Ed Balls Announcing Economic Plans

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

It is nothing more than gesture politics, no less knee jerk than banning hand guns, or fox hunting. It makes it easier to vote UKIP, as the car will be driven even quicker into the brick wall, if Labour get in. Shortermism Retard.

[Bruce Banner]

It is nothing more than gesture politics, no less knee jerk than banning hand guns, or fox hunting. It makes it easier to vote UKIP, as the car will be driven even quicker into the brick wall, if Labour get in. Shortermism Retard.

Someone will be along soon to say "Vote UKIP get Labour", but I shall be voting UKIP. Not for what they are but for what they are not.

[Goat]

Someone will be along soon to say "Vote UKIP get Labour", but I shall be voting UKIP...

...and you'll get Labour.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

...and you'll get Labour.

I'm going to cut out the middleman and just vote labour

[Bruce Banner]

...and you'll get Labour.

So be it, but, for the first time in my life, I will not be voting Conservative.

[Goat]

The calculations I made were based on the entire income tax revenue including the proposed change. Total loss of revenue from a single £1m earner leaving and getting a job outside of the UK is minimal if the money used to pay his wages was then used to hire four other people instead:

Which isn't how the world works. In reality there aren't people who could be earning £250,000 sitting around doing nothing because someone is earning £1,000,000 instead and when the £1,000,000 earner leaves the money usually leaves with him, often with a number of other jobs in roles supporting him.

A multinational's first question would actually be what's the corporate tax rate? Multinationals don't give a crap about what taxes their international employees are paying as long as they're happy where they are in their head office.

Our company tax rates aren't terribly competetive either (although nowhere near as bad as some).

The chap making the decision might not be moving to the UK but the chances are that he will know and be on good terms with the person who is. He isn't going to select somewhere with a high tax rate if there is another option available. It might only be 1% of his decision but that could well be the difference between investing in the UK and Ireland.

The other key point is perception. 50% looks like a high tax, high regulation, high aggravation, low profit place to invest, it might not be justified but it looks like a reason to go elsewhere.

[cybernoid]

I find it pretty sad you know that all your posts nowadays are just hate-filled bile or malicious in some way. Honestly, go look in a mirror and reflect on yourself.

You could have just said

"I dont agree but dont know why, you nasty person look you made wonderpup cry!"

Silly boy. Im actually trying to teach you and your ilk something, but I just dont think any of you are capable of taking it in.

[cybernoid]

I think you are basically correct- the 50p rate is more symbolic than practical in terms of the revenue it brings in. The same can be said for the bedroom tax.

The difference is that the 50p rate will not result in a significant amount of real distress and suffering, while the bedroom tax does.

So if both are gestures intended to deliver a message what message's do they send?- the 50p rate sends the message that it's less harmful to society to impose hardship on those best placed to handle it- while the bedroom tax sends the message that targeting the weak is the way to go.

Sigh

The bedroom tax is not a tax.

It has nothing to do with the 50p rate so how you got there is a symptom of your continuing mental illness for which I think you should seek treatment.

'Targeting the weak is the way to go' is rather an odd interpretation.

Benefits at the current level are unaffordable. They need to be reduced. It is better to reduce them in areas where they are needed the least. Those with more rooms than they need are a sensible target. There are implementation issues around the availability of accommodation that is less wasteful. I dont know the actual extent of that problem and I doubt you do either, but the idea itself is perfectly sound and plainly not malicious. What about the tax payers? This 'free' money is actually coming from people earning it you know.

I think you're actually ill. Please seek treatment.

[cybernoid]

Very true, how on earth people can criticise taxing the rich to lesson the burden on the poor is beyond me,

Another one. Who is saying that?

You people simplify reasonable things into goodie versus baddie nonsense and then get upset about it. You're ridiculous.

What about the kittens? Surely youre saying we should all drown kittens? Thats so mean. Typical tories.

[cybernoid]

Meanwhile Marr asked Balls this morning if he was sorry that Labour spent so much in the run up to 2008 and left such a big deficit. Nope he was proud of their spending.

Well quite. But don't be mean about these people who destroy millions of lives with a smile on their face, thats cruel.

[Dorkins]

...and you'll get Labour.

After 2010 many Conservative voters learned that this party has absolutely no intention of sticking up for people like them. Likewise LibDem voters. After 2015 many Labour voters will get to experience the same.

If this continues we may eventually have a constitutional crisis in which the majority of the electorate no longer has any faith in the establishment parties but the country remains stuck with an electoral system designed to put one of them into power regardless. We could end up with the ridiculous and unstable situation of the largest party trying to govern the country with a mandate from 5 or 6 million voters out of an electorate of 46 million. A constitutional crisis is probably a necessary step towards replacing the current political elite with one that might actually respond to the wants and needs of the majority of the population.

If you vote LibLabCon you are just voting to perpetuate a system which is not working for the majority of the population anymore.

[Goat]

Goat - you perhaps missed my response to your defence:

I didn't, I just couldn't be bothered to reply.

There are 2 types of situation which makes this a very hard area to legislate for, nor even discuss on any sort of level in the (social) media.

The first is the one you mention where trade expands the overall cake. (or are you simply describing the myth of 'trickle down' ? )

The other is where the guy with the million has taken a bigger share of the cake.

I would argue for instance that many, many sectors fall into the latter.....

I'm not convinced by that argument, is there any evidence that the second case is predominant?

In any event even if true you're not distinguishing between the 2 sectors, in your determination to stick it to the rentier parasites you're going to generate zero revenue and hit the genuine wealth producers as well thus making everyone poorer in the long run.

[Goat]

Very true, how on earth people can criticise taxing the rich to lesson the burden on the poor is beyond me,

The problem is that the idea of "taxing the rich" is a con. It's a way of pretending that we can afford huge amounts of wasteful public spending without anyone but a few banksters and other speculators losing out.

The idea of taxing the likes of Philip Green, Richard Branson and the Duke of Westminster is appealing, the reality is that their combined wealth amounts to less than one week's government spending. The truly rich are few and far between and are very difficult to tax.

The reality of "tax the rich" is people on moderate incomes living in moderate houses getting sucked into the higher rate band, getting stripped of child benefit, losing relief for pension contributions and frequently ending up no better off than someone who's never done anything more challenging than popping out a couple of kids and faking a disability.

[Goat]

Really? Knowing your style, I would think it was because you had no answer.

Believe it or not I don't have time to disagree with everything you write, in the absence of a reply perhaps you could assume that I consider your point as being wrong but not worth responding to.

Re point 2 - see post #91.

Interesting, so you accept that a 50% income tax is not necessarily fair or desirable.

The obvious question that follows from your post is how do you distinguish between earned and unearned and how do you devise a taxation system around that concept?

[cybernoid]

The reality of "tax the rich" is people on moderate incomes living in moderate houses getting sucked into the higher rate band, getting stripped of child benefit, losing relief for pension contributions and frequently ending up no better off than someone who's never done anything more challenging than popping out a couple of kids and faking a disability.

Indeed.

'Tax the rich' is an emotional response and has no rational basis, which is why anger is the response when you point that out. You cannot reason with irrational people. They reframe the argument to drowning kittens and wail about that instead.

The more interesting debate is why people do that. Are they just stupid people or is their a genuine intent to lie in order to mislead those that are stupid? Evil or stupid, its one or the other.

Edited January 27, 2014 by cybernoid

[wonderpup]

The problem is that the idea of "taxing the rich" is a con. It's a way of pretending that we can afford huge amounts of wasteful public spending without anyone but a few banksters and other speculators losing out.

The idea of taxing the likes of Philip Green, Richard Branson and the Duke of Westminster is appealing, the reality is that their combined wealth amounts to less than one week's government spending. The truly rich are few and far between and are very difficult to tax.

The reality of "tax the rich" is people on moderate incomes living in moderate houses getting sucked into the higher rate band, getting stripped of child benefit, losing relief for pension contributions and frequently ending up no better off than someone who's never done anything more challenging than popping out a couple of kids and faking a disability.

Here's the problem- we are told that the deficit is so dangerous a threat to the nations future that we have to descend to the micro level of counting the number of bedrooms in social housing in the hope of saving about 500 million quid a year of housing benefit- a lot of money to you and me but compared to the 170 Billion the UK borrowed last year it's not going to make much of a difference to the deficit.

And yet at the same time as people are being forced out of their homes we are being told that imposing an extra 5p in tax on the highest earning people in the country is unacceptable- why? If as a nation we are so desperate that we are counting the bedrooms of the poor- why is it so unreasonable to ask a bit more tax from those who can afford to pay?

The reality is that the 50p rate will effect far less people than the 'bedroom tax' and will inflict far less pain.

[Goat]

The reality is that the 50p rate will effect far less people than the 'bedroom tax' and will inflict far less pain.

The reality is that the 50p tax rate will generate f*** all income and in the longer term could actually reduce the overall tax take.

When we need to count the number of bedrooms in social housing (so that they are properly allocated to people who actually need them) I don't think we can afford to start throwing away tax revenue in persuit of gesture politics to appease the anti-capitalists that might be attracted to such a policy.

[Goat]

Indeed.

'Tax the rich' is an emotional response and has no rational basis, which is why anger is the response when you point that out. You cannot reason with irrational people. They reframe the argument to drowning kittens and wail about that instead.

The more interesting debate is why people do that. Are they just stupid people or is their a genuine intent to lie in order to mislead those that are stupid? Evil or stupid, its one or the other.

Good question, although I don't think they're stupid or deliberately misleading (mostly anyway).

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's a rational response to a mistaken world view. I think that they believe the world is run by a conspiracy of crony capitalists manipulating governments so that they can deprive us of our wealth and that somehow the wealthy have acquired it through cheating and underhand means, as a result of which it is just to deprive them of their wealth as punishment for their unfair behaviour.

I don't subscribe to that view (I suspect some of it goes on but not to the extent that they believe), maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, all I can do is post about the world as I see it.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

After 2010 many Conservative voters learned that this party has absolutely no intention of sticking up for people like them. Likewise LibDem voters. After 2015 many Labour voters will get to experience the same.

If this continues we may eventually have a constitutional crisis in which the majority of the electorate no longer has any faith in the establishment parties but the country remains stuck with an electoral system designed to put one of them into power regardless. We could end up with the ridiculous and unstable situation of the largest party trying to govern the country with a mandate from 5 or 6 million voters out of an electorate of 46 million. A constitutional crisis is probably a necessary step towards replacing the current political elite with one that might actually respond to the wants and needs of the majority of the population.

If you vote LibLabCon you are just voting to perpetuate a system which is not working for the majority of the population anymore.

eh, that happened about 30 years ago, since then the democratic majority has mandated noone

A party trying to govern the country on a democratic majority of 10m is no more or less ridiculous than 5m when the democratic (mathematical) majority clearly mandate neither

The current UK coalition is the most democratically elected govt in about 3 decades (notwithstanding they still represent a democratic minority compared to those who democratically mandated noone

Edited January 27, 2014 by Maria Gorska

[wonderpup]

The reality is that the 50p tax rate will generate f*** all income and in the longer term could actually reduce the overall tax take.

When we need to count the number of bedrooms in social housing (so that they are properly allocated to people who actually need them) I don't think we can afford to start throwing away tax revenue in persuit of gesture politics to appease the anti-capitalists that might be attracted to such a policy.

The bedroom tax will generate f*** all savings- but you still seem to think it's worth making people homeless to implement it- which means you support the principle rather than think it's a solution to the problem.

Funny how hitting the poor is always justified as a matter of principle- but we can't hit the rich because somehow principles count less than money.

As for the tax take- the solution is not to abandon our principles in the face of avoidance or evasion- it's to stand on our principles and take the actions required to ensure that the rich do pay their share.

[Goat]

The bedroom tax will generate f*** all savings- but you still seem to think it's worth making people homeless to implement it- which means you support the principle rather than think it's a solution to the problem.

Personally I don't give a damn about the spare room allowance per se. What I do care about is a perfectly reasonable adjustment to the benefit system, that would barely have been noticed if Labour were in power, is being spun by the state funded media and other lefties as a heartless attack on the poor and used as justification for any and all brainless anti-business, anti-capitalist, policy they can dream up.

What's the point of a 50p tax rate? Is it to generate revenue? If so it fails. Is it to give succour to whinging lefties who think the rest of us should be working our a***s off so that they can have a spare room to store their stuff in? If so you fail.

Funny how hitting the poor is always justified as a matter of principle- but we can't hit the rich because somehow principles count less than money.

Bulls***.

See above.

As for the tax take- the solution is not to abandon our principles in the face of avoidance or evasion- it's to stand on our principles and take the actions required to ensure that the rich do pay their share.

And how do you propose to do that? Are you planning on shutting the borders to keep them all in? If not how do you plan to tax people who are not resident in the country and have no assets here either?

Perhaps we could round them up and put them into gulags, force them to work at gunpoint, that's where we usually end up with the left in power.

[cybernoid]

Good question, although I don't think they're stupid or deliberately misleading (mostly anyway).

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's a rational response to a mistaken world view. I think that they believe the world is run by a conspiracy of crony capitalists manipulating governments so that they can deprive us of our wealth and that somehow the wealthy have acquired it through cheating and underhand means, as a result of which it is just to deprive them of their wealth as punishment for their unfair behaviour.

I don't subscribe to that view (I suspect some of it goes on but not to the extent that they believe), maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, all I can do is post about the world as I see it.

I also think there is actually something to the conspiracy view, but yes to an insignificant extent. Many politicians of course put their own interests ahead of the national good for example, when the opportunity arises. But some here I think must be imagining secret meetings where 'the elite' wear cloaks and drink blood.

The sample set we have here are internet forum people on a site some way from the mainstream, so I think we have an over representation of nut jobs. That is likely to include actual mental illness which is not something I want to mock, but I believe the plain silliness of some of the views needs to be exposed on occasion to help thin the ranks of the plain daft. Impressionable and naive minds may be watching, it is responsible for the more rational among us to point out the saner alternatives on occasion.

Since the sillier views are based on a mistaken world view it is reasonable to assume that the responses to that view themselves are not all that rational as well. How did they arrive at a mistaken world view if they are wholly rational in their thinking to begin with?

I think they make their own situation worse for themselves the further down the rabbit hole they go, as one irrational response leads to a more distorted world view and so it goes on.

You can see it in the language of a lot of the posts. 'The elite', 'we are told that', 'people forced out of THEIR homes' (theirs? really?) etc etc. I could basically quote wonderpups posting history here. This idea of conspiracy, of us and them etc.

It is one of two things. Either these people are falling for some nonsense spoken about on other forums or this one and just repeat it, or they themselves know it to be nonsense but like to spread it for their own amusement.

My concern is for the weaker minded who will take this stuff seriously, and hamper their own life by wasting energy on such things or by losing motivation by believing the odds are stacked against them more than they actually are. That is why I have used the term 'evil'. Intentional or not the spreading of such nonsense can cause genuine harm.

But then of course Im part of the great conspiracy typing from conservative head office of course! Some are beyond help and hamper just themselves but others who keep intentionally spreading their message should get psychiatric help or just stop being such a$$holes.

[(Blizzard)]

Sigh

The bedroom tax is not a tax.

...

It most certainly is a tax.

You'll be claiming council tax benefit is a benefit next.

[tinker]

If you vote LibLabCon you are just voting to perpetuate a system which is not working for the majority of the population anymore.

In a nutshell.

I felt around 2010 that the next but one election (2015) would be the important one. Cameron had his chance, however, it has been more of the same with added nastiness and divide and rule - the current administration have been very disappointing indeed; and how anyone could vote Labour after their last outing is beyond me. However, that may be the case.

LibLabCon are simply not representative. A vote for someone else is a vote for change - evolution rather than revolution.

[cybernoid]

It most certainly is a tax.

You'll be claiming council tax benefit is a benefit next.