Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Ruskie said:
As I stated, I’m not going to get into a discussion to get belittled and be spoken to in a condescending tone. This is PH and that’s what occurs daily. Have a good evening 
Not having a pop at you when I say this:It's quite typical of those voting labour that they don't want to discuss the nuts & bolts of the policies, merely the 'caring' part of the concept. They also generally only want to hear opinions that coincide with their own.
I'd be pleased to hear an alternate viewpoint, especially if supported by facts, figures & reasons. I think such views would be very welcome here.
Ruskie said:
As I stated, I’m not going to get into a discussion to get belittled and be spoken to in a condescending tone. This is PH and that’s what occurs daily. Have a good evening
Would you support a Lib Dem style raising of all tax bands by 1 or 2% to provide additional funding to the nhs and police services (amongst other worthy causes)?To me that policy makes more sense than Labours f
king the 5%. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.Ruskie said:
gadgetmac said:
Ruskie said:
I work on the frontline in the NHS as a Paramedic.
The last thing I’d do is tell anyone on here absolutely anything personal about yourself.It never ends well.
Having said that, both my wife and Daughter work in the NHS one a Dr the other finance. I read the Unison magazine and it is full of misinformation and claims that would not stand up to scrutiny. And once again I point out that Labour did nothing to change things in the NHS except set up PFI deals which Unison agree were rubbish, but have nicely moved on to just mention the ones where the Tories have completed on ones already beyond a point of no return.
When you sit down and go through some of the things labour did with the NHS it is not good reading. When in power Labour introduced prescription charges, charges for dentistry and for spectacles, had the Tories done that there would be outrage from Labour and from the Unions.
Same as when Labour introduced tuition fees for Students, where was the outcry then from supporters and the unions?
It is only when the Tories have increased charges introduced by Labour that it is a rallying call for action.
There has to be balance in all things and the sad part is I know several union people and a couple of Labour MP's, they understand reality and are appalled by the actions of momentum seeking to replace good long standing hardworking Labour MP's because they are willing to consider a different view to the Leadership controlling everything.
I am sure no one will convince you to change your view but if Labour get back in, nothing will change for you at all as there is no money tree
Countdown said:
Oilchange said:
Now please explain how raising taxes and thus lowering tax take is likely to help any public services at all?
Why does raising tax rates automatically lower tax take?Politicians will look at tax take, add a %, and assume the money raised will be the same %. In reality people change their behaviour. Its actually one of the expected outcomes of raising taxes (ie use tax to change what people do).
Ruskie said:
I would love to get into a discussion, however I’m a labour supporter,a trade unionist and a socialist. Having been around the block on PH I’m aware I’m outnumbered at least 25 to 1 and discussion here is futile.
But if your arguments are right, they are right, independent of numbers.I was born in a mining village, and grew up as the mines closed. I attended a state comp, and had the same prospects as everyone around me, but I never, ever thought that socialism was the answer.
Little things convinced me of this, such as seeing people at work in our weekend job haggle over payment for the shifts that nobody wanted, or seeing the brilliant member of staff being paid less than the longer serving one.
I also learned early the “no true Scotsman”fallacy, hereby every example of where the tenets of socialism led to gross unfairness someone would pop up to say that it wan’t really socialism.
My friends who excelled at school tended to feel the same as me, and were politically on the right. Those who would never dream of actually putting any effort in tended to be on the left.
I am happy to be convinced that this pattern was an aberration, but so far it seems accurate enough.
98elise said:
Its doesn't automatically lower tax take, but it's often the net result.
But just because the tax take has increased doesn't mean that it was due to the rates being lowered. The link I posted earlier suggests that had tax rates stayed the same the tax receipts may have been even higher. There is no demonstrable correlation between the two. In fact it's a prime example of chicken and egg; economy strats to grow --> tax receipts start to increase --> Govt cuts tax rates. (or vice versa).There may be strong arguments against Labour/Corbyn's proposed tax increases. However arguing that it will automatically definitely result in a fall in tax receipts is wrong. An increase in public expenditure might actually help to increase GDP and thereby increase tax receipts via the multiplier effect.
Ruskie said:
I work on the frontline in the NHS as a Paramedic.
That’s a great job, and I hope that you are proud of doing it.When you look at the issues with A&E, though, do you honestly believe that it is all down to funding, or do you see por management combined with the employer finding it hard to remove underperforming staff?
I’ve had reasons for serious comp,aunts, and seen the staff just close ranks and refuse to admit to mistakes that could cost lives.
James_B said:
But if your arguments are right, they are right, independent of numbers.
I was born in a mining village, and grew up as the mines closed. I attended a state comp, and had the same prospects as everyone around me, but I never, ever thought that socialism was the answer.
Little things convinced me of this, such as seeing people at work in our weekend job haggle over payment for the shifts that nobody wanted, or seeing the brilliant member of staff being paid less than the longer serving one.
Slightly O/T but isn't our society more "socialist" in nature than "capitalist"? We have a huge number of services provided by the State (from cradle to grave) and the amount we pay for these services bears little resemblance to the amount of services we consume. And (I stand to be corrected) don't the top 10% effectively subsidise the remaining 90% via the redistribution of wealth through tax?I was born in a mining village, and grew up as the mines closed. I attended a state comp, and had the same prospects as everyone around me, but I never, ever thought that socialism was the answer.
Little things convinced me of this, such as seeing people at work in our weekend job haggle over payment for the shifts that nobody wanted, or seeing the brilliant member of staff being paid less than the longer serving one.
I know, it's awful...................
{awaits replies from powerfully-built 10%'ers...}
Countdown said:
Slightly O/T but isn't our society more "socialist" in nature than "capitalist"? We have a huge number of services provided by the State (from cradle to grave) and the amount we pay for these services bears little resemblance to the amount of services we consume. And (I stand to be corrected) don't the top 10% effectively subsidise the remaining 90% via the redistribution of wealth through tax?
I know, it's awful...................
{awaits replies from powerfully-built 10%'ers...}
It is mixed, but we are still, just, allowed to keep the majority of what we earn.I know, it's awful...................
{awaits replies from powerfully-built 10%'ers...}
I take home 54% of what my company pays me. I think this puts us, just, on the capitalist side of the line, but yes, we are definitely mixed.
James_B said:
Countdown said:
Slightly O/T but isn't our society more "socialist" in nature than "capitalist"? We have a huge number of services provided by the State (from cradle to grave) and the amount we pay for these services bears little resemblance to the amount of services we consume. And (I stand to be corrected) don't the top 10% effectively subsidise the remaining 90% via the redistribution of wealth through tax?
I know, it's awful...................
{awaits replies from powerfully-built 10%'ers...}
It is mixed, but we are still, just, allowed to keep the majority of what we earn.I know, it's awful...................
{awaits replies from powerfully-built 10%'ers...}
I take home 54% of what my company pays me. I think this puts us, just, on the capitalist side of the line, but yes, we are definitely mixed.
Mothersruin said:
What about VAT and all the other 'point of use' taxes?
If you start going down that road then Tax always approaches 100% in any jurisdiction. VAT, then inheritance tax, stamp duty on moving house etc.I’m happy to accept that my total tax rate is 46%, and leave it at that.
James_B said:
Mothersruin said:
What about VAT and all the other 'point of use' taxes?
If you start going down that road then Tax always approaches 100% in any jurisdiction. VAT, then inheritance tax, stamp duty on moving house etc.I’m happy to accept that my total tax rate is 46%, and leave it at that.
Rovinghawk said:
Not having a pop at you when I say this:
It's quite typical of those voting labour that they don't want to discuss the nuts & bolts of the policies, merely the 'caring' part of the concept. They also generally only want to hear opinions that coincide with their own.
I'd be pleased to hear an alternate viewpoint, especially if supported by facts, figures & reasons. I think such views would be very welcome here.
I've spent the past 75 minutes preparing a point-by-point espousal of how I think a Corbyn-style social democracy will make Britain a better place without trashing the economy, with links to economic and social studies, case studies of applicable systems elsewhere in the world, responses (both my own and links to others) of common conservative critiques of said points. It's quite typical of those voting labour that they don't want to discuss the nuts & bolts of the policies, merely the 'caring' part of the concept. They also generally only want to hear opinions that coincide with their own.
I'd be pleased to hear an alternate viewpoint, especially if supported by facts, figures & reasons. I think such views would be very welcome here.
And you know what - I've deleted it all because I can't be bothered to keep defending it if I was to post it here.
No one is going to be convinced in either direction. There is some fundamental bit-switch in people's wiring that is set one wa for those that trend right, and the other for those that trend left. I don't know what it is - rationalism/emotion, collectivism/individualism, apathy/empathy, belief in a just world/belief in an unjust world, I dunno. But I could lay out the most joined-up, explanatory, thorough manifesto of 'why I think leftism works' and it would still result in a large section of NP&E saying "But I don't believe [problem] exists." or "I want to have more control over my individual life" or "I disagree because in [example] what you said didn't work."
And you know what? They'd be right. For every case where putting up a tax decreased the take, someone will be able to find one where it increased it.Because nationwide finances and economics aren't circuit boards where you flick switches to create known inputs. They're vastly complicated interconnected systems consisting of millions of individual actors. And then we can have an argument about whether the sole purpose of tax is to have gain maximum revenue or whether the purpose is to control and direct certain outcomes.
We won't even agree on what 'good for the country' means. We will never agree on whether wealth inequality is an inherently bad thing, whether it's only bad if it goes beyond a certain level or only bad if it means the bottom isn't growing at all at the expense of the top. Which makes it impossible to discuss whether a socialist government will be 'good for the country'. Because we'll get into a circular argument about the size of the overall pie versus how that pie is divided, or about whether free trade and international capital is actually desirable or not.
We can't even agree on whether the issue in the UK is too much socialism or too much capitalism. To me it's pretty clear that most of the problems the UK (and much of the world in general) is facing is the end result of 300+ years of capitalism in general and 40 years of neoliberalism in the medium term. But, just as you'll get delusional tankies who still can't bring themselves to admit that Venezuela is a failed experiment in socialism, you get people on this very thread saying that the UK needs to be more capitalist because the welfare state is holding us back from free market nirvana.
If I put up my most as originally planned, I'd have to dedicate similar hours of my time I don't have (or rather, I do have but I'd rather spend that time getting paid to write drivel on the internet) to defending every source, every nitpick and every definition. Let alone discussing and analysing every single discussion point with people who are actually arguing in good faith.
Because for all those hours and hours I will still believe in social democracy and the majority of NP&E will still believe that Corbyn is a dangerous neo-Marxist who will crash the economy.
2xChevrons said:
No one is going to be convinced in either direction.
Picking up on this point- I was once fairly set against something until a contrary viewpoint was posted on PH, with ideas I had previously thought of. I considered what the guy said & decided that there was a good amount of sense in it; my viewpoint chaged as a consequence.Whilst I'd agree that there is a definite bias to what many of us think, I do consider that a rational argument can convert someone to the other side.
2xChevrons said:
Because for all those hours and hours I will still believe in social democracy and the majority of NP&E will still believe that Corbyn is a dangerous neo-Marxist who will crash the economy.
Consider someone's statement earlier today: most of us want better this/that/the other. Nobody wants to abolish the NHS or reinstate the poorhouse, etc. OTOH we can only do what we can afford & we have a reasonable idea what will work & what won't. If we have to make preparation for runs on the banks & capital flight then there's clearly a problem to be addressed. I've tried to not have a political bias in this statement- I consider it neutral & factual.The problem with Corbyn IMHO is that his principles & dogma take precedence over what I consider to be economic reality. The dangerous one is actually McDonnell as I think he doesn't care whom he hurts for his social theories.
Rovinghawk said:
Consider someone's statement earlier today: most of us want better this/that/the other. Nobody wants to abolish the NHS or reinstate the poorhouse, etc. OTOH we can only do what we can afford & we have a reasonable idea what will work & what won't. If we have to make preparation for runs on the banks & capital flight then there's clearly a problem to be addressed. I've tried to not have a political bias in this statement- I consider it neutral & factual.
The problem with Corbyn IMHO is that his principles & dogma take precedence over what I consider to be economic reality. The dangerous one is actually McDonnell as I think he doesn't care whom he hurts for his social theories.
See, even here in this most milquetoast and balanced statement we'd have to define terms. By what measure can we/can we not 'afford' things? Our " reasonable idea what will work & what won't" will be very different depending on our political ideologies. The emergency planning for capital flight etc. is only sensible given the problems that socialist governments in a capitalist system experience from within and without. But one persons 'sensible' is the other persons 'recklessness'. The problem with Corbyn IMHO is that his principles & dogma take precedence over what I consider to be economic reality. The dangerous one is actually McDonnell as I think he doesn't care whom he hurts for his social theories.
What you consider 'economic reality', what I consider 'economic reality' and what a third person considers 'economic reality' are going to be three different and irreconcilable things.
And the only way to spell out the rational logic behind it is to type out, for a generally disinclined and unreceptive audience, what amounts to the complete text of a Socialist Politics adult education course. I'm not going to that in the Jeremy Corbyn Vol.2 thread on NP&E. That's part of the reasons I gave up on my big effort-post - not only did I think it would just open the door for a lot of extra effort to do it justice but it's not the appropriate place for it.
It took me 13 years and a lot of life experience and interactions to switch from being a Conservative voter to a Corbyn supporter. I can't condense those learning experiences into an NP&E-appropriate or useful form. And if I did a lot of the denizens here wouldn't take it on board at all. And why should they? I'm just an anonymous guy on the internet posting under a name reflecting his favourite French car maker.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff