General Election June 8th

[Gaylord du Bois]

their absence is welcomed.

How would you know?

 

[KenTheLandlord]

I went to a shit high school left having failed my A levels as I was working part time to help my parents get by due to their poor business acumen. Joined the military as a way of securing a proper income and usable skills, unfortunately the trade I chose "Flight Engineer" was being phased out in the civilian world due to automation in aircraft systems. Left after 10 years service with little to show for it and a huge divorce bill to boot. Payed for my civilian pilots license but after 5 years flying 9/11 crushed the industry so I odd jobbed fitting kitchens while looking for something permanent. Made a big decision to leave the Uk permanently when a training position came up and worked my way to a management position by shear will and hard work, accepting all the shittiest schedules and deployments.

No fucker helped me. I did it myself, I never claimed dole even when i could have and I funded my own qualifications both technical and educational.

I pay an appropriate level of tax here in Switzerland, I pay for my health care and i live within my means.

If some fucker asked for 50% of my income I would fuck off quick sharp. (I wouldn't be in the 50% bracket)

No fucker helped you? Apart from everyone chipping in to pay for your learning of usable skills for 10 years.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

How would you know?

because I'm enjoying it. Their departure coincided with the end of the worst of the derailment of most threads, a reduction in abusiveness and more coherent arguments and debates have resulted, despite the same old suspects.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

because I'm enjoying it. Their departure coincided with the end of the worst of the derailment of most threads, a reduction in abusiveness and more coherent arguments and debates have resulted, despite the same old suspects.

When did they depart? I've not noticed any mass exodus since December?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

When did they depart? I've not noticed any mass exodus since December?

yawn.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

yawn.

It was a genuine question.

 

[urban genie]

It's mainly a Mancunian site so it being close is quite telling, can't remember how it went last time we had a general election

Well this thread last time was about 800 pages long and pulled at least 5 times for infighting and cleaning up from memeory, with mods being accused of bias to the left, ed milliband being called a far left nutjob (sounds a bit silly now) Rascal still about and cameron getting called a pig fucker, so this times all a bit more tame atm.

On the mancunian board bit, though and it's refelction on the pole I think like all poles 175 people out of a GM population of 2 isn't an barometer, plus the pole maybe would probably been better in the constituency thread which feflects that areas voting trend.

 

[Vic]

Are you fucking kidding me? So you're moving off the tax conversation and saying you're a proponent of communism? Everyone should earn the same?

What a strange world you live in.



Ps - why are the figures wrong:

Earn £120k then you pay £40,700 income tax

Earn £20k then you pay £1,700 income tax

That's not up for debate. It just is.

If you're ever unsure, educate yourself:

http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/?ingr=20000&time=1&yr=2018&category=Accounting

Where have I said everyone should earn the same?

And you are very rude. The figures don't take account of national insurance (which used to be a contribution to benefits and pension but is now effectively just a regressive tax). On 20k a year it's 7% of income, on 120k it's 5%.

 

[1.618034]

75% of our rail companies are owned by Nationalised companies which are owned by foreign states.

http://actionforrail.org/three-quarters-of-uk-rail-owned-by-foreign-states-research-reveals/


Over half of our water companies are, at least partly, foreign owned.

http://www.aol.co.uk/money/2013/05/21/who-really-owns-our-water-companies/


66% of the "big six" Energy companies are foreign owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Six_energy_suppliers



We're going to leave the EU and have the vast majority of our utilities run by, and profited from, by other EU states, some of whom have admitted that they do cream-off profits from the UK to spend on their own infrastructure.

"A German Transport Ministry spokesperson recently admitted to such a strategy in reference to its state-owned company Deutsche Bahn: “We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget – that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here in Germany.”"

FTR Deutsche Bahn "operates the Arriva Trains Wales, Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Grand Central and Tyne & Wear Metro operations. On 1 April 2016 Arriva became the operator of the Northern rail franchise. It also holds a 50% shareholding in London Overground Rail Operations and has lodged an application to operate services under the Great North Western Railway brand. In November 2016, Arriva Rail London will commence operating the London Overground concession in its own right."

Meanwhile...

"The publicly owned East Coast main line is due to be privatised by the government, despite operating very successfully. Since being taken back under public ownership in 2009, East Coast has returned over £1bn to the Treasury, in stark contrast to private train operators. East Coast was brought under public ownership following the failure of two previous private train operators, but the government seems determined to privatise it."

We have the highest fares in Europe. Passengers and taxpayers are subsidising a system that hands increasing profits to private, largely foreign, state-owned train operators, rather than being invested back into the system, as it would be under public ownership.


I find it strange that those who want us out of the EU, also are seemingly happy that EU states (mainly) are profiting from us!?

Apparently they believe that we're not capable, as a nation, to successfully do it ourselves. Despite plenty of contemporary evidence to the contrary.

Imagine that our very own successful, nationalised, owned by the nation, run for the nation, rail, water and energy companies got so successful that they were able to own, and profit from, ventures into foreign lands...

You'd think it was a Brexiters dream. But no. Apparently it's ludicrous. Apparently it's a throwback. Apparently it's the 1970s all over again.

We need to take back control of and invest in our country, it's assets, infrastructure, institutions and people.

 

[Vic]

They don't get the logic of it. If people are forced to earn less by capping or levies, there will be less tax in the till. But NHS roads etc need to funded from somewhere so, guesss what more tax from average joe.

That's why labour and the Tories did nothing about bankers bonuses because as well as being good for the lappies of London , half that money was collected via paye and paid over to Hmrc, who never had to do a thing to get the money, or even wait a year for it because it was paid over in that month.

If this money goes or decreases how do they think this massive hole will be filled.

The money paid in bonuses could reduce bank charges, increase interest paid, pay ordinary bank workers more, reduce interest charged on business loans (or just lend more - there might be more entrepreneurs if these capitalist banks weren't so risk-averse). Money circulates in the economy, in the poorer 95% of the population, which is better for the economy.

I can live off under £10k a year because my needs, interests, ambitions and circumstances are different to everyone elses.

I don't want a large house; i'd be perfectly happy with a small cabin.
I don't desire travelling abroad. A simple jolt down to the seaside or Lake District to go camping is fine.
I don't have children, nor (at present) desire them.
I own a motorcycle and bicycle as my needs for personal transportation.
I'm not a materialistic person by nature, though others can be, but then that is their choice. Then again the main advantage for being on less than £13k? I don't pay any tax. Yet I can still access NHS healthcare, policing and other social benefits.

I can survive because the job I have and the hours I work pay for what I need. For those who want more from life, they work harder, in jobs that place them in positions with more responsiblity. If I lost my job there would zero consequences to anyone except myself. But a CEO? A broker? A Trader?

If I wanted to start a family or have an expensive car or nice house then yes, i'd have to get a higher paying job. Problem is people think they can live the high life when their job position and income does not grant them ability to do so, yet they try anyway and that is where the problems arise. They want what they cannot afford half the time, or piss it up the wall. I'm not suggesting that those on £80k a year ARE materialistic either; they have their own ambitions with money. If you want it, earn it. I don't want what others want so the amount I work for is enough to get by. If I had an £80k a year job, I guarentee that £60,000 of it would be sitting in a bank account doing nothing and the stuff I did spend would be spent on crap.

Are you arguing with me or against me? I only realised recently that the term "conspicuous consumption" dates back over 100 years, but I do recall Katherine Whitehorn's insight from the mid-70s: "We don't need 90% of what we buy. We just can't do without it". The need to spend as a psychological condition (as distinct from mere greed) is another aspect.

I didn't know it was a race, only just saw it.

Let's get something out of the way first and foremost - no man is an island. There's this idea from many of the wealthy that they are wealthy just because of the hard work that they have put in and anybody else who put in an equal amount of hard work and made the exact step for step choices in their life would have done exactly the same. This is absolutely, demonstrably false. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to give a personal example. My income is sustained almost entirely by word of mouth and I'm a keen member of what is now termed 'the gig economy', having more than one freelancing trade as it were and diversified income streams. Out of the two marketable skills that I have, one pays very comfortably and has great earning potential and the other/more enjoyable one has little earning potential but more satisfaction personally.
I'm able to afford to live this way almost entirely due to my educational advantages - I went to a phenomenally good school and met there a bunch of wealthier kids who would go on to be the middle to upper management of tomorrow. I also met a group of like minded individuals in University who went out into industry in various fashions, some of which became entrepreneurs. Through these contacts and my own hard work I am able to fashion a living for myself and a roof over my little boy's head.

These advantages that I had came from the ability to have some form of social mobility. My healthcare was provided for, my education was provided for, the Government contributed towards my food and milk and clothing in order to see that I was well fed. The pavements I walked to school on were passable, the grass I played footy on was maintained, the buses I got to college were subsidised. This is not a gift, it is an investment by the Government into a member of society. Investment as you well know it not a one way street and there's often a return on that investment through me paying tax, NI and other less tangible things such as giving my own son better life chances so that he may grow and pay taxes.

There are some people in the country who did not have the same advantages that I did in terms of education. There were others who didn't have the advantages I did in a stable home life which allowed me to have a stress free existence and concentrate on my studies. There were others who suffered from poverty, illness or all of the problems factoring in society that we term in "anti-social behaviour". While it is very much possible to escape your circumstances, the chances of you doing so are far less than they are elsewhere. A poor teenager in Longsight does not live in the same world as a rich teenager in Hale - that much should be obvious. If we take the average of both areas, there's much less of a chance that the Longsight lad will become an investment banker than the Hale lad and hopefully we all freely accept that reality.

So spin all the way back - why should the rich pay more than the poor in taxes?

Firstly, rich people should want to pay taxes because they should want to live in a country with a population that has basic living standards and educational ability. you think politics is bad now, think what it would be like if we decided to cut the educational budget by 90% as a tax break. Do you want to live in a country where the politics of the nation is decided by people who are barely literate? Think they'll make good choices on regulation of financial markets, on the need for immigration into the NHS, on things like patient international diplomacy? That's not a world I want to live in, just for my own sake.

Secondly, the rich should pay more specifically because they've benefited more from society. That's a truism of the statement of being rich and the acceptance that society and its investment in infrastructure has played a role in the development of that wealth whether it be from life chances or literally things like "having a road to my house". The more money you have the greater financial independence you have. The greater financial independence you have, the more freedom you have and your family has. That's you benefiting directly from society to a greater degree than poor people.

Thirdly, the specific tax rate on the rich isn't unfair because you're using linear scales for logarithmic effects. A person who earns £100,000 a year isn't TEN TIMES better off than a person who earns £10,000 a year. If you earn ten grand you can't feed yourself and presumably can't afford the monthly bills that come through the door while maintaining even the basic standards of a quality of life. That experience if we're going to try to quantify it isn't ten times worse than having a comfortable financial income which allows stability for you and your family as well as many lifestyle choices that are unavailable. No more than being a millionaire is ten times more life chances than somebody who earns £100k. In fact comparing earnings/tax rates linearly rather than understanding the logarithmic nature of them is literally a reverse type of "politics of envy" that people keep banging on about. A frankly absurd jealousy towards the tax rate of the poor.

British society works on a simple principle. The people invest in the people. That means that everybody invests in everybody whether we like it or not - it's the idea that together as a collective unit we can get more things done than as separate entities. I pay back the investment that society has made in me and then also put a bit more in to cover the people who couldn't cover themselves because they didn't have the same advantages that I had or have problems in mental health, physical health, or just really shitty circumstances like long term unemployment. They also have a right to live because the economic value of a person does not quantify the actual value of a person and the sick, the needy, the poor and the disadvantaged are just as valuable and important to society as the rich, the healthy and the well off. We have a greater tax burden because we can shoulder that burden comfortably and help design a better society so that more of us can be wealthy which in turn creates more wealth for us personally. The more people who have money in their pocket, the more people will spend that money on my services. That in itself is a plus and it doesn't even argue about the societal safety net feature whereas while you might now be earning well, there are people in your family that didn't always do that and needed the helping hand of the rest of the people in order to get through the day. Whether that's the same generation, the one above or the one above, every person is a sum of the experiences of their families and every family has at times failed to have that social bargain to "break even" on investment.

People's "fair share" as Corbyn daftly puts it is whatever they can afford to pay without robbing them of their own prosperity. Everybody in this nation sacrifices in some way for everybody else. I don't know what that exact number is in terms of a percentage but I don't feel that an extra 5p in the pound is going to force people out of their prosperity - and even if it does they can rely on the same social uplifting that they and everybody else pays for

It may be in there somewhere but I think you omitted that social inequality is bad for the economy. There's stuff from the UK but this came up on google: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...tary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/EconEffects Our own government says the same, but then acts to reinforce social inequality (benefit cuts, grammar schools) because so many people can't see it - and think taxation is a burden rather than a means to general happiness (where most evidence is that higher taxed countries with good public services are happier countries). http://inequality.org/happiness-and-taxes/