2015 post UK election discussion

[AndyC]

Dammit all, you'll have me voting Labour not Loony .........

Not sure if HS2 is a good use of £50bn though.

Or Trident at circa £120bn plus ?

 

[The Esk]

Austerity keeps more money in the hands of the people who both buy the products and invest in the companies that make those products.

Show me how this is true. Show me how reducing the amount of cash flowing around the economy creates the conditions for economic growth.

 

[marty mcfly]

I said in a post last night, that without massive capital investment in the poor, it won't only be a financial burden our grandchildren will carry, it will be a huge human and social deficit which has far further reaching consequences.

The truth is that without raising living standards across the country, without raising productivity across the country, we will not be able to afford the health and social services the under-privileged will require in the years to come. Palpably, we can not fund those costs through debt, we can only fund it through increasing the country's income. That can only be achieved by investing in the people today, providing relevant education and opportunity across all areas of society not just the select areas. Hence austerity being such an appalling and wrong strategy.

Something we both agree with. We just disagree completely the best approach how.

 

[Goat]

What if their wives don't work or they're divorced. Maybe the mortgage they have to pay is over 2k a month etc

Or maybe you think doctors, architects etc should have the same standard of living as everyone else and if you do well you have no idea how human nature works but all you need to do is look at Eastern Europe under communism.

I find the idea that somebody could struggle on 80k as quite baffling.

I mean I suggest you have no idea what the word struggle means, 2k a month mortgage? They could always move.

Struggling means getting to the middle of the month and wondering how your gonna feed the family, not struggling to pay the mortgage on a 2m mansion.

 

[The Esk]

I find the idea that somebody could struggle on 80k as quite baffling.

I mean I suggest you have no idea what the word struggle means, 2k a month mortgage? They could always move.

Struggling means getting to the middle of the month and wondering how your gonna feed the family, not struggling to pay the mortgage on a 2m mansion.

I agree totally. As I said earlier I know people who "struggle" on hundreds of thousands p.a. because they spend more than they earn. Ridiculous I know but there are people out there that do so.

 

[roydo]

I find the idea that somebody could struggle on 80k as quite baffling.

I mean I suggest you have no idea what the word struggle means, 2k a month mortgage? They could always move.

Struggling means getting to the middle of the month and wondering how your gonna feed the family, not struggling to pay the mortgage on a 2m mansion.

Yeah, "struggle" is a bit of a stretch. "Try to maintain a certain standard of living/commitments following a significant pay cut" is probably more accurate, but like you say, they would still have options.

 

[daylightrobber]

Yeah, "struggle" is a bit of a stretch. "Try to maintain a certain standard of living/commitments following a significant pay cut" is probably more accurate, but like you say, they would still have options.

Pretty sure the option of letting some of the family go without food would be the last one taken.

 

[SNova]

Or Trident at circa £120bn plus ?

HS2 seems a ridiculous waste of money, it only reduces the train time by 15 minutes or something ridiculous. Trident on the other hand, can be justified, to be honest I think our army in general needs more funding. I think we should be meeting the Nato 2% spending target.

 

[marty mcfly]

Show me how this is true. Show me how reducing the amount of cash flowing around the economy creates the conditions for economic growth.

Because you aren't reducing the amount of cash moving around the system. If there's no printing of money and excluding global pressures that stays constant. The only difference is you leave more in the hands of the citizens who earn it rather than the state taking it to redistribute. The growth comes from the incentive that the more you earn the more you keep and if you don't earn the less you have. This forces people to work and also forces them to improve their situation by improving their skills so they earn more while they work.

People who vote left or either 1. Employed by the state. 2. On benefits 3. Fooled by politicians who like the power and are employed by the state 4. People who are self righteous but wan others to pay for their self righteousness, the same people who do charity sponsored runs etc - they get to do something they already want to do and have everyone pat them on the back without actually sacrificing themselves.

 

[The Esk]

People who vote left or either 1. Employed by the state. 2. On benefits 3. Fooled by politicians who like the power and are employed by the state 4. People who are self righteous but wan others to pay for their self righteousness, the same people who do charity sponsored runs etc - they get to do something they already want to do and have everyone pat them on the back without actually sacrificing themselves.

That's a surprisingly narrow and disappointing view if you don't mind me saying so.

 

[daylightrobber]

Because you aren't reducing the amount of cash moving around the system. If there's no printing of money and excluding global pressures that stays constant. The only difference is you leave more in the hands of the citizens who earn it rather than the state taking it to redistribute. The growth comes from the incentive that the more you earn the more you keep and if you don't earn the less you have. This forces people to work and also forces them to improve their situation by improving their skills so they earn more while they work.

People who vote left or either 1. Employed by the state. 2. On benefits 3. Fooled by politicians who like the power and are employed by the state 4. People who are self righteous but wan others to pay for their self righteousness, the same people who do charity sponsored runs etc - they get to do something they already want to do and have everyone pat them on the back without actually sacrificing themselves.

A lot of ignorance coming through.

 

[Jags..class]

What I quoted is about as worthy of a serious response as somebody saying the world is flat.

I mean ffs, struggle on 80k.

lol, they have tuitions fees to pay and huge mortgages.

 

[marty mcfly]

I think 50% to 60% is fair, especially if that money helps take families out of poverty. Scandanavian countries have some of the highest tax in the world yet they seem to function fine.

A lot of wealth creators don't create wealth, they just have the miserly wages they pay topped up by the tax payer. Take Sports Direct and Mike Ashley for example.

I don't want to live in a world where the chasm between poor and rich continues to grow. No society can be built on these foundations. There needs to be a fairer, more equal alternative. You cannot possibly think a system which relies on good banks to feed children is the best on offer?

I'm not a fan of Ashley but if he didn't exist all those people working in sports direct shops wouldn't have a job. Just saying.

 

[dannyboy]

I'm not a fan of Ashley but if he didn't exist all those people working in sports direct shops wouldn't have a job. Just saying.

But these jobs are utterly pointless if all the wages are being topped up by tax credits and housing benefit.

Basically we all top up Ashley's poverty paying wages whilst he makes excellent profits every year. Tell me how that is remotely fair?

 

[marty mcfly]

Ok lets do the Math if someone earning 80k whose wife doesn't work.

After tax his take home is probably 50k.
Mortgage -24k
Car payments -6k
School payments / pension -10k?
Credit cards and tuition fees -2k

So before food heating etc for whole family that leaves 8k. Yea they're rolling in it.