Politics The General Election 2015

[Job]

Funny to see the media grudgingly agreeing with Ukips financial manifesto, all very students in the pub, but in reality we need to reduce tax to the minimum , the present system drags the economy down and everyone loses.

 

[Moriath]

Kept out of this so far. But i think the snp are a cancer in this parliamentry system. They want to leverage their prospective king maker status to re run a split vote which was promised as a once in a generation thing. I think they are more dishonest than ukip who we all know are a little bit racist.

 

[Moriath]

Funny to see the media grudgingly agreeing with Ukips financial manifesto, all very students in the pub, but in reality we need to reduce tax to the minimum , the present system drags the economy down and everyone loses.

The more people earn the more tax. Agreed. But the country needs a certain purse to tick over.

However its all funny money as its all borrowed with the national debt. I dont know why people still accept the currency as valid because at the government level they just throw their hands in the air and get more debt.

 

[Scouse]

Maybe if you stopped relying on the Guardian for tour worldly view

Once again, harping on with the same old crap (I don't read it, but I might start just to lend your yawnable preconceived and highly-simplistic world view the tiniest smidgin of reality).

Anyway. To give you your dues - interesting reading there from the iea - a notable and well respected institution dedicated to campaigning for a world freed of "interference from politicians and the state". Again - an interesting, totally valid, yet one-sided point of view. Which you'd expect from a campaigning institution dedicated to the "free" market and campaigning against regulation and the state.

I could, of course, point to a raft of equally well-respected reports and opinions that oppose the view above (I might even be able to source them from the Guardian). But I'll take a different track.

Lets look at some bare bones facts that provide another point of view:

The UK has the second-highest rate of low pay in the OECD and the average hourly rate for workers has declined ~5% since 2010. There are 27 EU nations and that puts us fourth worst. Over the same time, German hourly wages rose by ~3% - and they have a strong worker's council (union to you), much better employment rights and Germany has a higher minimum wage.

So - how's the employment statistics look between the two countries? I'll paste 'em into mspaint for teh funz. It may be shit - but at least I'll be creating my own argument rather than a regurgitated one I've found to back up my own opinion

Spoiler

I made this! - and I went into it blind, not knowing the results before I started searching - I searched for "UK unemployment rate" and Germany and the US were automatically put into the image - then I searched for the monthly minimum wages...

So, despite the US and the UK having a lower minimum wage, worse employment rights, lower job security etc. - unemployment is higher. And that's with the US minimum wage being $2.31/hour for tipped workers (tips have to make it up to $7.25/hour - the figure above - or the employer has to "top it up") - and you can be fired on the spot, for any reason.

Despite that - I won't argue that the minimum wage has no effect. I just don't think it has the effect that you seem to think it has - there are opposing arguments but I think the most persuasive argument (and there's reams of evidence for it) - is that the minimum wage is at best neutral on unemployment - it doesn't make much of a difference.

But it makes a whacking great difference to worker's lives.


As for taking people out of tax - it's just another form of subsidy to employers (we stop paying them benefits - but they don't pay tax - same thing in the end) - we'll have less to spend on social care / the NHS / transport / infrastructure / the military etc - whilst employers can pocket it themselves or give it to shareholders. Why not pay people properly?

HOWEVER - even if I concede that "small businesses" are horribly affected by the minimum wage (which I don't concede - but for argument's sake I will) - then what's to stop legislating for companies over a certain turnover - or companies that make a certain profit - pay a living wage to their employees?

So - question: What's to stop us forcing Tesco to make 3bn profit and pay their workers a minimum £11/hour - instead of 4bn profit and us paying taxpayers money to tesco's staff because that big fucking twat of a company doesn't have to pay it's staff a reasonable wage?

 

[Moriath]

Once again, harping on with the same old crap (I don't read it, but I might start just to lend your yawnable preconceived and highly-simplistic world view the tiniest smidgin of reality).

Anyway. To give you your dues - interesting reading there from the iea - a notable and well respected institution dedicated to campaigning for a world freed of "interference from politicians and the state". Again - an interesting, totally valid, yet one-sided point of view. Which you'd expect from a campaigning institution dedicated to the "free" market and campaigning against regulation and the state.

I could, of course, point to a raft of equally well-respected reports and opinions that oppose the view above (I might even be able to source them from the Guardian). But I'll take a different track.

Lets look at some bare bones facts that provide another point of view:

The UK has the second-highest rate of low pay in the OECD and the average hourly rate for workers has declined ~5% since 2010. There are 27 EU nations and that puts us fourth worst. Over the same time, German hourly wages rose by ~3% - and they have a strong worker's council (union to you), much better employment rights and Germany has a higher minimum wage.

So - how's the employment statistics look between the two countries? I'll paste 'em into mspaint for teh funz. It may be shit - but at least I'll be creating my own argument rather than a regurgitated one I've found to back up my own opinion

Spoiler

View attachment 24217
I made this! - and I went into it blind, not knowing the results before I started searching - I searched for "UK unemployment rate" and Germany and the US were automatically put into the image - then I searched for the monthly minimum wages...

So, despite the US and the UK having a lower minimum wage, worse employment rights, lower job security etc. - unemployment is higher. And that's with the US minimum wage being $2.31/hour for tipped workers (tips have to make it up to $7.25/hour - the figure above - or the employer has to "top it up") - and you can be fired on the spot, for any reason.

Despite that - I won't argue that the minimum wage has no effect. I just don't think it has the effect that you seem to think it has - there are opposing arguments but I think the most persuasive argument (and there's reams of evidence for it) - is that the minimum wage is at best neutral on unemployment - it doesn't make much of a difference.

But it makes a whacking great difference to worker's lives.


As for taking people out of tax - it's just another form of subsidy to employers (we stop paying them benefits - but they don't pay tax - same thing in the end) - we'll have less to spend on social care / the NHS / transport / infrastructure / the military etc - whilst employers can pocket it themselves or give it to shareholders. Why not pay people properly?

HOWEVER - even if I concede that "small businesses" are horribly affected by the minimum wage (which I don't concede - but for argument's sake I will) - then what's to stop legislating for companies over a certain turnover - or companies that make a certain profit - pay a living wage to their employees?

So - question: What's to stop us forcing Tesco to make 3bn profit and pay their workers a minimum £11/hour - instead of 4bn profit and us paying taxpayers money to tesco's staff because that big fucking twat of a company doesn't have to pay it's staff a reasonable wage?

Fuck mine. Keyboard has the shits. Cba to read all that lol

 

[Scouse]

Fuck mine. Keyboard has the shits. Cba to read all that lol

Why bother discussing politics if a 3 minute read is too much for your attention span? Isn't x-factor or strictly more up your street?

Worthwhile discussions are more than 1 line soundbites...

 

[Wij]

The more people earn the more tax. Agreed. But the country needs a certain purse to tick over.

However its all funny money as its all borrowed with the national debt. I dont know why people still accept the currency as valid because at the government level they just throw their hands in the air and get more debt.

National Debt isn`t necessarily a bad thing. Britain ran up huge national debts to build its navy and build the empire (the principle of investment is more what I`m getting at, not the warfare per se.) Indeed, the main reason Britain leapfrogged the rest of the world in the 18th Century is that we had established rule of law and public enforcement of contracts even for or against the King. Back in Tudor times the King`s power could be capricious and unchecked. If the King wanted money he could take it from his citizens. He could also welch on his debts with impunity. Therefore rich people had no reason to trust that lending to the state was a good idea.

After William III things changed. Laws, debts and contracts all applied equally to King, pauper and anyone in between (well OK, not quite, but more than any other country had ever done in history.) England and then Great Britain used this security of lending and law to borrow fucktons of cash from the rich and build a big fuck-off Navy and take over the world. It also allowed for industrial capital investment and even long-term scientific research all because of contract enforcement, rule of law, and debt.

The lesson is, not all debt is bad.

 

[Job]

It"s hardly rocket science, you can either tax high, have plenty of money to run the country, or tax low and let the economy rise bringing in the same tax revenue, plus attracting investment in the country.
Who's going to take the risk when the benefits don't appear the next day.
The piddling tinkering that lab/con do every budget/election is never going to move is in any kind of meaningful direction and is just another example of stagnated politics, we need Ukip, if only to start the discussion.

 

[Moriath]

National Debt isn`t necessarily a bad thing. Britain ran up huge national debts to build its navy and build the empire (the principle of investment is more what I`m getting at, not the warfare per se.) Indeed, the main reason Britain leapfrogged the rest of the world in the 18th Century is that we had established rule of law and public enforcement of contracts even for or against the King. Back in Tudor times the King`s power could be capricious and unchecked. If the King wanted money he could take it from his citizens. He could also welch on his debts with impunity. Therefore rich people had no reason to trust that lending to the state was a good idea.

After William III things changed. Laws, debts and contracts all applied equally to King, pauper and anyone in between (well OK, not quite, but more than any other country had ever done in history.) England and then Great Britain used this security of lending and law to borrow fucktons of cash from the rich and build a big fuck-off Navy and take over the world. It also allowed for industrial capital investment and even long-term scientific research all because of contract enforcement, rule of law, and debt.

The lesson is, not all debt is bad.

They always raised taxes. To pay for the fleet etc. goong back to the tudors. Then we borrowed shit loads that we only just paid back to the americans in ww2.

Its just make believe money., Borrowing from the future and hoping you can pay it back. Which is fine if people keep believing in you currency. But we arnt aaa rated any more. Even the decrease in the spending still leaves us with an ever growing debt over a trillion now.

How will we ever pay that off?

Its kinda agreed that we wont isnt it. So its mickey mouse money. If we wont pay it back and just service the interest it just makes us poorer in the long term. You think the americans or uk will ever pay back trillions?

Previous century debts were never anywhere near as big and everything just adds up over time.

 

[Moriath]

It"s hardly rocket science, you can either tax high, have plenty of money to run the country, or tax low and let the economy rise bringing in the same tax revenue, plus attracting investment in the country.
Who's going to take the risk when the benefits don't appear the next day.
The piddling tinkering that lab/con do every budget/election is never going to move is in any kind of meaningful direction and is just another example of stagnated politics, we need Ukip, if only to start the discussion.

You can tax low of more of the population are in employment as the total is more.

 

[Moriath]

Why bother discussing politics if a 3 minute read is too much for your attention span? Isn't x-factor or strictly more up your street?

Worthwhile discussions are more than 1 line soundbites...

Your so condesending its unreal.

Just because you cant make your views in concise posts doesnt mean others are dumb.

 

[Zarjazz]

For some reason this thread makes me want to post this...

 

[Scouse]

Your so condesending its unreal.

Just because you cant make your views in concise posts doesnt mean others are dumb.

You're so shallow it's unreal.

It wasn't war and peace - if you can't hold your attention for three minutes in a thread about politics and would rather sink to "lolz! t00 long!" then you deserve a bit of shit tbh. This is a discussion forum. Make an effort?


Edit: Awwww @Zarjazz m8 - I was going to say this place isn't reddit

 

[Moriath]

You're so shallow it's unreal.

It wasn't war and peace - if you can't hold your attention for three minutes in a thread about politics and would rather sink to "lolz! t00 long!" then you deserve a bit of shit tbh. This is a discussion forum. Make an effort?


Edit: Awwww @Zarjazz m8 - I was going to say this place isn't reddit

So now your degrading me again!

Seems to be a sport with you and tom to do that to anyone who thinks differently to you.

Cant you say. I take your point but my way is different. Instrwd of saying your shallow and retarded.

Oh and if not being like you is shallow i will take it any day of the week.

 

[Scouse]

So now your degrading me again!

....thinks differently to you...

No. I'm arguing with you because you pissed me off. I'm not whining because you "degraded me" by calling me condescending, or because you figured my PoV wasn't worth reading - but the length of my post was worth lolling at.

I made a decent effort to construct an argument with evidence - even against Bodhi who's normally happy to slap me with the leftie brush - but I figured his effort was worth some effort to rebuff. Would have taken three minutes to read, even less to ignore.

You didn't show that you "think differently to me" - you went "lolz! Not reading! Too longz!" - that's not thinking. That's a bird wearing pink off to the tanning salon reading OK! magazine laughing at geeks because why do they care about shit eh?

 

[Scouse]

Yes, I'm all butthurt - I made a picture and everything

 

[Job]

Yes, I'm a soundbite contributer, mainly because I'm always typing on a phone keyboard and because I rely on the eduwaffleated to mentally fill inbetween the facts.

 

[Raven]

@Scouse pulled a filibuster.

Might read tonight but tonight I will also be pissed so...

 

[Gumbo]

Q.E.D.

It isn't an issue until it hits a business owner's pocket. It never has been.

Hasn't @Gumbo explained before that he effectively already earns a small amount?

You seen to be under the impression that all business owners are raking it in regardless of business size. Which is obviously untrue.

Exactly, some months I don't get paid at all, some months the payroll for the guys comes off my credit card until some invoices get paid. So yes, if a circa 20% payrise for my lads is imposed upon me from an outside influence, not because my business can afford it, which might mean I have to miss even more paydays or run up more CC debt, then yes I'll consider laying off the lad.

I'm not a charity set up to employ people, I have to be realistic. What's the point in me ending up going to foodbanks because Labour have decreed that I have to pay my lads more. it makes no sense. The one lad I have on minimum wage does OK because he's topped up a bit through tax credits and lives in social housing. He has more to spend on beer at the end of the week than I do, yet I take all the personal risk to keep the place going.

I may have mentioned before, I can't remember, but. There is an option for me, with my business to strip it down. Do purely the most profitable things with no workforce at all. It would mean almost zero stress for me, work perhaps 2 or 3 days a week, get paid the same, perhaps even a bit more. I haven't done it before because I like employing people, I like what we do and I feel a sense of duty to my staff and customers.

If Labour get in next month then I almost certainly push the button. I have no faith in them at all. Their attitude to business sucks balls. Even New Labour were fairly pro-business, the current crop are just idiots who can't see the damage they'll do.

 

[Tom]

The top 1% already pay around 30% of income tax, and all they seem to get in return is people queueing up to see how they can contribute more. I can see why they get a but fed up and looks for creative ways to get out of paying it.

Maybe if we stopped pissing so much money up the wall on foreign aid to countries with space programs, the frankly comical amount of waste in the NHS and PFI we wouldn't be so desperate to put people's taxes up.

Well the richest pay the most income tax because they're the ones with the most money.

 

[Poag]

Whoever did Farages makeup last night made him look like a plastic xenophobic clown.

Honestly couldn't take anythign he said seriosuly with his super shiny face but wrinkled to buggery eyes and neck....

 

[Tom]

Inheritance tax can go fuck. I've paid tax on it in the first place. Full marks for that one and Ben Goldacre is talking shite.

The right to buy thing on the other hand is fucking stupid.

Inheritance tax does not affect the person who bought the house and who paid tax on the money used to buy the house. It affects the person who is to inherit the house. That person has, until that point, paid no tax on any of that money.

Inheritance tax is a very good way of redistributing wealth to those who need it.

 

[Wij]

Inheritance tax does not affect the person who bought the house and who paid tax on the money used to buy the house. It affects the person who is to inherit the house. That person has, until that point, paid no tax on any of that money.

What's that got to do with anything?

Also, as regards to distribution to people to people who might need, the recipient might need it. It takes no account of how well-off the recipient is.

 

[Tom]

What's that got to do with anything?

Everything. You made the classic mistake of presuming that inheritance tax affects those who "paid tax on it in the first place". It does not and never has.

Also, as regards to distribution to people to people who might need, the recipient might need it. It takes no account of how well-off the recipient is.

Anyone troubled by inheritance tax is already very wealthy. There are a lot of other people who need that support more than they do.

 

[Gwadien]

Whoever did Farages makeup last night made him look like a plastic xenophobic clown.

Honestly couldn't take anythign he said seriosuly with his super shiny face but wrinkled to buggery eyes and neck....

I liked it when he played the 'OMG LEFTIES' trumpet.

Love that trumpet.

 

[Bodhi]

Everything. You made the classic mistake of presuming that inheritance tax affects those who "paid tax on it in the first place". It does not and never has.



Anyone troubled by inheritance tax is already very wealthy. There are a lot of other people who need that support more than they do.

Or they could be just an average family wanting to pass on the family home? If they live in the South East, they could EASILY break the IHT threshold on the house alone.

 

[Gwadien]

Or they could be just an average family wanting to pass on the family home? If they live in the South East, they could EASILY break the IHT threshold on the house alone.

I suppose it encourages people to retire out of London?

Which isn't a bad thing?

Need dem Arabs yo.

 

[Raven]

I nice endorsement that what the Tories are doing is actually working (We know that already)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

Also
Unemployment down
Growth up
The debt is being tackled (slowly but surely)

All in all it would be insane if Labour got in to fuck it all up again.

 

[Gumbo]

Or they could be just an average family wanting to pass on the family home? If they live in the South East, they could EASILY break the IHT threshold on the house alone.

Precisely. The home I stand to inherit half of, is the home that my father built, on land he bought and spent his life paying off. It's the house that we were born and grew up in. I've spent 39 Christmases there, my Father died there. My Mother's will leaves half of it to me and half to my sister. The assumption is, as my sister lives on the other side of the country and has no desire to move back, that I will live in it and either rent her half from her, or if I can get one, mortgage the value of her half to pay her off.

The perverse thing of inheritance tax is that we may be forced to sell this reasonably modest home, which happens to be in a popular area, in order to pay the tax on it. Then watch someone else live in it. Meanwhile, even after the tax, my sister and I would be sitting on a few hundred thousand pounds, just not able to live in the house our father built.

The tax itself, I don't disagree with entirely, but when it forces the sale of the family home it's just wrong. That's why the Tory proposal to remove a single family home from the equation makes epic sense.

 

[Ormorof]

If you plan on mortgage anyway why not use it to pay tax + sister ?