On 23 Mar 2011 at 5:35pm Clifford wrote:
not from around here wrote: 'Clifford I just knew you would make that sort of stupid comparison with Libya, Egypt etc - thanks for confirming it!'
Something told me you'd entirely miss the point Not from around here - in much the same way as you exposed your ignorance (as Sashimi showed) about the difference between the poll tax and its replacement.
You may have noticed that the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya HAVE been demonstrating and in the first two cases have been admirably successful. My point was that it is ALWAYS a minority that goes out on the streets to protest. The fact that it is a minority does not justify your absurd suggestion that the 'silent majority' is necessarily in support of the status quo.
On 23 Mar 2011 at 7:59pm MC wrote:
The majority are usually content with TV, beer and the latest soon-to-be-superseded consumerist trinkets...
Soma... it works well.
@ 'ere be monsters
I would never defend Blair's Labour and am very aware that the rich/poor divide increased during their term in office. However, the subject is the cuts. The cuts have been imposed by the Tories. All I said stands, apart from.....
Yes, I was wrong about the Poll Tax. It did make a difference. You were right.
But it did take a riot. None of the marches made any difference, not even the massive anti-Iraq war march.
On 23 Mar 2011 at 9:03pm Newmania wrote:
Neil Kinnock was making much more progress than Ed at this point so I am intensely relaxed about the British tax payer letting an unrepentant Union backed Labour in to turn the taps back on. That said there is certainly support for a Social democratic tinged Labour Party.
There is , however , very little for UK Uncut who a lie peddling Union special interest group.That is why Ed observes a cordon sanitaire between him and them. Duh...
On 23 Mar 2011 at 9:31pm Mungo wrote:
I'm sorry the fact this country has no money is as much to do with the Labour party if not more than the banks. They were in power , not the Tories they could have regulated and didn't. Then there is the mass over spending they did over their term. for every £3 they recieved they spent ¬£4
On 23 Mar 2011 at 9:43pm MC wrote:
I don't know why everything has to get turned into Tories vs Labour. They're both s*** and incompetent, just in different ways.
On 24 Mar 2011 at 3:05am Expat two wrote:
How much abuse at the hands of the rich should people tolerate. Some arguments on these threads would support slavery - after all slaves get the opportunity to stay alive, thanks to their masters' benevelence - ?
On 24 Mar 2011 at 7:00am Newmania wrote:
Expat 2 - The reason the top rate will be abandoned in this term is because as predicted by the IFS it loses money over time . Its revenue progression is a curve following trajectories with some range of possibilities but it cannot increase revenue and no-one thinks it can.
The reason for this is that the rich who pay vastly more proportionately than the poor ( who pay northing much net) are at a point of taxation over the Laffer curve , a line that marks the boundary between revenue raising and losing tax increases. There is no pot of gold its a story Unions tell idiot children
On 24 Mar 2011 at 7:00am Newmania wrote:
The 20% Unionised Public sector have enjoyed above average pay rises (15% above average ) job security ( ten teachers barred in ten years ) and final salaray related pensions that for a teacher on £30,000 amounts to ¬£750,000. They are more likely to be home owners , and better educated than those who pay . In fact Civitas released figures showing a full 52% of top graduates now go into the state gravy train.
You are defending an idle privileged and over rewarded minority against the majority whose children will be impoverished by their greed and and selfishness.
Bastians suggestion that for doing their jobs ( badly ) they should also get a pat on the back no-one else gets is insulting and banale
On 24 Mar 2011 at 7:01am Newmania wrote:
No wonder people are angry to see them parade about as if they were Jarrow marchers without food on the table. Its an insult to working people and a desecration of the history of the Unions which were once for the working man and his family . Not any more
(trouble posting )
On 24 Mar 2011 at 9:51am 'ere be monsters wrote:
MC "I don't know why everything has to get turned into Tories vs Labour. They're both s*** and incompetent, just in different ways." That was the point I made as it was you that started the "Tories" fault bit in your earlier post. I've always maintained same sh*t different colour. Are you trying to say Labour would have been able to get us out of this particular pile of crap by not making cuts?
On 24 Mar 2011 at 9:56am Dumb Capitalist Rhetoric wrote:
"You are defending an idle privileged and over rewarded minority against the majority whose children will be impoverished by their greed and and selfishness."
I'm confused, are you talking about bankers or teachers?
On 24 Mar 2011 at 10:01am Expat two wrote:
Why on earth would Labour have done differently, they're a right of center party promoting a Capitalist dictatorship.
Please stop allying those of us that see through the scam with Labour voters.
On 24 Mar 2011 at 11:40am Newmania wrote:
Dumb capitalist Rhetoric - Pop quiz !!! Which of the following contributes £50 billion pa to the exchequer
Take your time.....
On 24 Mar 2011 at 12:24pm Tags Armpit wrote:
I can't make the march on Saturday. I am going to a football match followed by a trip to spend some of my bonus.
On 24 Mar 2011 at 12:34pm Dumb Capitalist Rhetoric wrote:
Pop quiz? What's that got do with pop? Oh, I get it, you're using 'pop quiz' in its American sense.
I suspect the correct answer is Bankers, but then they wouldn't manage anything like that if it wasn't for their teachers. Teachers can be thanked for pretty much everything contributed to the economy.
Also, how much will Bankers be contributing to the economy after Dave's latest tax give-aways to big and medium size businesses?
Take your time......
On 24 Mar 2011 at 1:17pm Hoist wrote:
If bankers contribute so much to the economy, why are we in this mess?
On 24 Mar 2011 at 1:51pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
The teachers get it all???
On 24 Mar 2011 at 5:48pm Hoist wrote:
Not from around here - I don't want to punish people for achieving - though they should actually achieve. I can't understand how we got into this mess if investment banking is working as well as some people here claim.
Regardless of the current problems, the trouble with investment banking is its short-termism. We don't have much longer to play silly buggers with our resources in this way. We need a radically new way of looking at the economy - not tired old right wing clap trap.
On the subject of frightening people away ‚?? one of the main reasons why people want to be in the uk, and tend to return, is our broadly excellent public services. This is still a much more civilised place to live than many other countries, including the USA. Ok if you are very rich there you can try to insulate yourself from the worst of the problems - live in a gated community-try to never get out of your car - pay a fortune for medical insurance that won't cover you for everything.
I want a fairer system. There's a difference between people who are just on the higher tax bracket and those who earn millions. Those who earn millions can afford to pay a higher percentage whereas those on the border could be pushed under by it.
People who earn less can still contribute to society. Not everything has a price tag. I can‚??t believe that people think bankers are of more value than teachers.
On 24 Mar 2011 at 6:30pm Lambo wrote:
Well said Hoist.
On 24 Mar 2011 at 8:03pm MC wrote:
@ 'ere be monsters
If anyone I hold Labour, overall greed, general spinelessness, decline in everything uk, financial deregularisation and bankers/banking culpable for the current debt. I believe all political parties would have had to implement cuts, but each would have dione so in their own way. The Tories have gleefully seized their chance and are using the cuts as an excuse to implement their agenda to decimate the state as fast as they can.
The country is not so much run by politicians as controlled by the (mostly landed, hereditary and well-connected) establishment. This small group that own most of the UK land and wealth are the paymasters of the Tories. Deals get done in clubs, boardrooms and through relationships forged via generational family ties and public schools, college and Oxbridge relationships (neatly exposed in the cabinet at this moment, Bullingdon club anyone?).
In the recent scheme of things Labour are simply ineffectual (unless it comes to inefficiency, lack of principle, woolly-mindedness and the creation of debt, at which they excel), aimless and no longer have a power base.
Blair was a (mostly) unwitting Tory sop and and instrumental in finally destroying my faith in the Labour Party and the UKs impoverished and outdated political system.
Hopefully that's clear.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 6:21am Newmania wrote:
Hoist - So the UK attracts people because of the " Broadly excellent public services " ( Broadly = 'not' I take it ). You mean its welfare and NHS ? These are the big tickets , welfare costs the same as all income tax and yes they attract economic migrants like a plague.
We do not want mendicants we want wealth producers and they come here for low taxes and culture and civlity of the country. These qualities ,which have always been a magnet ,are crushed by your big state and exist despite not because of a lot of fat idle bureaucrats
On 25 Mar 2011 at 6:34am Newmania wrote:
AND ANNUVER FING HOIST -Why is no-one attracted to the North east where more pretend state money is earned than real money ?
There is , as I have repeatedly explained , no more revenue to be got from the rich , not without closing the borders and that of course is why the paradisal socialist countries do. Do I really have to go through it again !!! ???
On 25 Mar 2011 at 6:35am Newmania wrote:
..It is increasingly clear that the entire European model is not fit to compete in the new world anyway and the "Throw money at it " plan has failed everyone .
I suggest we look at the fairer smaller-state country that has been the one shining success of our recent travails. Australia . It is built on sound money , low tax churning and opportunity . That is the goal of the coalition and the sooner antedeluvian socialists get out of the way the sooner we can escape the long shadow of 20th century 'secular religion' and sheer ignorance
Incidentally was Ken Livingstone pissed on question time ? Looked "Tired and emotional " as a newt to me
On 25 Mar 2011 at 8:03am 'ere be monsters wrote:
You have been reading my posts then MC. You seem to have understood them as well now.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 9:58am bastian wrote:
I think newmania works for the daily mail because their aserbic blunder of a dialogue reads like a front page any day of the week..wipe the rabid dribble from your chin for a moment and talk to someone who works for the public sector.Many are paid around £15,ooo pa and their pension will refect that,this is a pension that they have paid into,like a private pension, called serps,it is a top up to the state pension,I can't see a difference.If you hate the public sector so much scrap it..if you can afford private insurence on health,pension,education,accident,nursing care for your old age etc then go ahead,but the proof is in America where a huge section of the general public are uninsured because wages do not keep up with peoples needs...that is what you want.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 10:29am Hoist wrote:
Newmania - do the sums - benefit seeking migrants v bankers and tax avoiders.
As far as I remember Australia has very good welfare state provision (it may have changed recently but I don't think that much)
Have you lived in the USA - I have. One friend was in an accident and was really broke and not insured - he'll be paying for the rest of his life. Another friend had an operation with complications - they wouldn't send an ambulance for her - she had to get on the subway bleeding. Another time I found a man bleeding from the head in the street and when I phoned 911 they asked whether he was wearing a suit. If he was a tramp they weren't going to come. Another friend runs a very successful business but nearly lost it all because he found that when he got cancer his insurance didn't cover everything or his time out from work.
I have seen many people, clearly insane, running around the streets screaming.
I will stop there - hope you get the drift. Is that where you want to live - or what about dubai - my own idea of hell. Rich people living off the back of cheap immigrant slave labour.
Of course people want to live in the UK. Even the North East would be heaven to a lot of people. Not me though ;-)
On 25 Mar 2011 at 10:52am MC wrote:
Well put Hoist
On 25 Mar 2011 at 11:18am Hoist wrote:
Well thank you MC! And thanks to Lambo too.
Tags Armpit - Football and shopping? No thanks. I'm looking forward to the protest.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 11:35am Newmania wrote:
ACERBIC blunder Bastian ...sigh.... . . Average salaries in the Public Sector are higher than the private sector Pensions will be funded by future and present tax payers, they are not, by a million miles purchasable about the rate of the notional contributions , in fact they are not available at all. The contributions are in any case more tax payers money. You need to do the work if you want to discuss this , you have not .
No-one is suggesting the state should be scrapped .
On 25 Mar 2011 at 11:49am Newmania wrote:
HOIST-I do not object to the NHS in terms of overall expenditure , well I do a bit , its more a matter of value and organisation. In fact the extent of State health provision in the states is , by our standards a "mixed Economy"( they are about 2/3 as much then the same again privately its astonishing ) but not far off somewhere like France . The NHS is not redistributive though , except from healthy to sick so its not a right /left thing in quite the way you imagine
Your assumption that a lower tax UK would become the USA is just ridiculous as a seconds thought will assure you.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 12:18pm Hoist wrote:
Don't understand you Newmania. Some of your sentences are a bit convoluted.
So you object to the NHS's overall expenditure, value for money and organisation. Interesting to see what you would suggest to make it cheaper and more efficient.
Tax in the US is very low. I know. Much lower than over here. But I'd rather pay more and get more.
I am not always left wing, either.
Tell me why my assumption is ridiculous.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 12:32pm Newmania wrote:
Hoist the complete lack of any private Insurance component is almost unique to this country as is the ultra centralised (post war) organisation. Its a quite a complicated subject and sadly sordid commerce requires my attention.
This is an article about Australia , my ideas on the way forward are sort of implicit in its case.
Check it out here »
On 25 Mar 2011 at 12:56pm Hoist wrote:
I will read as soon as I have time - I really must do some other stuff too.
My initial thought is that I don't want the uk to be anything like australia. Essex with parrots is what it is.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 2:10pm Hoist wrote:
Newmania - Haven't read it yet - 13 pages!!! Can't you summarise? If not, why not? What are the Australians doing to achieve small government so successfully?
And how do we know that this report isn't b*ll*cks. The organisation that produced it says it is 'is actively engaged in supporting a free enterprise economy and a free society under limited government' so they can hardly claim to be unbiased.
On 25 Mar 2011 at 3:36pm Tags Armpit wrote:
Which people posting on this thread are doing so in their employers time?
On 25 Mar 2011 at 3:42pm Hoist wrote:
On 25 Mar 2011 at 3:52pm bastian, wrote:
newmania we really have got to be careful not to succeed in this race to the bottom thing...you mentioned australia earlier,the reason things work out for them is because there is less disparity in wages,if you are going to have an all private,all capitalist country you need to make the minimum wage a living wage,that would be around 15 pound and hour...outcry from buisness I think,why? because capitalism only works through exploitation(whethwer it's in th UK or china...mmm..love that iphone)
On 25 Mar 2011 at 4:40pm Newmania wrote:
Yes Bastian there is less disparity in wages but it is achieved by a small state .Interesting eh.
By the way does the word aserbic mean something pertaining to Serbia ?
On 25 Mar 2011 at 7:23pm bastian wrote:
slip of a finger,the issue still remains.
On 26 Mar 2011 at 12:15pm not from around here wrote:
Clifford, I believe the point I was making was that in the case of Egypt, Lybia etc the population has up until now been largely silent due to fear and oppression not because they agree with the situation. It is not reasonable to compare those situations (where people have genuine and real life-threatening/changing problems) with a few whingers who are prostesting because they want their EMA to continue to be paid.
My comparison of Poll Tax with council tax was to with the overal amount of tax paid under both systems which is indeed broadly the same. The 'method' of calculating that tax is indeed different. In terms of method the council tax is calculated in a very similar way to the old rates system.
However, the fact remains that under either Poll Tax or council tax the overall amount of tax paid remains roughly the same - only the distribution of those tax charges is different for each system.
One could argue that the Poll tax is in some ways fairer than the current council tax system. Under the poll tax people were taxed for local services individually, so the more people that lived in a house using those local services the more they paid in tax, which seems fair enough. Under the current system two people who live in a large valuable house pay far more than 10 people who live in a tiny lower-value house.
Which do you think is fairer?
At the end of the day there will be no effect from these marches in London except to further polarise opinion and to land us all with a massive policing bill.
On 28 Mar 2011 at 10:43am Hoist wrote:
S'obvious - 10 people - crushed into a tiny house who obviously can't afford to live in a bigger one or 2 people who live in a massive house and can afford to do so.
Are you really asking this question?
On 28 Mar 2011 at 12:43pm not from around here wrote:
Ok Hoist to put it another way - two identical houses, one with four people living in it and one with two people. Under the current system both 'households' pay the same. Under the Poll tax the household with more people paid more than the one with less people. Now do you see it?
On 28 Mar 2011 at 5:18pm Hoist wrote:
I think I've already answered this one.
Not even the Torys agreed with you on this - which is why they dropped the poll tax.