You've acknowledged this before, but I'm still unsure why you're okay with them lying about it.Originally Posted by Lewis
You've acknowledged this before, but I'm still unsure why you're okay with them lying about it.
Speaking of taxation and idiots, I read earlier that the SUGAR TAX, by increasing inflation, will end up costing us twice what it raises on index-linked debt interest.
My argument is that it is theoretically possible where one considers the wider picture, largely to counteract the frothing at the mouth that arises when a tax cut is announced as if this means we are now going to close all our hospitals or execute the unemployed to cut costs.
What is the left wing vision for increasing taxes and handing the revenue out to people? Is it to create a society where a significant minority of people are receiving handouts from the state? Or is it simply that you don't like private enterprise and rich people and the state knows best?
Cameron will be complicit in Osborne's behaviour. I have a strong feeling that both are bullies.
One need only look at the way the EU arguments are being conducted within Tory ranks to see that this is the case. There are stories that Osborne was basically threatening backbenchers with no further career advancement if they supported the "Out" campaign, and Cameron is clearly attempting to 'rig' the referendum insofar as he can within the confines of existing rules. Given about half (at best estimate) of the parliamentary party are supporting Brexit, it directly challenges Osborne's authority over the wider parliamentary party.
I don't see how he takes the leadership from here.
If it's going to raise tax revenues, then it needs to be justified openly on that basis (which it hasn't) using sound economic data showing same (which is also hasn't). As things stand you're just reaching into your big bag of justifications and pulling out the stock reply, which has nothing to do with anything that's actually going on in this specific situation.
We could talk about increasing taxes, but this isn't about that - it's about not decreasing them while also cutting benefits to disabled people. I'm apparently in agreement with noted lefties such as Ian Duncan Smith that it is in fact the job of the state to provide these.
Dave is a worse bloke. Osborne's problem is being too calculating and Brown-like. Both come from a very cynical school of politics which revels in wedges and dead cats on the table. It's like Blair but without the messianic self-confidence.
Because it's a good thing, and what is this lie amongst every other one? That said, their rhetoric has surely been vague enough to for them to say that this is what they meant by 'taking tough decisions'.
The problem you have with revamping the benefits system is that you will inevitably have individual cases which make the system look inhumane. Yet it's an inevitable consequence of such reforms that certain cases will fall through the cracks. I don't see why it's unreasonable to say that if someone is capable of working then they should be expected to do so. Where people can't work, of course support should be available. It's about trying to get this line right so that people cannot 'sponge' off the state simply because they're lazy. This is a minority of people, obviously. People with disabilities should clearly receive support from the state to support them. Again, however, one should not be able to self-diagnose a disability.
The state should act as a safety net to help people who genuinely need it - but no more. Welfare spending ballooned under Labour, and it needs to be reduced. No-one sensible will argue that people who need the help should not be affected.
That's just weasal words. "Reforms" and "revamping" are neutral terms, and obviously people who don't need benefits shouldn't get them, but these are just cuts to save money, including from people who do need it.
They're backtracking as we speak due to a rebellion in the ranks, thankfully.
I'm not making a theoretical argument. I'm proceeding from the point that we cut all taxes across the board. I'm then simply calculating what would happen if the entire economy grew by 30%. My ideological hands are tied and I'm forced to just follow the math. That is why simple models are good.
Some of your purely theoretical propositions may happen. They may not; companies are just as likely to simply shift planned or existing facilities to take advantage of free profit opportunities with no net employment gains than to decide on brand new facilities they are unsure fills a market need. Even if all that happens it will still be just a point here and a point there, but compare it to a 30% growth in a modern economy?
This generally bears out in real world numbers. Lower taxes are perfectly acceptable policy tool, but only very specific targeted taxes (air conditioner repairs in Arizona in July, for example) will likely lead to increased revenue.
They're not weasel words. As I said previously, part of the problem of attempting to amend / reform / revamp / update / overhaul this system is that you will, inevitably, have individual cases which fall through the cracks. The budgets are huge, the numbers claiming are immense and it is inevitable that this sort of thing will happen. This is seriously unfortunate, but it does not mean that the state (Tory party, Labour party or otherwise) are evil. However, what you're suggesting is that everybody in the system in 2010 was a legitimate claimant and, therefore, no cuts in any way whatsoever could be tolerated and no assessments completed to make sure that those claiming are legitimate and should continue obtaining support from the state. This is clearly not a remotely sustainable position.
If one looks at the statistics between 1996/7 and 2009/10 (this being last year of Major's government and the final year of the Brown government), you would note the following increases in nominal terms in certain areas:
Attendance allowance - +2.7bn (+113%)
Council tax benefit - +2.4bn (+103%)
Disability living allowance - +7bn (+155%)
Housing benefit - +8.6bn (+76%)
Jobseekers allowance - +2.5bn (+116%)
Winter fuel (introduced in 1997) - +2.7bn (+100%)
I've selected the above solely because they represented the most significant increases across the two periods stated in absolute terms (excluding pensions).
I also need to make it very, very clear that I am absolutely not suggesting that individuals or families who need support should not get it. The state should always act as a safety net for legitimate cases (as robotic and aloof a terminology as that unfortunately is). However, where you have increases of tens of billions over the course of 13 years (increasing by 87% overall in that time) then I think it is entirely fair to look at the system with fresh eyes under a new administration. The welfare budget, including pensions, comprises 37% of public spending (here), and you simply cannot throw a ring fence around it and say that this is an untouchable pot of money which will, almost certainly, continue to grow - particularly pensions owing to a) the triple lock and b) a continually ageing population.
Where people can work, they should work. Where you draw that line is clearly a major issue. I agree that benefits should never be taken away from legitimate claimants. How many such cases there have been over the last six years I don't know - neither do you. Individual, anecdotal cases appearing in the media do not a fundamental problem maketh.
It is entirely reasonable that it is reviewed, it is entirely reasonable that people may be asked to justify why they continue to need support and it is entirely reasonable to make cuts where people don't need the support they're claiming, whether it was okay under the old system or not. The welfare cap was an incredibly popular policy, largely because people believe the system is broken. The only way to combat that viewpoint is to demonstrate to people that the system is robust and, more importantly, fair.
The Tories haven't got it completely right, and some welfare changes have been made with a view to cutting budgets full stop, but the principle of cutting (i.e. reducing or removing) benefits where they genuinely aren't needed is entirely reasonable. It simply cannot represent a ring fenced department as you are suggesting.
Well, no-one is suggesting that we cut all taxes across the board.
Those are all still weasel words, in that they are vague terms used instead of more accurate ones, with the effect of distorting what is going on - cuts. Just saying that they're not and repeating them isn't an argument.
It's the same as using "collateral damage" instead of "dead kids" or "downsizing" instead of "sackings".
No, it isn't at all sustainable and it has nothing to do with anything I've said, or "suggested", nor has it anything to do with what the Tories are doing. The argument that there are no benefit cheats within a welfare system is utterly ridiculous and I never would make it.
You've also not adjusted for inflation, for population growth, for economic growth, or for the fact that the second date was in the middle of a major recession.
Where have I suggested that? Also why are you talking about "legitimate claimants" as if that were the issue here, rather than cuts for actually disabled people, as is the case?
I disagree with the necessity of making budget cuts based on the deficit fetishism that underpin Osborne's failed economic policies. It is something even more sinister when the budget cuts are to pay for tax cuts for higher earners - there the question of what is "ring fenced" or otherwise isn't even relevant.
I take issue with 'cuts' as a catch-all term. A system can be reformed to make it more efficient without it being a 'cut' to services. One suspects you favour the terminology 'cuts' because it suits the ideological agenda. Whilst some has been 'cuts', it's also clear that some of it has been reform-driven. You may not like the reforms, but reforms they are. Therefore 'cuts' is not an appropriate terminology for the programme since 2010.
Population growth in the same period was only 7% according to the World Bank, whilst GDP growth was 31% (adjusted for inflation). It's clear that welfare outlay has drastically outstripped growth indicated by the metrics you suggest.
If you accept that there are benefit cheats in the system (not many, and not everyone), do you accept that it's reasonable for a government to look at the system and make 'cuts' or, indeed, implement reforms to make the system more efficient and to reduce the burden on the state where possible? Incidentally, I don't remotely disagree with your point on cuts to the disabled budget arising from this budget - my assumption is we're discussing the Tory programme extending back to 2010 rather than this budget in isolation.
Even if you accept the Laffer curve as an accurate model of the present economy, it pretty clearly illustrates that there is an entire tax regime (anything to the left of the stationary point) where cutting taxes loses revenue. For some reason, people always act as if the fact that we're on the right-hand side of the graph is a given. I contend that we're probably a decent way to the left of it, and getting further. It's really just a way of shadowing in supply-side economics.
Cutting taxes isn't about raising revenue in the short term, it's about sustainably and efficiently improving the quality of life of the citizenry in the long-run.
That is definitely a more intellectually defensible position.
Nigel Farage has really timed this UKIP MELTDOWN perfectly. Twat.
Why's Evans been suspended?
Because she threatened Farage's grip on control. He's an absolute wanker. He probably forced the referendum as well, so you'd think he'd step gracefully off-stage and let the less odious factions try and win the fucking thing.
Team Spreadsheet might like this on bent unions.
I've just watched PMQs. It's too easy for Cameron these days.
Heh.
EDIT: Oh that really is quite old. Oh well.
This is quite fun where one considers the oil figures as well: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...nd/?ref=twtrec
Even the excellent Atkinson bit aside, I can't believe he actually said that.
It's that serious indeed."The PM won’t even recall Parliament so I’ve launched a petition. It's that serious."
Also not to dreg up an older discussion point, but I did quite like the noted right-wing grouping of the SNP deciding against the introduction of a 50% tax rate for higher earners because they think it would lose money - here.
Scottish Labour have, of course, demanded that the tax rate be introduced anyway for ideological reasons like "the rich should pay their fair share", as if they're not already contributing a significant percentage of the tax revenues already.
The SNP is a fundamentally right wing party, they only pose as lefties because it's convenient.
They also call themselves Scottish Nationalists whilst trying desperately to hide any trace of nationalism.
I read the other day that the majority of potential 50p rate payers in Scotland are senior state sector workers (earning more than the Prime Minister!), in which case having the increased rate makes a lot of sense.
So we now have tens of thousands of people likely to be out of a job once what's left of the British steel industry collapses.
The companies in the UK have a book value of zero, have written off £2bn in impairment to their accounts and are losing £1m a day. Alongside the Chinese producing far more than us and selling it at a much lower price, green levies introduced have significantly driven up energy costs where it's being used for heavy industrial use.
Yet it's still being genuinely suggested by John McDonnell that we should nationalise the industry. Not only are we not able to in light of EU rules on state aid, it would be fucking stupid given it's a huge financial black hole and you can't see a way we can genuinely 'compete' in a global market when the Chinese are prepared to sell excess steel at cost price.
The only way you can hope to compete with Chinese manufacturing is to adopt their labour practices, which... yeah.
Shamelessly stolen from Andrew Neill fact: China has produced more steel in last two years than Britain has since the 19th century
Port Talbots an absolute dump of skag already. Can't imagine what it'll look like if the place closes.
Say what you want about Jezza and nationalisation, but it is at least a coherent policy. The rest of them are just moaning about the government not doing anything, and, seeing as they can't actually believe that a few phone calls from the Ministry of Supply will make the Indians see sense (I mean what the fuck is this proposing?), they can only be using all these job losses to take the piss.
I'm with Angela. I mean if the Tories can't see 'what is necessary to save these jobs' they must be idiots.
Nationalisation is a 'coherent' policy in the same way that carpet bombing ISIS is a 'coherent' policy.
Short of nationalising the companies (in contravention of EU rules), paying off all of their existing creditors, providing huge unlimited loans for ongoing working capital / to cover cash losses and imposing significant tariffs on imported steel (with the assumption that the EU, where we get two-thirds of it, or China won't retaliate / care), what can you realistically do? It's a huge financial black hole and they can't compete any more.
That said, I do think the impact of the 'green levies' on the industry needs to be studied as they've surely accelerated their decline by driving up costs and eating into what limited capital they've had available to try and keep the thing going. We can thank Ed Miliband for that one. Twat.
I'm not saying that it would be worthwhile, but it would have the desired effect of preventing a load of job losses in the immediate future, so it is at least an actual policy proposal with some sort of ideological foundation (I obviously don't want to see the government nationalising things). Moaning on Twitter is worthless.
You'd prevent them for about five years before you had to accept it wasn't worth the hassle.
It's not the like the railways, which I could get behind nationalisation on because they're a) essential to the transport network and b) currently absolutely shite.
The living wage won't apply to anyone under 25?My word. It's not like a good 70% of them are stuck in zero hours jobs or if they have the luck to be born middle class, unpaid internships.
All they have to do is start voting.
They did, they got Daves best mate Cleggers in return, who then went on to do exactly the opposite of what people voted him in for, remember?
Imagine if you left work at 16 and couldn't make MINIMUM wage for nine years.
I'm on your side on this one, Swiss Tony.
.....
The system is graded, so anyone over 21 is currently earning only 50p less than the national 'living wage'. The issue is that there are quite a lot of jobs for school leavers with no qualifications which simply aren't 'worth' paying the national living wage for.
It's quite interesting reading around this, because there's quite a divergence of views. On one hand, it kicks the current public burden of 'subisidising' low pay back to the private sector. On the other, it's going to cost 60,000-odd jobs (at best estimate, although these are government figures I believe whereas independent academic research suggests it could be 'up to' 300,000) and will raise costs for small businesses. The DOOMSDAY that was prophesied after the introduction of the minimum wage never happened, so you'd expect the more extremist claims won't materialise.
To be blunt, the low-paid job market is in for an absolute hammering over the next few years and I can't see any way it's going to be a reversible process. Increased automation and increased globalisation will reduce the supply of jobs in the UK, whilst continued immigration from the EU (just look at the state of some of these minimum wages) will continue to ensure that demand for those jobs significantly outstrips supply.
That's capitalism for you, and short of communism, protectionism or a massive increase in the public sector then there's really not much you can do. The national living wage is a nice idea in principle, but one suspects, like the green levies, it's going to have any number of quite unpleasant consequences for low paid workers. As horrible a sentiment as it is, there's ultimately a reason why it's low paid work.
You could reduce housing costs by building more houses. Then low wages wouldn't matter as much.
You could, but you would still be in a situation where low paid work is low paid for a reason and where demand for jobs significantly outstrips supply.
You know what they say, life starts at 25!
Just popping in to point out that Seattle and L.A. basically disprove the theory that a rise in minimum wage results in a net job loss.
Chris Hayes did an excellent piece on it.
In other news, it's been revealed that Harolds only favourite bum boy has instead of writing his own stuff had a team of 47 interns be a prick on his behalf.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernst...ay#.cc8DzLVB9m
Just a look at his Slack is amazeballs
edit: I mean...
It's almost like Harold directly lifted stuff from a bunch of 4channers. Amazing.“include (1) feminism attention seeking for ugly people
But, but, small businesses! Also, lower wages are better for the poor, promise!
As for 'milo,' can't go wrong with the 'well, everyone else is doing it too' defense.
Oh here's that graph, I can't find a video that can be viewed outside U.S.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote