I'm talking to you, Vodafone, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Philip Green, Tony Blair, etc, etc).
As I understand it, Carr is either a UK resident or makes the bulk of his earnings from the UK. Therefore, if he is earning on the order of £3m each year his marginal rate should be 52%. At least that is what the current tax legislation intends. Until his scheme was reported by The Times, Carr was apparently paying a marginal rate of somewhere around zero. As many people have pointed out, that was within the bounds of the letter of the law. Some people have gone further and argued that he is blameless for exploiting a loophole that is the responsibility of Government. They are wrong. Ethics are real. We make moral choices all the time that have nothing to do with "the letter of the law".
How many ways does it need to be said? "Carr should pay 52%"; "Carr should pay a higher rate than someone on average wage"; "Carr should pay the same rate as someone on average wage"; "Carr should pay some tax"??? Take your pick depending on your political bent. But don't tell me that it is OK to pay 0% on three million. Not even George Harrison believed that.
Monday 12 March 2012
Religious Idiots
Tony Nicklinson has suffered from locked-in syndrome since 2005. He is asking the courts to rule that any doctor who in the future assists with his clearly expressed and carefully considered wish to die will not be prosecuted. A High Court judge has today ruled that there can be a full hearing on the issue. That's all. It is a long, long way from assisted dying become legal in the UK. The judge has simply said 'let the arguments be aired'.
As a consequence, the following carefully considered and constructive comments have been posted against the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774?postId=111960902#comment_111960902
Susan: "The judge should be arrested for such an irresponsible decision"
Ayoade Oluwasanmi: "Everything now seems to ba a "right". Now we have the right to die. Whats next? The right to get get high? Be an addict? To kill?"
'Antiochean': "A sad ruling - refusing medication is allready legal - if this goes any further at the next stage, it would be taking steps that are dangerous and ethically blind."
'rainbowww82': "No one has a say whether they want to come to this world or not, similarly no one has the right to decide their death! He is not the only person in this world who is suffering, this life is a test not paradise so sufferings are to be expected. And no one lives eternally, his turn to die will come too. I strongly disagree with this kind of murder to be legalized. No excuse is good enough!"
'Balloon Rake': "This now means that anyone accused of murder can say in court "They asked me to murder them" and they will then be acquitted.
Taking another person's life is muder, no matter of the circumstances, the high court judge who passed today's ruling should never be allowed to work again."
Susan (again): "The govt will be happy. It keeps the economics of such a vile ruling in the new Little Switzerland that the UK has become. Or will it be done on the NHS?"
What each of these contributors fails to mention is that they are religious zombies intent on imposing their ludicrous, childish, ignorant beliefs on everyone else. Infantile fascists, if you will.
As a consequence, the following carefully considered and constructive comments have been posted against the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774?postId=111960902#comment_111960902
Susan: "The judge should be arrested for such an irresponsible decision"
Ayoade Oluwasanmi: "Everything now seems to ba a "right". Now we have the right to die. Whats next? The right to get get high? Be an addict? To kill?"
'Antiochean': "A sad ruling - refusing medication is allready legal - if this goes any further at the next stage, it would be taking steps that are dangerous and ethically blind."
'rainbowww82': "No one has a say whether they want to come to this world or not, similarly no one has the right to decide their death! He is not the only person in this world who is suffering, this life is a test not paradise so sufferings are to be expected. And no one lives eternally, his turn to die will come too. I strongly disagree with this kind of murder to be legalized. No excuse is good enough!"
'Balloon Rake': "This now means that anyone accused of murder can say in court "They asked me to murder them" and they will then be acquitted.
Taking another person's life is muder, no matter of the circumstances, the high court judge who passed today's ruling should never be allowed to work again."
Susan (again): "The govt will be happy. It keeps the economics of such a vile ruling in the new Little Switzerland that the UK has become. Or will it be done on the NHS?"
What each of these contributors fails to mention is that they are religious zombies intent on imposing their ludicrous, childish, ignorant beliefs on everyone else. Infantile fascists, if you will.
Thursday 5 January 2012
... and what's more
Diane Abbott is in the news today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278).
In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.
She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...
We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.
I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?
In a multi-tweet commencing quite reasonably (whether correctly or not) "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better" she went on to say: "white people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game", highlighting "#tacticasoldascolonialism" as a relevant topic.
She's in trouble as you might expect, with at least one Tory MP saying Abbot has made a racist comment and should resign. A Tory would say that, wouldn't they, but on the other hand...
We can flip Abbott's comment, imagining it was a white person talking about black people. Would anyone doubt that would be a racist comment? Or how about "black people love playing the victim"? It's a racist generalisation, no question, so surely Aboott's comment is as well.
I think Abbott knows she is in trouble. She later tweeted: "Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th Century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters."
But unfortunately for Abbott she originally said "love" and "their game", not "loved" and "the game of 19th century European colonialism". Despite the pitfalls of Twitter, it is hard to see how a comment intended to be exclusively about 19th century empire became "white people love". And even if it did (which seems highly unlikley), why would the past tense and a focus on certain aspects of Europe of the 19th century make it OK? "Black colonised people loved playing the victim." Is that OK?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)