Not Fit To Govern

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Rudi Hedman Caterham 09 Nov 17 11.43am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle As I said there is a huge body of empirical evidence that clearly shows improved productivity and output across the board from reduced inequality and no evidence that increases in equality or tax rates up to levels way in excess of current tax rates that increasing tax rates to more reasonable levels (say 60% top rate) would increase avoidance above rates already prevalent. Are you sure that in real life that 'theory' hasn't been disproved? COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 09 Nov 17 11.43am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

As I said there is a huge body of empirical evidence that clearly shows improved productivity and output across the board from reduced inequality and no evidence that increases in equality or tax rates up to levels way in excess of current tax rates that increasing tax rates to more reasonable levels (say 60% top rate) would increase avoidance above rates already prevalent.

Are you sure that in real life that 'theory' hasn't been disproved?

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Nov 17 11.47am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You're an idiot. All empirical data shows that reducing inequality from its current levels would increase productivity and increase output. This isn't simply theory. The Laffer curve has also been shown, empirically, to only kick in at relatively high levels of taxation (above 60% top rate), so again, from real life, well tested data, increasing the top rate of tax to a more reasonable level wouldn't reduce effort, and so wouldn't impact on output, and in fact the tax raised could be used to fund investment in infrastructure, education and public services, all of which would have a multiplier effect on output and make the economy and society better off. The extreme inequality in the UK and elsewhere across the globe is a huge break on economic productivity, both through inefficiencies of resources and in the way that the super wealthy go about avoid their proper contributions to the public purse, thereby forcing larger incidences of taxation on the less well off. The more skewed the income/wealth distribution the worse these two (huge) problems get. Mod Warning No sniping or personal attacks please. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Nov 17 11.47am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You're an idiot. All empirical data shows that reducing inequality from its current levels would increase productivity and increase output. This isn't simply theory.

The Laffer curve has also been shown, empirically, to only kick in at relatively high levels of taxation (above 60% top rate), so again, from real life, well tested data, increasing the top rate of tax to a more reasonable level wouldn't reduce effort, and so wouldn't impact on output, and in fact the tax raised could be used to fund investment in infrastructure, education and public services, all of which would have a multiplier effect on output and make the economy and society better off.

The extreme inequality in the UK and elsewhere across the globe is a huge break on economic productivity, both through inefficiencies of resources and in the way that the super wealthy go about avoid their proper contributions to the public purse, thereby forcing larger incidences of taxation on the less well off. The more skewed the income/wealth distribution the worse these two (huge) problems get.

Mod Warning No sniping or personal attacks please.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 09 Nov 17 11.49am
Capitalism doesn't work without inequality.......That's the whole point. If you destroy inequality you destroy capitalism.....and a system that has pulled far more people out of poverty than any other system. You look at ways of limiting inequality not getting rid of it.....that would be a disaster. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

09 Nov 17 11.49am

Capitalism doesn't work without inequality.......That's the whole point.

If you destroy inequality you destroy capitalism.....and a system that has pulled far more people out of poverty than any other system.

You look at ways of limiting inequality not getting rid of it.....that would be a disaster.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Nov 17 11.54am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The term child poverty is deliberately emotive since children don't earn money. What are the parents spending their money on? In times gone by, many people barely had a pot to piss in and yet managed to get by and feed their kids. I see no evidence of this Victorian work house style existence today. Some people need a reality check. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Nov 2017 5.03pm) Its the correct terms, for children in poverty, within the UK, and adheres to the democratically agreed terms of what child poverty is. That people were more impoverished in the past is irrelevant, we as a society have taken steps, through policy, agreed democratically, to implement welfare and social protection against poverty. Democratic Governments have to be held accountable to the standards they commit to, based on democratic mandate, not the ones we'd like to imagine. It doesn't matter if your imagined ancestors had it worse, that's not the point. The point is that the Conservative Government, like the government before them and the last Labour government, are failing to deliver on Child Poverty. Lets not see the solution to poverty as being redefining poverty to fit the numbers, rather we should be focused on ensuring that poverty and its impact on society is reduced. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Nov 17 11.54am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The term child poverty is deliberately emotive since children don't earn money.
What are the parents spending their money on?

In times gone by, many people barely had a pot to piss in and yet managed to get by and feed their kids.

I see no evidence of this Victorian work house style existence today. Some people need a reality check.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (08 Nov 2017 5.03pm)

Its the correct terms, for children in poverty, within the UK, and adheres to the democratically agreed terms of what child poverty is.

That people were more impoverished in the past is irrelevant, we as a society have taken steps, through policy, agreed democratically, to implement welfare and social protection against poverty.

Democratic Governments have to be held accountable to the standards they commit to, based on democratic mandate, not the ones we'd like to imagine.

It doesn't matter if your imagined ancestors had it worse, that's not the point. The point is that the Conservative Government, like the government before them and the last Labour government, are failing to deliver on Child Poverty.

Lets not see the solution to poverty as being redefining poverty to fit the numbers, rather we should be focused on ensuring that poverty and its impact on society is reduced.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Pikester Worthing 09 Nov 17 12.25pm
From the Barnados website: How much money do families living in poverty have? Families living in poverty can have as little as �13 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport. So if that's the very worst case then I assume most poor families have �20 or more per day to look after themselves. You could put a Spag Bol together for �5 leaving �15 for electricity and gas etc. Clothing is very cheap these days. It doesn't sound terrible to be honest. Not great, obviously, but it doesn't sound like we're in Wackford Squeers territory just yet. Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car. Really disabled people I am very sympathetic too and they should get all of society's help but the system is so widely abused that Tesco car park is just full of lines of nice new cars because poor old Fred can't walk as far as he used to. Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke. It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers. You fed me, you bred me, I'll remember your name.
Alert a moderator to this post

Pikester

Worthing 09 Nov 17 12.25pm

From the Barnados website:

How much money do families living in poverty have?
Families living in poverty can have as little as �13 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport.

So if that's the very worst case then I assume most poor families have �20 or more per day to look after themselves. You could put a Spag Bol together for �5 leaving �15 for electricity and gas etc. Clothing is very cheap these days.
It doesn't sound terrible to be honest. Not great, obviously, but it doesn't sound like we're in Wackford Squeers territory just yet.

Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car.

Really disabled people I am very sympathetic too and they should get all of society's help but the system is so widely abused that Tesco car park is just full of lines of nice new cars because poor old Fred can't walk as far as he used to.

Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke.

It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers.

You fed me, you bred me, I'll remember your name.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Nov 17 1.38pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Capitalism doesn't work without inequality.......That's the whole point. If you destroy inequality you destroy capitalism.....and a system that has pulled far more people out of poverty than any other system. You look at ways of limiting inequality not getting rid of it.....that would be a disaster. Well said - Inequality will always exist within any system that has limited resources - The role of regulation is to limit the impact of that inequality and to provide a means of ensuring that where it occurs, there is a reasonable degree of fairness. The problem of inequality is reasonably concerning where it creates relative poverty, that is impacting development and life opportunities. I don't think people care too much about people being too rich. The problem is where people are too poor. Wages probably represent the best example, of how systems of inequality, are punitive towards individuals based on inequality. Having systems of wages that are really set by those paying the wages, rather than say tied to costs of living. Oddly, we do tie welfare payments and benefits to inflationary costs, but not wages (or the minimum wage). Working should always be a better option than not working, and the only way to fairly do that is to make the value of working notably exceed the value of not working, whilst keeping welfare and benefits at a reasonable level for functioning in society (ie cutting benefits isn't the answer, raising wages is). Systems that keep wages low should be penalised. Things like zero hour contracts, or contracts where only some of the working day is paid, aren't acceptable alternative to benefits - They just exist to further exploit people. We have to establish that corporations and businesses are part of society, and the social contract; that maximising profit, at the cost of their staff isn't acceptable (or sufficiently taxing those businesses profiteering to establish reasonable employment subsidy of wages). Anyone working 37.5 hours a week shouldn't be worried about paying the mortgage, rent, bills etc, nor should it be acceptable that not working provides better income security than holding down a 9-5 job. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Nov 17 1.38pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Capitalism doesn't work without inequality.......That's the whole point.

If you destroy inequality you destroy capitalism.....and a system that has pulled far more people out of poverty than any other system.

You look at ways of limiting inequality not getting rid of it.....that would be a disaster.

Well said - Inequality will always exist within any system that has limited resources - The role of regulation is to limit the impact of that inequality and to provide a means of ensuring that where it occurs, there is a reasonable degree of fairness.

The problem of inequality is reasonably concerning where it creates relative poverty, that is impacting development and life opportunities. I don't think people care too much about people being too rich. The problem is where people are too poor.

Wages probably represent the best example, of how systems of inequality, are punitive towards individuals based on inequality. Having systems of wages that are really set by those paying the wages, rather than say tied to costs of living.

Oddly, we do tie welfare payments and benefits to inflationary costs, but not wages (or the minimum wage).

Working should always be a better option than not working, and the only way to fairly do that is to make the value of working notably exceed the value of not working, whilst keeping welfare and benefits at a reasonable level for functioning in society (ie cutting benefits isn't the answer, raising wages is).

Systems that keep wages low should be penalised. Things like zero hour contracts, or contracts where only some of the working day is paid, aren't acceptable alternative to benefits - They just exist to further exploit people.

We have to establish that corporations and businesses are part of society, and the social contract; that maximising profit, at the cost of their staff isn't acceptable (or sufficiently taxing those businesses profiteering to establish reasonable employment subsidy of wages).

Anyone working 37.5 hours a week shouldn't be worried about paying the mortgage, rent, bills etc, nor should it be acceptable that not working provides better income security than holding down a 9-5 job.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Jamesey Wandsworth 09 Nov 17 1.39pm
Originally posted by Pikester From the Barnados website: How much money do families living in poverty have? Families living in poverty can have as little as �13 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport. So if that's the very worst case then I assume most poor families have �20 or more per day to look after themselves. You could put a Spag Bol together for �5 leaving �15 for electricity and gas etc. Clothing is very cheap these days. It doesn't sound terrible to be honest. Not great, obviously, but it doesn't sound like we're in Wackford Squeers territory just yet. Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car. Really disabled people I am very sympathetic too and they should get all of society's help but the system is so widely abused that Tesco car park is just full of lines of nice new cars because poor old Fred can't walk as far as he used to. Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke. It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers. Well said, Sir, although I expect you'll be abused for saying it.ll Nothing is fool-proof - fools are too ingenious
Alert a moderator to this post

Jamesey

Wandsworth 09 Nov 17 1.39pm

Originally posted by Pikester

From the Barnados website:

Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car.

Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke.

It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers.

Well said, Sir, although I expect you'll be abused for saying it.ll

Nothing is fool-proof - fools are too ingenious

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Nov 17 1.45pm
Originally posted by Pikester From the Barnados website: How much money do families living in poverty have? Families living in poverty can have as little as �13 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport. So if that's the very worst case then I assume most poor families have �20 or more per day to look after themselves. You could put a Spag Bol together for �5 leaving �15 for electricity and gas etc. Clothing is very cheap these days. It doesn't sound terrible to be honest. Not great, obviously, but it doesn't sound like we're in Wackford Squeers territory just yet. Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car. Really disabled people I am very sympathetic too and they should get all of society's help but the system is so widely abused that Tesco car park is just full of lines of nice new cars because poor old Fred can't walk as far as he used to. Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke. It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers. I think your being optimistic in how much a spag bol for four people will cost. Plus of course you have to factor in the cost of lunch and breakfast. I think most single people would struggle to live on 5 a day for food. Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week. Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate. How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school). Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Nov 17 1.45pm

Originally posted by Pikester

From the Barnados website:

Then again I'm quite harsh with things like this. Disabled parking and Motability is another one of my bugbears. It seems as though anyone with a limp is allowed a blue badge and a brand new car.

Show me real cases of child poverty and I'll take notice but I've not seen anyone turn up to my kids' school in rags and their parents all seem to bloody smoke.

It is society's duty to help the unfortunate - not the scroungers.

I think your being optimistic in how much a spag bol for four people will cost. Plus of course you have to factor in the cost of lunch and breakfast. I think most single people would struggle to live on 5 a day for food.

Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week.

Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate.

How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school).

Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 09 Nov 17 1.50pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle It's defined as being below 60% of median income (on a household basis) and figures are "equivalised" to take into account differing compositions of households and their relative needs. This figure is a good proxy for not being able to afford the basic activities and opportunities available to the average household. Ok...that certainly gives the term a little more context...whether its a practical application or not; so thanks for that The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 09 Nov 17 1.50pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

It's defined as being below 60% of median income (on a household basis) and figures are "equivalised" to take into account differing compositions of households and their relative needs. This figure is a good proxy for not being able to afford the basic activities and opportunities available to the average household.

Ok...that certainly gives the term a little more context...whether its a practical application or not; so thanks for that

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 09 Nov 17 1.53pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think your being optimistic in how much a spag bol for four people will cost. Plus of course you have to factor in the cost of lunch and breakfast. I think most single people would struggle to live on 5 a day for food. Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week. Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate. How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school). Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either. Not forgetting bus fares, dental costs, prescription charges, luxuries like 'soap', and for many Tax Credit over-payments repayments and the occasional loan shark etc etc. It must be a nightmare for those who trapped by their poverty. It's ok for those in Sussex, Surrey and nearby to London counties where there is work out there but if you stuck with family in some post-industrial northern town with very little in the opportunity for employment nor variety of choice shops wise to help keep costs down then it must seem like a 'there is no escape' scenario. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 09 Nov 17 1.53pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week.

Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate.

How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school).

Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either.

Not forgetting bus fares, dental costs, prescription charges, luxuries like 'soap', and for many Tax Credit over-payments repayments and the occasional loan shark etc etc. It must be a nightmare for those who trapped by their poverty.

It's ok for those in Sussex, Surrey and nearby to London counties where there is work out there but if you stuck with family in some post-industrial northern town with very little in the opportunity for employment nor variety of choice shops wise to help keep costs down then it must seem like a 'there is no escape' scenario.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 09 Nov 17 2.00pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its the correct terms, for children in poverty, within the UK, and adheres to the democratically agreed terms of what child poverty is. That people were more impoverished in the past is irrelevant, we as a society have taken steps, through policy, agreed democratically, to implement welfare and social protection against poverty. Democratic Governments have to be held accountable to the standards they commit to, based on democratic mandate, not the ones we'd like to imagine. It doesn't matter if your imagined ancestors had it worse, that's not the point. The point is that the Conservative Government, like the government before them and the last Labour government, are failing to deliver on Child Poverty. Lets not see the solution to poverty as being redefining poverty to fit the numbers, rather we should be focused on ensuring that poverty and its impact on society is reduced. Its also just as important to not simply use one view as to what 'poverty' actually means or represents in order to do so either. We all know how slow and out of date the political system is in acknowledging these things...let alone the time it comes to then agree on a definition which may well already be years out of date when doing so. Having said all that..the fiscal argument should only be one measure, health, wellbeing and happiness should also be factors. NOT ALL of these are simply effected by wealth...and to suggest they are show more about the 'me now' 'i must have' 'having such is a basic right' society than what actually matters. How many of us were simply happy as kids to play in a park, keeping fit with our friends....all of which didn't (doesnt) cost a thing. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 09 Nov 17 2.00pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Its the correct terms, for children in poverty, within the UK, and adheres to the democratically agreed terms of what child poverty is.

That people were more impoverished in the past is irrelevant, we as a society have taken steps, through policy, agreed democratically, to implement welfare and social protection against poverty.

Democratic Governments have to be held accountable to the standards they commit to, based on democratic mandate, not the ones we'd like to imagine.

Lets not see the solution to poverty as being redefining poverty to fit the numbers, rather we should be focused on ensuring that poverty and its impact on society is reduced.

Its also just as important to not simply use one view as to what 'poverty' actually means or represents in order to do so either.

We all know how slow and out of date the political system is in acknowledging these things...let alone the time it comes to then agree on a definition which may well already be years out of date when doing so.

Having said all that..the fiscal argument should only be one measure, health, wellbeing and happiness should also be factors. NOT ALL of these are simply effected by wealth...and to suggest they are show more about the 'me now' 'i must have' 'having such is a basic right' society than what actually matters.

How many of us were simply happy as kids to play in a park, keeping fit with our friends....all of which didn't (doesnt) cost a thing.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 09 Nov 17 2.07pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think your being optimistic in how much a spag bol for four people will cost. Plus of course you have to factor in the cost of lunch and breakfast. I think most single people would struggle to live on 5 a day for food. Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week. Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate. How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school). Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either. But if you are on benifits you get help with school meals. And sorry you most definitely can feed a family of 4 a spag bog for a fiver. People need educating on proper shopping, and cooking. Why isnt there leaflets and such in the beniggits office. If you cook from fresh and not ready made or canned s***,you will be surprised how much you can get. Stuff coming up to its sell by date are often reduced...cook it and freeze it. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 09 Nov 17 2.07pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Plus you can't have spag bol seven nights a week.

Also, if your looking for work, chances are you'll need things like a phone and the internet in order to find work and communicate.

How cheap is clothing, when you have four people needing to be clothed, two of which will require school uniforms? Shoes and transport (not every kid can walk to school).

Realistically, life on benefits shouldn't be great, but nor should it be a tightrope walk over the abyss either.

But if you are on benifits you
get help with school meals.
And sorry you most definitely can feed a family of 4 a spag bog for a fiver.
People need educating on proper shopping, and cooking.
Why isnt there leaflets and such in the beniggits office.
If you cook from fresh and not ready made or canned s***,you will be surprised how much you can get.
Stuff coming up to its sell by date are often reduced...cook it and freeze it.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Not Fit To Govern

Site Map

Sponsors