The Politics Thread

[boltonboris]

It will delight some of you to know that this has annoyed me more and more as I've digested it.

It's pure politics - a desperate, fumbling attempt to tap into the current Zeitgeist that says the banker-led rich are to blame for all our troubles.

Well, they will have their headlines tomorrow morning - but at what cost? Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge, the bottom has well-and-truly fallen out of the New Labour 'project': we are no longer the enterprise economy that is 'comfortable' with people being rich....

The next election cannot come a moment too soon - let's get that blue flag hoisted.

He's purely appealing the masses by taxing high earners more. They once heard that somebody may have read a paper which might have said something about rich people should give us money and stuff. They agreed

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The debate about what is fair/merited/moral is interesting, but probably a bit of a red herring, not least because participants rarely change their minds.

We're better off sticking to a debate about economics. My position is that the best way to make poorer people better off is to promote economic growth. My view on the efficacy of state redistribution is far more important to me than my view on its fairness.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I really don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If we want good public services then we have to pay for it. Isn't it fairer that those who earn more contribute more?

But what if the best way to make the poor less poor involved making the rich richer, and by more - could you tolerate that society?

Those who earn more contribute more at a flat rate of tax. What does it say about the way we think if we progressively penalise success?

[BWFC_Insane]

I really don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If we want good public services then we have to pay for it. Isn't it fairer that those who earn more contribute more?

But what if the best way to make the poor less poor involved making the rich richer, and by more - could you tolerate that society?

Those who earn more contribute more at a flat rate of tax. What does it say about the way we think if we progressively penalise success?

You mean like in America?

Where the system has undoubtedly failed to bridge the wealth gap and has instead made it progressively worse?

[Verbal]

I'd imagine the issue here is whether 'bridging the wealth gap' by high taxes on high earners is a better way to do things rather than promoting prosperity to push up the income of both high and low earners.

IDK.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I really don't want to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If we want good public services then we have to pay for it. Isn't it fairer that those who earn more contribute more?

But what if the best way to make the poor less poor involved making the rich richer, and by more - could you tolerate that society?

Those who earn more contribute more at a flat rate of tax. What does it say about the way we think if we progressively penalise success?

You mean like in America?

Where the system has undoubtedly failed to bridge the wealth gap and has instead made it progressively worse?

I'm not sure the wealth gap is as important as the percentage of population living below the poverty line. In Canada this is 4.9%, France, 6.1%, US 12-17% (cyclical). For Britain one reads figures anywhere from 14% to 22%.

[Worthy4England]

It will delight some of you to know that this has annoyed me more and more as I've digested it.

Your selfless worrying about people in the £150k salary bracket is a credit to you.

It's pure politics - a desperate, fumbling attempt to tap into the current Zeitgeist that says the banker-led rich are to blame for all our troubles.

Are you suggesting that they haven't played a rather large part in it?

Well, they will have their headlines tomorrow morning - but at what cost? Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge, the bottom has well-and-truly fallen out of the New Labour 'project': we are no longer the enterprise economy that is 'comfortable' with people being rich...

So Osborne has pledged to reverse the budget tax rises yes? He was asked at least 4 times on BBC this morning what he would do differently and on each occasion couldn't (or chose not to) answer.

The next election cannot come a moment too soon - let's get that blue flag hoisted.

Indeed - things were so much better under the last Conservative Government - honest, I remember it well.

[warthog]

I've no moral problem with taxing those who can most afford it in these difficult times. My problem is that will raise next to sod all. It's just a gesture.

Likewise, with the car salvage scheme. You'll get two grand toward the cost of a new motor if you trade in one that is more than ten years old. If you have a ten year old car, it's because you're skint. The chances of you buying a new one are virtually zero. As I write, there'll be wide boys buying up old cars, so that they can fleece the taxpayer.

The banks have been shored up with billions of pounds of taxpayers money. They've responded by sticking two fingers up at us. I got a letter the other day from a credit card company informing me that the minimum charge for an atm cash withdrawal is being raised from £3 to £5. You don't use a card for that purpose unless you're desperate. Certain credit card companies are raising interest rates dramatically. Let's soak those least able to pay. What's government doing about that? F*ck all. Does it even know? I doubt it.

The impression I get is that our politicians (all of them, contrary to what our resident Young Tory would have us believe) are good with words, but don't have a clue when it comes to doing something. Its the foot and mouth crisis all over again, but in a financial context.

Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge...

I suggest you have a look at the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge by the last Conservative government regarding VAT on domestic fuel. It affected everybody, not just a few hoorays who can afford accoutants who ensure they make the minimum contribution to the nation's coffers.

When you've done that you can track down the glib, well-rehearsed justification for doing so by your hero, Mr Portillo.

[Verbal]

Likewise, with the car salvage scheme. You'll get two grand toward the cost of a new motor if you trade in one that is more than ten years old. If you have a ten year old car, it's because you're skint. The chances of you buying a new one are virtually zero. As I write, there'll be wide boys buying up old cars, so that they can fleece the taxpayer.

Even if that last sentence does happen, I suppose you could see it as a way to kick start the motor industry and save/create some jobs at least.

The impression I get is that our politicians (all of them, contrary to what our resident Young Tory would have us believe) are good with words, but don't have a clue when it comes to doing something. Its the foot and mouth crisis all over again, but in a financial context.

Well, yes. I'm not at liberty to divulge information, but some of the stories you hear in this place regarding to politicians and committees can put you at unease somewhat, considering the job they're supposed to be doing.

To be honest, the idea that the guy responsible for all economic and financial matters is actually a trained solicitor (and as I'm sure Mummy will be glad to hear, a former supporter of the International Marxist Group and Fourth International) is ludicrous. Accountable he may be, but if he's shit at his job he's shit at his job. No bloody wonder if he isn't trained in that field.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Likewise, with the car salvage scheme. You'll get two grand toward the cost of a new motor if you trade in one that is more than ten years old. If you have a ten year old car, it's because you're skint. The chances of you buying a new one are virtually zero. As I write, there'll be wide boys buying up old cars, so that they can fleece the taxpayer.

I think youve got to have been the registered keeper for 1 year. Still doesnt stop someone getting a relative with an N reg vectra to use the scheme then swap the new car with said relative for your not old enough car with lots of miles on it. So Ive been told.

[Prufrock]

I'm of the opinion that the 50% rate is wrong. Many of the people that earn 150k work damn hard for it. Why should they pay so that larger than necessary number of people can lay about doing nothing constructive in society? A 150k sounds like a lot to the average man on the street but to someone working long hours under a lot of stress it isn't, particularly when you think that it costs around £800k to buy an average 3 bed house in a nice (not Mayfair etc) part of London. I'd have less of a problem with it if it was aimed at silly salaries...like top footballers et al.

If the government stopped spending silly amounts on silly projects and got it's house in order then there would less need for it. Projects such as the millenium Dome, 2012 and the like spring to mind

My heart f*cking bleeds for them, it really does. As sob stories go that's the worse I'ver ever heard. 'oh no Rose darling, that first 150k isn't enough for us to get by on, and now they're going taking half of the rest. Now we can't afford that new extension and we'll probably have to buy Jemima a second hand car when she turns seventeen, not a new one like we promised' AAAARGHHH the pathos. I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally. I do understand however as a society we have come to the conclusion that that would stifle incentive and kill competition. Fair enough. I disagree, but this is the framework we are talking about. What I don't think is too much is to expect those who's jobs have arbitrarily been decided are worth more by the way society works to contribute some of the top end of what they earn to help pay so those who work just as hard in less 'valuable' jobs to have a decent standard of life.

You may not have meant it to come across that way, but obviously to BWFCI, and to myself as well, you came across as stereotyping all poor people as lazy. You make the point that there are benefit cheats, whilst rejecting BWFCI's point about bankers. Both are minorities. Your solution seems to be to punish whole rafts of the needy to get at the few cheats.

Also can we stop talking about 'penalising success' and 'killing incentives'. This is 150k we are talking about. And if I'm earning 149.99k and get offered a job on 160k, I'll gladly take the extra 5k and probably not worry that a bit ago it would have been 6k. Oh would that I had that extra grand, my life is worthless without it. Taking an extra 10p (or 5p in real terms) from every pound over 150k is not going to stop people aspiring to get there, it just isn't.

All in all I agree one hundred per cent with Warty's post a few up. The reason I disagree with this proposal is not the morality, the morality for me is unquestionable. It should have happened when the cows were fat and the ears of corn good, it should have gone further than this. But coming as it does now, and to the extent it does now means it's effect will be trifling, and also shows it up as nothing more than a cheap political game. It is no wonder people are disenchanted with politics when you have Labour scrabbling by their fingernails to hang on to power by any means possible, and on the other hand you have that pompous naive Tony BLair lite twit. Our choices to rule the country are a jowly charisma free accountant, who's turned out to not even be that good at accounting, or a fresh faced toff who leaves his bike outside a London supermarket and then wonders where it's gone when he comes out. Do we REALLY want that guy running the country?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

[superjohnmcginlay]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

[Verbal]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

[Prufrock]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

[superjohnmcginlay]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

[Verbal]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

If that were the case, there would be no motivation for anyone to better themselves in terms of education, skills...yes they might be diverse in terms of what they do, but they'll never progress from being cleaners, barman, <insert>, unless you give them an incentive to plunge themselves into a mountain of educational debt by offering them financial rewards in the future.

You gots too much faith in people.

[Prufrock]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

If that were the case, there would be no motivation for anyone to better themselves in terms of education, skills...yes they might be diverse in terms of what they do, but they'll never progress from being cleaners, barman, <insert>, unless you give them an incentive to plunge themselves into a mountain of educational debt by offering them financial rewards in the future.

You gots too much faith in people.

I'm not saying we should actually pay them the same, but that on a moral level their time is *worth* the same.

[Prufrock]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

Again worth more to society, but does that person themself on a moral level deserve more money? I don't think so. Their still doing an hours hard work. Obviously society needs these people more, so we pay them more. But I don't think on the simplest level they are worth more as people. Therefore we should use the massive amounts of extra money they earn to make sure everyone gets a decent level of living. There we go. Concise.

[TANGODANCER]

Firstly, from choice, I know little or nothing about politics, so no clever answers, just some questions:

The government, meant to be doing the very best to govern the country for the benefit of all, has been the same from time immemorial, no new thing then. I see several opposing factions all trying for power of ruling, all telling us they'll run the country better than the others and then, when one bunch get in power, the rest ( laughingly known as the opposition) spend four years hecklng and moaning about them and calling them incompetents (politely) instead of supporting running the country. Strange breed these politicians.

As a a lifetime working-class chap I hold no ill-feeling against anyone who can get on in life and make money legally and by using their brains, either employed or self so. If I did, what price education and learning? Bloody good luck to them I say. On the other side of the coin, it seems blatantly insulting that bankers and financers can give themselves obscenely high bonuses at a time when a major recession is making people homeless and jobless. Is that what politics is/are?

Where it all goes wrong is that crime has now become almost an industry and a good incentive to many not to work at any form of employment. The punishments, usually incarceration, are costing the tax payers a fortune whilst those that do get caught are hardly on bread, water or hard labour. Some cases take years to come to trial and amass preposterous amounts in legal fees in doing so, and police cannot do their basic job because of admin time and costs. Why is that? What are the government doing other than letting offenders off lightly and early because the prisons are full? Does that come under politics?

The immigration laws seem a load of bollox in as much as, taking Bolton as an example, there is a two/three year waiting list for council houses yet still people pour into the country and, seemingly, get priority treatment over lifetime residents.
More politics?

On top of it all, the brave new world of the glib-tongued leaders has a crippling economic crisis of fearful proportion on its hands whilst the beloved Inland Revenue dreams up newer and wilder ways to tax the people. The country has a no-smoking ban, yet the government are still happy to add tobacco to their list of budget rake-ins. Politics?

Never mind, let them eat cake and watch Jade Goody the musical. That should do the trick. Meanwhile, about these expenses...

I'm not expecting any answers to all this, just joining in the fun.

[Prufrock]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

Missed this. First of all yes Obama played the politics, but in a way where he seemed to be fresh and not jaded by the political world, and whether atrificial or not you cannot deny it has changed the American political landscape completely. People actually care now. We as a country are magnificently passionate about apathy, some outsider from nowhere to break the choice between two larger similar idiots would be nice.

As for your first point about incentives etc.. IF we accept that equal wages would kill hard work, something which is an accepted truth for reasons that escape me, but in the context of this debate we have, I'm not suggesting we actually pay everyone the same, just saying that on a moral plane, everyone's time is equal, it MUST be for us to delud eourselves our society is fair, equal and democratic. Reality is a different matter, and if you think we do in fact live in a moral world or system I would suggest it ain't me who is deluded, moonshine.