Politics The General Election 2015

[Scouse]

@Scouse pulled a filibuster.

Raven learned a new word and is using it inappropriately as usual!

It's a 2-minute read m8. Hardly a 13 hour waffle.

 

[Raven]

I read it but its taken 13 hours to process the nonsense and I am not sure I can be arsed to spend time typing something out because there is little point. It would be like convincing job that the dirty foreigners aren't all out to get him.

 

[old.user4556]

Poor labour, what a potential choice for Ed:

Side with the SNP and get pumped full of Salmond semen, or continue to swear no SNP coalition and side with the Tories, destroying your party for good.

 

[Job]

Labour are going to be utterly thrashed in this election, the polls are next to useless and Ukips vote will be considerably higher than expected because in the privacy of the booth, people's prejudices run free. It all hinges on wether Ukip voters turn back to Tory for fear of letting Millipede in and that won't become clear till the last few days...best election ever.

 

[Bodhi]

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?

Interesting that you used the example of Germany, with their strong employment contracts and high wages, along with slightly lower unemployment (even if you look at the graph you posted, it hasn't always been that way). France also have strong employment contracts, and higher wages than us, and a very strong union presence. Out of interest, how do their employment rates compare to ours?

Anyone who has worked or done business in France knows exactly the problems their high social costs cause in terms of taking on people - that, their love of a good strike and the governments love of high taxes, mean they get very little external investment, which ultimately results in less jobs for the locals. They are also a cracking example in how raising tax rates can cause the actual tax take (which, if you ignore all the moralising and semantics of the current election campaign, is the real metric we want to increase, which is the amount of tax that ends up in the Government's coffers) to fall. There is plenty of research out there which shows that the UK's tax take as a proportion of GDP has stayed pretty constant for the last 20 or so years, which leads to the conclusion that the best way to increase the total amount of tax we collect, is to increase the country's GDP, which you aren't going to do by government intervention and making the labour market less flexible.

It's a bit like trying to multiply wealth by dividing it - really doesn't work.

Also interesting you claim that taking people out of tax so they don't have to recieve top up benefits won't save us any money? You sure about that? So instead of paying out, say £200 a month for Tax Credits, and the balance for that month being -£200, the balance would be zero, which is bigger. That £200 goes straight into the worker's pocket which they can spend on things. Things which will be taxed, and the Government will recieve a portion of. I'm still failing to see how that is win win. Remember also that it's not just those on minimum wage that would need a pay rise, those just above the current rate would need bumped up too to preserve their position.

And as for your question about Tesco - because it's state interference and would involved some incredibly complex legislation to implement. As we all know (no one more than yourself), when you introduce complexity into legislation and tax laws, you also introduce many loopholes which can be abused and got round. I'm not opposed to encouraging people to pay a living wage, through tax breaks or other mechanisms, but forcing companies to comply? Might have worked in Eastern Germany, not so well here.

Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesco, I know a couple of people who work there, and have no real complaints about the wages, they pay better than a lot of supermarkets ( http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Employer=Tesco_PLC/Hourly_Rate ) offer a cracking pension and many other perks of working there as well. Sure, the work itself is fairly tedious, but I hear no real complaints about Tesco as an employer.

Oh I forgot, it's because Tesco are quite successful, so must be teh evil. And I'm apparently the one with a simplistic world view?

 

[Raven]

Interesting that you used the example of Germany, with their strong employment contracts and high wages, along with slightly lower unemployment (even if you look at the graph you posted, it hasn't always been that way). France also have strong employment contracts, and higher wages than us, and a very strong union presence. Out of interest, how do their employment rates compare to ours?

Anyone who has worked or done business in France knows exactly the problems their high social costs cause in terms of taking on people - that, their love of a good strike and the governments love of high taxes, mean they get very little external investment, which ultimately results in less jobs for the locals. They are also a cracking example in how raising tax rates can cause the actual tax take (which, if you ignore all the moralising and semantics of the current election campaign, is the real metric we want to increase, which is the amount of tax that ends up in the Government's coffers) to fall. There is plenty of research out there which shows that the UK's tax take as a proportion of GDP has stayed pretty constant for the last 20 or so years, which leads to the conclusion that the best way to increase the total amount of tax we collect, is to increase the country's GDP, which you aren't going to do by government intervention and making the labour market less flexible.

It's a bit like trying to multiply wealth by dividing it - really doesn't work.

Also interesting you claim that taking people out of tax so they don't have to recieve top up benefits won't save us any money? You sure about that? So instead of paying out, say £200 a month for Tax Credits, and the balance for that month being -£200, the balance would be zero, which is bigger. That £200 goes straight into the worker's pocket which they can spend on things. Things which will be taxed, and the Government will recieve a portion of. I'm still failing to see how that is win win. Remember also that it's not just those on minimum wage that would need a pay rise, those just above the current rate would need bumped up too to preserve their position.

And as for your question about Tesco - because it's state interference and would involved some incredibly complex legislation to implement. As we all know (no one more than yourself), when you introduce complexity into legislation and tax laws, you also introduce many loopholes which can be abused and got round. I'm not opposed to encouraging people to pay a living wage, through tax breaks or other mechanisms, but forcing companies to comply? Might have worked in Eastern Germany, not so well here.

Interesting that you keep bringing up Tesco, I know a couple of people who work there, and have no real complaints about the wages, they pay better than a lot of supermarkets ( http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Employer=Tesco_PLC/Hourly_Rate ) offer a cracking pension and many other perks of working there as well. Sure, the work itself is fairly tedious, but I hear no real complaints about Tesco as an employer.

Oh I forgot, it's because Tesco are quite successful, so must be teh evil. And I'm apparently the one with a simplistic world view?

RACIST!!

 

[DaGaffer]

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

Bullshit. 325 grand is not "wealthy". Its just not. If Inheritence tax was rising in line with house prices, you might have a point (a crappy communist point, but a point nonetheless), but its not even close, and it means everyone in London and the South East (where 40% of the population live) who inherits a house is probably going to have to sell it rather than live in it because there will be tax due. This used to be a an issue for Lords of the Manor, not joe schmo in a 3-bed semi.

 

[Raven]

The point about increasing other wages is quite correct. If one of the warehouse drones (and no offence meant to them, they are unskilled labour at the end of the day) gets paid more, possibly as much as someone slightly higher up (and more skilled) then they will also want to get paid more, then the next step up the ladder will want to be paid more and so on and so forth.

Boosting the minimum wage doesn't just effect those on the minimum wage.

If we have to have income tax (I don't like it!) then I agree that minimum wage people should be taken out of tax, and perhaps people on a the lower bands should also pay less tax. it would make a lot more sense. It would help small business because staff would have more money and they could perhaps to employ more people and grow as a business, generating more income and decreasing dependence on the state and it would help those on low income because they would have a bit more money to spend.

You can't have a special rule for large businesses either, how would it be enforced? What happens when the large company gets into trouble and no longer makes such large profits? Game, MFI, Woolworths and any number of other previously large, profitable businesses. Do they give everyone a pay cut? Why would anyone want to work at a local shop stacking shelves when they can get more at Tesco stacking shelves?

Lefty cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Bodhi]

RACIST!!

Lies. It is impossible to be racist about the French.

Mainly because they are French. Not even the French like the French.

 

[Gwadien]

Poor labour, what a potential choice for Ed:

Side with the SNP and get pumped full of Salmond semen, or continue to swear no SNP coalition and side with the Tories, destroying your party for good.

The only alternative they have is going with the lib dems and throwing a few other minor parties into the mix.

 

[Gwadien]

Loophole with the inheritance stuff is rich foreigners.

Prince Ali isn't going to buy more than property in the UK. He has his London home, would he be void of the Tories plan because its his only UK home?

I think its a good idea, but there should be a cap on the house worth, ie if your house is worth 5mill then you probably should be taxed because let's face it, if you had a 5mill house then you probably have money else where, whereas a 300k house? Maybe not.

That's the issue with politics though, you can't say nah we won't take that house off you cos your dad built it and its all he could afford and then take the neighbours house simply cos he's an oil baron and he can afford the taxation.

 

[Job]

Doesn't inheritance simply push up house prices, if I inherit the family home then no doubt I'll put most of it towards a more expensive house for us, with the vast majority of inheritance being homes, then soon and probably allready, inheritance will be the only way to step up the ladder, leaving us all back at square one.

 

[Raven]

Prince Ali isn't going to buy more than property in the UK.

Not since he gave up the boxing, no!

 

[Job]

Welsh shadow secretary has just sealed the election by casually admitting the Labour party would ditch Trident at the first chance they get.
Someone get Millipede his coat.

 

[Moriath]

Welsh shadow secretary has just sealed the election by casually admitting the Labour party would ditch Trident at the first chance they get.
Someone get Millipede his coat.

Opposite of what ed said yesterday.

 

[old.user4556]

I'm all for ditching trident. These cunts sucking through their teeth when it comes to putting some more money into the NHS, but Bliar and his fucks were cool about raging a multi billion pound illegal war and now Ed wants to blow another £100 billion on nuclear weapons.

 

[Tom]

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.

The average family does not occupy a house worth more than £325,000. But even so, the tax is only applied to money above that £325,000.

You'll have to excuse me but I don't particularly feel sorry for anyone who complains about inheritance tax. Just because it comes in the form of bricks and mortar does not mean you have a right to tax-free income on that scale.

 

[Tom]

Bullshit. 325 grand is not "wealthy".

Fucking lol. You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[DaGaffer]

Fucking lol. You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

And you're living in 1950

 

[Job]

Sadly, wealthy is now 3 homes, an apartment in Marbella , two Range Rovers and a 10 berth yacht.
500 grand in the bank is just comfortable.

 

[Gumbo]

Fucking lol. You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

No, just living in the South.

 

[Gumbo]

Bullshit. 325 grand is not "wealthy". Its just not. If Inheritence tax was rising in line with house prices, you might have a point (a crappy communist point, but a point nonetheless), but its not even close, and it means everyone in London and the South East (where 40% of the population live) who inherits a house is probably going to have to sell it rather than live in it because there will be tax due. This used to be a an issue for Lords of the Manor, not joe schmo in a 3-bed semi.

Precisely. I'd be interested to know how much the average house was worth as a percentage of the inheritance tax threshold when it was introduced versus now. I'm pretty sure it wasn't designed to force people who bought/built it when they were on average incomes to suffer tax on it and be forced to sell, instead of passing it to their children who are similarly on averageish incomes. When Dad built the house it was in a an area where land prices were cheap because that was where he could afford it. It's not through any choice that the value has gone through the roof because the area has become desirable, it just has. I have no intention of ever selling the house. I'd love it if my daughter lives in it when I'm gone. The house will not be liquidised, I will not be hoarding wealth from the poor by avoiding tax on it. I just want to live in the house my Dad built because that's what some families do.

The point about increasing other wages is quite correct. If one of the warehouse drones (and no offence meant to them, they are unskilled labour at the end of the day) gets paid more, possibly as much as someone slightly higher up (and more skilled) then they will also want to get paid more, then the next step up the ladder will want to be paid more and so on and so forth.

Boosting the minimum wage doesn't just effect those on the minimum wage.

I made, and agree with this point entirely. Suddenly slapping 20% onto any small businesses wage bill is a ridiculous idea and shows just how anti business this current crop of Labour idiots are. Having an anti business government at the moment is the very last thing our economy needs.

 

[Job]

My mates next door neighbour is a panel repairer for BMW, you have to call that skilled , I couldn't even get close to his lifelong skills...he earns exactly 11 pound an hour.
No shit, he showed me his wage slip because I wouldn't believe it.
Felt bad charging him 100 quid to fit his gas hob which took an hour.

 

[Ormorof]

According to uk gov stats average house prices atm in UK is around 180,000 pounds so not even close to threshold

data for how many are affected by the tax is a bit old but according to wiki in 2007 94% of estates fell into the nil rate band so its 6% of cases that are being taxed so it is not even an issue for most

I doubt a seperate threshold for the south east and london would be popular outside of london and south east tbh

 

[Gwadien]

I doubt a seperate threshold for the south east and london would be popular outside of london and south east tbh

Yeah exactly, and as I said, encouragement to get people to move out of London once they stop being productive.

I think that's an underlying message about this whole thing to be honest, it's brutal efficiency politics, not necessarily about that the taxation that could be created.

 

[Raven]

My mates next door neighbour is a panel repairer for BMW, you have to call that skilled

Not particularly transferable though.

 

[MYstIC G]

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.

Right to buy in its proposed guises is useless. IMHO if it was adjusted so that it made sense it would be of huge benefit. The fact is they will never ring-fence anything so all money raised from such things goes directly back into house building.

 

[MYstIC G]

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.

Indeed, when they start talking about what they intend to do with a surplus then I'll pay some attention.

 

[DaGaffer]

According to uk gov stats average house prices atm in UK is around 180,000 pounds so not even close to threshold

data for how many are affected by the tax is a bit old but according to wiki in 2007 94% of estates fell into the nil rate band so its 6% of cases that are being taxed so it is not even an issue for most

I doubt a seperate threshold for the south east and london would be popular outside of london and south east tbh

The average house price in London and the South East has already crossed the 325k limit. Given that I sold a house in 2006 for 500k that has recently gone back on the market for 950, I think it's safe to say 2007 figures are a wee bit out of date.

Also, bear in mind that the inherited homes are unlikely to be the starter homes and flats that drag the average house price level down somewhat.

 

[Moriath]

The average house price in London and the South East has already crossed the 325k limit. Given that I sold a house in 2006 for 500k that has recently gone back on the market for 950, I think it's safe to say 2007 figures are a wee bit out of date.

Also, bear in mind that the inherited homes are unlikely to be the starter homes and flats that drag the average house price level down somewhat.

My house is around the 300k mark and i bought it for 80k in 1999. Its only an end of terrace in bracknell new town. No garage or drive way or stuff.

Its easy to get over 325k.