[Archived] Local Elections

[SydneyRover]

You are seriously warped and frankly wrong in the head. Even most right wing politicians would agree welfare spending is always necessary, they would just advocate cutting welfare spending levels and punishing the poor, whereas the left would advocate increasing taxes on the more well off.

Not only is your idea ideologically disgusting, it's also intellectually retarded. Do you think those affected will happily starve to death and live on the streets? Or do you think there's maybe just a tiny chance some kind of unrest might occur as you cut off people's lifelines?

[Steve Moss]

I suspect that those who could work, but don't as its easier to get by on public assistance, would be forced to get off the coach and get jobs. I believe the truly badly off would get by as they had before WWII, local initiative and charities.

As to "unrest", I thought the premise of welfare is that they are so helpless they can't help themselves?

[jim mk2]

Yes Steve. but this is 2013, not Dickensian times and or even the 1930s. People starving on the streets might be acceptable in the US but not in a civilised society.

I'll tell him you to reduce deficits: tax. All tax breaks are abolished; you get the rich to pay their share burden of tax by raising tax rates, you get companies to pay their fair share of tax by raising corporation tax; you outlaw tax havens ; you outlaw international money laundering by individuals and companies to evade tax ; companies and individuals who evade tax are sent to prison; and when you have raised taxes, you raise them again and again.

This financial crisis was caused by the greed and corruption of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. It's time to rein it in.

[Guest Norbert]

There is a brutal logic to Steve Moss' argument, but I don't think I would subscribe to it, as it would probably lead to more crime, poorer economic stats, suffering and a further widening of the gap between the wealthy ruling elite and everyone else. Tax avoidance is the biggest issue with regards to debt, as billions of £/$ could be gained if tax havens, loopholes that only the rich can exploit etc. were dealt with at an international level. It won't be sadly, as those same groups pour loads of money into political parties (especially in the USA during election time) and offer lucrative post-poltics roles for vermin like Tony Blair. Just watch David Milliband fill his boots with all the contacts he'll be making in New York.

Welfare needs to be reformed so it helps people into work, make something of themselves and give them a helping hand when they're in trouble. There is a percentage of the population who see it as a system to be abused because they can't be bothered to work, but that percentage is not as high as the barely literate right wing press have you believe.

What this has to do with local elections is a bit tenuous, but this is the way every thread about politics goes on this board. Either that or 'Muslims are/are not all tossers'.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Why?

btw ... I'm not actually certain what one of those is. They weren't on my options.

O.K. I'll try to make it clearer, I'm a socialist but not a member of any political party

[jim mk2]

There is a brutal logic to Steve Moss' argument, but I don't think I would subscribe to it, as it would probably lead to more crime, poorer economic stats, suffering and a further widening of the gap between the wealthy ruling elite and everyone else. Tax avoidance is the biggest issue with regards to debt, as billions of £/$ could be gained if tax havens, loopholes that only the rich can exploit etc. were dealt with at an international level. It won't be sadly, as those same groups pour loads of money into political parties (especially in the USA during election time) and offer lucrative post-poltics roles for vermin like Tony Blair. Just watch David Milliband fill his boots with all the contacts he'll be making in New York.

Welfare needs to be reformed so it helps people into work, make something of themselves and give them a helping hand when they're in trouble. There is a percentage of the population who see it as a system to be abused because they can't be bothered to work, but that percentage is not as high as the barely literate right wing press have you believe.

What this has to do with local elections is a bit tenuous, but this is the way every thread about politics goes on this board. Either that or 'Muslims are/are not all tossers'.

Not forgetting the "vermin" Thatcher who of course filled her boots on the lucrative US speaking circuit such that she was able to live in the Ritz in her latter years.

With regards to welfare, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of

workless people.

Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and

preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations.

The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term

and deep poverty.

For 2011-12 it is estimated that 0.8%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid as a result of fraud. This is far lower than the figures widely believed by the public, as revealed repeatedly in opinion polls. A TUC poll recently revealed that people believe 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months.

All the above independent research by the JRF published in the Guardian recently. This research was of course ignored by the right wing press.

[Al]

Jim it may be "nasty" or it may be common sense.

Interest payments alone are $220 billion last year. By 2020 they'll be a $1 trillion per year. In interest, which does not include the principal. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/19/how-the-nations-interest-spending-stacks-up

This is money which is NOT going to education, etc. It's money which is only going to service debt. There will come a point where interest payments swallow the budget, unless we can get it paid off.

So yes, it may be heartless and cruel, though rational, in the near term. Long term it could be the best thing to happen to the nation in a very long time.

The best analogy I can think of is disciplining a small child. It may break your heart to do it (images of my then 2 two year old blubbering on time-out in a corner comes to mind) but long term its necessary for their prosperity, health and happiness.

What do you term as "welfare". My State Pension? I have paid into that all my working life and never been on the dole. I am entitled to that and there would be mass starvation of the elderly if it was stopped. You are being irrational.

[Steve Moss]

What do you term as "welfare". My State Pension? I have paid into that all my working life and never been on the dole. I am entitled to that and there would be mass starvation of the elderly if it was stopped. You are being irrational.

I'm not sure what a state pension is, but if you worked for it is not welfare. The definition of welfare excludes social security, medicare, etc.

Irrational? We spending over a trillion on welfare (i.e. government benefits which have not been worked for), We're spending $220 billion on interest (payments which results in neither a good nor service); which will increase to a trillion by 2020.

I don't care how much you'll tax the "rich". There is no paying for that level of excessive spending, while continuing to accumulate debt.

At the end of the day, what can't go on won't. And when things go bust it will be more than those who receive tradional welfare who'll be horrifically impacted. That number will likely include those with "state pensions".

So if welfare receipients have to suffer the loss of government financing for a period of years so we can avoid going over the cliff, so be it. They didn't earn it so I wouldn't be taking anything from them. Once the debt is eliminated, and looming financial crisis' averted, then we can talk about compassion- when we can afford it.

[jim mk2]

...and while the poor and weakest go hungry and live on the streets, the rich carry on as they always have, accruing money by exploiting ordinary people while avoiding pay their fair share of taxes.

Hit the rich with tax, and then hit them again with more tax. Then when the system that they broke is restored to health, taxes can be relaxed again.

[Steve Moss]

...and while the poor and weakest go hungry and live on the streets, the rich carry on as they always have, accruing money by exploiting ordinary people while avoiding pay their fair share of taxes.

Hit the rich with tax, and then hit them again with more tax. Then when the system that they broke is restored to health, taxes can be relaxed again.

Brilliant idea, Jim. Let's confiscate their wealth. And then what will you do next year?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/

[thenodrog]

Not forgetting the "vermin" Thatcher who of course filled her boots on the lucrative US speaking circuit such that she was able to live in the Ritz in her latter years.

A comment which displays your ill breeding for all to see. However.... when it's his turn I'm sure your hero will be able to buy the bloody Ritz.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9367302/Im-not-one-of-the-super-rich-says-Tony-Blair-despite-being-worth-20m-a-year-and-owningsix-homes.html

[jim mk2]

Confiscating or asking those with the broadest shoulders to stop evading taxes and pay their fair share ? Anyone with any decency (something you struggle with - see your posts above) know the answer to that one.

[thenodrog]

Confiscating or asking those with the broadest shoulders to stop evading taxes and pay their fair share ? Anyone with any decency (something you struggle with - see your posts above) know the answer to that one.

I'm quite happy for everybody to pay the exact same amount of tax. A rate hovering between 25% and 30% flat rate for all would be fairest but what you want is for a section of society (which presumably doesn't include you) to pay far more than a fair share.

[jim mk2]

_{Flat tax benefits the rich and penalises poor and middle income earners - which you know. Or perhaps you didn't, and are in fact a bit thick.}

[Ste B]

Why on earth are you so fascinated by my location? You've brought it up more than once when I've discussed UK matters. I grew up in Blackburn, lived in the UK til I was 26, moved out here 18 months ago and am most likely moving back to the UK next year. So I'd say that gives me a pretty good reason to be interested in UK politics.

I was TGM on here previously..

Bye then.

[Stuart]

_{Flat tax benefits the rich and penalises poor and middle income earners - which you know. Or perhaps you didn't, and are in fact a bit thick.}

If I earn £100,000 pounds a year and pay £25,000 in tax, why is that any less fair than someone earning £10,000 and paying £2,500 tax?

That £75k I get to keep is what I've earned as a result of the level of responsibility, risk/criticality or the cost to replace me by whoever is paying me.

I can therefore afford to buy better things with my money, a bigger house, better car, better holiday, etc.

Seems to me that this wider ethical issue is fairer wages, not unbalanced taxes.

But maybe I'm just thick.

[jim mk2]

If

But maybe I'm just thick.

Required bedtime reading for thickies. Enjoy.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn72.pdf

[Guest Norbert]

Flat tax is a good idea in a country where the disparity between top and bottom is reasonably small. Otherwise it does just penalise those who don't suck the right c_cks (as had allegedly happened where I work), or just have a normal job, whilst those who cash in on the efforts of others, or fiddle the stock market rake it in.

I'm sorry but why should I pay the same tax rate as so many borderline retards who kick a plastic ball about for more than I'd earn in my lifetime?

[Stuart]

Required bedtime reading for thickies. Enjoy.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn72.pdf

Sorry, I'm going to need the executive summary.

[Sparky Marky]

Flat tax is a good idea in a country where the disparity between top and bottom is reasonably small. Otherwise it does just penalise those who don't suck the right c_cks (as had allegedly happened where I work), or just have a normal job, whilst those who cash in on the efforts of others, or fiddle the stock market rake it in.

I'm sorry but why should I pay the same tax rate as so many borderline retards who kick a plastic ball about for more than I'd earn in my lifetime?

That's bullshit mate, the whole lot of your post...a borderline retard that has such a fine talent that somebody wants to pay them millions to kick a plastic ball.....you fool. And the cock sucking comment is just an embarrassment to mankind...Get a grip.

[Steve Moss]

There is nothing unfair or immoral about a flat tax. I think its the fairest tax around.

At a rate of 25%:

If I earn a million, I'm taxed $250,000.

If I earn $10,000, I'm taxed $2,500.

The wealthy pay much more than the poor.

The trick is that everyone needs to pay, wealthy and poor alike. No free riders.

[jim mk2]

There is nothing fair or moral about flat tax.

If you earn a million you should be taxed at 90 per cent.

If you earn 10,000 you should not pay any tax.

The lack of a progressive tax in the US is a major reason for the financial crisis. It is not a co-incidence that the countries in the world with the happiest citizens
(the Nordic countries) have high tax rates. Regressive taxes create income inequality and income inequality eads to all sorts of unhappy consequences such as poor health and shorter lifespans.

The wealthy should pay more because it is fairer and it is their duty to society. No free riders on the back of the poor.

[Sparky Marky]

There is nothing fair or moral about flat tax.

i

If you earn a million you should be taxed at 90 per cent.

If you earn 10,000 you should not pay any tax.

The lack of a progressive tax in the US is a major reason for the financial crisis. It is not a co-incidence that the countries in the world with the happiest citizens

(the Nordic countries) have high tax rates. Regressive taxes create income inequality and income inequality eads to all sorts of unhappy consequences such as poor health and shorter lifespans.

The wealthy should pay more because it is fairer and it is their duty to society. No free riders on the back of the poor.

I presume you never had a good job and worked jolly hard at school for it...

[Stuart]

There is nothing fair or moral about flat tax.

If you earn a million you should be taxed at 90 per cent.

If you earn 10,000 you should not pay any tax.

Why would anyone aim to earn a million? Champions of industry - who create jobs - disincentivised. Great idea.

All that risk and barely any gain. Shut the factory gates, the boss is relocating abroad.

All that does is encourage tax avoidance meaning less tax paid by the rich.

Oh, look. That's where we are now.

£900k in tax just so the guy earning £10k doesn't have to pay £2.5k - in the name if equity. Look I'm all for fair living conditions and a living wage but the only winner there is the government.

[jim mk2]

"Champions of industry" (pardon?) continue to reward themselves with sickeningly high salaries and bonuses out of all proportion to their abilities while their employees have suffered job losses and wage restraints.Taxing them heavily in times of economic restraint is fair and equitable.

The rich already pay low taxes thanks to legal avoidance schemes (HMRC is belatedly clamping down on these schemes) yet continue to try to evade tax illegally. In short, they think they should pay no tax at all. Governments worldwide now recognise this and the net is closing on these individuals. I look forward to many court cases over the next few years.