How to manage austerity in a caring society

Its easy to scream "tax the bastards" when you have no assets, but harder when you become one of the bastards you despised as a youngster

That depends how greedy and selfish you are. Some people don't mind paying more tax for a fairer more compassionate society.

They were left of centre, so were a more left wing alternative to the conservatives.

They were but that isn't what he said. He said that the British public won't vote for a party that is perceived to be left wing. Tony Blair's labour were centre left not left wing.

They were but that isn't what he said. He said that the British public won't vote for a party that is perceived to be left wing. Tony Blair's labour were centre left not left wing.

They were left though, as opposed to right.

That depends how greedy and selfish you are. Some people don't mind paying more tax for a fairer more compassionate society.

But it is not just about the me me me. As others have pointed out, it is who you think would be better (or the least worse) to run the country overall. The young aside, anyone who thinks that a party with a chancellor who wants to destroy capitilism is good for the country, is on another planet. As the saying goes, you vote with your head. I personally would like a credible opposition and we don't have one. There is no one to hold the government to account and whatever side of the fence you sit on, that's not good.

I guess on the bright side, the current Labour Chancellor might be able to say "No more boom and bust" with more conviction than G Clown and actually be able to deliver it.

They were left though, as opposed to right.

I'm not sure of the relevance and you are arguing semantics now. It was only when labour came back to the centre that they were successful. A left wing (not centre left) government will not be voted for by the British public.

But it is not just about the me me me. As others have pointed out, it is who you think would be better (or the least worse) to run the country overall. The young aside, anyone who thinks that a party with a chancellor who wants to destroy capitilism is good for the country, is on another planet. As the saying goes, you vote with your head. I personally would like a credible opposition and we don't have one. There is no one to hold the government to account and whatever side of the fence you sit on, that's not good.

 

I guess on the bright side, the current Labour Chancellor might be able to say "No more boom and bust" with more conviction than G Clown and actually be able to deliver it.

Don't disagree with that, just had issues with the idea that everybody with wealth votes against higher taxes and a more even society.

I'm not sure of the relevance and you are arguing semantics now. It was only when labour came back to the centre that they were successful. A left wing (not centre left) government will not be voted for by the British public.

At the moment, just like A right wing (not centre right) government will not be voted for by the British public. Things can change though.

Lefties always have the same problem. Instead of looking at where they got it wrong , they always blame the voters . The voters are either selfish or brainwashed by the media . The problem is that if you keep believing that , you'll never take the measures needed to get yourself elected . You only had to watch that half bake Charlotte Church on question time to see an example of this .

And right-wingers also always have the same problem - applying blanket generalisations to anybody they perceive to be 'lefties'.

See what I did there?

That depends how greedy and selfish you are. Some people don't mind paying more tax for a fairer more compassionate society.

What's stopping people who want to pay more tax paying more tax?

What's stopping people who want to pay more tax paying more tax?

Or donating to charity, as many do?

What's stopping people who want to pay more tax paying more tax?

Well done. Entry 1,007 in the 'Reasons Why I Shouldn't Have to Help Other People' handbook - somebody else should do it. You thought about moving to China?

Or donating to charity, as many do?

Indeed. The less I pay in tax the more I tend to give to charity. Seems like a good balance to me. Perhaps I'm abnormal though....?

Indeed. The less I pay in tax the more I tend to give to charity. Seems like a good balance to me. Perhaps I'm abnormal though....?

That's okay then. Trousers gives £10pm to the RSPB and RNLI. No need for A&E or schools in sink estates.

Even under a Tory Govt we all still pay a very large % of tax. Many Billions are spent on the NHS. What's the great concern from those on the left?

That's okay then. Trousers gives £10pm to the RSPB and RNLI. No need for A&E or schools in sink estates.

That's Verbal levels of word twisting.

Reductio ad absurdum

That's Verbal levels of word twisting

Not really, extrapolation maybe. Ive worked in statutory funding of the NHS and council services and now work in fundraising for a charity. If you ran public services based on where people wanted their money to go you'd end up with dozens of unneeded children's hospices, a National Trust which was one of the biggest employers in Britain and streets which were full of homeless beggars because nobody wanted their cash to go to social services, mental health or social housing.

That depends how greedy and selfish you are. Some people don't mind paying more tax for a fairer more compassionate society.

People already pay enough tax to have your utopia , but its wasted and spread too thinly .

That depends how greedy and selfish you are. Some people don't mind paying more tax for a fairer more compassionate society.

I don't mind paying my fair share but I can tell you from personal experience that having paid 67% tax under Labour in the 70s, it was soul destroying to watch it being frittered away subsidising dead duck nationalised industries run by 'loony left' union barons !

Not that I'm too pleased paying 40% tax on my hard earned pension for which I contributed handsomely over the years either !

That's Verbal levels of word twisting.

 

Reductio ad absurdum

You rang? Actually, your solution is no solution at all. Your charity-giving decision, after your faintly odd imagined windfall from a tax cut, will be in two parts: the amount you give; and the charities you give it to. Regarding the first, you seem to have decided that there is a fairly fixed proportion of your income that you're prepared to give up, whether to taxation or donation. There is no evidence in the real world that this happens. It's far more likely that you'll trouser (sorry) the windfall. But even if you didn't, you and you alone will decide who to give your donation to. From your posting history, my guesses are a cat euthanasia club and the Tory Party (some charity).

The problem is that your idiosyncratic choices, scaled up, are unlikely to produce any meaningful benefit in terms of the public good. And the richer are you are, and therefore the more you give (on your model, not mine), the more you are able to define and distort the notion of the public good.

As buctootim says, and as America demonstrates, the rich get no charity kicks from socialised medicine, so don't contribute to it. They get it from prestige projects like Presidential libraries, name-after-me university buildings, and presumably in your case, killing cats.

The solution is to have a democratic process for arriving at the public good. AKA elections. That way, the 1% don't get to decide what's good for the 99% (or simply ignore them) - the 99% have some say in it too.

Sounds fair, right? Right, so pay up, cat killer.

What's stopping people who want to pay more tax paying more tax?

How as a humble PAYE slave go about paying more tax?

Start buying 40 Bensons a day and chucking them in a skip on the way to work?

How as a humble PAYE slave go about paying more tax?

 

Start buying 40 Bensons a day and chucking them in a skip on the way to work?

I've just read your comment on the previous page CB....why be such an ignoramus? I do not claim benefits and I have stated my main concern is the disgusting treatment of the disabled under this government. I am entitled to say if I could sub let a home I would. If you think all lefties are completely to the left 100% or that all right wingers are right wing all the time then you are very much mistaken.

I've just read your comment on the previous page CB....why be such an ignoramus? I do not claim benefits and I have stated my main concern is the disgusting treatment of the disabled under this government. I am entitled to say if I could sub let a home I would. If you think all lefties are completely to the left 100% or that all right wingers are right wing all the time then you are very much mistaken.

People might not be right or left all the time but all I know is you are full of sh it all the time.

Previously when I have pointed out you are usually incoherent and post inconsistent contradictory rambles you've said in your defence that you're are disabled. If that's not the case, fine.

People might not be right or left all the time but all I know is you are full of sh it all the time.

 

Previously when I have pointed out you are usually incoherent and post inconsistent contradictory rambles you've said in your defence that you're are disabled. If that's not the case, fine.

I am disabled and? Does that automatically mean I'm on benefits? I would associate such a comment with the very worst of the right...not from a so-called left winger. Because if that's what you automatically connect the two then I'm sorry but you are clearly one of those plebs that have bought into almost a decade of programs on TV victimising the disabled. Why be so confrontational? I've not called you names I've just disagreed with you.

You rang? Actually, your solution is no solution at all. Your charity-giving decision, after your faintly odd imagined windfall from a tax cut, will be in two parts: the amount you give; and the charities you give it to. Regarding the first, you seem to have decided that there is a fairly fixed proportion of your income that you're prepared to give up, whether to taxation or donation. There is no evidence in the real world that this happens. It's far more likely that you'll trouser (sorry) the windfall. But even if you didn't, you and you alone will decide who to give your donation to. From your posting history, my guesses are a cat euthanasia club and the Tory Party (some charity).

 

The problem is that your idiosyncratic choices, scaled up, are unlikely to produce any meaningful benefit in terms of the public good. And the richer are you are, and therefore the more you give (on your model, not mine), the more you are able to define and distort the notion of the public good.

 

As buctootim says, and as America demonstrates, the rich get no charity kicks from socialised medicine, so don't contribute to it. They get it from prestige projects like Presidential libraries, name-after-me university buildings, and presumably in your case, killing cats.

 

The solution is to have a democratic process for arriving at the public good. AKA elections. That way, the 1% don't get to decide what's good for the 99% (or simply ignore them) - the 99% have some say in it too.

 

Sounds fair, right? Right, so pay up, cat killer.

The last time I killed a cat was June 1979.

Caring you say?

I'm sure most decent people on this board know that working tax credits were not a bride, but rather a indictment of the cost of living in the UK today.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claims-tax-6584065

Caring you say?

 

I'm sure most decent people on this board know that working tax credits were not a bride, but rather a indictment of the cost of living in the UK today.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claims-tax-6584065

Looking at the bigger picture, as a matter of principle, why should there be tax credits? Surely it's not a sensible, long-term strategy to aim for?

Looking at the bigger picture, as a matter of principle, why should there be tax credits? Surely it's not a sensible, long-term strategy to aim for?

Can't disagree with you there Sour Mash but I think myself and Hypo agreed earlier that this needs to be a 2 pronged approach of a minimum wage rate that actually people can live on (not whatever this current rate is) and then the removal of working tax credits but since retail, for example, is in such a state and essentially just getting by by paying the minimum wage, I can't see how this single approach can do anything but drive people deeper into poverty....And also not shouting things like "you need a work ethic like the Chinese!!!" would improve people like Jeremy Hunt's standing.

Can't disagree with you there Sour Mash but I think myself and Hypo agreed earlier that this needs to be a 2 pronged approach of a minimum wage rate that actually people can live on (not whatever this current rate is) and then the removal of working tax credits....And also not shouting things like "you need a work ethic like the Chinese!!!".

What's wrong with aiming to have the same work ethic as other nations?

Where has anyone proposed a system that people couldn't live on?

Can't disagree with you there Sour Mash but I think myself and Hypo agreed earlier that this needs to be a 2 pronged approach of a minimum wage rate that actually people can live on (not whatever this current rate is) and then the removal of working tax credits but since retail, for example, is in such a state and essentially just getting by by paying the minimum wage, I can't see how this single approach can do anything but drive people deeper into poverty....And also not shouting things like "you need a work ethic like the Chinese!!!" would improve people like Jeremy Hunt's standing.

Out of interest, what would be your definition of 'poverty' in the UK in 2015?

I'm not going to spout figures at this time of the night dude but firstly, it's patronising to suggest someone who works a 52 hour week is still on the breadline because they don't have a "Chinese work ethic" it also nicely circumvents the historical tragedy that is that whenever Britain (or the US.....the pacific railroad and the rubber plantations in Malaya for example) needed cheap labour to work virtual slave hours, they brought in Chinese workers.

The minimum wage as it currently stands is virtually the same as this proposed "living wage" rate which is just an idea nicked from Labour (however their rate was much higher) so for IDS to celebrate like he did in that article is insulting to a lot of people to say the least. Either way, I think the game of relative poverty has been done to death. I am aware you could live quite comfortably in India, for example on what we call minimum wage. But we're not in India are we? and in that sense why compete? Our cost of living is totally different which is the same for the Chinese.

I am disabled and? Does that automatically mean I'm on benefits? I would associate such a comment with the very worst of the right...not from a so-called left winger. Because if that's what you automatically connect the two then I'm sorry but you are clearly one of those plebs that have bought into almost a decade of programs on TV victimising the disabled. Why be so confrontational? I've not called you names I've just disagreed with you.

It's not you disagreeing I have a problem with, it's the fact you are full of it. Weeks and weeks of "you might as well vote Tory" pompous reactionary rubbish about the previous Labour governments, and previous Labour leaders before we find out you previously supported David Miliband, the dictionary definition of a soft left Blairite. Full of it.

Then high-horse grandstanding about how horrible and greedy everyone else is before we find out what you'd really do if you had the chance, and you'd be as greedy as anyone else.

You spend more time disagreeing with yourself than you do with me.

I apologise for saying you receive benefits, it's great you are getting by with no state support at all, fair play to you.

I'm not going to spout figures at this time of the night dude but firstly, it's patronising to suggest someone who works a 52 hour week is still on the breadline because they don't have a "Chinese work ethic" it also nicely circumvents the historical tragedy that is that whenever Britain (or the US.....the pacific railroad and the rubber plantations in Malaya for example) needed cheap labour to work virtual slave hours, they brought in Chinese workers.

 

The minimum wage as it currently stands is virtually the same as this proposed "living wage" rate which is just an idea nicked from Labour (however their rate was much higher) so for IDS to celebrate like he did in that article is insulting to a lot of people to say the least. Either way, I think the game of relative poverty has been done to death. I am aware you could live quite comfortably in India, for example on what we call minimum wage. But we're not in India are we? and in that sense why compete? Our cost of living is totally different which is the same for the Chinese.

Just say if you don't want to answer either question.

Cameron just called Corbyn "Britain-hating." Pathetic.

Cameron just called Corbyn "Britain-hating." Pathetic.

The Tory conference is about providing sound bites for the Mail & Express, and those that believe their strident headlines represent facts.

The Tory conference is about providing sound bites for the Mail & Express.

Whose readers then absorb it without question. Politics used to be about persuading people of your vision, not lying to them and peddling fear.

If you increase income (through taxation) to balance the books, that is austerity. Austerity means balancing the books. Raising taxation is an austerity measure, as is cutting spending. Which measure is is the right thing to do is up for debate, but austerity itself is not a negative thing (despite lefties having you believe otherwise). So stop peddling austerity as a negative thing. Cuts may have negative connotations. But tax rises do too. It just depends on which side of the fence you sit, but we all must embrace the concept of austerity.... we owe it to future generations.

 

I would have thought caring sharing lefties wouldn't want to burden future generations with their own excesses. It is something you would expect of someone of a selfish me-me-me right wing disposition.

Austerity does not mean balancing the books it means: the ​condition of ​living without ​unnecessary things and without ​comfort, with ​limited ​money or ​goods, or a ​practice, ​habit, or ​experience that is ​typical of this

it is the system we have and they won

Its a crap system

Whose readers then absorb it without question. Politics used to be about persuading people of your vision, not lying to them and peddling fear.

That goes for all parties.

Politics is strange business. We regularly get into this online debate that tends to polarise views and extol the softer virtues of one ideology or lambasts the extremist views of the same ideologies. The majority of people in this country are on the fence, the decide who to vote for during a general election campaign, they may reflect on the outgoing governments overall record, they may read the manifestoes but most make their minds up on one or two issues; most often the economy (stupid) and then whatever is topical at the time. Party leaders are elected by the party and by definition by those committed to one ideology or another. Change or shift the ideology and the membership changes, Corbyn has attracted a more left wing membership than we have seen for a long time, the only mandate he has is from the left wing of the current party. The Tories are more subtle and arguably more loyal, they have a core membership of the 'philanthropic' urban and rural middle classes. These people don't protest (hunting aside) and they are in my personal experience tolerant, but what is most worrying is that what really unites them is the fear of the left (anything left of centre) and the fear of Johnny Foreigner, all a Tory leader has to do is address these 2 issues and he can do anything else he like or she likes. They all care they just have different way of showing it, oh and they really care about power.

That goes for all partie.

Sure, but most of the selective, misleading, biased rags lean right. FWIW I have no problem with anyone's views if they know why they believe what they believe and the opinion is grounded in fact. Its those whose views are based on myths or informed solely by carp printed in an agenda driven propaganda piece that irritate me.

Whatever you think of his politics Corbyn clearly doesn't hate Britain and for a serving Prime Minister to claim that about the Leader of the Opposition shows how low the level of politics has sunk imo. If the system was working properly he would be severely censured by his party / Parliament for that. The same trick was played against Michael Foot.

The majority of people in this country are on the fence, the decide who to vote for during a general election campaign

Isn't the opposite true? i.e. its a relatively small number of swing voters that determine the election result?

Sure, but most of the selective, misleading, biased rags lean right. FWIW I have no problem with anyone's views if they know why they believe what they believe and the opinion is grounded in fact. Its those whose views are based on myths or informed solely by carp printed in an agenda driven propaganda piece that irritate me.

 

Whatever you think of his politics Corbyn clearly doesn't hate Britain and for a serving Prime Minister to claim that about the Leader of the Opposition shows how low the level of politics has sunk imo. If the system was working properly he would be severely censured by his party / Parliament for that. The same trick was played against Michael Foot.

The view depends on where you stand. Personally I take the whole lot with a big pinch of salt.

The view depends on where you stand. Personally I take the whole lot with a big pinch of salt.

But there is a huge difference between what Independent, Guardian, Telegraph and Times write - which is mostly facts with a party colour wash on them and what the Sun, Mail, Express and Mirror write - which is usually deliberate attempts to distort the news and push a particular agenda.

Sure, but most of the selective, misleading, biased rags lean right. FWIW I have no problem with anyone's views if they know why they believe what they believe and the opinion is grounded in fact. Its those whose views are based on myths or informed solely by carp printed in an agenda driven propaganda piece that irritate me.

 

Whatever you think of his politics Corbyn clearly doesn't hate Britain and for a serving Prime Minister to claim that about the Leader of the Opposition shows how low the level of politics has sunk imo. If the system was working properly he would be severely censured by his party / Parliament for that. The same trick was played against Michael Foot.

Tim, do you honestly think that only Mail and Express readers are swayed by what they read and that Mirror and Guardian readers are not ?

The anti Britain comment is clearly born out of Corbyn's anti monarchy, pro IRA, pro Hamas, pro Marxist stance and although (IMO) unnecessary is certainly quite tame compared to the current shadow chancellor's comments about murdering Margaret Thatcher !

It is pretty clear to me that insulting behaviour is not exclusive to the Tories, not by a long way !

Tim, do you honestly think that only Mail and Express readers are swayed by what they read and that Mirror and Guardian readers are not ?

The anti Britain comment is clearly born out of Corbyn's anti monarchy, pro IRA, pro Hamas, pro Marxist stance and although (IMO) unnecessary is certainly quite tame compared to the current shadow chancellor's comments about murdering Margaret Thatcher !

It is pretty clear to me that insulting behaviour is not exclusive to the Tories, not by a long way !

You are drawing equivalence between what a back bench MP said as (bad) joke in 2010 (and apologised for) and what the current PM states at a party conference as fact about the opposition leader? I think I can see what the problem is.

David Cameron saying Corbyn hates Britain is irrelevant, just the usual hyperbolic rhetoric you get in such speeches, it's not going to make a difference to anything.

Whose readers then absorb it without question. Politics used to be about persuading people of your vision, not lying to them and peddling fear.

You think readers of the Express and Mail need to be lied to so they don't vote for Corbyn?

You think readers of the Express and Mail need to be lied to so they don't vote for Corbyn?

No, I doubt many floating voters read the Express or Mail. Its still corrosive though. Every time I see my mum she's worrying about some made up piece of crap about Labour seizing her home or stealing her pension. It would be funny if it weren't true, for her and millions of older people who get their news from printed media. If editorial had to abide by the same standards adverts do most of it would never get printed.

Yet another mealy-mouthed denial by a media-literate but unthinking Corbynista spokesman of the single inescapable fact that the British public voted for the Conservatives not despite of austerity but because of it. It is amazing how the search for scapegoats for this non-computable fact ends up with such (humourless) screeching. Like most people who voted Labour in May, I accept that the party lost the argument on the idea that moving leftwards was a magic wand to winning a general election. The Corbynistas not only don't accept that, they don't even recognise that it happened.