Category: Banter

It strikes me that people who subscribe to the right-wing of politics and the ones who subscribe to the left-wing of politics both have a problem. And if you are a centrist, then you may have both.

The issue is one of compassion and empathy, or lack there of.

Being interested politics somewhat and the impact it has on society at large, at a local, national and international levels – I hear a lot of the rhetoric used by different sides of the political spectrum and listen to debates and see social media streams.

It seems that the right has a clear lacking of empathy. There is very little empathy shown for anyone but themselves. And by that I don’t even mean the people in their corner – just for they themselves and probably their loved ones. There is not much empathy for anyone else outside this circle.

They seem to find comfort in finding other people who feel like them, about their own, and largely don’t spend time worrying or thinking about everyone else. This manifests ultimately in a despising of the left, who outwardly display their outpouring of empathy. I’m not sure respect exists for the ‘other side’.

The left, on the other hand, consistently demonstrate that they have a lot of both compassion and empathy for others. Even if they themselves do not experience the trials and tribulations of others, they are quite proud of the fact that they can empathise and fight their corner.

Lefties view of the right is one of despair, but they are quite careful that this does not descend into disrespect. Mutual respect is something they hold dear, even if its for the side they are opposing.

Simply having respect for the opposing side is not sufficient, in my opinion. The empathy the left espouses at every turn needs extending to the opposing side too. You see, respect is not the same as empathy. It is not sufficient simply to be courteous to someone if you want a better world. An ability to empathise with those you disagree with provides you with an opportunity to learn how they view the world and its issues from their side, how it makes them feel, and what is important to them. Simply having respect for them doesn’t do this.

For the right, I feel they mistrust the world around them. And it is out of this instinct to protect (and work for the betterment of) ones self from the world that limits the size of their empathy circle. How can you empathise with others, if you see them with mistrust?

Those that consider themselves centrist probably suffer from the same issues but perhaps less intensely in some matters and more in others.

Trying to empathise with people you disagree with, is the start towards having a better society from which we all benefit. Compassion comes naturally thereafter and as compassion develops and envelops society, we all learn to become better versions of ourselves and become more than the sum of our parts.

Lofty statements I know, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

I’m man enough to say that I’m quite in tune with my emotions and with the emotional state of others, but I understand the difference between emotional nonsense and a logical argument.

Why is it then that most women just don’t get this?

Only the poor, envious and people that don’t know what they’re talking about argue that the rich should pay more tax.

Firstly there are two issues here:

1. The legality and
2. The morality

From a legal standpoint, this the same as the UK’s MP Expenses Scandal.  Apart from a few dishonest MP’s, the rest did nothing legally wrong.  They played the rules as they stood.  Fair enough, some MP’s actually claimed for stuff that was clearly against the rules, or even for stuff that sometimes didn’t exist.

But the vast majority of the outcry was over the excess and loose morals displayed by the MP’s.  Though I agree with this, I believe the public anger was misdirected towards the actual claims as opposed to the ridiculous expense policies that were in place.

Its the same with the rich paying more tax debate.  The actual issue is the tax system and the loopholes, not the rich themselves.  Lets be honest, not many of us really want to pay tax at all or National Insurance in the UK.  As most of us are employed by a company, the tax system doesn’t really give us many choices as its all automatic, i.e. taken from our payslips, added to the prices we pay, etc.

As directors of companies, the rich have different choices open to them.  They own the companies, and run them.  So they have multiple tax options available to them: tax as an employed person, tax as a self-employed person, tax as a shareholder of the company.  Each method has its tax rules.  Clever accountants are employed to ensure the most tax-efficient route is chosen so only £10k is taken as an employed person as that is tax-free.  Expenses are used to reduce taxes payable on the self-employed and business routes.

All of the above is within the rules set by the tax regime of the country.  By introducing bigger tax percentages doesn’t change the loopholes being used so only affects those lazy high-earners that can’t be bothered to take up the services of a skilled accountant.

Making this issue about the moral obligation of the rich and using examples like poor people being unable to go on holidays or having to economise on electricity consumption as a reason why the rich should pay more is as ridiculous as when someone tells you to finish all the food on your plate because it is unfair to those in the third-world who are starving; one does not affect the other.  Extra tax doesn’t go to that poor person to pay for their utility bill or towards a family’s holiday tickets.  It will simply disappear into a Government coffer where some will decide how to better spend it.  Once that happens, there is no control anymore.  It could go towards plugging the nation’s budget deficit, towards keeping more nurses in jobs OR it could just as easily go towards the luxury lifestyles led by MEP’s, towards building more unused fire stations, or towards IT companies working on the next flawed NHS IT system.

I’d much prefer the rich to continue creating jobs in the UK, and to then use that wealth for philanthropic activities outside Government control and bureaucracy, wouldn’t you?

 

Related articles

• Five reasons not to introduce wealth taxes (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Buffett clarifies his ‘tax the rich’ stance (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Warren Buffett Unsure Exactly What Obama’s ‘Buffett Rule’ Is (michellemalkin.com)
• Paying taxes as a contract employee (ask.metafilter.com)