I’ve decided to take a break from politics for a little while, and it’s partly because I personally hate speculating with very little to go on. Impulsive decisions can often be beneficial in the short term but it’s a bit of a coin toss on whether they’ll turn out well if you don’t know enough about the subject at hand. If I wrote a shock headline saying, “HUNG PARLIAMENT IMMINENT” It’d pay off in the short term with views and subscribers but perhaps that wouldn’t pay off and it’d damage my reputation. The Line to be drawn really is the contrast between what feels good and what is good in the long term. “Sometimes we can’t do what feels good. We have to do what is logical” A quote from the film ‘The Imitation Game’ which is often attributed to mathematician Alan Turing says that often impulses can lead to incorrect assumptions and mistakes.
I often question whether certain things in society are truly what is right to do and many would argue plenty of things are wrong in society. My concern is usually not whether everything needs to change but whether it is logical to change everything to progress as a society. Protection laws for fringe groups often seem great to many people in the short term but often when done incorrectly can lead to a dangerous precedent in society of dominance from the minority. One good example of this would-be Corporation taxes. Fundamentally businesses should be allowed to flourish and help to move society forward one of the biggest arguments that advocates of corporation tax give are that the tax will stifle businesses, and they may be correct. When you raise taxes on businesses and corporations the economy of the country drops with it. This effect has been observed by many economists and finance experts alike and is probably one of the reasons for actually dropping corporation tax overall.
Having said this I can imagine people will respond with “but these people have enough money as it is why would we give them more” and If I’m truly honest I’d agree with that statement. The main dilemma in this whole debate is what the goal of a society is and whether our main goal is to attract as much money as possible. If we truly want to progress as a society most would agree that the best situation is with as much money spread around as possible, but how we achieve this is a debate that could potentially last forever. A common argument is that the more money we let big business have the more money we will all have because more jobs and more businesses create more money, and while this is true in parts It does come with the risk of allowing a small section of society being in control. some would argue whether this wealth is well-deserved others not and some would argue whether this is good or not as it has benefits and drawbacks. Really you don’t want corporation tax too high to stop big businesses from wanting to spend money which can be a good replacement for the tax in the long run, but at the same time, you don’t want it to be too low to hobble the impoverished. A study done in the USA suggests that the effective rate of corporation tax is around 25% and this sounds about right if you compare it to other countries around the world except for the USA itself that has a tax rate of 35%.
While I’m perfectly aware that the idea of lowering the taxes on the rich never sounds great to the majority, if your goal is to have to have more money in the country overall then it’s a necessary evil. After this, the whole debate becomes pure politics but I often think that the left typically cripples the country economically while the right has a tendency to give the rich too much power, so we want to strike a balance and not do what feels good, but what is logical.