The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't care much for what I know of her work, but Emin is growing on me all the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charl ... ate-france

[Lord Kangana]

Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.

[Prufrock]

Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.

Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.

[Lord Kangana]

The right wing love all the benefits of the a social democracy. They just think that they shouldn't have to pay for them. Emin's always been a prize bellend anyway. Whats laughable is that she's running to France!(France!) Think about it love, and tidy your room at the same time, its a f*ckin disgrace.

[William the White]

I don't care much for what I know of her work, but Emin is growing on me all the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charl ... ate-france

I really hope she goes very soon...

one less tory vote...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.

Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.

As far as I can tell, I don't think she's suggesting that she should pay no tax....

Why should she face an additional punishment for being successful though? After all, if we all pay x%, then her x% of a lot will mean she is paying a lot more than x% of an average income anyway!

[TANGODANCER]

How she gets away with what she does in the name of art is more down to the public's gullibility than any talent. She must have a relation in The Royal Academy. Art ain't what it used to be.

[Worthy4England]

Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.

Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.

As far as I can tell, I don't think she's suggesting that she should pay no tax....

Why should she face an additional punishment for being successful though? After all, if we all pay x%, then her x% of a lot will mean she is paying a lot more than x% of an average income anyway!

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

Our loss would indeed be France's gain.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

[Prufrock]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.

Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.

[Prufrock]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.

Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.

She doesn't need the money as much as poorer people do. You have argued poverty isn't relative, saying it doesn't matter if the top earners are earning more relatively if the bottom threshold is higher in real terms. That's all well and good in the good times, but what about now, when we are talking about massive spending cuts, when there's talk of pensions being cut, talk of massive cuts in fecking incapacity allowance, surely when that bottom threshold isn't going up, but in fact down, that is when poverty does become relative, when those who can afford it, and in many cases have caused that downturn at the bottom level should contribute more. People worked, being told their time was worth x amount of cash, whereas in fact, they weren't being paid for what they made, what they produced, but being paid the least the top brass could afford to pay them, while they creamed off the surplus. Now these people are expendable, the market isn't there for their time, and they are the ones taking the hits, taking the redundancies, cutting their spending, whilst spending in the top sector continues to go up, and then when someone has the audacity to suggest they should pay back a bit more to society, given that, hey they can afford it, they turn round and start whingeing how they are hard done to. Well boo fecking hoo Tracy.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.

She doesn't need the money as much as poorer people do. You have argued poverty isn't relative, saying it doesn't matter if the top earners are earning more relatively if the bottom threshold is higher in real terms. That's all well and good in the good times, but what about now, when we are talking about massive spending cuts, when there's talk of pensions being cut, talk of massive cuts in fecking incapacity allowance, surely when that bottom threshold isn't going up, but in fact down, that is when poverty does become relative, when those who can afford it, and in many cases have caused that downturn at the bottom level should contribute more. People worked, being told their time was worth x amount of cash, whereas in fact, they weren't being paid for what they made, what they produced, but being paid the least the top brass could afford to pay them, while they creamed off the surplus. Now these people are expendable, the market isn't there for their time, and they are the ones taking the hits, taking the redundancies, cutting their spending, whilst spending in the top sector continues to go up, and then when someone has the audacity to suggest they should pay back a bit more to society, given that, hey they can afford it, they turn round and start whingeing how they are hard done to. Well boo fecking hoo Tracy.

You have done well to remember what I have said with regards to poverty being thought of in relative terms, but it's difficult to conclude from what you have just written that you fully understood it.

My argument is that poverty should be considered an absolute concept - that there should be a standard of living below which we call 'poverty'. I'm really not sure what you mean when you say "that is when poverty does become relative". It seems more likely that what you actually mean is that some of the cuts you list might result in more people falling into absolute poverty.

I'm going to have to press you again then - what do you mean by 'afford'?

I would agree that somebody could not afford to pay tax, if by doing so, they fell into poverty. What if I offered you a tax system in which nobody pays taxes if they are in poverty, or paying would make them so, and everyone else pays a flat rate and "contributes according to their means"...?

And what of the current discussion about capacity allowance do you disagree with? Aren't the proposals about getting those who are not, in fact, incapacitated, off the allowance, rather than reducing it for those who are. What is it about that you find objectionable?

[Worthy4England]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?

Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.

But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?

[Puskas]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?

Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.

But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?

Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.

But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.

But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.

It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.

But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?

[Worthy4England]

But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...

No, that would be a description of a flat rate.

If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.

Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?

Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.

But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?

It's a marginal tax rate on earnings in excess of £150k per annum.

She gets taxed the same 20% as everyone else, for the first £37,400, the same 40% as everyone else, for the income between £37,400 and £150,000 and the same 50% as everyone else, for income over £150,000.

The marginal increase is 10% on everything over £150k. So you'd pay an additional £35k on half a million per annum earnings which works out at 7% or so. Hardly poverty line stuff is it?



Unless I'm reading something wrong in the original article.

[Puskas]

Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.

But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.

It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.

But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?

The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.

This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.

But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.

It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.

But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?

The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.

This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.

It's not that difficult to understand.

So what you're saying is that a maximum 'cap' would be unacceptable because it would put people off earning beyond that amount?

Ok, you're right, it is an important distinction.

What stops us taxing progressively all the way up to, say, 90% then?