The Post General Election Thread

[whp.blue]

The state being enlarged was also ideologically driven.

You'd have to be more specific but let's presume it true for a minute.

The state was being enlarged to ensure that people who needed the resources the most in our society were able to access them as an ideological move.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the entire point of an ideological move to help people? The cutting of the benefits for the reasoning of "getting scroungers into work" is not only attempting a form of social control but also has the problem of hurting people who aren't scroungers.

When did helping people who need help the most at the cost of a small tax increase for those who can afford it the most suddenly become a bad idea? When did a "sink or swim" approach to looking after people, especially those in poverty and from poor backgrounds, become a sensible idea?

My issue with the ideology of the "cut the benefits!" lot is that they understand that they are potentially hurting people and they don't care because it might save them a penny in tax. That is a standard of callousness that even a logical guy like me cannot manage to produce. People are literally dying from welfare cuts if the reports are to be believed and we have people reliant on food banks in one of the richest countries in the world and they are interested in tax savings.

Again, this idea that we have no money is wrong. If cuts were desperately needed then scrap the replacement of nuclear weapons. Scrap HS2 and other schemes of its kind until we are back on track financially. Freeze the defence budget. These 3 actions alone would save MORE than £12bn.

Why can we not do those cuts first before making the cuts that will actually affect the day to day lives of the least fortunate amongst us?

It's misplaced jealousy and a sense of righteousness about how your income determines your worth that drives this. The financial arguments are after the fact rationalizations to disguise the argument in a cloak of legitimacy.

A great great post!

To be honest I think there are two kinds of people !

Faced by a single mother 3 kids behaving like oiks, poor uneducated etc

One type of person feels resentment, they feel bitter, they fee angry, they think they are getting my money, they are letting me down, they shouldn't be allowed to do that! They take this feeling of unfairness , of anger, of I deserve more into their politics and vote for austerity. The answer to these people is to punish, to take money away, to try and make the people suffer for their bad choices. If they suffer then people won't do it in future.

Another type of person sees the same person and thinks - that society has let those people down , that actually their lives must be shit, how are those kids going to turn out - they think surely we as a people who live in communities can do more to help and try to make society better. They think if we did things differently and intervened earlier we could improve society and stop the cycle.

It comes down to whether you believe that you can win in the world if the hand you are dealt is 2-6, if you believe a kid of an unemployed drug addict deserves the same opportunity as the child of a millionaire.

I cannot understand the resentment from people who have much of people who have nothing. I cannot understand why people think punishing people for bad choices and worse still punishing their kids will make society better.

But then I haven't in my 40 years ever really experienced feeing bitter, resentful towards people less fortunate than me - I just can't comprehend it. I can understand the resentment the very poor feel to the very rich.

I will also never understand resentment towards the public service, teachers, doctors, soldiers, social workers, casualty nurses, firemen and police officers are the backbone of out society and are undervalued and under paid. These people contribute so much and yet are underpaid and undervalued by the people whose lives they support .

Can I just play Devils advocate and point out just because those are your beliefs it doesn't mean that anyone who takes the other view is in anyway less valid.
Lots of people who believe that people who work hard should be rewarded and when they are rewarded some of are very philanthropic and do real good in society and their community.

The one thing I would say is that if people are in no way punished (your words not mine)or suffer any repercussions for their bad choices they will continue to make them and that is a very dangerous downward spiral for society.
One thing is definite and we both seem to agree on is we cannot allow things to continue the way they are.

 

[Lucky13]

Beaker employed David Axelrod who helped Obama win his Election , he was paid £300k, he didn't pay tax on his earnings, what was it that Beaker said about tax avoiders?

Pray how do you know the private tax affairs of David axelrod? I would assume he didn't pay UK tax (in the main) as he would have been tax resident in the U.S, at the end of the next U.S. Tax year his company or he personally would pay tax in the US. This happens to literally millions of people around the world so it is the biggest non story this board has seen!

Plenty of newspaper reports , Beaker made such an issue of this I would of thought he'd have done the right thing just as He did with the the money he inherited.

 

[EalingBlue2]

You'd have to be more specific but let's presume it true for a minute.

The state was being enlarged to ensure that people who needed the resources the most in our society were able to access them as an ideological move.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the entire point of an ideological move to help people? The cutting of the benefits for the reasoning of "getting scroungers into work" is not only attempting a form of social control but also has the problem of hurting people who aren't scroungers.

When did helping people who need help the most at the cost of a small tax increase for those who can afford it the most suddenly become a bad idea? When did a "sink or swim" approach to looking after people, especially those in poverty and from poor backgrounds, become a sensible idea?

My issue with the ideology of the "cut the benefits!" lot is that they understand that they are potentially hurting people and they don't care because it might save them a penny in tax. That is a standard of callousness that even a logical guy like me cannot manage to produce. People are literally dying from welfare cuts if the reports are to be believed and we have people reliant on food banks in one of the richest countries in the world and they are interested in tax savings.

Again, this idea that we have no money is wrong. If cuts were desperately needed then scrap the replacement of nuclear weapons. Scrap HS2 and other schemes of its kind until we are back on track financially. Freeze the defence budget. These 3 actions alone would save MORE than £12bn.

Why can we not do those cuts first before making the cuts that will actually affect the day to day lives of the least fortunate amongst us?

It's misplaced jealousy and a sense of righteousness about how your income determines your worth that drives this. The financial arguments are after the fact rationalizations to disguise the argument in a cloak of legitimacy.

A great great post!

To be honest I think there are two kinds of people !

Faced by a single mother 3 kids behaving like oiks, poor uneducated etc

One type of person feels resentment, they feel bitter, they fee angry, they think they are getting my money, they are letting me down, they shouldn't be allowed to do that! They take this feeling of unfairness , of anger, of I deserve more into their politics and vote for austerity. The answer to these people is to punish, to take money away, to try and make the people suffer for their bad choices. If they suffer then people won't do it in future.

Another type of person sees the same person and thinks - that society has let those people down , that actually their lives must be shit, how are those kids going to turn out - they think surely we as a people who live in communities can do more to help and try to make society better. They think if we did things differently and intervened earlier we could improve society and stop the cycle.

It comes down to whether you believe that you can win in the world if the hand you are dealt is 2-6, if you believe a kid of an unemployed drug addict deserves the same opportunity as the child of a millionaire.

I cannot understand the resentment from people who have much of people who have nothing. I cannot understand why people think punishing people for bad choices and worse still punishing their kids will make society better.

But then I haven't in my 40 years ever really experienced feeing bitter, resentful towards people less fortunate than me - I just can't comprehend it. I can understand the resentment the very poor feel to the very rich.

I will also never understand resentment towards the public service, teachers, doctors, soldiers, social workers, casualty nurses, firemen and police officers are the backbone of out society and are undervalued and under paid. These people contribute so much and yet are underpaid and undervalued by the people whose lives they support .

Can I just play Devils advocate and point out just because those are your beliefs it doesn't mean that anyone who takes the other view is in anyway less valid.
Lots of people who believe that people who work hard should be rewarded and when they are rewarded some of are very philanthropic and do real good in society and their community.

The one thing I would say is that if people are in no way punished (your words not mine)or suffer any repercussions for their bad choices they will continue to make them and that is a very dangerous downward spiral for society.
One thing is definite and we both seem to agree on is we cannot allow things to continue the way they are.

If you/we/society can figure out a way to teach parents the error of their ways without harming their kids or disadvantageing them then I am all ears. It can't carry on for the sake of the people living a life with no hope and teaching their kids only what they know which is to be victims.

I am not sure it is really a downward spiral if I look 50, 100, 150 years ago all I can see is a society that certainly until the 70's had improved in equality and looking after the vulnerable nearly every year, even since the 70's generally things are better and the vulnerable are better protected.

 

[moomba]

Beaker employed David Axelrod who helped Obama win his Election , he was paid £300k, he didn't pay tax on his earnings, what was it that Beaker said about tax avoiders?

Pray how do you know the private tax affairs of David axelrod? I would assume he didn't pay UK tax (in the main) as he would have been tax resident in the U.S, at the end of the next U.S. Tax year his company or he personally would pay tax in the US. This happens to literally millions of people around the world so it is the biggest non story this board has seen!

Pretty sure tax should be paid where its earned. I'm a tax resident of UK but pay my tax elsewhere.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Selective breeding and the state deciding on intelligence who can have kids, a bit early 40's Germany don't you think? What IQ I reckon 140+ if we are going to be really selective!

Seriously are making stuff up at no point did I say any of that, who said the state decides what you have? I said you decide just don't expect the state to pick up the bill.

The one thing, the most important thing is what about the kids, how do you propose they are fed and looked after and helped to become valuable members of society? I understand the feelings towards the parents but protecting kids always comes before punishing the parents in my books and I would rather some of my hard earned money goes to an undeserving parent than a deserving kid misses out on it.

I also love the assumption that there isn't waste equal to or more than the public sector in the private sector. Having worked for and with multi national companies for 20 years I can tell you there is every bit the waste in banks, restaurants, airlines, professional services etc that there is in schools, hospitals, police stations - often a lot more.

Totally agree you should not punish the kids and at no point have I said we should be taking money off people, but you could say in one years time you will not get any benefits for a new born third child. As for the IQ question I'm saying do you think its intelligent to keep having kids if you cannot support them? I just don't think you are intelligent if you are on your arse or close to it and then think hey I know let's have another mouth to feed, clothe and bring up, do you think that is fair on the child?

 

[EalingBlue2]

Beaker employed David Axelrod who helped Obama win his Election , he was paid £300k, he didn't pay tax on his earnings, what was it that Beaker said about tax avoiders?

Pray how do you know the private tax affairs of David axelrod? I would assume he didn't pay UK tax (in the main) as he would have been tax resident in the U.S, at the end of the next U.S. Tax year his company or he personally would pay tax in the US. This happens to literally millions of people around the world so it is the biggest non story this board has seen!

Plenty of newspaper reports , Beaker made such an issue of this I would of thought he'd have done the right thing just as He did with the the money he inherited.

He did exactly the right thing!!! Even the hard left don't disagree with the principle of double taxation or the basic principle of tax residency!

Indulge me what is the right thing he should have done, paid tax when it was not due and to the wrong exchequer?

 

[EalingBlue2]

Beaker employed David Axelrod who helped Obama win his Election , he was paid £300k, he didn't pay tax on his earnings, what was it that Beaker said about tax avoiders?

Pray how do you know the private tax affairs of David axelrod? I would assume he didn't pay UK tax (in the main) as he would have been tax resident in the U.S, at the end of the next U.S. Tax year his company or he personally would pay tax in the US. This happens to literally millions of people around the world so it is the biggest non story this board has seen!

Pretty sure tax should be paid where its earned. I'm a tax resident of UK but pay my tax elsewhere.

Typically US citizens pay tax on worldwide earning, if they were tax resident elsewhere they would pay tax where they were resident and provided there was a tax treaty in place to avoid double tax they would earn tax credits back to reduce U.S. Tax.

Now there are a series of resident tests but assuming he did not reside in the UK for most of the time , he did not keep a home etc then it is quite likely he was never tax resident. I don't know the facts as to how long he spent in the UK , how much work he did from US, who worked for him etc but I would assume a US consultancy firm was paid in the U.S. For the work and paid tax in the US and none of its employees especially not Mr axelrod were tax resident in the UK

 

[EalingBlue2]

Seriously are making stuff up at no point did I say any of that, who said the state decides what you have? I said you decide just don't expect the state to pick up the bill.

The one thing, the most important thing is what about the kids, how do you propose they are fed and looked after and helped to become valuable members of society? I understand the feelings towards the parents but protecting kids always comes before punishing the parents in my books and I would rather some of my hard earned money goes to an undeserving parent than a deserving kid misses out on it.

I also love the assumption that there isn't waste equal to or more than the public sector in the private sector. Having worked for and with multi national companies for 20 years I can tell you there is every bit the waste in banks, restaurants, airlines, professional services etc that there is in schools, hospitals, police stations - often a lot more.

Totally agree you should not punish the kids and at no point have I said we should be taking money off people, but you could say in one years time you will not get any benefits for a new born third child. As for the IQ question I'm saying do you think its intelligent to keep having kids if you cannot support them? I just don't think you are intelligent if you are on your arse or close to it and then think hey I know let's have another mouth to feed, clothe and bring up, do you think that is fair on the child?

I think she'd loads of people rich and poor probably shouldn't have kids tbh. I hate seeing kids of rich career parents who are lucky to get an hour or two with them a week and are treated as a fashion accessory, I hate seeing kids who are emotionally neglected or abused, malnourished or anything. So yes should parents who can't look after kids properly have kids then in an ideal world perhaps they shouldnt. But once they do it is our duty as a civilised society to look after them ! So I think we need carrots not sticks. I also accept that no man can be a judge as to the acceptability of who can breed.

It may not be fair on the child, you are not wrong about that, but I wouldn't tackle that unfairness by being even more unfair!

 

[Blue Maverick]

The one thing, the most important thing is what about the kids, how do you propose they are fed and looked after and helped to become valuable members of society? I understand the feelings towards the parents but protecting kids always comes before punishing the parents in my books and I would rather some of my hard earned money goes to an undeserving parent than a deserving kid misses out on it.

I also love the assumption that there isn't waste equal to or more than the public sector in the private sector. Having worked for and with multi national companies for 20 years I can tell you there is every bit the waste in banks, restaurants, airlines, professional services etc that there is in schools, hospitals, police stations - often a lot more.

Totally agree you should not punish the kids and at no point have I said we should be taking money off people, but you could say in one years time you will not get any benefits for a new born third child. As for the IQ question I'm saying do you think its intelligent to keep having kids if you cannot support them? I just don't think you are intelligent if you are on your arse or close to it and then think hey I know let's have another mouth to feed, clothe and bring up, do you think that is fair on the child?

I think she'd loads of people rich and poor probably shouldn't have kids tbh. I hate seeing kids of rich career parents who are lucky to get an hour or two with them a week and are treated as a fashion accessory, I hate seeing kids who are emotionally neglected or abused, malnourished or anything. So yes should parents who can't look after kids properly have kids then in an ideal world perhaps they shouldnt. But once they do it is our duty as a civilised society to look after them ! So I think we need carrots not sticks. I also accept that no man can be a judge as to the acceptability of who can breed.

It may not be fair on the child, you are not wrong about that, but I wouldn't tackle that unfairness by being even more unfair!

Then as long as we keep giving them carrots it will never end, they know as a civil society we will not allow neglect (hopefully) and will just carry on, I haven't all the answers but I think putting that seed in place may I hope make them act a little more responsible otherwise we will just carry on and nothing will change and yes it's the kids who will suffer which no one wants.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Totally agree you should not punish the kids and at no point have I said we should be taking money off people, but you could say in one years time you will not get any benefits for a new born third child. As for the IQ question I'm saying do you think its intelligent to keep having kids if you cannot support them? I just don't think you are intelligent if you are on your arse or close to it and then think hey I know let's have another mouth to feed, clothe and bring up, do you think that is fair on the child?

I think she'd loads of people rich and poor probably shouldn't have kids tbh. I hate seeing kids of rich career parents who are lucky to get an hour or two with them a week and are treated as a fashion accessory, I hate seeing kids who are emotionally neglected or abused, malnourished or anything. So yes should parents who can't look after kids properly have kids then in an ideal world perhaps they shouldnt. But once they do it is our duty as a civilised society to look after them ! So I think we need carrots not sticks. I also accept that no man can be a judge as to the acceptability of who can breed.

It may not be fair on the child, you are not wrong about that, but I wouldn't tackle that unfairness by being even more unfair!

Then as long as we keep giving them carrots it will never end, they know as a civil society we will not allow neglect (hopefully) and will just carry on, I haven't all the answers but I think putting that seed in place may I hope make them act a little more responsible otherwise we will just carry on and nothing will change and yes it's the kids who will suffer which no one wants.

I would prefer money went less in benefits and more in support, education etc and providing a lot more to kids outside and inside school. Much should be done to improve schooling and support in poor areas. For me education is the best tool to improve society and one of the most undervalued things in the world relative to its importance. By education I mean life education, practical education as Wel as pure academic education.