2015 post UK election discussion

[Toffeelover]

How much is his house worth if he is paying £2k a month mortgage on it ?

Sell the fecking thing and size down like the rest of us have to.

Or move to an area where there is better value for money.

 

[Pat's Van]

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.

this is someone struggling is it ?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Hahaha this is the funniest post in here so far!

My advice to them would be "stop being bloody insane with money" basically!!

apparently labour are crazy with money according to those types, but out of 50k wld splodge 24k per annum on mortgage payments.
Wanabee millionaires that want to look like they are even more successful to those around them and deride those that are living very basic lives but within their means who point out that they cant cut any more from their household budgets.

 

[marty mcfly]

Yeah, the stress of their lives is so much more than your average worker...

The more you earn the more stress you are put under to justify your wage. I suspect in their jobs a doctor faces more stress than a cleaner.

The same way we expect more from footballers who cost more and earn more.

 

[daylightrobber]

Do YOU pay 60% tax?
Why is it only fair if it's only levied on someone earning someone more than you, then?
When you get to keep less of what you make than what is taken from you, is your life still yours? They have a word for that - slavery.

> 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?

Inequality is natural. This may sound hard to believe, but I do want the people at the bottom to improve their lives in absolute terms as much as their talent and hard work allows them. I am not concerned with the perceived amount of inequality - am I better off if I have 1 cow and my neighbour has 10 cow, or am I better off if I have 2 cows and my neighbour has 500 cows? Obviously I am better off with 2 cows.

Now, having said that, I do agree that our system disproportionally over rewards those at the very top, but that is a consequence of things like bank bailouts, rescue schemes and other what we call "moral hazards" - ie intervention that does not lett the the market run its natural course. But I believe that, rather than redistribution which only serves to band-aid over the probem, it would be better to change the system - make sure that the same rules are applied at both the very top and the very bottom of society. In such a society, what I call a "free society", inequality will be what it will be.

Slavery? Ffs. It's all about social responsibility. It's not the fact that the rich earn as much as they do, it's about how that affects those on lower pay.
Do they exploit tax law? Yes some do. Stop it from being possible.
Do they exploit workers rights? Yes some do. Stop them from doing so.
Do they inflate the housing market? Yes some do. Prevent them from doing so. And so on and so on.
Life isn't fair. We know that. Society isn't fair either. We know that too. But it can be just and that's what we have to strive towards.

 

[marty mcfly]

How much is his house worth if he is paying £2k a month mortgage on it ?

Sell the fecking thing and size down like the rest of us have to.

So what would be the point in earning more money?

 

[daylightrobber]

The more you earn the more stress you are put under to justify your wage. I suspect in their jobs a doctor faces more stress than a cleaner.

The same way we expect more from footballers who cost more and earn more.

The less you earn the more stress you're under not knowing where the next meal is coming from. Not knowing how to clothe you kids. Etc.
You really are coming out with some $hit today.

 

[Moomin]

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.

Wow!

I know I can be a WUM at times on here but I'm like that in real life. I vote left because I honestly believe we as human beings should help each other out. I do runs etc for a local mental health charity my uncle in law runs not for recognition but to help. He is a 69 year old man who has not took a wage for over two years and will now do 1 day a week as he has finally got three years funding so he can relax. It's people like him I aspire to be, not self made millionaires. I give blood, on the Anthony Nolan bone marrow and the donor list because I think what if its me or a family member needs help.

Me and my wife foster via the council even though we could earn a lot more via private companies, we do it because we want to help and care.

Today's society worries me, we seem selfish and motivated by greed.

 

[SweetJesus849]

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.

I get the idea, and throughout a complete cycle of someone's career, it makes sense, particularly if you're young, but what of those who've been in employment (particularly low skilled employment) for a long time, have no interest in progressing, or even if they did, could be seen as too old? Also, comparatively speaking, the amount of money that the government lets the individual keep through tax breaks is minute compared to the housing/child benefit they may have prior which may or may not have been cut. Combine this with wage freezes/wages not rising in line with real inflation, and increases in the cost of living, especially if you're renting, and basically you have a large number of people who are worse off.

On top of that, you're not always going to be able to "improve your situation" because there are only so many management positions available. It's a highly ideological practice that may work within business, but it doesn't necessarily work at a social level.

 

[marty mcfly]

How much is his house worth if he is paying £2k a month mortgage on it ?

Sell the fecking thing and size down like the rest of us have to.

About 700k - I wonder what that gets you in places like London. Probably a 4 bedroom detached house.

Now that's a nice house but for someone doing a good job you would hope to expect to be able to afford it.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Adversus obvious wum is obvious.

 

[dannyboy]

Do YOU pay 60% tax?
Why is it only fair if it's only levied on someone earning someone more than you, then?
When you get to keep less of what you make than what is taken from you, is your life still yours? They have a word for that - slavery.

> 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?

Inequality is natural. This may sound hard to believe, but I do want the people at the bottom to improve their lives in absolute terms as much as their talent and hard work allows them. I am not concerned with the perceived amount of inequality - am I better off if I have 1 cow and my neighbour has 10 cow, or am I better off if I have 2 cows and my neighbour has 500 cows? Obviously I am better off with 2 cows.

Now, having said that, I do agree that our system disproportionally over rewards those at the very top, but that is a consequence of things like bank bailouts, rescue schemes and other what we call "moral hazards" - ie intervention that does not lett the the market run its natural course. But I believe that, rather than redistribution which only serves to band-aid over the probem, it would be better to change the system - make sure that the same rules are applied at both the very top and the very bottom of society. In such a society, what I call a "free society", inequality will be what it will be.

You can talk about inequality being natural all you want but whilst I still have to give out food to children in my class who come into me without having had breakfast then I will fight the current system we live under. There is nothing fair about it whatsoever. What chance do these children ever have of rising up the ladder to make the most of their talents and abilities when they come into school without their basic needs being met?

And I absolutely do believe higher earners should pay a higher amount of tax. Well done to them, they've done well, in some cases they've been lucky. Now it's their turn to pay back into the society that allowed them to make their wealth. Although by the sounds of it, society is not something you believe in.

As for your comment comparing paying a higher level tax to slavery... You can figure out for yourself how pathetic that comparison is.

 

[Jags..class]

Not everyone is lucky and have a mortgage, and have you all seen the price of private renting.

 

[marty mcfly]

I get the idea, and throughout a complete cycle of someone's career, it makes sense, particularly if you're young, but what of those who've been in employment (particularly low skilled employment) for a long time, have no interest in progressing, or even if they did, could be seen as too old? Also, comparatively speaking, the amount of money that the government lets the individual keep through tax breaks is minute compared to the housing/child benefit they may have prior which may or may not have been cut. Combine this with wage freezes/wages not rising in line with real inflation, and increases in the cost of living, especially if you're renting, and basically you have a large number of people who are worse off.

On top of that, you're not always going to be able to "improve your situation" because there are only so many management positions available. It's a highly ideological practice that may work within business, but it doesn't necessarily work at a social level.

I agree with everything you've said but its the possibility to improve your situation that gives people the incentive to try which improves their productivity and helps society. Remove that and people would loose that motivation. A bit like a footballer after he receives a big bumper contract.

 

[marty mcfly]

You can talk about inequality being natural all you want but whilst I still have to give out food to children in my class who come into me without having had breakfast then I will fight the current system we live under. There is nothing fair about it whatsoever. What chance do these children ever have of rising up the ladder to make the most of their talents and abilities when they come into school without their basic needs being met?

And I absolutely do believe higher earners should pay a higher amount of tax. Well done to them, they've done well, in some cases they've been lucky. Now it's their turn to pay back into the society that allowed them to make their wealth. Although by the sounds of it, society is not something you believe in.

As for your comment comparing paying a higher level tax to slavery... You can figure out for yourself how pathetic that comparison is.

Look at the figures I gave. Someone on 80k pays 30k in income tax. Remove the motivation to be that person and the tax man wouldn't receive that money. They do pay back to society. How much does someone on benefits pay in income tax back to society?