Jacob Rees-Mogg says government should no longer ‘deliver certain functions’ as Brexit prize

Baggs

*from a man who doesn't contribute to it. At all.*

Small point, but presumably he pays income tax on his MP salary so you can't say he doesn't contribute to the UK at all. He contributes in the same way as nearly everybody else.

a third question- what is the proportion of his total income?

And how does anyone else earn millions in tax haven and not pay tax- tax that pays for the NHS, roads, the environment, education, social services and so so much more.

Your post was just unbelievable.

Look at some of the nineteenth century records of the wealth held by some of the landowners and factory owners (there are some primary records in Manchester's People's Museum) and compare the figures with what ordinary workers had and look at the the evidence about where they lived. That's what happens when there is no state intervention. The country might have bee booming, but the wealth wasn't filtering down to "ordinary people".

Re the first comment about JRM not contributing at all (financially) to the UK, I believe people in the UK receiving dividends from companies such as his have to pay UK tax on that income as well.

I have no objection to people becoming very wealthy. None at all, no jealousy either. I have many notable exemples among family and friends.

But only if - they pay their taxes, here, in the UK- to help provide for all those essential services for all. Simple, very simple.

Baggs

*Now you seem to think that it should all be taken away and that we should revert to 19th C conditions. Because that's what the removal of state intervention would do. I am amazed that you think that the US is a good example of capitalism in action. It's appalling. There is abject poverty, huge health inequalities, poor education for many and lower life expectancy than in the UK.*

First of all, I haven't said anything about what I think should happen so the first two sentences of what I have quoted above can be discounted. I was not talking about what I think should happen, just pointing out what is recognised conservative thinking. At least do yourself the favour of not distorting what I actually say or reading in what isn't there.

There is abject poverty in the US, yes, but your average person is orders of magnitude better off than your average person from before capitalism took off. The same is true here and in fact all over the world. It may not all be due to capitalism but it is capitalism that provided the funds for state intervention on a massive scale – think, for example, about Victorian philanthropists (capitalists mostly) building schools for ordinary people, and hospitals, and parks, and politicians (Gladstone, Disraeli et al) trying to improve working conditions for ordinary people. It's capitalism that's improving things for ordinary people in China for all their communistic pretences.

I'm not sure you are right any longer about people in the US being better off. There is considerable evidence that the progress made in the past has levelled off and those who did better than their parents are slipping back and descending into poverty.
Read Barbara Kingsolvers book 'Unsheltered' it's the story of an older family slipping into poverty. The story of the grandfather dying of diabetes, unable to get medical care is heart breaking

growstuff

Look at some of the nineteenth century records of the wealth held by some of the landowners and factory owners (there are some primary records in Manchester's People's Museum) and compare the figures with what ordinary workers had and look at the the evidence about where they lived. That's what happens when there is no state intervention. The country might have bee booming, but the wealth wasn't filtering down to "ordinary people".

In addition I'd recommend that people read Engels study of the poor in Manchester.

Or Dickens, or Henry Mayhew.

Or Orwell for a 20thC perspective.

Or some reports on government enquiries into say, factory conditions, or sanitation...

I don't suppose JRM actually detailed what state functions he's liked to see removed? What might they be? Education? Health? Social care? Road building? Regulation of working environments?

Which ones do folks fancy paying for directly? Or not having at all?

There is a big difference between regulated capitalism in a well-governed state, and unfettered capitalism with virtually no regulation, which is what the far-right of the Tory party want.

Baggs, I have also lived in the US, and while your comparison between life in, eg, the 19th century and today is valid, it’s state regulation limiting the excesses of capitalism and investing in social
welfare that have brought about the improvements, and they’ve bought fewer of them to the US as there is less regulation. A more appropriately contextualised comparison is between the lives of the most vulnerable in the USA and European nations with effective regulatory regimes, and state services, and I can assure you, the latter is far better.

I think that this government would like to remove most fiscal checks and balances. London is called the laundromat for a reason. They want a bonfire of restrictions for a reason, and it's not the common good. As for ordinary people, well they really don't care one iota. Just watched Sunak say that he wants people to stop claiming benefits and get to work. Ignoring the fact that many claimants are actually in work. We know that Truss doesn't like handouts, who does, but they are a safety net. They seem to think that people are living the life of Riley on the state. I'd quite like to see them both live on benefits for a month. This government is not only a zombie, they are completely removed from the day to day issues of many people.

Who is talking about China here?

I just cannot believe I am reading this.

I wonder if the people who voted for Brexit were voting for the removal of (unspecified) state functions?

I always get the impression that they visualised life continuing in much the same way that they were used to, with no change apart from 'sovereignty'...

Some of them also wanted to deregulate and benefit financially via tax evasion.

Baggs

Re the first comment about JRM not contributing at all (financially) to the UK, I believe people in the UK receiving dividends from companies such as his have to pay UK tax on that income as well.

How do you know that he's receiving dividends from his companies registered in the Cayman Islands?

There is no taxation whatsoever on companies registered in the Caymans plus there are no mandatory requirements to submit financial records or to disclose the names of directors, officers or shareholders.

He can withdraw as much as he likes from his companies with no one knowing. He could even have a charge card registered in the Caymans, use it wherever he is and pay for it from his companies' bank accounts.

Fleurpepper Those who wanted deregulation etc, were unlikely to be the ordinary person in the street, and it is their votes that just pushed the Brexit vote over the 50% level.

M0nica

Fleurpepper Those who wanted deregulation etc, were unlikely to be the ordinary person in the street, and it is their votes that just pushed the Brexit vote over the 50% level.

They did want to get back the UK's sovereignity which implies a certain amount of deregulation

Dinahmo

M0nica

Fleurpepper Those who wanted deregulation etc, were unlikely to be the ordinary person in the street, and it is their votes that just pushed the Brexit vote over the 50% level.

They did want to get back the UK's sovereignity which implies a certain amount of deregulation

But when we pointed that out they usually insisted that our regulations, with regard to animal welfare, food safety, workers' rights and so on, were much better than the EU's so that leaving wouldn't have any adverse effect.

They'd also cite 'less EU red tape', but whether that and our so much better regulations were connected in their minds is hard to tell.

I very much doubt that MOnica's 'ordinary person in the street' was panting for deregulation.

M0nica

Fleurpepper Those who wanted deregulation etc, were unlikely to be the ordinary person in the street, and it is their votes that just pushed the Brexit vote over the 50% level.

Oh indeed. But we all know that the ordinary person in the street was lied to, massively. and made false promises about the NHS, more jobs, cheaper energy, cheaper food, better protected fisheries and agriculture, and so much more.

By those, and for those, who wanted financial deregulation for their own purposes - tax evasion.

Yes. The 350 million a week that was going to go into the NHS (Brexit Bus) for starters.

Just one massive lie of so many. If I had been lied to in that way, and it had pushed me to vote for it, I would be very angry.

Some of us always knew they were lies.

Fleurpepper

Just one massive lie of so many. If I had been lied to in that way, and it had pushed me to vote for it, I would be very angry.

Some of us always knew they were lies.

Yes, but they were too worried about Corbyn the commie coming after their money. One GN member actually said, 'He's not putting his hand in MY pocket.'

I was shocked!

GAGAJO
I completely agree with you,and unfortunately think that both potential PM's are modelling themselves on the US. we will soon be having an even bigger divide between rich and poor.. and losing our NHS under this government... Roll on an election

Jacob Rees Mogg - hard line catholic ( sixth child called Sixtus ! ) brought up by nanny and nicknamed ‘ the honourable member for the 18th century ‘. Does anyone SERIOUSLY listen to him ?

Typical Rees-Mogg nonsense of course. The bit that worries me is Liz Truss' belief that cutting taxes (by which I assume she means income tax) will relieve effectively the burden of spiralling fuel costs.
Is she unaware of how many people earn so little that they already pay no tax, or if they earn just above the threshold, how a miserable couple of hundred £s extra a year just won't cut it?

MaizieD
I also thought the JR-M was rather short on detail. I 'd like to know exactly which services he thinks should be cut.

CathSoc62

Jacob Rees Mogg - hard line catholic ( sixth child called Sixtus ! ) brought up by nanny and nicknamed ‘ the honourable member for the 18th century ‘. Does anyone SERIOUSLY listen to him ?

I think you have to seriously listen to him because if Truss wins the leadership of the tory party, Rees Mogg will be a member of her Cabinet. It's a rather influential position. And Truss agrees with him already...

I wonder if people who voted tory in 2019 really knew that they were giving them permission to destroy our protections, our constitution and our economy?

Truss may listen to him because she seems to be of the same mindset. The Guardian are headlining today with an article she wrote in 2009 supporting cuts to the NHS, arguing the service cannot be put on a pedestal, and also criticised the inexorable rise in doctors pay. She was also calling for payments to be made for GP appointments.

It’s obvious to see how the NHS comes to be in the failing state it is today, notwithstanding Covid. It was running down prior to that, and obviously fits into the ideology of the Tory party of a privatised health system.

It’s worth bearing in mind that over half of the bankruptcies in the US are reported to be because of health bills.