hypochondriac Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 I still feel the people of Rome owe us an apology. The way they treated us for 400+ years. Then we had to put up with those rape and pillaging specialists the Vikings; is no one going to petition the Scandinavians for some form of reparations? and the French they confiscated all our land and handed it out amongst themselves. Unbelievable. And then they made us fight the French for 100 years mind you we had a couple of good away wins. We only really got our act together by the time the Spanish came along. Indeed. Can we please have an official timescale so we know which bits we can stop feeling guilty about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 I hate the implication by many on here that even discussing limits on immigration means you are branded racist scum. It's sad and means the issue cannot be debated sensibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But then I'd be a filthy parasitic immigrant, and everything wrong with my new home country. That's how it works, right? That's immigrantist. If the country you're going to has plenty of space and resources and is willing to welcome you into its vast, sparcely populated nation for whatever reason it chooses then that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But then I'd be a filthy parasitic immigrant, and everything wrong with my new home country. That's how it works, right? Apparently so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 That's immigrantist. If the country you're going to has plenty of space and resources and is willing to welcome you into its vast, sparcely populated nation for whatever reason it chooses then that's fine. I think he's being facetious (to a degree). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 I still feel the people of Rome owe us an apology. The way they treated us for 400+ years. Then we had to put up with those rape and pillaging specialists the Vikings; is no one going to petition the Scandinavians for some form of reparations? and the French they confiscated all our land and handed it out amongst themselves. Unbelievable. And then they made us fight the French for 100 years mind you we had a couple of good away wins. We only really got our act together by the time the Spanish came along. Meanwhile the Germans are invited in and quietly take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 No **** shurlock (sorry, wanted to do that for a while). I don't disagree. You can offer to lend as much money as you want, but someone has to borrow it. Business confidence has been fairly low and still is, which affects the appetite for risk. Households need to develerage after a decade of unsustainable consumer borrowing. When talking about national debt, Labour may get some of the blame, but the financial crisis was the major cause. However, the biggest "crime" under New Labour was allowing consumer debt to spiral out of control to unprecedented levels. This happened before the crisis and directly contributed to it. Brown was quite happy with this though, because the debt was fueling the boom of the naughties. The feel good factor of the nation kept him in power. He actively encouraged consumer debt with his declaration of "no more boom and bust". And to think people were trying to hoodwink us into thinking he was the prudent one.... Oh dear, Johnny. Not sure whether you're being disingenuous (the chart is pilfered from the Mail) or just naive (I'll go with the latter - I'm the charitable type); but it's somewhat convenient that your chart starts in 1990, coinciding with the early 1990s recession, another period during which households retrenched and decided to pay off their debt. Prudence was passing, not permanent. Had your data gone further back to the boom of the 1980s, you would have seen that debt to income ratios were accelerating at a similar rate as they did under Blair and Brown, albeit from a much lower base. Arguably, the boom under Labour, aided and abetted by advances in securitisation, the hunt for yield by institutional investors and the supposed wisdom of independent -yes independent- central bankers in taming the business cycle, simply allowed trends inherited from the conservatives to resume with a vengeance. It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of household debt is secured mortgage debt. Housing issue is ultimately a structural challenge which partisan politics does more to obscure than enlighten. Still, cliches about maxing out the credit card and references to lottery winners, coke, whores and 60"4K TVs are always good for a giggle. We now know that elements of Labour's economic model were built on sand. The obvious retort that the conservatives would have done things differently had they been in government in the mid nineties and noughties. Curious then that, even with the benefit of history, household debt is rapidly climbing back up (the partial flip side of government austerity) and is predicted by the OBR to reach 171% by 2019, higher than the precrisis peak. To paraphrase Albert Edwards, the SocGen strategist, at least in 2008, the UK was not alone in reaping the sour fruits of economic mismanagement. This time, the UK seems to happy repeat the same mistakes, more or less alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 (edited) I hate the implication by many on here that even discussing limits on immigration means you are branded racist scum. It's sad and means the issue cannot be debated sensibly. been like that for at least 10 years. alright for milliband to say that immigrants MUST speak english for the NHS to work, that immigration is driving down wages and working standards and speaking english means you can live in the community... Hell, Milliband can also say that immigration needs to be tackled. Labour can also say that we need to stop HIV tourists using our NHS alright for them to say that....Tory or UKiP saying this...may as well burn it is a bit like some who want 'anyone but conservative'...basically, labour then. The cuts are still coming. LOTS of them. but it seems alright if Labour are doing it. Edited 21 April, 2015 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 it is a bit like some who want 'anyone but conservative'...basically, labour then. The cuts are still coming. LOTS of them. but it seems alright if Labour are doing it. Difference is that us on those who'd vote for the devil before the tories trust Labour to make fairer cuts. Time will tell if that trust is misplaced. No doubt the usual tory apologists will ramble on but as with most of their arguments, it'll be all "me, me, me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 One result of the establishments open door immigration policy is that the poor unfortunates presently risking their lives in the med will not be treated as they should. Seeing as the west basically contributed to the mess in Libya , we owe it to these people to look after them before putting a permanent fix in place. We have helped Ugandans & boat people ect in the past . However, our disastrous immigration policy , letting large numbers of these people settle is toxic for any political party. Can't people see that these people are far more deserving of a new life than citizens of other NATO & EU countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 (edited) Oh dear, Johnny. Not sure whether you're being disingenuous (the chart is pilfered from the Mail) or just naive (I'll go with the latter - I'm the charitable type); but it's somewhat convenient that your chart starts in 1990, coinciding with the early 1990s recession, another period during which households retrenched and decided to pay off their debt. Prudence was passing, not permanent. Had your data gone further back to the boom of the 1980s, you would have seen that debt to income ratios were accelerating at a similar rate as they did under Blair and Brown, albeit from a much lower base. Arguably, the boom under Labour, aided and abetted by advances in securitisation, the hunt for yield by institutional investors and the supposed wisdom of independent -yes independent- central bankers in taming the business cycle, simply allowed trends inherited from the conservatives to resume with a vengeance. Are you suggesting that debt-to-income ratios in the 1980's were at 170%? No, of course not. The 'acceleration' may have been similar from a small base, as you point out. But you can't just pass off "albeit from a small base" as a throw away line. It is very significant. Due to the small base, debt-to-income ratios were still generally below 100% throughout the 1980's. I don't know about you, but most economists would tell you that Debt to income ratios of So the acceleration of the ratio in the 1980's is is a very different proposition to acceleration levels in the 2000's, where the ratios were already north of 130%. (I know that you know that, but understand that you have to put up a good fight for the lefties on the forum) To put this into laymans terms for readers of this thread, Shurlock is trying to say that accelerating from 40mph to 50mph in a 30 mph limit, is no different to accelerating from 20mph to 30mph in a 30mph limit. During Brown's debt fueled boom, they reached a peak of 170%... It would be funny that so many people fell for his "prudent" bull****, if it wasn't for the fact that household debt is as big a problem as national debt. It's even funnier that people (who clearly possess some intellect) try to defend it It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of household debt is secured mortgage debt. Housing issue is ultimately a structural challenge which partisan politics does more to obscure than enlighten. Still, cliches about maxing out the credit card and references to lottery winners, coke, whores and 60"4K TVs are always good for a giggle. We now know that elements of Labour's economic model were built on sand. The obvious retort that the conservatives would have done things differently had they been in government in the mid nineties and noughties. Curious then that, even with the benefit of history, household debt is rapidly climbing back up (the partial flip side of government austerity) and is predicted by the OBR to reach 171% by 2019, higher than the precrisis peak. Household debt did fall to 140% a couple of years ago from the Brown peak of 170%. So things are better, but it is still clearly a problem. The OBR may claim that borrowing will go up due to the government having to live within its means (please stop using the word austerity, because living within your means is no bad thing), but can you not see that even the use of the word austerity will help fuel increased debt (as the connotations of austerity is that living within your means is a bad thing)?? It is this attitude that got us into the mess in the first place!!! Edited 21 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 One result of the establishments open door immigration policy is that the poor unfortunates presently risking their lives in the med will not be treated as they should. Seeing as the west basically contributed to the mess in Libya , we owe it to these people to look after them before putting a permanent fix in place. We have helped Ugandans & boat people ect in the past . However, our disastrous immigration policy , letting large numbers of these people settle is toxic for any political party. Can't people see that these people are far more deserving of a new life than citizens of other NATO & EU countries. It is pretty galling when our tax paid, foreign aid has helped India build a state of the art, Stealth styled warship.. we helped to pay for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Difference is that us on those who'd vote for the devil before the tories trust Labour to make fairer cuts. Time will tell if that trust is misplaced. No doubt the usual tory apologists will ramble on but as with most of their arguments, it'll be all "me, me, me". Your Charicature of Tory voters is it only unhelpful, it doesn't paint you in a very good light either. You come across as hopelessly biased and blinkered whereas many of people I speak to who are voting Tory do not feel the same way about labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Difference is that us on those who'd vote for the devil before the tories trust Labour to make fairer cuts. Time will tell if that trust is misplaced. No doubt the usual tory apologists will ramble on but as with most of their arguments, it'll be all "me, me, me". Aren't those who vote Labour exactly the same? There's nothing fair about any of it, everybody just wants things 'fairer' for themselves. The poorer think it's unfair that somebody else should have more than them and want more money given to them, the better off think it's unfair that they should give money to those who don't work as hard and want less money taken off them. If life were fair we'd all be paying the same amount of tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 No welfare goes to me. I have a modest state pension for which I have made a lifetime of contributions and, well that's it. I have paid a lot of tax and I'm still paying now, plus all the VAT, Council Tax, fuel duty . Sad news Whitey. Your "lifetime of contributions" were spent long ago, in the year you made them. Your pension now is being funded by working people who are mostly on an income lower than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Sad news Whitey. Your "lifetime of contributions" were spent long ago, in the year you made them. Your pension now is being funded by working people who are mostly on an income lower than yours. like wise for their pensions in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Difference is that us on those who'd vote for the devil before the tories trust Labour to make fairer cuts. Time will tell if that trust is misplaced. No doubt the usual tory apologists will ramble on but as with most of their arguments, it'll be all "me, me, me". Define "fairer" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Sad news Whitey. Your "lifetime of contributions" were spent long ago, in the year you made them. Your pension now is being funded by working people who are mostly on an income lower than yours. But I still made them, and they were extra to what was required and in return I was promised a pension if I lived that long. It's not my fault if successive governments have raided my contributions to pour them down the gullets of The State instead of investing them. Effectively they have borrowed from me instead of the open market and now they've got to pay back. Not my choice, I didn't vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 April, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Define "fairer" The cuts that the coalition have ended up making over the last 5 years have ended up pretty much in line with Alastair Darling's 2010 projections. So, I guess we can conclude that the coalition cuts have been as "fair" as Labour's would have been... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 The cuts that the coalition have ended up making over the last 5 years have ended up pretty much in line with Alastair Darling's 2010 projections. So, I guess we can conclude that the coalition cuts have been as "fair" as Labour's would have been... labour have signed off nearly all of the proposed cuts that the coalition want for the next 5 years... no real difference between the two. One can get away with calling out immigration and HIV tourists, the other side can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Fed up with Election already I'm throwing every leaflet straight in recycling bin, except for the one from Green Party, which I'm going to burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Fed up with Election already I'm throwing every leaflet straight in recycling bin, except for the one from Green Party, which I'm going to burn. LOL Can we do the same with the candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 . It's not my fault if successive governments have raided my contributions to pour them down the gullets of The State . YOU are the gullet of the state. Pensions and the NHS are far and away the biggest slices of government spending, absolutely dwarfing things like unemployment benefit or education. The retired account for most of the NHS workload and spend. You are being supported by people working now just as your contributions supported pensioners previously. It has always been a pay as you go system no one has ever pretended differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Aren't those who vote Labour exactly the same? There's nothing fair about any of it, everybody just wants things 'fairer' for themselves. That's the point, not everyone does. Some people care about other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 YOU are the gullet of the state. Pensions and the NHS are far and away the biggest slices of government spending, absolutely dwarfing things like unemployment benefit or education. The retired account for most of the NHS workload and spend. You are being supported by people working now just as your contributions supported pensioners previously. It has always been a pay as you go system no one has ever pretended differently. So we're blaming the old now, are we, and not the feckless (I include governments in that)? It didn't have to be like this, interest payments alone are £60bn. If only this nation had had some giant alternative pension industry that working people could have contributed to without the government dipping into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 That's the point, not everyone does. Some people care about other people. But what form should this 'caring' take? This is the fundamental difference in poitical philosophy. Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 That's the point, not everyone does. Some people care about other people. But not about our children , grand children and their children. Your " caring " society just want to kick the debt can down the road and burden future generations. Its generational theft . In times of peace and relative prosperity each generation should only spend what it generates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Define "fairer" The majority of the burden shouldn't fall on the neediest and no matter how the figures are looked at the poorest 20% have shouldered a far bigger portion of the cuts. After all, we are all in it together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 ...... Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities. For some it's the former, for some the latter. The trick is in getting the balance right - Labour tend to go too far one way ( handouts to the Jeremy Kyle generation ), Tories tend to go too far in the other direction ( eg replace DLA with 'workfare' ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 That's the point, not everyone does. Some people care about other people. So are you saying that Conservatives don't care about others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But not about our children , grand children and their children. Your " caring " society just want to kick the debt can down the road and burden future generations. Its generational theft . In times of peace and relative prosperity each generation should only spend what it generates. You don't half chat sh it when you're sobber. No one, not one, has said anything about not getting the finances back in order, it's where the burden falls that is the issue to some if us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 So we're blaming the old now, are we, and not the feckless (I include governments in that)? It didn't have to be like this, interest payments alone are £60bn. If only this nation had had some giant alternative pension industry that working people could have contributed to without the government dipping into it. Not at all. I have no problem with the system even though I will likely pay in far more than I take out I'm glad we have a safety net based on need It's you who seems to be angry and looking for someone to blame. Why not have a go at your mum. If she is 91 she's been drawing a pension for 31 years. How many years did she work for? Not enough to fund that no doubt doubt. Tell her she is a scrounger. It seems to be what you want. You don't want to be a hypocrite eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 The majority of the burden shouldn't fall on the neediest and no matter how the figures are looked at the poorest 20% have shouldered a far bigger portion of the cuts. After all, we are all in it together. What cuts are these specifically? You seem to have equated not receiving as much with not paying quite as much extra, one is receiving state money, the other is giving it. For some it's the former, for some the latter. The trick is in getting the balance right - Labour tend to go too far one way ( handouts to the Jeremy Kyle generation ), Tories tend to go too far in the other direction ( eg replace DLA with 'workfare' ). Yes, making it 'fair' for everybody is very tricky. You don't half chat sh it when you're sobber. No one, not one, has said anything about not getting the finances back in order, it's where the burden falls that is the issue to some if us. Once again, it all depends what you mean by 'burden'. For some it's not receiving as much as they wanted, for others it's paying out more than they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Not at all. I have no problem with the system even though I will likely pay in far more than I take out I'm glad we have a safety net based on need It's you who seems to be angry and looking for someone to blame. Why not have a go at your mum. If she is 91 she's been drawing a pension for 31 years. How many years did she work for? Not enough to fund that no doubt doubt. Tell her she is a scrounger. It seems to be what you want. You don't want to be a hypocrite eh Angry? Who, me? My mum (95 by the way) didn't receive a full pension until my dad died, and she had plenty of contemporaries who paid in but never collected. That's what an insurance type system is all about. My anger is directed at reckless government overspending in the last few decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But what form should this 'caring' take? This is the fundamental difference in poitical philosophy. Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities. Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, etc etc etc If we were on the left we'd just give everyone fish everyday, until, of course, they ran out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But what form should this 'caring' take? This is the fundamental difference in poitical philosophy. Do you help people by giving them handouts or is is better to give them opportunities. I was always a strong believer in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, I think deep down I still am. However, this principle only works if society is fair to start with. It is blatantly obvious that isn't the case. One only needs to look at the make up of the Cabinet or 'The Rich List' to see this. The over representation of straight white dudes, who often went to private schools demonstrates how society isn't fair, so people are born with an advantage or disadvantage. Black men who grow up on inner city estates and go to schools in surrounding areas do not have anything like an equal opportunity to succeed as a white dude born into a wealthy family and going to a school that costs thousands a year to attend It's funny how the Tories are supposedly in favour of equality of opportunity, yet want to protect people's inheritance. It really lines up well with the mantra of "work hard and anything is possible", like all those millions Mr Cameron 'earned' from his aristocratic family. It's not about opportunity, it's about maintaining an imbalance. Hence why this idea of hard work is so important to them. Anyone who is worse off is because they simply do not work hard enough. It's nothing to do with a lack of social mobility. They are wealthy because they worked harder (or were fortunate enough to be born to a wealthy family), not because odds were already massively stacked in their favour. The majority of the burden shouldn't fall on the neediest and no matter how the figures are looked at the poorest 20% have shouldered a far bigger portion of the cuts. After all, we are all in it together. No one, not one, has said anything about not getting the finances back in order, it's where the burden falls that is the issue to some if us. Or this, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, etc etc etc If we were on the left we'd just give everyone fish everyday, until, of course, they ran out. Plenty of fish in the sea, sarb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Aren't those who vote Labour exactly the same? There's nothing fair about any of it, everybody just wants things 'fairer' for themselves. The poorer think it's unfair that somebody else should have more than them and want more money given to them, the better off think it's unfair that they should give money to those who don't work as hard and want less money taken off them. If life were fair we'd all be paying the same amount of tax. I'm not disabled but I want the cuts to be targeted more at millionaires than disabled people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 woah are you millionaire jb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 You don't half chat sh it when you're sobber. No one, not one, has said anything about not getting the finances back in order, it's where the burden falls that is the issue to some if us. The funny thing is, the people who actually are saying this loudest are economists who see low interest rates as an opportunity for borrowing for public investment (which does, incidentally, include some Tory faves like HS2). One of the most fascinating things about this election campaign, though, is how Ed Miliband has on the one hand conceded ground on deficit financing and welfare spending (an argument he's concluded he can't win), and on the other, adopted strong redistributive policies like the mansion tax, an increase of 5p on the top rate of income tax and the clampdown on non-coms. This is Thomas Picketty economics (rather than Keynesian) and it's proving popular. Hence YouGov's conclusion that "British people give better marks to Labour's policy offerings." Hence, also, the non-implosion of Ed Miliband - which the Tories had so complacently and disastrously predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 I was always a strong believer in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, I think deep down I still am. However, this principle only works if society is fair to start with. It is blatantly obvious that isn't the case. One only needs to look at the make up of the Cabinet or 'The Rich List' to see this. The over representation of straight white dudes, who often went to private schools demonstrates how society isn't fair, so people are born with an advantage or disadvantage. Black men who grow up on inner city estates and go to schools in surrounding areas do not have anything like an equal opportunity to succeed as a white dude born into a wealthy family and going to a school that costs thousands a year to attend It's funny how the Tories are supposedly in favour of equality of opportunity, yet want to protect people's inheritance. It really lines up well with the mantra of "work hard and anything is possible", like all those millions Mr Cameron 'earned' from his aristocratic family. It's not about opportunity, it's about maintaining an imbalance. Hence why this idea of hard work is so important to them. Anyone who is worse off is because they simply do not work hard enough. It's nothing to do with a lack of social mobility. They are wealthy because they worked harder (or were fortunate enough to be born to a wealthy family), not because odds were already massively stacked in their favour. Or this, really. But you are talking about a small percentage of the population (millionaires who went to private school essentially). If we were talking about a decent proportion of society then fair enough, but only 0.5% of the population are millionaire's, and not sure how many of those went to private school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 The funny thing is, the people who actually are saying this loudest are economists who see low interest rates as an opportunity for borrowing for public investment (which does, incidentally, include some Tory faves like HS2). One of the most fascinating things about this election campaign, though, is how Ed Miliband has on the one hand conceded ground on deficit financing and welfare spending (an argument he's concluded he can't win), and on the other, adopted strong redistributive policies like the mansion tax, an increase of 5p on the top rate of income tax and the clampdown on non-coms. This is Thomas Picketty economics (rather than Keynesian) and it's proving popular. Hence YouGov's conclusion that "British people give better marks to Labour's policy offerings." Hence, also, the non-implosion of Ed Miliband - which the Tories had so complacently and disastrously predicted. Anyone know how the mansion tax is going to work, how they'll value the houses etc? Are they going to value every house in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Difference is that us on those who'd vote for the devil before the tories trust Labour to make fairer cuts. Time will tell if that trust is misplaced. No doubt the usual tory apologists will ramble on but as with most of their arguments, it'll be all "me, me, me". Come on then, give us a list of where Labour will make the cuts and how much, so that we know that you are basing your position on something a bit more concrete other than blind faith and instinct. Whilst you're at it, perhaps you'll speculate on whether Labour will be forced by the SNP to go lighter on cuts to services and benefits than they would otherwise have done, and therefore heavier on punitive taxation of the so-called wealthy, the very few lucky enough to live in "Mansions"? The other side of the coin to the rather simplistic characterisation that you use to disparage the Tories, is that there are equally those who would not trust Labour to govern the country without ruining the economy by their inablity to recognise that their "them, them, them" attitude to the wealthy and the wealth-creators backfires when punitive taxation causes people to avoid paying it, by emigrating or by creative accountancy. I don't need to wait to see whether your trust in Labour is misplaced on the basis of whether their cuts will be fairer, as they are usually only fair to a section of society rather than to everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 But you are talking about a small percentage of the population (millionaires who went to private school essentially). If we were talking about a decent proportion of society then fair enough, but only 0.5% of the population are millionaire's, and not sure how many of those went to private school. You don't have to be a millionaire to go to private school, yet it's still a massive leg up. Even if it is a tiny percentage of people, the amount of wealth these people hold and the % of positions of power/influence they hold massively outweighs their numbers. That aside, there are still plenty of things that make society an uneven playing field for people. Even not being rich, it's pretty clear that being a straight white dude (much like me) has it's advantages. Where you are born in the country (i.e. someone born in Middlesborough probably doesn't have the same opportunities as someone like me born in London), whether you are a man or woman (or trans), your race/ethnicity and many more factors come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Anyone know how the mansion tax is going to work, how they'll value the houses etc? Are they going to value every house in the country? The Land Registry, I imagine. It wouldn't be difficult and is the kind of policy for which Big Data is an ideal source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 Anyone know how the mansion tax is going to work, how they'll value the houses etc? Are they going to value every house in the country? not that it bothers me but would make london even more of an exclusive place to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 You don't have to be a millionaire to go to private school, yet it's still a massive leg up. Even if it is a tiny percentage of people, the amount of wealth these people hold and the % of positions of power/influence they hold massively outweighs their numbers. That aside, there are still plenty of things that make society an uneven playing field for people. Even not being rich, it's pretty clear that being a straight white dude (much like me) has it's advantages. Where you are born in the country (i.e. someone born in Middlesborough probably doesn't have the same opportunities as someone like me born in London), whether you are a man or woman (or trans), your race/ethnicity and many more factors come into play. I thought it was more around the number of millionaires that were created by going to private school. Looking at my peers, and I'm by no means rich, but I dont think it makes as much of a difference as you think. There are tons of people from different backgrounds etc. The unifying factor was that we all went to University. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 not that it bothers me but would make london even more of an exclusive place to live I think we'd see a reduction in house building around London, it would have a very bad effect on the poorest down here as people would buy cheaper properties, pushing the lowest paid completely out of London and the surrounding areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 You don't half chat sh it when you're sobber. No one, not one, has said anything about not getting the finances back in order, it's where the burden falls that is the issue to some if us. Nobody is getting the finances back in order , it's smoke and mirrors . They will all be adding to the debt but hoping growth will reduce the % of GDP . We will be swimming in debt come 2020 , whoever wins the election , it's just whether it'll be eye watering labour debt or massive Tory debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 April, 2015 Share Posted 21 April, 2015 not that it bothers me but would make london even more of an exclusive place to live You do realise that London is overwhelmingly a Labour town, right? And I can promise you that's not because all the oligarchs were Ed Miliband fans. Why more 'exclusive'? Two million is still an awful lot of money even in London. The mansion tax, incidentally, has already had an effect. London house prices have fallen sharply - just on the prospect of its introduction. So far from making London more exclusive, it's actually make it more affordable. I think we'd see a reduction in house building around London, it would have a very bad effect on the poorest down here as people would buy cheaper properties, pushing the lowest paid completely out of London and the surrounding areas. Why a reduction? And why would it have a bad effect on the poorest? The 'poorest' are not queueing up to buy two-million-pound houses. London is a city where the difference between Labour and Tory administrations makes a HUGE difference (as I see in my borough of Hammersmith and Fulham). If Tory regimes are in power, working class people have their houses and flats demolished for 'luxury' flats (actually little more than a bit of hotel-chic wallpaper-thin gloss, and amounting to what one London town planner called 'rich slums'). If Labour regimes are in power, social housing tends to be protected, including a great swathe of housing association homes near me, in Fulham and - surprisingly - Chelsea, that have been around since the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now