Ah, here we go, back to the Tory wankfest in here. Normality has returned.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Ah, here we go, back to the Tory wankfest in here. Normality has returned.
I mean, I'm getting that lifetime ISA for the free grand a year.
Originally Posted by Boydy
Personally I don't think a welfare state in the way people romantically imagine it is any longer possible in Britain (70 odd million people, small island, immovable ideas from the 1940s across all walks of life). There just isn't the money to pay for it.
You can't tax the rich. People have been trying to tax the rich since the Bible. The rich are more powerful than transient political governments and there are no circumstances in which that will change. It even did for the Soviet Union.
What the thread needs is more crap memes and non-specific whingeing.
There is more money than there has ever been. You could afford it after two bloody wars but it is impossible now?
Money is not a finite resource btw.
I wonder if many young people in work give a piss about saving, too be fair. That kind of shit starts at home and no government can really fix that mentality.
Most young people don't earn enough to be able to save. I don't know how the interest rates are over there, but in the US, there is not much point to saving either.
"Why aren't millennials buying diamonds?"
I'm not saying you're wrong generally, but this is one of the great myths, the idea that we still managed to afford a welfare state even with all of our ware debt. We didn't. The austerity this country was subjected to under that post-war Labour government is unimaginable today. Food rationing was actually more stringent after the war than it had been during it, and we were still rationing meat until 1954.
Interest rates have tanked over here. I really hope the lifetime ISA takes but I'd reckon people will look at it, see the terms & conditions and then bugger off. First thing to go when they get a permanent job is the pension contributions, too. Fucking eejits.
It's not entirely about earnings. They're shit with money.
The one area where I'm on a wavelength with Corbyn is wages. 'Business leaders', whoever the fuck they are, always seem to think that pay increasing is the sign of an unhealthy economy. It really fucking isn't.
Public services aren't free. They are paid for out of everyone's taxes.
If I break my leg and have to go to the hospital I will not have to pay for my care then and there, but it's not free. I have been paying for it in my taxes since I was 16.
Labour campaigned on the best off on society making a bigger contribution not that the rest of us should stop paying for it.
Claiming that people just want "free stuff" is a lazy hollow argument.
Don't the best off already essentially pay for everything anyway?
I'm not saying everyone was living it large back in the day or anything. There is a question of priorities though. I am far from a British history expert, but if you could create the NHS under those conditions, that is because everyone decided it was a priority. It is just hard to believe that pensions and healthcare are something we cannot afford nowadays when we can afford (taking the food rationing as an example) to throw a third of all the food we produce, or we can afford to have people with billions of dollars in individual fortunes.
If enough people believed that things such as their fellow citizens being able to afford a house, healthcare, and an education is a priority, then every western countries could afford it just fine. If any 'austerity' was needed (and I doubt it is in most cases,) we would look elsewhere. Truth is, many are ok with the idea of other people in their own countries being stuck in poverty, and they justify it with the good old 'sorry mate, can't afford to help you, otherwise I totally would.'
The less they pay others the more they pay themselves.
Also, a shit interest rate deterring people from saving is ... shit. "It'll sit there gaining nowt so I'll SPEND IT NOW BECAUSE I'M RETARDED!" Pack that cash away, man.
The best savings account I could find here gives me 1% per year. That's less than half the inflation rate. So I will be able to afford less stuff in a few years than I am able to afford now. In that way, saving doesn't make much sense.
Not that home economics have anythging to do with national economics, mind. Not sure what 'the young are shit at saving' has to do with anything.
Fwiw, I did check the famous manifesto briefly and it didn't seem to offer much beyond spend moar and tax the rich moar. Hard to find politicians that offer proper solutions to, well, anything.
If you are determined to save for the future by putting money in the vehicle that provides the greatest amount of liquidity in exchange for the lowest interest rates, then there really is not much to be solved here.
They could afford the NHS because there was a much lower population and it cost significantly less as a percentage of GDP:
On pensions, there's been a big increase since Major was in government:
I don't buy the argument that because we could afford them once, we can afford them always. If people want services funded at that level, that's fine - but they need to make a choice between piling more tax in and having the service or not piling the tax in and not having the service. What they seem to want, however, is other people to pile the tax in so they can get everything for free. These things are unsustainable, and any Labour government coming in and implementing the Corbyn economic plan would just see a Tory government five years later coming in and having to slash it all back again.
I'm a foreigner, I don't have many options. Not that other 'vehicles' offer much more, unless you get into the nasty world of the stock exchange.
From the people who glossed over Corbyn's support for the IRA, I give you this:
What seething there's going to be when the DUP extract an extra £1bn in capital investment for the province as the price of not collapsing the government.
I'm sorry guys, but what a fucking farce your country's politics seem to be
Eh its alright we'll just see more cuts against the cripples and it'll pay for the NHS once they all die off.
"Tarquin, that flid has a television and a games console, bring the noose my good man"
I'm so left wing now. Might start campaigning.
#CHANGE #FORTHEMANY
I wouldn't buy that argument either. I just find it hard to believe that you couldn't afford it now. The NHS seems like one of those things worth paying for, no matter the cost. Not having universal healthcare is not an alternative imo, and lol at privatized healthcare. Pensions are tricky business, I must admit, what with our increasing life expectancies and less and less people paying into the system (because shit jobs.) Still, rather see the shit jobs side addressed before slashing left and right. I also have no problem with people wanting those who have benefited the most to also cooperate the most, although I do recognize the complications. What I would like to see is companies being made accountable for all the external costs that their massive profit-making endeavours generate, costs that society bears just so they can make a fortune. That is something that is often glossed over: how much costs society bears, just so a few can profit massively.
The problem with funding healthcare in the UK is that people are viscerally attached to the NHS. Attempting to reform it would lead to outcry. The Tories don't have the moral authority to do it, so the only party who realistically could are Labour. They're not going to do it because they hold a romanticised view of the NHS as it was in 1947. Ergo we continue this ridiculous exercise where the can is kicked down the road every parliament and the mantras "we're increasing funding in real terms" and "we've ring fenced spending" are repeated ad nauseam, as if it's a solution to anything.
Every time that a solution or tax rise or whatever is proposed, even if it is broadly reasonable, a significant chunk of the population goes absolutely apeshit. The Tories suggested increasing NIC contributions for the self-employed - it was only ever lower because they didn't get a full state pension. They now do, so it's entirely reasonable to align the brackets and percentage payments. This was a "tax on aspiration" and "tax on hard working people", was claimed to breach the 2015 manifesto, and thus had to be binned. It's suggested that the triple lock on pensions be removed, with the relatively arbitrary 2.5% increase p.a. dropped. It only made its way into the coalition agreement because they thought it would cost £50m (lol). Look at the difference in funding it would require over the next few parliaments:
She suggests that every single child shouldn't get a free lunch or that every single household shouldn't get the winter fuel payment, and people go apeshit even though means testing means there's more money (theoretically) for people who actually need it. They increase tuition fees and reorganise the system in a way that increases access for poorer students (by maximising places and minimising payments until they're earning well) and Jez starts banging on about using £11bn of the pot to cut it even though it's a progressive system that would only benefit the richest graduates:
And then the real winner was the social care policy. I didn't like it, because I'm highly attached to the idea that inheritance shouldn't be taxed, but you had a situation where the left were arguing that the middle and upper classes should have their property wealth protected and money for social care found from elsewhere.
All of these are examples where people are confronted with the idea that public services need to be paid for, and they very much dislike the idea of paying for it themselves. The Labour idea that "only the top 5% are going to pay for it, so you can have all of this and you can have it for free" sounds fantastic - but it's nonsense. We've seen the development of an entire section of the electorate who are simply not prepared to acknowledge that they, or people they know, might actually have to pay for some of it themselves.
Boring.
Yes, I suspect many of those who ultimately voted for Labour find it to be so. That's probably why they accept the Labour argument without scrutiny.
Get off the pitch, nerd!
Don't tell them how you got your Xbox.
My anus is still sore.
Page 39 is a cracking read. In fact this whole thread from the exit poll is tremendous.
Not sure I follow this one. What's the y-axis?
Average lifetime repayments.
Yes, that is a common issue. I think a better understanding of how a government works is necessary.
Doesn't look that bad to me tbh. More focus on increasing the national income would be preferred imo.It's suggested that the triple lock on pensions be removed, with the relatively arbitrary 2.5% increase p.a. dropped. It only made its way into the coalition agreement because they thought it would cost £50m (lol). Look at the difference in funding it would require over the next few parliaments:
Are school lunches very costly? I think every kid getting a school lunch is ok. Equality and everything.
The issue is in the theoretically. If they said that they'll cut the payment for people earning over x, but also increase it for people earning under y, then that would be received better. I am sure that was not the plan though.
I know nothing about that one but it does sound backwards.And then the real winner was the social care policy. I didn't like it, because I'm highly attached to the idea that inheritance shouldn't be taxed, but you had a situation where the left were arguing that the middle and upper classes should have their property wealth protected and money for social care found from elsewhere.
I agree in principle. I would much prefer if governments (and candidates) where more honest and just outright said that nice things cost and some of them we will all have to pay for. With that said, the whole 'tax the rich' stuff doesn't come so much from people not wanting to pay for shit. It comes from the extreme inequality that currently exists. People hear about the need to be flexible and the need to tighten their belts and austerity and all that shite while at the same time they see people with obscene fortunes. I mean, we've all seen those 'increase in productivity vs increase in wages' plots, right? How can anyone claim that is ok? So yes, they want those who have exploited the system massively to pay. I am sure that if a government made legitimate efforts towards equality, more people would be willing to pay their share. As it stands, those who have been fucked over don't want to pay, they want those who have profited massively to do so. I do not think that is unreasonable. I also don't think that it is as easy as raising taxes for the rich, fwiw.
I see. Well, raising fees would also fuck those middle earners pretty bad, no? I mean, the poorest are untouched, but no one goes to uni with the intent of remaining poor. Highest earners do get the biggest benefit, but then that doesn't necessarily mean they were rich before they started, just that they are doing well.
In my opinion, grants based on wealth before starting (a bit like financial aid in the US) are a better method. Although if you think that access to higher education is a right (which I am not sure I agree with, but with the current system where it is basically impossible to find a job without a degree, then it probably has to be) then free for everyone has to be the way to go.
They may have obscene fortunes, but how do you get at that money?
We tax transactions. If they spend that money buying property or land, it's taxed. If they buy a supercar, the exchequer gets VAT. If they sell shares, we take it through capital gains tax. If they're getting paid a fortune by a company, they get taxed through income tax, national insurance, and employer NIC. If they're a shareholder, the dividends are taxed. If they die, we levy charges on their estate through inheritance tax. If they remit tax back to the UK, it's subject to DTR and international taxation regimes. If they just leave the money sitting in a bank account somewhere to accrue interest, we tax the interest. If they're running it through a company, we levy it through corporation tax.
There are any number of ways that the exchequer claims taxation from them, but short of going in and requisitioning money from their bank account and/or employing a wealth tax where they're required to pay the exchequer a portion of their assets each tax year simply because they have them, there's not a huge amount you can do. If you did employ something like that on anything like a regular basis, they'd just move their assets out of the UK.
You don't pay it back until you're earning over £21K (average wage is £26K, so assuming you're earning the average wage you're only paying back £450 a year as the effective 'tax rate' is 9%). It's effectively operating as an additional income tax bracket, and it ensures that higher earners who benefitted from their education are paying back into the system for those who come behind them. If you never earn above 21K, you don't pay anything back and it's written off after 25 or 30 years.
Basically, offering free tuition offers a tax cut to rich graduates who are earning significant sums of money - and it would require either a) redirecting other general taxation into higher education, thus forcing low earner non-graduates to pay for high earning graduates education or b) a significant reduction in available places to limit the funding requirement, and thus reducing access for poorer students.
The Scots have free tuition and you're four times less likely to go to university if you're poor than if you're rich - the gap is only 2.4 in England, so there's clear evidence in the 'local market' that it doesn't work.
Who actually gets 'fucked over' though? I don't understand that sort of rhetoric.
We all have. Wages didn't increase with productivity (they have in fact decreased.) Profits did. Massively. What is there to understand?
Can that be explained solely by tuition fee policy?
It can, because the SNP have to cap places in order to fund it. By capping the places, grade thresholds have to go up, and grades going up means that wealthier kids from better schools / parents paying for tutors are more likely to get in.
Again, I know 'tax the rich' is not simple, plus as I said probably not the solution. Merely explaining where that attitude stems from. Again, what I would like to see is companies bear their external costs (we're really late to the party on that one, but better late than never.) That generally happens in the way of regulation, which hurts COMPETITIVENESS but I'm ok with that. As for taxes, I do think anything that merely involves the movement of capital (so, both capital gains and dividends) should be taxed like crazy.
As for the whole moving the assets away, that is an issue and one I am not sure how you deal with, because it would need cooperation and there is always some cunt that will ruin it for everyone else. Still, if anyone decides to leave, I'd say good riddance.
They could use affirmative action.
Or put more money into education so they don't have to cap places. Or even better, make it so that people don't need a degree to get a job.
If I can draw a worthwhile comparison, Hollande's 75% tax rate in France had to be shelved because it simply wasn't generating the return that was hoped for. It was sitting at something like a quarter of expected revenue, and was an evident deterrent to FDI / other investment. What companies were doing in terms of bonus payments etc. was basically agreeing with the employee to defer payment - they knew it wouldn't last, so they sat on the money and then paid it out later on.
If you make the rates prohibitive, they just won't bother making the transaction and will sit on it until the lack of tax revenue forces a rethink - and then you end up in the exact same position of spending commitments without the commensurate increase in revenues to pay for it. Then it's borrowing, then it's a Tory government, and then it's austerity, and then we're on the same cycle again.
The Scots are already getting a £10bn 'union dividend' under the Barnett formula - they're already ploughing vast sums from the City of London and the south east (basically) into their public services like education and the NHS. There is no alternative under a full-funding model to capping places, because you need to know what you're paying out for the purposes of the budget.They could use affirmative action.
Or put more money into education so they don't have to cap places. Or even better, make it so that people don't need a degree to get a job.
That said, I don't disagree with you that the prevalence of degrees in the jobs market today (many of which are wholly irrelevant to people's ultimate job) isn't a good thing, but it's a direct consequence of increasing access. It's an either / or situation, and I would favour access.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
