Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Jockman said:
Could that be interpreted as envy?
What else is it?Tax is there for one purpose only - to raise funds to run the country.
Tax should be set at the lowest possible rate that raises the the maximum amount of cash (see Laffer curve)
Increasing the tax rate above this level simply to deprive people of wealth despite gaining no additional funds for the country is of no benefit to anybody (except those crippled with envy - or an out of whack sense of morality).
Moonhawk said:
Tax should be set at the lowest possible rate that raises the the maximum amount of cash (see Laffer curve)
Slightly pedantic point but Arthur Laffer regards this as a misconception. He doesn't like the assumption that the purpose of the economy is to supply funds for the government and prefers the tax rate to be to the left of the peak, the aim being the lowest rate that raises sufficient tax.Carl_Manchester said:
Whilst I do agree with the general jist of Tuna's point above, the left are not the only group worried about rising wage inequality. There are a fair number of us on the right that are also worried about it, some for selfish grounds, some not.
Using poverty as a measure is helpful but it masks the true crisis of the middle and upper middle classes. As far as I am aware, nobody agreed that just being out of poverty was a 'success' for capitalism infact, if we are agreeing that simply being above the breadline is a 'success' we might as well all turn communist and be done with it.
No, the people of this country will never be happy with 'good enough' and it will take another almighty economic shock to shift the centre of gravity into getting the 42% of people that voted Tory re-aligned with a new reality that a shift in Reagan/Thatcher capitalism is happening whether they want it to or not.
Thankfully another economic shock is never too far away.
After Davos this year I feel that across the political spectrum there is a sense of agreement that liberal capitalism reached the end-point in 2008 and what we are currently left with is a zombie form of liberal capitalism i.e. the people are still dancing but the music has stopped. Once the shift to advanced forms of AI starts to bite, it will cement the decline of the middle and upper middle classes perhaps for at least the next generation.
What there is disagreement about is the remedy.
On one end of the spectrum we have the Trump/Bannon view (whether they get to implement their view is yet to be seen) and on the other end we have McDonnell/Corbyn, acting as the braying mob from the sidelines but unable to really affect anything as it stands.
I can see people are asking above whether this is a question of envy, I would say that for the middle and upper-middle classes that it is not about envy it will be about sheer survival of their quality of life.
Once the middle and upper middle classes realise they are experiencing a real and permanent dip in their quality of life (happening now and expected to accelerate in 2022), it will surely tilt the balance back into Labour's favour.
Good postUsing poverty as a measure is helpful but it masks the true crisis of the middle and upper middle classes. As far as I am aware, nobody agreed that just being out of poverty was a 'success' for capitalism infact, if we are agreeing that simply being above the breadline is a 'success' we might as well all turn communist and be done with it.
No, the people of this country will never be happy with 'good enough' and it will take another almighty economic shock to shift the centre of gravity into getting the 42% of people that voted Tory re-aligned with a new reality that a shift in Reagan/Thatcher capitalism is happening whether they want it to or not.
Thankfully another economic shock is never too far away.
After Davos this year I feel that across the political spectrum there is a sense of agreement that liberal capitalism reached the end-point in 2008 and what we are currently left with is a zombie form of liberal capitalism i.e. the people are still dancing but the music has stopped. Once the shift to advanced forms of AI starts to bite, it will cement the decline of the middle and upper middle classes perhaps for at least the next generation.
What there is disagreement about is the remedy.
On one end of the spectrum we have the Trump/Bannon view (whether they get to implement their view is yet to be seen) and on the other end we have McDonnell/Corbyn, acting as the braying mob from the sidelines but unable to really affect anything as it stands.
I can see people are asking above whether this is a question of envy, I would say that for the middle and upper-middle classes that it is not about envy it will be about sheer survival of their quality of life.
Once the middle and upper middle classes realise they are experiencing a real and permanent dip in their quality of life (happening now and expected to accelerate in 2022), it will surely tilt the balance back into Labour's favour.
But Labour's manifesto contained almost nothing that would improve matters for the "squeezed middle". Yes a few graduates would have got partial debt relief, but what was the rest of the programme?
Lower house building targets than the Tories, far lower for private house building.
Nationalising a few former state owned companies. Good for the unionised workers an irrelevance to the rest of us.
Anything else relevant?
What I think will happen is that they will get in next time. Piss money up the wall for the benefit of special interest groups, drive the economy into the ground and then the situation will get even worse for those you talk about.
The political mood will become ever more volatile.
JagLover said:
Good post
But Labour's manifesto contained almost nothing that would improve matters for the "squeezed middle". Yes a few graduates would have got partial debt relief, but what was the rest of the programme?
Lower house building targets than the Tories, far lower for private house building.
Nationalising a few former state owned companies. Good for the unionised workers an irrelevance to the rest of us.
Anything else relevant?
What I think will happen is that they will get in next time. Piss money up the wall for the benefit of special interest groups, drive the economy into the ground and then the situation will get even worse for those you talk about.
The political mood will become ever more volatile.
I agree with the above. But Labour's manifesto contained almost nothing that would improve matters for the "squeezed middle". Yes a few graduates would have got partial debt relief, but what was the rest of the programme?
Lower house building targets than the Tories, far lower for private house building.
Nationalising a few former state owned companies. Good for the unionised workers an irrelevance to the rest of us.
Anything else relevant?
What I think will happen is that they will get in next time. Piss money up the wall for the benefit of special interest groups, drive the economy into the ground and then the situation will get even worse for those you talk about.
The political mood will become ever more volatile.
The Tories have alienated a huge chunk of the voting demographic, mostly due to their complacency. And Labour are set to get elected next time, on the promise of free stuff and punishing "rich people".
JagLover said:
Good post
But Labour's manifesto contained almost nothing that would improve matters for the "squeezed middle". Yes a few graduates would have got partial debt relief, but what was the rest of the programme?
Lower house building targets than the Tories, far lower for private house building.
Nationalising a few former state owned companies. Good for the unionised workers an irrelevance to the rest of us.
Anything else relevant?
What I think will happen is that they will get in next time. Piss money up the wall for the benefit of special interest groups, drive the economy into the ground and then the situation will get even worse for those you talk about.
The political mood will become ever more volatile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052But Labour's manifesto contained almost nothing that would improve matters for the "squeezed middle". Yes a few graduates would have got partial debt relief, but what was the rest of the programme?
Lower house building targets than the Tories, far lower for private house building.
Nationalising a few former state owned companies. Good for the unionised workers an irrelevance to the rest of us.
Anything else relevant?
What I think will happen is that they will get in next time. Piss money up the wall for the benefit of special interest groups, drive the economy into the ground and then the situation will get even worse for those you talk about.
The political mood will become ever more volatile.
Don't think for one minute Labour will win this vote, or even expect to, but right now who would want to be seen to oppose it.
Edited by gooner1 on Wednesday 28th June 07:14
gooner1 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052
Don't think for one minute Labour will win this vote, or even expect to, but right now hold would want to be seen to oppose it.
Pretty easy. Don't think for one minute Labour will win this vote, or even expect to, but right now hold would want to be seen to oppose it.
It's in the Tory manifesto.
If your a Tory or DUP MP and vote for this then your edging closer to another election then you might be in the opposition benches for 5 years / and clearly some 50++ will lose their jobs in the process..... worth thinking about.
Welshbeef said:
gooner1 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052
Don't think for one minute Labour will win this vote, or even expect to, but right now hold would want to be seen to oppose it.
Pretty easy. Don't think for one minute Labour will win this vote, or even expect to, but right now hold would want to be seen to oppose it.
It's in the Tory manifesto.
If your a Tory or DUP MP and vote for this then your edging closer to another election then you might be in the opposition benches for 5 years / and clearly some 50++ will lose their jobs in the process..... worth thinking about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-...
Moonhawk said:
Jockman said:
Could that be interpreted as envy?
What else is it?Tax is there for one purpose only - to raise funds to run the country.
Tax should be set at the lowest possible rate that raises the the maximum amount of cash (see Laffer curve)
Increasing the tax rate above this level simply to deprive people of wealth despite gaining no additional funds for the country is of no benefit to anybody (except those crippled with envy - or an out of whack sense of morality).
The UK sits just behind the USA with having some of the largest wealth inequality and thus has more social problems, western countries with lower wealth inequality have much higher levels of social cohesion and less social problems.
How economic inequality harms societies
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
El stovey said:
It's not about envy or morality. Countless studies show that western democracies with larger wealth inequality have more social problems. (Drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, crime, domestic violence etc etc)
The UK sits just behind the USA with having some of the largest wealth inequality and thus has more social problems, western countries with lower wealth inequality have much higher levels of social cohesion and less social problems.
How economic inequality harms societies
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
Japan, which seems to do best on that graph, has the same top rate of tax we do!The UK sits just behind the USA with having some of the largest wealth inequality and thus has more social problems, western countries with lower wealth inequality have much higher levels of social cohesion and less social problems.
How economic inequality harms societies
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
Their income equality comes more from companies valuing their staff and offering a well paid "job for life" and because they haven't had the same mass immigration of unskilled and semi skilled workers many western countries have had.
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
It's not about envy or morality. Countless studies show that western democracies with larger wealth inequality have more social problems. (Drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, crime, domestic violence etc etc)
The UK sits just behind the USA with having some of the largest wealth inequality and thus has more social problems, western countries with lower wealth inequality have much higher levels of social cohesion and less social problems.
How economic inequality harms societies
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
Japan, which seems to do best on that graph, has the same top rate of tax we do!The UK sits just behind the USA with having some of the largest wealth inequality and thus has more social problems, western countries with lower wealth inequality have much higher levels of social cohesion and less social problems.
How economic inequality harms societies
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson
Their income equality comes more from companies valuing their staff and offering a well paid "job for life" and because they haven't had the same mass immigration of unskilled and semi skilled workers many western countries have had.
The bottom line is quite simple for me. I think wages are too low and more housing needs building etc. However, I think Corbyn and McDonnell are extremists who will destroy the country. They are not fit for purpose.i think they they are as big a threat as terrorism. If labour had a sane shadow cabinet they could be winning.
El stovey said:
It's not about envy or morality. Countless studies show that western democracies with larger wealth inequality have more social problems. (Drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, crime, domestic violence etc etc)
Except you could draw that same graph, replacing 'Income inequality' with 'Number of MacDonalds Restaurants' and get pretty much the same result.Douglas Adams said:
This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy
When your entire waking life is concerned with having enough food to eat and a dry bed at night, you don't have time for drug abuse etc. The problem here is that we've created a society where people don't have to work, don't have to learn, can get easy fixes and mindless distractions. If you look at Japan, they have a much more mindful, cohesive society with a sense of identity. Linking income inequality to social problems is missing the point that society itself has changed.As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
History is only two years ago these days....nothing happened of any relevance before thatStickyfinger said:
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
History is only two years ago these days....nothing happened of any relevance before thatIt's a massive problem.
Another interesting article about wealth inequality here
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 28th June 09:22
AstonZagato said:
I do Chicago, New York, San Fran (admittedly not for a few years), Miami, Orlando and a few other randoms like Richmond. Seattle (IMHO) was the standout worst for vagrants. Really shocking and noticeable. NY has more but they aren't quite so concentrated.
It's not down to minimum wage. Most seem to have health issues (often mental health).
A lot in Chicago claimed to be veterans according to their signs but knowing that Americans respect their current and former armed services with more respect and reverence than we do, it might just be a ploy to get more cash.It's not down to minimum wage. Most seem to have health issues (often mental health).
El stovey said:
Income inequality now in the USA (comparing the top 20% and lowest 20%) is similar to the levels before the French Revolution.
Hardly a fair comparison. Many of those in the bottom 20% now will be in the top 20% in a few years time and vice versa. Not something that happened much in pre revolutionary France.Dr Jekyll said:
Slightly pedantic point but Arthur Laffer regards this as a misconception. He doesn't like the assumption that the purpose of the economy is to supply funds for the government and prefers the tax rate to be to the left of the peak, the aim being the lowest rate that raises sufficient tax.
Fair enough - but in either case, pushing the tax rate to the right makes absolutely no sense, yet that is exactly what Corbyn (and apparently a lot of Labour supporters) advocate.Tuna said:
El stovey said:
It's not about envy or morality. Countless studies show that western democracies with larger wealth inequality have more social problems. (Drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, crime, domestic violence etc etc)
Except you could draw that same graph, replacing 'Income inequality' with 'Number of MacDonalds Restaurants' and get pretty much the same result.Douglas Adams said:
This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy
When your entire waking life is concerned with having enough food to eat and a dry bed at night, you don't have time for drug abuse etc. The problem here is that we've created a society where people don't have to work, don't have to learn, can get easy fixes and mindless distractions. If you look at Japan, they have a much more mindful, cohesive society with a sense of identity. Linking income inequality to social problems is missing the point that society itself has changed.As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
El stovey said:
Stickyfinger said:
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
History is only two years ago these days....nothing happened of any relevance before thatIt's a massive problem.
Another interesting article about wealth inequality here
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...
Edited by El stovey on Wednesday 28th June 09:22
Just by being born in this country you have already won life's lottery. You have access to food, water, shelter, education and healthcare. Something half the world can only dream off. You have every opportunity to become the next Alan Sugar, or Richard Branson if its riches you seek.
What Alan Sugar earns plays no part in my life, so what he earns this year or next year is not something I'm bothered by in the slightest.
I get the feeling that some people would prefer that we were all equal, even if we were all poorer.
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
We are in some ways drifting back to the feudal system, where the few own lots of land (BTL's) and the many are grateful for being allowed to live there.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff