Double Dip Recession, ConDems and sniffling Ed

[gingergenius]

Great idea if you want to discourage any decent economic growth...

Whats the incentive for people to actually want to go out and make their metric **** tonne of cash..regardless of how much they make they are employing thousands of people in the process.

That's one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard

Well, considering there's a difference between income tax and corporation tax I don't see where the incentives should stop. If you run a business, or work for a business, the benefits you bring make profits for the business (and its shareholders), not for you. These profits are taxed as corporation tax. Your salary - what you are paid to do your job - is what is taxed as income tax. If I'm running a business, I care about the profit you make me - I don't care if your salary gets taken home to you or if it gets taken home to the government.

You could say that nobody will want to do these high earning jobs if they're taxed so strictly... well that's their problem. They're not going to make that kind of money doing any other job under my tax laws either - that is unless they leave the country.

Would we suffer from these people leaving the country? Well, such is the infinite greed of these little shits that most of them arrange cosy little 'homes' in the Isle of Man/ Monaco/ Channel Islands etc. etc. so they don't even have to pay the 40% tax we have at the moment.

But this is missing the point slightly - the reason I said this will never happen is because it takes such a big step away from what we're used to. Mite's assessment was made wearing an eyepatch as usual, but the theme was correct - cyclical bungling. We talk about the importance of foreign investment & the financial services industry, but this is not sustainable. We can continue as we are, but it will mean the capitalist rollercoaster continues. At some point in the future we'll enjoy ourselves in a boom, but then there'll be another lovely recession.

So we need to think outside the box - that is, if we want change (otherwise we can sit tight and stop whinging about the current recession and pointing fingers at whoever happens to be in power at the time). Thinking outside the box means radical ideas. My 3 ideas are all radical ideas, but that doesn't make them wrong - don't tell me they won't work because nobody's ever bothered to try. Furthermore, they would have to be coupled with a wider 'socialising' movement - my ideas are for Britian, it looks like they might have some friends in France, and judging by the state of their economy, they might hold sway in Spain too. Add to that the high taxation levels of the Nordic countries, and Germany's the only place to win over before you've got most of Western Europe on board. And Germany is, to some extent, a model to follow - our economy is obsessed with finance - but I'll quote a character from the Wire: "We used to make **** in this country". Germany still does.

As I said in my last post, 'time for a different system'. I didn't pay the Occupy movement much attention because they seemed to be a bunch of hippies throwing around rather cliched and generalist slogans. But their idea of changing the way we think about and structure our society was correct. And if you don't think change is necessary, then complaining about a specific cog in the system (be it Cameron, Blair, the bankers...) will get you absolutely nowhere.

 

[Teh Mite]

Forget the silly ones at the bottom:

Socialism doesn't work. Ever.

 

[gingergenius]

Socialism doesn't work. Ever.

Define 'socialism', and define 'work'.

Actually don't. By dismissing any alternative to the capitalist system which works/ doesn't work (semantics), you forfeit your right to complain about it.

 

[Teh Mite]

Ah, the biggotted dismissive opinion of a Guardian reader. This political debate has been far too civilised to be about politics thus far, let it begin.

I explained to you the exact reasoning earlier why this idea of "Tax the earners, not the minimum wage crowd" doesn't hold any water earlier in this thread.

Socialists think that everybody is equal. They're not. Simple as that. Some are intelligent. Some are plain stupid. Some are focused on one goal. Others are open minded to everything.

Socialism paints every individual with the same brush and pulls everyone to the lowest common denominator, punishing the 'arrogant and greedy' for having the bloody audacity to go off and do better for themselves. "Where's my piece of your pie" etc.

**** socialism. Justification for delegation.

 

[lucky number 7]

If I was getting taxed through the nose eg 100% I'd move residence out to fairer pastures too..

because so ****ing much of it goes to people like this

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

GingerGenius, definitely agree that recession boom etc are cyclical but that doesn't preclude the need for responsible governance and financial policy: the government has a responsibility to maximise employment, ensure growth etc, and find ways to increase our capital investment. I think those figures I posted above show that what governments do amidst a crisis does matter, e.g the sharp change in this countries financial fortunes when Osborne took over. Osborne isn't just a cog, he's a d*ck head.

And Bullitt/teh Mite, how did you get onto socialism?! Don't think GingerGenius was heading in the socialism direction when he said we need to rethink societal and financial structure. We need to change what our economy is based on, that means minimising reliance on financial services, as GG said, and more capital investment. So I agree with you insofar as you talk about middle-man jobs that were created and shouldn't have been, provided we're talking about the same thing here...

 

[gingergenius]

Mite, the point is not about socialism or whether everybody is equal. I don't think everybody is equal either. A lot of people are ****ing dumb, which is why things that are popular (tabloids, the X Factor, the major parties) are all geared towards the lowest common demnominator. But that's not the issue.

Which is why lucky number 7 is missing the point as well. At no stage did I say I'd use the extra taxation money to redistribute to the 'poor'/ what look like Northerners to me from that picture. As I said, we need a radical new way of doing things - not continuing with the same capitalism stuff, and not going back to the old resdistribution stuff either. Working off the principle that nobody, really, in their right minds, needs more than a maximum of a few 100 grand a year to live off should be a given - whether they've 'earned it' (semantics) is neither here nor there. I'm also working off the principle that nobody deserves to have money thrown at them either (beyond a basic minimum to live off). Money gained in income tax (and in not fighting pointless wars, and from making money on drugs) should be pumped back into public services, and into creating sustainable jobs (like that steelworks that just reopened in the North East).

From this people have jobs > people have pride & money > consumerism can pick up.

Honestly, you have to see this as part of a bigger picture. It doesn't work without it being part of a greater movement in Europe, and it doesn't work without people being prepared for a major change in the status quo - which is why I said it will never happen, because people are too dumb and too blind to envision it.

Henry, yes I agree with you that Osborne's gone about things in the wrong way. Yes he is a dick. But he did inherit a recession too. Personally, I see the control that one chancellor has in a global market to be important but not significant - in other words, tweaking of budgets here and there isn't enough on its own to halt the tide of capitalism. Since the markets got deregulated in the 80s, we opened ourselves up to the boom of the Thatcher and Blair years, and the recessions in between. The way I see it, we can live in that cycle and continue squabbling over which centre right party we want in government, or we can try a new way.

Nobody's answered why in the middle of huge economic cutbacks it was a viable option to spend £££s ****ing around in Libya. Nobody's said what Ed Balls' ideological motivations were behind sacking Professor David Nutt under the Brown government, and why Obama won't listen to any governments in South America about his drug policy. Until people start talking about these issues in Parliament, I'm grouping them all in the 'dumb and blind' category with the rest of the population, which is another reason we need a major change.

 

[j'nuh]

Ah, the biggotted dismissive opinion of a Guardian reader. This political debate has been far too civilised to be about politics thus far, let it begin.

I explained to you the exact reasoning earlier why this idea of "Tax the earners, not the minimum wage crowd" doesn't hold any water earlier in this thread.

Socialists think that everybody is equal. They're not. Simple as that. Some are intelligent. Some are plain stupid. Some are focused on one goal. Others are open minded to everything.

Socialism paints every individual with the same brush and pulls everyone to the lowest common denominator, punishing the 'arrogant and greedy' for having the bloody audacity to go off and do better for themselves. "Where's my piece of your pie" etc.

**** socialism. Justification for delegation.

"Socialists think that everybody is equal.
...
Socialism paints every individual with the same brush..."

Do I have to point out the hypocrisy, or?

Socialists don't believe what you say they do. Socialists (and most people, for that matter) will say that people should be equal in the eyes of the law, but it would be silly to believe everyone was exactly equal. In other words, your premises that socialists believe that everyone is equal is wrong and therefore your argument is not sound.

I'm not a socialist, but I do share their belief that the current system is too lenient on the rich. I mainly believe this because having wealth generates wealth. For example, on the smallest of scales, I was talking last night with a friend about our respective positions: we've had pretty much equal grades throughout education, study at the same university, have as much work experience as each other, but since my parents have a bit more money, I've been able to take driving lessons which opens up more job opportunities. I did nothing more than my friend to deserve these lessons, I just fell out of the right vagina. Similarly, all other things being equal, do you think it's easier to get an apprenticeship/internship as the son of a multinational CEO, or as the son of a local grocer? Do you think getting a £50 parking ticket harms a billionaire as equally as it does an unemployed person? The system reeks of unfairness.

Is it really fair that Rooney gets as much money in a week as a teacher would in 5+ years? Can you really say that the teacher just hasn't worked as hard as Rooney has for his money?

I don't mind having a meritocratic system, but the current system is more of a geographical and biological lottery.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Why not:

Knock a zero off the end of every house price (there is no reason a house should be paid for over 30 years)

Stop certain foreign investment in our country (Its not good to have our newspapers, businesses, property, money in banks in the hands of foreigners whose only stake is their own profit (which is clearly not our profit)

Stop spending so much on the military - we have nukes, no one poses a viable threat to us or would attack us

Encourage people to raise their kids properly (e.g. pay 1 parent minimum wage to bring up their kids until 4-5 without working and being a full time parent)

More nuclear power (as it is cheap)


on socialism: in its more modern format it essentially realizes that things are better for everyone where people are more equal and are not focused on the acquisition of capital. Good book explaining this statistically is the Spirit Level.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Is it really fair that Rooney gets as much money in a week as a teacher would in 5+ years? Can you really say that the teacher just hasn't worked as hard as Rooney has for his money?

Entertainment industry is kind of a different thing as the pay is largely at the discretion of the consumer.

 

[Teh Mite]

"Socialists think that everybody is equal.
...
Socialism paints every individual with the same brush..."

Do I have to point out the hypocrisy, or?

Socialists don't believe what you say they do. Socialists (and most people, for that matter) will say that people should be equal in the eyes of the law, but it would be silly to believe everyone was exactly equal. In other words, your premises that socialists believe that everyone is equal is wrong and therefore your argument is not sound.

I'm not a socialist, but I do share their belief that the current system is too lenient on the rich. I mainly believe this because having wealth generates wealth. For example, on the smallest of scales, I was talking last night with a friend about our respective positions: we've had pretty much equal grades throughout education, study at the same university, have as much work experience as each other, but since my parents have a bit more money, I've been able to take driving lessons which opens up more job opportunities. I did nothing more than my friend to deserve these lessons, I just fell out of the right vagina. Similarly, all other things being equal, do you think it's easier to get an apprenticeship/internship as the son of a multinational CEO, or as the son of a local grocer? Do you think getting a £50 parking ticket harms a billionaire as equally as it does an unemployed person? The system reeks of unfairness.

Is it really fair that Rooney gets as much money in a week as a teacher would in 5+ years? Can you really say that the teacher just hasn't worked as hard as Rooney has for his money?

I don't mind having a meritocratic system, but the current system is more of a geographical and biological lottery.

Frankly, boo-friggin-hoo.

Is it fair that Rooney is paid more then a teacher? Define "fair". A Teacher, once they've been in the job for a while, will be on circa 30-40k. Rooney is on that per day. That's the going rate for the professions they went into. A Bin man can't complain he earns less then a brain surgeon.

The Billionaire pays 60 quid for illegally parking. So would little old unemployed me. Just because I have less money then him, do you believe the billionaire should stick a couple of extra zeros on his fine? Would that now be fair?

No. It's the left-wing philosophy of "positive discrimination". "Fair" is a flat rate for everything. Tax. Fines. Rates. Etc. Then once that's in place, it's up to the person to make their own way in life. If they work harder for it, they'll come out with more. Their choice to go do that or make sure they're home for 6pm to watch the Simpsons every night.

Life isn't fair. Sadly that brings us back round to the actual subject of this thread - By forcing the borrow-and-spend culture over the past (nearly) 2 decades, [strike]the filth[/strike] Labour and now to an extent Coalition have made the situation even more difficult by making the hard up worse off in their bullshit "you're all rich" campaign. The government didn't widen the gap, the ****wits who went out and spent 10s of thousands of money which wasn't theirs on frivolous pap which they didn't need did.

 

[psychic duck]

Is it really fair that Rooney gets as much money in a week as a teacher would in 5+ years? Can you really say that the teacher just hasn't worked as hard as Rooney has for his money?

to be fair though, millions of people can teach, not many people can score 20+ goals a season in the Premier League

 

[gingergenius]

No. It's the left-wing philosophy of "positive discrimination". "Fair" is a flat rate for everything. Tax. Fines. Rates. Etc. Then once that's in place, it's up to the person to make their own way in life. If they work harder for it, they'll come out with more. Their choice to go do that or make sure they're home for 6pm to watch the Simpsons every night.

Definitions of 'fair' aside, that is absolute ********.

I could wheel out about a million contradictions to your statement, from nurses to footballers, but I'm sure you've heard them all before.

If you want your 'fair' to be a flat rate for everything, then wages have to be included in your flat rate - it would be unnatural not to include them.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Noone was ever disputing that a brain surgeon should be paid more than a sales assistant Bullitt. That's not a structural inequality thats' just how it is and how it should be. But there are many examples of salaries not commensurate with profession, thats a different matter.

Football players are a bad example because although they clearly don't need and shouldn't be paid as much as they, its hadly their fault that they are: it's what happens when theres so much demand amongst idiots for football. I don't want Rooney to earn millions and millions a year but its not his fault that he does, so people complaining about that are missing the point.

examples of salary not matching 'worth' or 'value' contributed. CEO of major bank does not deserve to earn millions and millions more than for example my dad who has been chief executive of numerous large charities and never reached a six figure salary. When I say deserve here I am making a value judgment based on how hard he works and the social value and positive changes for people that he has helped bring about, but I would never expect that to be reflected in pay packets. On the basis that both knew what they were likely to be paid when choosing their latest jobs, then arguably the head of the bank does deserve this pay disparity, as thats simply how things are.

A socially responsible government, however, understands that the overall worth(social etc) of a banker does not exceed that of a charity executive. You can't change that wealth at source(although we do need to tax static assets more), but since you cannot do that there is nothing wrong with taxing at higher rates for higher earners. Agree that when its a case of parking fine the rate should be the same regardless of wealth, but income taxing is different.

 

[lucky number 7]

Definitions of 'fair' aside, that is absolute ********.

I could wheel out about a million contradictions to your statement, from nurses to footballers, but I'm sure you've heard them all before.

If you want your 'fair' to be a flat rate for everything, then wages have to be included in your flat rate - it would be unnatural not to include them.

Have you read any Herbert Spencer or read into Social Darwinism?

We aren't put on this earth equal , some people simply are born superior in terms of intellect , physical prowess or other such variables , and as such it's the people at the top tiers in these categories that rise to the pinnacles of society.

You don't think it's fair that a footballer gets paid through the nose for what he does , Supply and demand , as Psychic Duck said , there are very few people as good as he is , as such there is very high demand for him in football , and consequently the prices for their labor rise and rise... He's still a worker , just one so skilled that he has made it to the top tier of society

 

[lucky number 7]

Noone was ever disputing that a brain surgeon should be paid more than a sales assistant Bullitt. That's not a structural inequality thats' just how it is and how it should be. But there are many examples of salaries not commensurate with profession, thats a different matter.

Football players are a bad example because although they clearly don't need and shouldn't be paid as much as they, its hadly their fault that they are: it's what happens when theres so much demand amongst idiots for football. I don't want Rooney to earn millions and millions a year but its not his fault that he does, so people complaining about that are missing the point.

examples of salary not matching 'worth' or 'value' contributed. CEO of major bank does not deserve to earn millions and millions more than for example my dad who has been chief executive of numerous large charities and never reached a six figure salary. When I say deserve here I am making a value judgment based on how hard he works and the social value and positive changes for people that he has helped bring about, but I would never expect that to be reflected in pay packets. On the basis that both knew what they were likely to be paid when choosing their latest jobs, then arguably the head of the bank does deserve this pay disparity, as thats simply how things are.

A socially responsible government, however, understands that the overall worth(social etc) of a banker does not exceed that of a charity executive. You can't change that wealth at source(although we do need to tax static assets more), but since you cannot do that there is nothing wrong with taxing at higher rates for higher earners. Agree that when its a case of parking fine the rate should be the same regardless of wealth, but income taxing is different.[/QUOTE

Yes , but he's the CEO of a charitable organisation , the idea for him is not to be making 6 figure salaries the idea is to be helping others.

Contrast this to the goals of a bank - "Make money get *****es"

And you see where this comparison is not exactly the greatest that you could have used

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Noone was ever disputing that a brain surgeon should be paid more than a sales assistant Bullitt. That's not a structural inequality thats' just how it is and how it should be. But there are many examples of salaries not commensurate with profession, thats a different matter.

Football players are a bad example because although they clearly don't need and shouldn't be paid as much as they, its hadly their fault that they are: it's what happens when theres so much demand amongst idiots for football. I don't want Rooney to earn millions and millions a year but its not his fault that he does, so people complaining about that are missing the point.

examples of salary not matching 'worth' or 'value' contributed. CEO of major bank does not deserve to earn millions and millions more than for example my dad who has been chief executive of numerous large charities and never reached a six figure salary. When I say deserve here I am making a value judgment based on how hard he works and the social value and positive changes for people that he has helped bring about, but I would never expect that to be reflected in pay packets. On the basis that both knew what they were likely to be paid when choosing their latest jobs, then arguably the head of the bank does deserve this pay disparity, as thats simply how things are.

A socially responsible government, however, understands that the overall worth(social etc) of a banker does not exceed that of a charity executive. You can't change that wealth at source(although we do need to tax static assets more), but since you cannot do that there is nothing wrong with taxing at higher rates for higher earners. Agree that when its a case of parking fine the rate should be the same regardless of wealth, but income taxing is different.[/QUOTE

Yes , but he's the CEO of a charitable organisation , the idea for him is not to be making 6 figure salaries the idea is to be helping others.

Contrast this to the goals of a bank - "Make money get *****es"

And you see where this comparison is not exactly the greatest that you could have used

No, because I'm not saying a charity exec and a bankign exec should be paid the same, they absolutely never could be.

WHat I'm saying is:

A: that it is ok to tax higher earners at a higher rate since this is the only opportunity to bring in ethical and responsible values which reward peopel trying to do good

B: Even allowing for the fact that financial and banking sectors will always be more lucrative, the amounts paid are still way out of proportion for a job.

Remember that regardless what the releative aims of the charity and banking sectors, people in them are still both doing jobs and as such both deserve to be paid reasonable sums. In my opinion the problem is that in some sectors e.g banking employees have become mirrors for the irresponsible practise of their employing organisation.

 

[oldscumbagonian]

Some interesting points made here - and all reasonably moderate (unlike pre-6N match threads!). One thing that strikes me is what role is there for Labour. Look back at the last 150 years or so and you see significant improvement in the condition of the "working classes". I've recently been doing work on my family history and up until around 1850 they were mostly working on the land; by 1911 (the last available census date) they had much-improved, although still tough, living conditions and they even completed the census forms by themselves whereas previously an enumerator did most of the writing. Education had improved as well as work opportunities as a result of the fruits of the Industrial Revolution. Some of this might have been put down to the arrival of the Labour Party and the unions but I would need convincing that they were the sole causes.

This trend continued, with the interruption of the two wars, and really accelerated post 1945. The Conservatives contributed to this by not cancelling Attlee's reforms of 1945-50 even though they were in power throughout the 1950s. That decade might have started somewhat shakily (rationing was still in place) but by 1959 McMillan was able to say to the country, "You've never had it so good", and he was probably justified in so saying. By 1960 the "working man" probably owned a car, a TV, a refrigerator and may well have bought his own house. Certainly by 1970 that was the norm. The economy then turned downhill and the 1979 election was a watershed in the history of the economics of the UK.

Suddenly many of the advantages gained were reversed although not with immediate effect. Consumerism took over - it had begun in the mid to late 50s but during the 1980s it seemed to become mandatory. Privatisation, deregulation and, dare I say, jingoism was in. Out of the blue (no pun intended), the Conservatives became hostile to the EU, an organisation that they had been in love with since the late 1950s - despite a minority that were suspicious of it. Having downed the unions as being the scourge of the economy another scapegoat had to be found - and the EU was an easy target.

Finally, we ended the century with New Labour. In many ways Blair was right to go for this label; he had to wash out the memory of Michael Foot and, to a lesser extent, Neil Kinnock. He had seen how Bill Clinton had appeared to be a significant success by adopting a "middle way" and so whilst nominally still Labour they fell in love with the City and all its ways.

But the issue that arises now is, as GingerGenius has hinted at, is the old left/right Labour/Conservative scenario is on its way out. Labour (and the Conservatives) had by 2008, in effect, achieved all the aims of the founders of the Labour Party. There now is no "working class", as we previously defined them, although there are still many living in poverty. Problem is that many of those living in poverty are immigrants or second generation immigrants and, sad to say, which party is going to make them their raison d'etre? So we are at a crossroads. The Conservatives have moved far to the right dragging Labour with them. The LibDems are still in the middle but that has become a narrower place to be. The question is what issues will develop in the 21st century to create a new political polarisation such as existed during the 20th century. The environment? Climate change? Of course, the economy will always be important but maybe somewhere around 2050 some politician is going to win an election by saying, "It's the climate, stupid".

 

[gingergenius]

Have you read any Herbert Spencer or read into Social Darwinism?

We aren't put on this earth equal , some people simply are born superior in terms of intellect , physical prowess or other such variables , and as such it's the people at the top tiers in these categories that rise to the pinnacles of society.

You don't think it's fair that a footballer gets paid through the nose for what he does , Supply and demand , as Psychic Duck said , there are very few people as good as he is , as such there is very high demand for him in football , and consequently the prices for their labor rise and rise... He's still a worker , just one so skilled that he has made it to the top tier of society

Is this your delusion of a meritocracy?

It's bullshit and if you don't know it, you're blind. The society you talk of is Thatcher's 'no such thing'. It's the market. And in case you hadn't read any of my posts, I don't give a stuff about the market - our political system, our media, and our culture has become rotten because of worship of the market, which is why I'm advocating radical change.

I don't want to hear some obscure philosophical theory as to why present day Britain is or isn't 'fair'. I'm saying I'm not happy with it, I've suggested an alternative, and so far all I've got back is 'it won't work' or 'actually the present system blah blah blah'. My principle is that nobody, no matter how hard they work, needs more than a few hundred thousand a year as income. Disagree with that? Let's have a proper, well thought out reason, not skirting around the topic.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Is this your delusion of a meritocracy?

It's bullshit and if you don't know it, you're blind. The society you talk of is Thatcher's 'no such thing'. It's the market. And in case you hadn't read any of my posts, I don't give a stuff about the market - our political system, our media, and our culture has become rotten because of worship of the market, which is why I'm advocating radical change.

I don't want to hear some obscure philosophical theory as to why present day Britain is or isn't 'fair'. I'm saying I'm not happy with it, I've suggested an alternative, and so far all I've got back is 'it won't work' or 'actually the present system blah blah blah'. My principle is that nobody, no matter how hard they work, needs more than a few hundred thousand a year as income. Disagree with that? Let's have a proper, well thought out reason, not skirting around the topic.

The problem with essentially 'capping' a person's potential income is that it might lead to people not putting in an effort so to speak unless you provide other incentives, or they might just moving off to where their income isn't capped which is a problem for your country if you are speaking about top businessmen, researchers, scientists etc. For example in SA while you are not capped ITO income, caucasian people have limited potential for advancement because of black economic empowerment, affirmative action and even- though not official- crooked tender procedures so we have experienced a major 'brain-drain' and as a result our country has suffered particularly the public works sectors.

That said, I so believe there is a lot more to life than money and at a certain point things just become vulgarly indulgent. One has to make a seperation though between personal income and expenses and money that people use to further professional causes such as starting up or expanding business as you don't want to hamper job creation and pushing the boundaries of whatever field you are concerned with.

I also believe that a form of distribution of wealth is just as good to the giver as the receiver because as the giver what you receive is manyfold though this will only work when done on a large scale (and I wouldn't make it compulsary); less crime because petty theft is unnecessary if everyone has what they need (you'll still get the odd hooligan though probably), that money stimulates expenditure and even if you aren't selling any goods or services it means the quality of the goods in your market will improve as a result. In fact the potential benefits to yourself if everyone around you are in a good place financially are many but I am tired of typing..