Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Guided Missile]

Yeah. I know, everybody knows, apart from you apparently to whom the bleeding obvious is a startling revelation.

 

If you were a little brighter you realise that stat actually confirms my point - 5% earn so much that they pay more tax than the other 95% of the population combined, despite the top rate of 45% not being very progressive.

That particular "stat" was only announced 4 days ago. I suggest you watch this clip from Ferris Bueller. You might learn something, but I have a feeling you are the one dribbling over his desk.

 

 

The Laffer curve...

 

 

This from the NY Times. One of the few truly great economists...

 

Accepting the award, Mr. Laffer praised a wide range of economists and politicians who advocated tax cuts, including Mr. Cheney; the economist Milton Friedman; former Representative Jack Kemp; Presidents Reagan and John F. Kennedy; and Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain

 

Still, what do they know compared to your hero, John McDonnell ?

[shurlock]

You’re having a laff pal.

 

The Laffer Curve is unanimously rejected by serious economists. But nice political stunt which plays to the usual halfwits.

 

https://okpolicy.org/thats-a-laffer-top-economists-unanimously-reject-that-tax-cuts-will-yield-higher-revenue/

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve

[stug76]

Do you think its good for the economy or for society that the top earners get an increasing share of national wealth? Where does that lead?

I made no comment on the merits of it, just that it's not a surprise that people who have historically demonstrated success (if you measure success as a function of income), continue to do so.

 

Do I think its good? If you don't offer rewards for excellence then you impact opportunity, innovation and motivation. Everyone could be 'successful' with the right attitude. There are countless stories of CEO's who have worked their way up from the shop floor. It's very easy to blame 'the system' because there are lots of people willing to accept it as a valid excuse. However, I understand that there are people who dont share my views!

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

I made no comment on the merits of it, just that it's not a surprise that people who have historically demonstrated success (if you measure success as a function of income), continue to do so.

 

Do I think its good? If you don't offer rewards for excellence then you impact opportunity, innovation and motivation. Everyone could be 'successful' with the right attitude. There are countless stories of CEO's who have worked their way up from the shop floor. It's very easy to blame 'the system' because there are lots of people willing to accept it as a valid excuse. However, I understand that there are people who dont share my views!

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

I too believe that excellence should be incentivised and rewarded but am not naive to think that people are competing on a level playing and opportunities are fairly distributed. Having the ‘right attitude’ is a necessary but insufficient condition for success and stories of people working their way up from the shop floor to the top are the exception not the rule.

Edited 5 July, 2019 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That particular "stat" was only announced 4 days ago. I suggest you watch this clip from Ferris Bueller. You might learn something, but I have a feeling you are the one dribbling over his desk.

 

 

The Laffer curve...

 

 

This from the NY Times. One of the few truly great economists...

 

 

 

Still, what do they know compared to your hero, John McDonnell ?

 

We had to do a working group in the second year of Uni around the Laffer Curve, and whether it should be rejected or accepted as a sound economic model.

 

You could pick out the people who were going to fail Macro Economics, that's for sure.

[stug76]

There will never be a level playing field, never in a million years. It would be crazy to suggest it. If I work hard to give my kids opportunities in life and you don't, should my kids miss out? If I spend time with my kids helping them learn and grow as good people, to have a good work ethic and attitude and you sit yours down in front of the TV every night how would you level that playing field? It's all too easy to hide behind 'systemic failure', than to look inwardly and be honest about why success hasn't come your way.

 

I've employed several people who have moaned about their lot, have gone to the doctors and got pills for this and that all because they couldn't face the reality of their own failings, and the system will let them do it.

 

Sorry, got a bit side tracked! Anyway, you'll more often than not get what you deserve from life. Usually that's because of the decisions that you make and that will determine whether you're a 'success' or not.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

There will never be a level playing field, never in a million years. It would be crazy to suggest it. If I work hard to give my kids opportunities in life and you don't, should my kids miss out? If I spend time with my kids helping them learn and grow as good people, to have a good work ethic and attitude and you sit yours down in front of the TV every night how would you level that playing field? It's all too easy to hide behind 'systemic failure', than to look inwardly and be honest about why success hasn't come your way.

 

I've employed several people who have moaned about their lot, have gone to the doctors and got pills for this and that all because they couldn't face the reality of their own failings, and the system will let them do it.

 

Sorry, got a bit side tracked! Anyway, you'll more often than not get what you deserve from life. Usually that's because of the decisions that you make and that will determine whether you're a 'success' or not.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

As Jordan Peterson said, it is all about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome....

[buctootim]

I made no comment on the merits of it, just that it's not a surprise that people who have historically demonstrated success (if you measure success as a function of income), continue to do so.

 

Do I think its good? If you don't offer rewards for excellence then you impact opportunity, innovation and motivation. Everyone could be 'successful' with the right attitude. There are countless stories of CEO's who have worked their way up from the shop floor. It's very easy to blame 'the system' because there are lots of people willing to accept it as a valid excuse. However, I understand that there are people who dont share my views!

 

Very few people doubt you should reward success and incentivise innovation. The educated and clever and driven and lucky will always earn more - but that isnt the point I was making. The problem is that society has incrementally become more unequal since about 1985 and wealth is being accumulated in the hands of fewer people, primarily the top 0.1%. Do you want a society that only works for the top 0.1%?

 

Being distracted by a debate about income tax is exactly what the self interested want. Income tax is progressive. I dont have a problem with the top rate being 45%. The issues are that for the wealthy its largely optional - there are so many ways to shelter money or reclassify it as not income. In any event income tax is only around a third of government tax receipts. Council tax and VAT hit the poorest particularly hard, with the poorest 10% of households paying 7% of their gross income in council tax, compared to just 1.5% for the richest 10%, and 12.5% of gross income paid in VAT (5% for rich). How can it be fair that someone in a £50m house in Mayfair pays lower council tax than someone in a £250,000 house in Bournemouth? Why should the wealthier get a bigger tax break on pension contributions than the poorer? shouldnt there be at least a flat rate if not actually reversed?

 

You should read the short article by Warren Buffet (linked below). Somehow we need to find a way to tax individual windfall unearned gains, tackle corporate tax avoidance and tax wealth rather than focussing solely on income. That cant be done only on a national basis.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11962411/The-highest-and-lowest-council-tax-bills.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=0

Edited 5 July, 2019 by buctootim

[stug76]

Very few people doubt you should reward success and incentivise innovation. The educated and clever and driven and lucky will always earn more - but that isnt the point I was making. The problem is that society has incrementally become more unequal since about 1985 and wealth is being accumulated in the hands of fewer people, primarily the top 0.1%. Do you want a society that only works for the top 0.1%?

 

Being distracted by a debate about income tax is exactly what the self interested want. Income tax is progressive. I dont have a problem with the top rate being 45%. The issues are that for the wealthy its largely optional - there are so many ways to shelter money or reclassify it as not income. In any event income tax is only around a third of government tax receipts. Council tax and VAT hit the poorest particularly hard, with the poorest 10% of households paying 7% of their gross income in council tax, compared to just 1.5% for the richest 10%, and 12.5% of gross income paid in VAT (5% for rich). How can it be fair that someone in a £50m house in Mayfair pays lower council tax than someone in a £250,000 house in Bournemouth? Why should the wealthier get a bigger tax break on pension contributions than the poorer? shouldnt there be at least a flat rate if not actually reversed?

 

You should read the short article by Warren Buffet (linked below). Somehow we need to find a way to tax individual windfall unearned gains, tackle corporate tax avoidance and tax wealth rather than focussing solely on income. That cant be done only on a national basis.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11962411/The-highest-and-lowest-council-tax-bills.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=0

If we're not careful we'll end up chasing ourselves round in circles, but I do appreciate your response.

 

We're probably, ideologically speaking, coming from a different place and unlikely to agree. This is my last post, so I'll try to wrap up as much as I can from my point of view, but excuse me if I dont cover all your points.

 

I don't think that the top .1% earning more than everyone else, and society not working for the remaining 99.9% are mutually exclusive events. I would say that society works for the majority of people. We pay a proportion of our income in tax and we get a lot for our money. My son was rushed into hospital last week, thankfully nothing serious, society worked for me that day. We all get educated, we all get looked after, we all get welfare when times are hard and for 99.9% of the population the system works, it really does.

 

There are a few outliers at the bottom end who have no interest in being part of society, who don't want to work, who commit crimes who try to ruin it for everyone else (I've had my workshop cleaned out 3 times in the last 6 years), but as a society we have to accept that you cant please everyone. It might not all be plain sailing.

 

Everyone wants more money, of course they do. Sometimes you have to ride your luck, but if you make good decisions, consistently and work hard then society works. If you can pay your bills at the end of the month with a few quid in your pocket then you're a success. If you keep looking up at those who have bigger house, nicer cars, you'll never be happy because there's always someone with a 'better' life than yours.

 

A 'wealthy' person, is probably less a drain on society than you or I. They probably educate their kids privately, have private health care, don't use public services but you want them to pay proportionately more of their wealth on society. I can see it, t on some extent but they will almost certainly be wealth creators. If they employ people who pay tax, should that be offset? It's like going down the pub with your mates and sharing the bill according to who is the wealthiest. Which would actually be a good idea in my circle of friends!

 

I appreciate the link, I might take a look later, but I'm assuming it just reinforces your point, and for balance I'd then have to dig out one that supports my point of view then you're back on that cycle of peer reviewed papers and articles that seems so popular these days.

 

Have a good weekend, wont be long until the football is back and we can occupy ourselves with something more worthwhile.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

If we're not careful we'll end up chasing ourselves round in circles, but I do appreciate your response.

 

We're probably, ideologically speaking, coming from a different place and unlikely to agree. This is my last post, so I'll try to wrap up as much as I can from my point of view, but excuse me if I dont cover all your points.

 

I don't think that the top .1% earning more than everyone else, and society not working for the remaining 99.9% are mutually exclusive events. I would say that society works for the majority of people. We pay a proportion of our income in tax and we get a lot for our money. My son was rushed into hospital last week, thankfully nothing serious, society worked for me that day. We all get educated, we all get looked after, we all get welfare when times are hard and for 99.9% of the population the system works, it really does.

 

There are a few outliers at the bottom end who have no interest in being part of society, who don't want to work, who commit crimes who try to ruin it for everyone else (I've had my workshop cleaned out 3 times in the last 6 years), but as a society we have to accept that you cant please everyone. It might not all be plain sailing.

 

Everyone wants more money, of course they do. Sometimes you have to ride your luck, but if you make good decisions, consistently and work hard then society works. If you can pay your bills at the end of the month with a few quid in your pocket then you're a success. If you keep looking up at those who have bigger house, nicer cars, you'll never be happy because there's always someone with a 'better' life than yours.

 

A 'wealthy' person, is probably less a drain on society than you or I. They probably educate their kids privately, have private health care, don't use public services but you want them to pay proportionately more of their wealth on society. I can see it, t on some extent but they will almost certainly be wealth creators. If they employ people who pay tax, should that be offset? It's like going down the pub with your mates and sharing the bill according to who is the wealthiest. Which would actually be a good idea in my circle of friends!

 

I appreciate the link, I might take a look later, but I'm assuming it just reinforces your point, and for balance I'd then have to dig out one that supports my point of view then you're back on that cycle of peer reviewed papers and articles that seems so popular these days.

 

Have a good weekend, wont be long until the football is back and we can occupy ourselves with something more worthwhile.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

A very good balanced post.

[OldNick]

Do you think its good for the economy or for society that the top earners get an increasing share of national wealth? Where does that lead?

If everyone increases their wealth by 10% does it not mean someone on a million have a larger amount added to their wealth than someone on 10k ? If im right in that it stands to reason that the wealthier you are your pot grows bigger as time goes by.

I agree that there should be ways to stop the superrich having tax loopholes but until we accept that it is better they pay some tax here rather than transfer it to another country we will always have this problem.

The super rich are able to be mobile and so difficult to pin down. I think you will find that there is a meeting with the revenue where they sit down with some people of extreme wealth who negotiate how much they are going to pay, rather than get nothing.

[Jonnyboy]

As Jordan Peterson said, it is all about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome....

 

Far better and cleverer people have said that than Lobster boy, many times and decades before him.

[stug76]

Far better and cleverer people have said that than Lobster boy, many times and decades before him.

So you agree with the sentiment, it's just the source you object too?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

So you agree with the sentiment, it's just the source you object too?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

A bit more complicated than that pal. If the source isn’t very good, then the sentiment is also likely to be misunderstood and misapplied.

 

For starters, serious political philosophers -Rawls, Sen, Arneson, Barry, Cohen, Roemer etc- understand that there isn’t a clean distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome -that unequal outcomes can result in unequal opportunities if, for example, the rich can pass on all of their connections, knowledge and wealth to their children, send them to private schools, buy them houses etc.

 

Now one can debate how fundamental a critique this is, how much these advantages do, as a matter of fact, skew the distribution of opportunities. But simply to deny or sidestep the interdependence between outcome and opportunity is schoolboy stuff.

 

Jordan Peterson is to political philosophy what Liam Gallagher is to music.

Edited 8 July, 2019 by shurlock

[Jonnyboy]

If we're not careful we'll end up chasing ourselves round in circles, but I do appreciate your response.

 

We're probably, ideologically speaking, coming from a different place and unlikely to agree. This is my last post, so I'll try to wrap up as much as I can from my point of view, but excuse me if I dont cover all your points.

 

I don't think that the top .1% earning more than everyone else, and society not working for the remaining 99.9% are mutually exclusive events. I would say that society works for the majority of people. We pay a proportion of our income in tax and we get a lot for our money. My son was rushed into hospital last week, thankfully nothing serious, society worked for me that day. We all get educated, we all get looked after, we all get welfare when times are hard and for 99.9% of the population the system works, it really does.

 

There are a few outliers at the bottom end who have no interest in being part of society, who don't want to work, who commit crimes who try to ruin it for everyone else (I've had my workshop cleaned out 3 times in the last 6 years), but as a society we have to accept that you cant please everyone. It might not all be plain sailing.

 

Everyone wants more money, of course they do. Sometimes you have to ride your luck, but if you make good decisions, consistently and work hard then society works. If you can pay your bills at the end of the month with a few quid in your pocket then you're a success. If you keep looking up at those who have bigger house, nicer cars, you'll never be happy because there's always someone with a 'better' life than yours.

 

A 'wealthy' person, is probably less a drain on society than you or I. They probably educate their kids privately, have private health care, don't use public services but you want them to pay proportionately more of their wealth on society. I can see it, t on some extent but they will almost certainly be wealth creators. If they employ people who pay tax, should that be offset? It's like going down the pub with your mates and sharing the bill according to who is the wealthiest. Which would actually be a good idea in my circle of friends!

 

I appreciate the link, I might take a look later, but I'm assuming it just reinforces your point, and for balance I'd then have to dig out one that supports my point of view then you're back on that cycle of peer reviewed papers and articles that seems so popular these days.

 

Have a good weekend, wont be long until the football is back and we can occupy ourselves with something more worthwhile.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

"99.9% of the time the system works"

[aintforever]

99.9% of the population the system works, it really does.

 

I dunno, any system where the government has to make so many cuts to public services while Amazon and Starbucks combined pay less tax than N'Golo Kante is pretty f*cked, and probably not sustainable IMO.

 

It’s easy to say the system works if you have a well paid job and nice house, I doubt many of the low paid, stuck in renting and using food banks share your opinion.

[Guided Missile]

Auf wiedersehen....

 

 

Das Ende ist nah....

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I dunno, any system where the government has to make so many cuts to public services while Amazon and Starbucks combined pay less tax than N'Golo Kante is pretty f*cked, and probably not sustainable IMO.

 

It’s easy to say the system works if you have a well paid job and nice house, I doubt many of the low paid, stuck in renting and using food banks share your opinion.

 

Not only does Amazon short change the taxpayer, they have also effectively closed down large swathes of our high streets and limited tax take further. How is this allowed to happen?

[saint1977]

I dunno, any system where the government has to make so many cuts to public services while Amazon and Starbucks combined pay less tax than N'Golo Kante is pretty f*cked, and probably not sustainable IMO.

 

It’s easy to say the system works if you have a well paid job and nice house, I doubt many of the low paid, stuck in renting and using food banks share your opinion.

 

Good post. Whoever wins the leadership is going to need to sort Brexit out first and then start getting markets working for a greater proportion of the population (I still prefer markets to socialism but we have to see some major change). They had the double pain of the credit crunch hitting jobs and what little pension they might have had and then a brutal austerity that even Thatcher would have baulked at. The widespread need for food banks is a national disgrace in 2019. It’s no coincidence you have the group of billionaires in the States saying taxation has to change as well, no matter how much Trump and Fox try and drown it out.

[stug76]

I dunno, any system where the government has to make so many cuts to public services while Amazon and Starbucks combined pay less tax than N'Golo Kante is pretty f*cked, and probably not sustainable IMO.

 

It’s easy to say the system works if you have a well paid job and nice house, I doubt many of the low paid, stuck in renting and using food banks share your opinion.

 

It all goes back to what I said before, about what your personal beliefs are. If you analyse the reason why people are stuck in renting and using food banks I bet it isn't because they didn't have the opportunity to be educated, I bet it's not because we have had 100% employment for the last 20 years, I bet it's not because they can't afford their medical bills. My guess is that they've been let down by their family and their friends, that they have been led to believe that it doesn't matter how hard you work at school or in your job.

 

My guess is (guess - not backed up by anything other than my own personal life experience) that they all had the opportunity to have 'better' lives but have made decisions along the way that have lead them to where they are, not because society has let them down. If you make the wrong decisions, if you take a different path, within reason, you'll get what deserve in life.

 

You show me the person who tried hard at school, got good grades according to their ability, has turned up and done a good days work everyday, who is polite fair and decent, who has prioritised the necessities in life before the luxuries and who hasn't ended up a success and I'll show you the 0.1%.

 

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

This from a Democrat....

[video=youtube_share;JLdA1ikkoEc]

[whelk]

It all goes back to what I said before, about what your personal beliefs are. If you analyse the reason why people are stuck in renting and using food banks I bet it isn't because they didn't have the opportunity to be educated, I bet it's not because we have had 100% employment for the last 20 years, I bet it's not because they can't afford their medical bills. My guess is that they've been let down by their family and their friends, that they have been led to believe that it doesn't matter how hard you work at school or in your job.

 

My guess is (guess - not backed up by anything other than my own personal life experience) that they all had the opportunity to have 'better' lives but have made decisions along the way that have lead them to where they are, not because society has let them down. If you make the wrong decisions, if you take a different path, within reason, you'll get what deserve in life.

 

You show me the person who tried hard at school, got good grades according to their ability, has turned up and done a good days work everyday, who is polite fair and decent, who has prioritised the necessities in life before the luxuries and who hasn't ended up a success and I'll show you the 0.1%.

 

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Agree to an extent but there are more homeless, more using food banks, more bastard landlords ripping off people who have to rent.

That is because system is deteriorating and services we used to stump up for are cut based on ideology rather than necessity.

If you grow up in some ****e estate in London lots will still have opportunities but the more lawless they are the more that spirals.

But alas not caused by any austerity eh all Sadiq Khan’s fault.

[shurlock]

It all goes back to what I said before, about what your personal beliefs are. If you analyse the reason why people are stuck in renting and using food banks I bet it isn't because they didn't have the opportunity to be educated, I bet it's not because we have had 100% employment for the last 20 years, I bet it's not because they can't afford their medical bills. My guess is that they've been let down by their family and their friends, that they have been led to believe that it doesn't matter how hard you work at school or in your job.

 

My guess is (guess - not backed up by anything other than my own personal life experience) that they all had the opportunity to have 'better' lives but have made decisions along the way that have lead them to where they are, not because society has let them down. If you make the wrong decisions, if you take a different path, within reason, you'll get what deserve in life.

 

You show me the person who tried hard at school, got good grades according to their ability, has turned up and done a good days work everyday, who is polite fair and decent, who has prioritised the necessities in life before the luxuries and who hasn't ended up a success and I'll show you the 0.1%.

 

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Rousing stuff, if ridiculously naive. Perhaps you can explain why in-work poverty exists and is such a significant problem in the UK (IFS, 2018 ). Presumably those people have followed your advice pal.

[aintforever]

It all goes back to what I said before, about what your personal beliefs are. If you analyse the reason why people are stuck in renting and using food banks I bet it isn't because they didn't have the opportunity to be educated, I bet it's not because we have had 100% employment for the last 20 years, I bet it's not because they can't afford their medical bills. My guess is that they've been let down by their family and their friends, that they have been led to believe that it doesn't matter how hard you work at school or in your job.

 

My guess is (guess - not backed up by anything other than my own personal life experience) that they all had the opportunity to have 'better' lives but have made decisions along the way that have lead them to where they are, not because society has let them down. If you make the wrong decisions, if you take a different path, within reason, you'll get what deserve in life.

 

You show me the person who tried hard at school, got good grades according to their ability, has turned up and done a good days work everyday, who is polite fair and decent, who has prioritised the necessities in life before the luxuries and who hasn't ended up a success and I'll show you the 0.1%.

 

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

I think your "guess" is a bit misguided. There always has been people who are sh!t at school and end up doing low paid jobs - always will be, and there are always low paid jobs that need doing. The fact that so many of these people are stuck in renting and going to food banks is not a great reflection on our system, especially when there is so much wealth around. And that is not eve taking into account the cuts in services which has real effect on some people, and I would guess way more than 0.1%.

[OldNick]

I think your "guess" is a bit misguided. There always has been people who are sh!t at school and end up doing low paid jobs - always will be, and there are always low paid jobs that need doing. The fact that so many of these people are stuck in renting and going to food banks is not a great reflection on our system, especially when there is so much wealth around. And that is not eve taking into account the cuts in services which has real effect on some people, and I would guess way more than 0.1%.

So whats the answer, make everyone the same?

There is no law as far as Im aware of being self employed. Start your own business and see how easy it is to survive that way.

I agree with Shurlock that there are many who have had the luck of being born into wealth and opportunity, but there are swathes of people who miss out in many parts of life to succeed in business. Sacrifices have been made, missing the kids growing up, not able to commit to social events, sleepless nights concerned that the staff were not going to be paid or where the next customer was going to come from. A lot of people who are successful now have put in the hard yards to get where they are, and so are rightly protective of that.

Food banks area double edged sword where they were there to help the very needy I read somewhere has now become the norm and so people spend their money elsewhere and not on food as they have this free. Hence the food banks becoming more important.

I dont have the answers to make society fairer ( whatever that is)but stop the wealth creators creating and watch how the rest fall quicker. Tax the top earners much more and the tax revenue will drop and you will see many leave to other countries where they are more welcome. France had a leader last time and he crucified the wealth creators and the French took a hit as their wealthier citizens upped sticks.

We are heading for a big recession now anyway and so the wealthy will be poorer and the tax take will be less to share out with the poorer in society.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Rousing stuff, if ridiculously naive. Perhaps you can explain why in-work poverty exists and is such a significant problem in the UK (IFS, 2018 ). Presumably those people have followed your advice pal.

 

Maybe he is referring to the classroom disruptors, that didn't bother with the careers advice or further education. That went onto spend their late teens and early to mid twenties not really doing much. Then realised that they had to work and because they had not bothered to take advantage of what the system had to offer could only get low paid manual work.

 

Where I might part ways with Stug76 is there are always those in life that have just had bad luck. That is when the system demonstrates its effectiveness and I am not sure it does.

Edited 8 July, 2019 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[stug76]

Rousing stuff, if ridiculously naive. Perhaps you can explain why in-work poverty exists and is such a significant problem in the UK (IFS, 2018 ). Presumably those people have followed your advice pal.

'ridiculously naive' - you're a classy chap aren't you!!

 

I'm going to guess that the poverty threshold as defined by the IFS report wouldn't correlate with my view of poverty. Also, if you refer to my post, I'm suggesting that having a job isn't the only factor, it's also how you behave when you have the job and what you do with the money. Unless you are going to audit all those under the 'poverty line', I my reservations about such thresholds.

 

As alluded to, I think that food banks are probably the worst way of pointing at a system to highlight its faults. It's like a free bar at a wedding.

 

Of course, there are people who are genuinely unlucky, who do work hard and dont get the breaks. Who get knocked down and keep coming back for more but don't get the rewards of their efforts and I can live with that, there's an element of chance in everything we do. They're probably the sort of people who will take their benefits and make the most of them, in the way that they are intended, not sit back and moan about how unlucky they are.

 

High crime inner city estates, probably much harder to get out of than the leafy suburbs, and yeah I guess that's the lottery of birth, but dont look down on them, patronise them give them pat on the back and a few handouts. But also, don't criticise or resent those that have been lucky. Accept what you've got and do what you can to make your life better. Treat all people with respect and you'll get your rewards, the fair society that you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[whelk]

Fck me anyone voting for the Brexit party should take a look at their chairmen’s performance on CH4 news. Richard Tice hopelessly uninformed and out of his depth. Embarrassing.

[Jonnyboy]

It all goes back to what I said before, about what your personal beliefs are. If you analyse the reason why people are stuck in renting and using food banks I bet it isn't because they didn't have the opportunity to be educated, I bet it's not because we have had 100% employment for the last 20 years, I bet it's not because they can't afford their medical bills. My guess is that they've been let down by their family and their friends, that they have been led to believe that it doesn't matter how hard you work at school or in your job.

 

My guess is (guess - not backed up by anything other than my own personal life experience) that they all had the opportunity to have 'better' lives but have made decisions along the way that have lead them to where they are, not because society has let them down. If you make the wrong decisions, if you take a different path, within reason, you'll get what deserve in life.

 

You show me the person who tried hard at school, got good grades according to their ability, has turned up and done a good days work everyday, who is polite fair and decent, who has prioritised the necessities in life before the luxuries and who hasn't ended up a success and I'll show you the 0.1%.

 

Its too easy to blame a system that offers so much before taking an honest hard look at why the system hasn't worked for you.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Those deserving poor got just what they deserved.

[Jonnyboy]

So whats the answer, make everyone the same?

There is no law as far as Im aware of being self employed. Start your own business and see how easy it is to survive that way.

I agree with Shurlock that there are many who have had the luck of being born into wealth and opportunity, but there are swathes of people who miss out in many parts of life to succeed in business. Sacrifices have been made, missing the kids growing up, not able to commit to social events, sleepless nights concerned that the staff were not going to be paid or where the next customer was going to come from. A lot of people who are successful now have put in the hard yards to get where they are, and so are rightly protective of that.

Food banks area double edged sword where they were there to help the very needy I read somewhere has now become the norm and so people spend their money elsewhere and not on food as they have this free. Hence the food banks becoming more important.

I dont have the answers to make society fairer ( whatever that is)but stop the wealth creators creating and watch how the rest fall quicker. Tax the top earners much more and the tax revenue will drop and you will see many leave to other countries where they are more welcome. France had a leader last time and he crucified the wealth creators and the French took a hit as their wealthier citizens upped sticks.

We are heading for a big recession now anyway and so the wealthy will be poorer and the tax take will be less to share out with the poorer in society.

 

The only way is some sort of globally enforced tax avoidance rules and the closure of tax havens. But then the media moguls and true global elite would never get behind that. And useful idiots blaming it all on people who didn't pay attention at school and people who take antidepressants just make it worse.

[stug76]

Those deserving poor got just what they deserved.

Yes. there are some people who are poor who deserve to be, those that have squandered all the opportunities they've been given and have done nothing to improve their situation.

 

There are some people who are poor and happy.

 

There are some people who are poor who are a success.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Unbelievable Jeff]

'ridiculously naive' - you're a classy chap aren't you!!

 

I'm going to guess that the poverty threshold as defined by the IFS report wouldn't correlate with my view of poverty. Also, if you refer to my post, I'm suggesting that having a job isn't the only factor, it's also how you behave when you have the job and what you do with the money. Unless you are going to audit all those under the 'poverty line', I my reservations about such thresholds.

 

As alluded to, I think that food banks are probably the worst way of pointing at a system to highlight its faults. It's like a free bar at a wedding.

 

Of course, there are people who are genuinely unlucky, who do work hard and dont get the breaks. Who get knocked down and keep coming back for more but don't get the rewards of their efforts and I can live with that, there's an element of chance in everything we do. They're probably the sort of people who will take their benefits and make the most of them, in the way that they are intended, not sit back and moan about how unlucky they are.

 

High crime inner city estates, probably much harder to get out of than the leafy suburbs, and yeah I guess that's the lottery of birth, but dont look down on them, patronise them give them pat on the back and a few handouts. But also, don't criticise or resent those that have been lucky. Accept what you've got and do what you can to make your life better. Treat all people with respect and you'll get your rewards, the fair society that you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Seven years ago, I would have agreed. Since 2012 though, the way that benefits have been denigrated, and made more difficult to collect, pay increases have slowed, and a rise in zero hour contracts, poverty has been on the rise. It's gone too far, and people are dying because of it. It is getting harder and harder to remove yourself from the poverty cycle.

 

It's why I am no longer a member of the Conservatives.

[benjii]

Yes, whatever you think of benefits as a concept, Universal Credit is administered in a way which is relatively arbitrary and illogical, which leads to hardship that wouldn’t occur if the rules made more sense. And transition from old benefits to Universal Credit has also been arbitrary and illogical.

 

If you’re going to have a benefit safety net then it needs to be logical and effective otherwise you’re just ****ing money away to no end.

[OldNick]

The only way is some sort of globally enforced tax avoidance rules and the closure of tax havens. But then the media moguls and true global elite would never get behind that. And useful idiots blaming it all on people who didn't pay attention at school and people who take antidepressants just make it worse.

Look at anyone in power of any political persuasion and they stash the cash in foreign accounts. If you move the deckchairs on the Titanic you get the same outcome, Russia after the revolution was a prime example. They drove past the normal people in their limos and had the high life. It is human nature you want the best you can have, sometimes at the expense of others.

 

I wonder when I watch films of children in Africa and the Carribean and see how they are keen to go to school and learn and proud of wearing their smart uniforms, our kids!! Its pathetic, they go to school without the mindset to work or learn. Then when they dont have luxury lifestyles they are bitter. I will add I wasnt (as you will see with my grammar etc) that I was not that academic but that didnt stop me from working to make my life good for my family.

[aintforever]

So whats the answer, make everyone the same?

There is no law as far as Im aware of being self employed. Start your own business and see how easy it is to survive that way.

I agree with Shurlock that there are many who have had the luck of being born into wealth and opportunity, but there are swathes of people who miss out in many parts of life to succeed in business. Sacrifices have been made, missing the kids growing up, not able to commit to social events, sleepless nights concerned that the staff were not going to be paid or where the next customer was going to come from. A lot of people who are successful now have put in the hard yards to get where they are, and so are rightly protective of that.

Food banks area double edged sword where they were there to help the very needy I read somewhere has now become the norm and so people spend their money elsewhere and not on food as they have this free. Hence the food banks becoming more important.

I dont have the answers to make society fairer ( whatever that is)but stop the wealth creators creating and watch how the rest fall quicker. Tax the top earners much more and the tax revenue will drop and you will see many leave to other countries where they are more welcome. France had a leader last time and he crucified the wealth creators and the French took a hit as their wealthier citizens upped sticks.

We are heading for a big recession now anyway and so the wealthy will be poorer and the tax take will be less to share out with the poorer in society.

 

For starters I think there is scope make our tax system more progressive without killing the economy. Fact is, for anyone on the housing ladder with a half decent job, these years of ‘Austerity’ have just been easy years of low mortgage payments. I wouldn’t even noticed if they bung a couple of percent on the tax rate. Would you seriously stop working hard if they took a few more percent in tax out of your pay packet?

 

We are cutting police at a time when people are getting stabbed all over the place, cutting vital services, destroying the NHS, people at the bottom have suffered austerity when a huge chunk of the population have just p!ssed it up.

 

As for the super-rich and multinational companies like Amazon, that is a harder issue but just accepting the situation and pandering to them while they cream off billions is not going to help a situation which is only moving in one direction. It needs an international solution, but in a system based competing against one another instead of working together that is probably impossible.

[OldNick]

For starters I think there is scope make our tax system more progressive without killing the economy. Fact is, for anyone on the housing ladder with a half decent job, these years of ‘Austerity’ have just been easy years of low mortgage payments. I wouldn’t even noticed if they bung a couple of percent on the tax rate. Would you seriously stop working hard if they took a few more percent in tax out of your pay packet?

 

We are cutting police at a time when people are getting stabbed all over the place, cutting vital services, destroying the NHS, people at the bottom have suffered austerity when a huge chunk of the population have just p!ssed it up.

 

As for the super-rich and multinational companies like Amazon, that is a harder issue but just accepting the situation and pandering to them while they cream off billions is not going to help a situation which is only moving in one direction. It needs an international solution, but in a system based competing against one another instead of working together that is probably impossible.

I agree that adding a few pence is not that big a problem, but a few pence will not appease the people at the bottom of the chain. The far left want to squeeze until the pips pop out.

I dont think it has been easy for people on the housing ladder even with low interest rates, the size of mortgage has increased and so whilst the interest is low that has been eaten up by bigger payments for the capital

As for destroying the NHS I dont agree its happening, more money is pumped in all the time but it is just a big hole. Until it is reorganised to be a little more efficient we will see the service deteriorate.

As or having Police on the streets, that is a cosmetic exercise, they have been in cars since the 60's not walked the beat.

The culture of the young in the big cities will not talk or help the Police and so the villains are being protected, this leaves fear and a spiral of kids carrying weapons to protect themselves. We only have to look to look at the USA 20 years ago and this is what is in front of us in the next few years.

It is depressing what a mess it all is

[badgerx16]

As or having Police on the streets, that is a cosmetic exercise, they have been in cars since the 60's not walked the beat.

But there are nearly 20000 fewer Police officers than there were 10 years ago, regardless of whether they are driving or walking.

[Sheaf Saint]

But there are nearly 20000 fewer Police officers than there were 10 years ago, regardless of whether they are driving or walking.

 

This is the key point, and modes of transport have nothing to do with it. The remaining police are stretched so thinly that there just aren't the resources to spare officers for community engagement etc...

 

Lads these days will know full well the chances of getting stopped and searched are minimal compared to ten years ago, so they are more confident in carrying weapons around without getting caught. The HO report from a couple of years ago (of which Amber Rudd claimed ignorance while HS) said as much.

[whelk]

Brutal Andrew Neill interview with Johnson. Shame it has to end

[badgerx16]

Jacob Rees Mogg making a complete t1t of himself, again, trying to link the cricket World Cup win to Brexit;

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-cricket-england-world-cup-brexit_uk_5d2b7f93e4b0bd7d1e1e4d68?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS9zZWFyY2g_cT1qYWNvYityZWVzK21vZ2cmaWU9dXRmLTgmb2U9dXRmLTgmY2xpZW50PWZpcmVmb3gtYi1t&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGVg2OBDhQtypXFf7AhlB1Ne0emR1lfnQ7cij7RotXRLWHW3088pYp1Lbtj-c0GnhhDzy54pzbdhZvgBFFmNbVHqKOWk7vijoOCCKMQJm0k7u4ULTEPA810OZDi0uaEx0CPAEtYimfjfempwOG3xAW4xFjQzAlu9s1HYZGlAPldU

[Batman]

Jacob Rees Mogg making a complete t1t of himself, again, trying to link the cricket World Cup win to Brexit;

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-cricket-england-world-cup-brexit_uk_5d2b7f93e4b0bd7d1e1e4d68?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS9zZWFyY2g_cT1qYWNvYityZWVzK21vZ2cmaWU9dXRmLTgmb2U9dXRmLTgmY2xpZW50PWZpcmVmb3gtYi1t&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGVg2OBDhQtypXFf7AhlB1Ne0emR1lfnQ7cij7RotXRLWHW3088pYp1Lbtj-c0GnhhDzy54pzbdhZvgBFFmNbVHqKOWk7vijoOCCKMQJm0k7u4ULTEPA810OZDi0uaEx0CPAEtYimfjfempwOG3xAW4xFjQzAlu9s1HYZGlAPldU

 

its fine, I heard a remainer highlighting the excellence of the EU allowing England to win, due to the Irish skipper.

 

idiotic comments on both sides (which of course, you will not highlight)

[shurlock]

its fine, I heard a remainer highlighting the excellence of the EU allowing England to win, due to the Irish skipper.

 

idiotic comments on both sides (which of course, you will not highlight)

 

Which moron said that?

[badgerx16]

its fine, I heard a remainer highlighting the excellence of the EU allowing England to win, due to the Irish skipper.

 

idiotic comments on both sides (which of course, you will not highlight)

I was told the JRM bit by my daughter, so thought I would share. If you have a link to the comments you claim, I will quite happily ridicule them as well.

By the way, did you like Eoin Morgan's interview where he told reporters that along with "the Luck of the Irish", Adil Rashid had told him that Allah was clearly on England's side ?

 

Also, JRM's quoting of "A damn near run thing" is borrowed from the Irish born Duke of Wellington, who was commenting on his victory at Waterloo - won by an army of which only a third were English, Scots, or Welsh, the rest being Dutch, Belgian, Irish, and German, and of course the victory was only sealed by the arrival of the Prussians.

Who needs Europe?

Edited 15 July, 2019 by badgerx16

[doddisalegend]

I was told the JRM bit by my daughter, so thought I would share. If you have a link to the comments you claim, I will quite happily ridicule them as well.

By the way, did you like Eoin Morgan's interview where he told reporters that along with "the Luck of the Irish", Adil Rashid had told him that Allah was clearly on England's side ?

 

Also, JRM's quoting of "A damn near run thing" is borrowed from the Irish born Duke of Wellington, who was commenting on his victory at Waterloo - won by an army of which only a third were English, Scots, or Welsh, the rest being Dutch, Belgian, Irish, and German, and of course the victory was only sealed by the arrival of the Prussians.

Who needs Europe?

Yes the quote being about Waterloo where he commanded a cosmopolitan army of Europeans ( Scots, Irish, English, Welsh, Dutch, Belgians and Germans) supported by a second army full of Germans. In fact many of the armies the great "English" hero Wellesley commanded was full of non Englishmen whether in India, Spain, Portugal or Flanders... Little facts like that won't stop the likes of JRM and Boris trying to hijack British history for their own little Englander fantasies though.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Yes the quote being about Waterloo where he commanded a cosmopolitan army of Europeans ( Scots, Irish, English, Welsh, Dutch, Belgians and Germans) supported by a second army full of Germans. In fact many of the armies the great "English" hero Wellesley commanded was full of non Englishmen whether in India, Spain, Portugal or Flanders... Little facts like that won't stop the likes of JRM and Boris trying to hijack British history for their own little Englander fantasies though.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

Prussia could lay a decent claim to winning the Battle of Waterloo.

Edited 15 July, 2019 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

Prussia could lay a decent claim to winning the Battle of Waterloo.

 

It was, of course, an allied effort. The arrival of the Prussians tipped the balance and pursued the retreating French.

 

Back in late April I had the opportunity to visit the battlefield of Waterloo and I found it fascinating. Even though I had seen many accounts of the battle it wasn't until I saw the landscape fully that I began to appreciate what had happened. I'd like to go back now that I've read more about it.

[Wade Garrett]

We fought the Germans in 1914 and 1939.

 

I don’t think many of them gave a f*ck about Waterloo.

[buctootim]

It was, of course, an allied effort. The arrival of the Prussians tipped the balance and pursued the retreating French.

 

Back in late April I had the opportunity to visit the battlefield of Waterloo and I found it fascinating. Even though I had seen many accounts of the battle it wasn't until I saw the landscape fully that I began to appreciate what had happened. I'd like to go back now that I've read more about it.

 

Think about staying here Whitey. Looks like an amazing place.

https://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/search-and-book/properties/hougoumont-waterloo-24855/?ZJjYEWg8T5Uilneb2kJmmY3Jr3LeeLaahPaC1QMHFpbcRx3iZQ5AeQG7hvsRJs8YCnpR6hHI3zfjNuvXj1HrB4C/qQ39zYOZzNgZeJj/LwIRMmCZDFKOrflkQrGKEdkB58bo8wascQ3MAGdt1MVGJJHI9aCltqbkNEILBtUUYyI=#Overview

[badgerx16]

We fought the Germans in 1914 and 1939.

 

I don’t think many of them gave a f*ck about Waterloo.

And the relevance of this to a discussion of JRM's tweet quoting the Duke of Wellington in an anti-EU diatribe is ?

[Whitey Grandad]

Think about staying here Whitey. Looks like an amazing place.

https://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/search-and-book/properties/hougoumont-waterloo-24855/?ZJjYEWg8T5Uilneb2kJmmY3Jr3LeeLaahPaC1QMHFpbcRx3iZQ5AeQG7hvsRJs8YCnpR6hHI3zfjNuvXj1HrB4C/qQ39zYOZzNgZeJj/LwIRMmCZDFKOrflkQrGKEdkB58bo8wascQ3MAGdt1MVGJJHI9aCltqbkNEILBtUUYyI=#Overview

 

Thanks, I didn't know that you could stay there.