| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Falling Living Standards in the West. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 2 2015, 01:07 AM (764 Views) | |
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 01:07 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
On the Nigel Farage topic I have made what I see as a radical theory regarding what is really happing (on a global scale) as opposed to the prescribe version of the situation we are ALL more or less sold on, and the terms of which dictate the debate(s) we have when expressing our beliefs on how BEST to resolve the issues and maintain living standards and future prosperity. All of which is pointless once you realise that those terms of reference we use are worthless. are wrong! Here I interject to explain what a Radical theory is - http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/what-is-radical-theory/ The Post referred to above is here (144) - http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8253574&t=10856459 In order to begin to accept the implications of what I am proposing it is also necessary to examine the 'how' (the why becomes self explanatory). Hegemony ......... the power of money to influence Government actions .... everywhere. So what is this theory? I'm writing off the top of my head, and will not be made accountable for its errors which can be corrected ....... it is in essence the theory that Globalisation has the purpose of expanding Markets and widening the field to bring in such diverse economies as those of the West, the East, and eventually every Continent. The dominant economies cannot remain dominant when their product can be made cheaper and often superior in other less prosperous regions - work shifts to where it is most efficient. There are obstacles to this process, the highest being political ideologies and ancient antagonisms. Russia capitulated, China enlisted, the path was then virtually free running ........ and the objective now, the promise, is 'homogenisation'. In effect to do away with disparity and attain a Global sphere where a loaf of bread in London or New York costs the same in Beijing or Moscow. Where wages/living standards are comparable for similar jobs, skills, practice. The man on the production line making cars in Guangdong province can travel to work in one of the vehicles he helped make. The West was the predominant Market for the East's production, but we are losing that importance, losing the trade, and therefore must adjust and compete or go under .......... so it is happening, whilst the East sees rising living standards, ours in the West are falling ........ homogenisation in action. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11480568/1/us-standard-of-living-has-fallen-more-than-50-opinion.html  Tell me I'm wrong, it can't happen, that there is no way such a process could be adhered to never mind kept hidden ........ And then wonder what it all means ???????????? |
 |
 
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 01:41 AM Post #2 |
Once and future cynic
|
Well that probably needs better reading than I can afford at this time of day but it does all seem to be heavily conspiracy based. I subscribe more to cock up theory Who is it that most powers globalisation with its insidious impacts on the standard of living of average workers in the West? None other than those same average workers who demand their £5 toasters, their £200 LED TVs, their £10,000 high quality cars and most of all they demand that VAT is kept low no matter that such actively destroys their employment. And the Labour party feeds the myths with stories of employers exploiting workers and consumers. That the gross profit figures for those companies are in single % figures doesn't seem to get noticed. The sad truth is the West got rich on the basis of exploiting workers in the third world and that was only going to last so long. We need to get our heads around creating jobs for all and accepting that real standards of living in the West are going to be damn hard to maintain. To be blunt there are only so many people in the world prepared to pay the high prices our unit labour costs ensure. No apologies if that ^ has pissed on anyone's teddy bear, it is the reality. I note that the alarming graph shown uses key data from a weird site called shadowstats.com. A site that believes we should calculate inflation based on the goods we used to buy in 1980. Well thanks very much but I really don't want to buy flares, vacuum tube TVs and 4 star petrol anymore. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 02:11 AM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
|
Did you read the short explanation of what a 'radical theory' is from the link I gave? It carries this (concluding) sentence >
What is being proposed as 'real' as opposed to the 'actual' perception of reality - a perception we are encouraged to accept as real. Here I must state that nowhere have I encountered this theory I have presented, and that does bother me ...... because I am sure that greater minds than mine have looked at the situation. Silence is inexplicable unless the hegemony is omnipotent ........ which I'm sure is why you instinctively adopt the posture you have. To address this contradiction I can only point to G8, G20 summits and identify such groups as Bilderberg as being in existence - summits where the global implications of concerted actions are ironed out and agreed upon. If I were in the Chinese State Council in the late eighties and the Capitalist powers that saw off Russia were telling me that the West were keen to invest in China and bring the country into the 21st century as an economic power house, a Market economy to aid them become wealthy and part of a global economy on equal terms I would not dismiss it as BS. One look at what is attainable is enough to lean back and think ...... "why not". A market economy is an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are based on supply and demand, and prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system. I'd be certain that it was a win win arrangement ........ and when parity is achieved, I'd be the one dictating terms for such summits. We are almost at that juncture already. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 2 2015, 11:30 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
|
My take on this is a little different, the West and especially the Anglo Saxon economies are essentially chaotic and short term in their outlook with the inevitable quick profits today at the expense of the long term viability. Of course a small minority continually plunder and loot the economy and then blame "market forces" for the poverty this inevitably brings, the Chinese especially seem to have a very different agenda, they are looking fifteen to twenty years ahead and not just at the next shareholders AGM. In short they have a plan, get forty million people a year out of poverty, this even included last year enforced pay rises of 20% for millions of workers and perhaps most importantly keep Western banks and businesses at arms length otherwise you quickly lose control of your own destiny, co operate but don't capitulate. Europe seems resigned to German style balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, something impossible in the UK with it's hideous addiction to pumping up asset prices and the boom and bust mentality that goes hand in hand with it, short termism will be the death of the UK. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Jan 2 2015, 11:56 AM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
|
Read on and digest to your hearts content, and then look to your own selfish interests first. and take care of ones own needs and the needs of ones own family before all else. We are but flotsam on the sea of mankind, which is currently in excess of 6 billion hacking and cutting away at the earth, in may instances just trying to stay alive. Selfish it may be , but then there is nothing one can do about the operations of the world at large. except put a cross on a ballot paper every few years to give the impression that we have some control over events, or to give away some of our disposable income to salve our consciences and to let others know how caring and concerned for others we are. . To put it simply. there is little that we can do about anything, though we may pretend that we can, for events, selfishness, need and and greed will take their own course and everything else is out of our control. There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures. |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Jan 2 2015, 12:02 PM Post #6 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
Short-termism has already been the death of the UK. The mess we are in now because of past short-termism under Thatcher, whereby a big profit then was better than decades of smaller but more sustainable profits throughout the years. But back to the OP. Affa is, essentially, correct. Globalisation is a about the control of wealth and power by a narrow elite. The goal is to maximise profit and eradicate barriers to trade/profit. And the will and desires of "the people" of the nations affected by those processes are not even considered. For close on a decade I have argued that Globalisation is the single biggest threat to democracy and freedom we are facing. All The Best |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 2 2015, 12:03 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
|
How very "Conservative of you! I'm all right Jack and F everyone else, my advice to you is learn to say please and thank you in Chinese............... |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 2 2015, 12:10 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
|
I'd cautiously agree but then if we look at things from the Western incarnation of capitalism then that is inevitably what we will get, there is little proof that outside of this sphere that this is the ultimate aim, moral bankruptcy has been the hallmark of Reaganomics and Thatcherism and I strongly suspect the next upcoming generations will reject it completely, overall I'm optimistic in the longer term, although by then Britain will probably just be an offshore piggy bank for the wealthy, for a time .......... |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 12:25 PM Post #9 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
I only disagree on that last point The "will and desires of "the people" of the nations affected" are so clearly of the "what's in it for me NOW" that they freely vote time and time again for policies that increase globalisation and the only credible party supposed to represent them encourages that - could that be because it is bankrolled by the likes of Lord Sainsbury? The biggest thing we could do to reduce the impacts of globalisation on our population is to increase VAT and kill off employers NI. You try getting the electorate to accept that. They want their £200 LED TVs and they want them NOW! Sometimes fuckwits deserve what their fuckwittery brings them and to blame their fate on those that serve up what that fuckwittery demands is in the end somewhat unfair. Edited by Steve K, Jan 2 2015, 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Jan 2 2015, 04:48 PM Post #10 |
Prudence and Thrift
|
Something arrogant about the attitude that we should be free to sell our expensive goods and services to the 3rd World, but be allowed to place barriers in the way of their relatively cheaper ones. Do we really want to raise trade barriers that bring about the petty nationalism that are then manipulated by Politicians? Do we really think that a country like the UK that cannot feed itself can maintain an acceptable life style in Fortress Europe? Globalisation brings mutual dependancies which in turn increase our safety from external aggression. The truth is that we have long known that globalisation will bring completive pressures on 1st World countries from 3rd World ones, it was ever so, but we avoided all preparation for such until late in the day. We just Willy-nilly kept on expanding the cost of State Services, borrowing to fuel current consumption, watched as manufacturing value added went east and hoped for the best. Now it stings, it must be all the fault of allowing 3rd World countries to claw their way out of agrarian poverty. Now the Usuals pontificate as if all this can be unravelled and we could revert to the "good old days". Don't make me laugh as it cannot and those days were not that good anyway. The UK was not born with a silver spoon or any God given right to anything, so better shape up and compete for jobs and stop whinging. I know that the left are a permeant toothache are on a century long whinge, but it really is time they grew up and faced the realities of these days. Better education, better training and a rediscovery of the work ethic might be a good start. Want Investors to build factories to make stuff to sell so we can apply taxes to pay for services, well best provide the right economic environment for such. Just a little tip; "high taxes and and overbearing Labour Nanny State is the wrong direction. Best accept that the wind of change is going to get colder and adapt or just wither away and die. As for EU countries being a model you really have to be taking the p155. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 05:17 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
|
Thanks to all ........ but have you all forgotten what the title/heading is about? Certainly not short-termism, but a deliberate long term aim to balance the global economies. It argues that this austerity drive is contrived, and even indicates that the FS sector didn't "fck up", another of my none standard arguments. Debts have both debtors and creditors, there was only a liquidity problem, and the loss of trust ......... "business needed to carry on as usual" (it did in the US), but it serves instead to usher in austerity and even in the USA living standards have fallen despite their recovery (as here), and that is no accident ........ we are brainwashed by experts that tell us we cannot expect to be paid more than we earn ........ which is total BS when you look at the wages some get, at the continued profits for investors. There are lots of charts that show how since Reagan and Thatcher the rich have got richer whilst the rest have more or less remained as they were. This the first I came across Edited by Affa, Jan 2 2015, 05:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 05:22 PM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
|
When you have nothing to say, why not simply say nothing at all? |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 2 2015, 06:25 PM Post #13 |
Regular Member
|
"Something arrogant about the attitude that we should be free to sell our expensive goods and services to the 3rd World, but be allowed to place barriers in the way of their relatively cheaper ones. Do we really want to raise trade barriers that bring about the petty nationalism that are then manipulated by Politicians? Do we really think that a country like the UK that cannot feed itself can maintain an acceptable life style in Fortress Europe? Globalisation brings mutual dependancies which in turn increase our safety from external aggression. The truth is that we have long known that globalisation will bring completive pressures on 1st World countries from 3rd World ones, it was ever so, but we avoided all preparation for such until late in the day". Considering that pay restraint has been in full swing in this country for the last 15 years, it can hardly be the fault of workers that goods & services in this country are so "expensive" for export or home consumption, so, where do you think that the finger of blame should lie on that front? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Jan 2 2015, 07:06 PM Post #14 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Nobody was allocating any blame on Workers, just pointing out the reality of a situation where we have by Treaty agreed not to apply certain tariffs and allowed a freer movement of goods and services. We are all enjoying the cheaper products produced in Asia and they too are purchasers. The reality is that in this Global Market Place then there is also competition for jobs and this will increase as the markets become more homogeneous. The battle is not just for low labour costs, but also ideas and a willingness to take risks. Europeans have had a good run, now the Asians say it is their turn. Who will deny them? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Jan 2 2015, 07:07 PM Post #15 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Just not saying the crap you would prefer to hear, get used to it as I prefer reality. |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 2 2015, 07:20 PM Post #16 |
|
Regular Member
|
If we look back a little while ago in this country during Thatcher's time, companies were closing down or businesses were transferring production abroad where labour was cheap, much plant & machinery also went in the same direction. At the same time as the post Thatcher recovery was underway, we had a New Labour government doing what ALL government's do, spending\borrowing beyond their means, that is to say, not covering current spending with taxes, meaning that borrowing increased our long term debt to fund current spending. The last government resorted to 'stealth' taxes as a fig leaf to cover the crisis of their own making, that of mass uncontrolled immigration that correlates to that massive deficit increase. They never had the guts to put taxes up for the better-off to pay for it, so they left it to the coalition to make war against the poor & those on benefits to pay the price. Not only that, our trade deficit, like then, is now increasing apace, the poor will again pay for it through inflation by allowing the £ Pound to take a 'hit' on the markets, it's already known that markets are aware that we cannot finance that trade deficit. What meagre growth this country has seen under the coalition, is because of the stupidity of this government's lack of policies. It sought to wage war against benefit claimants, blaming them for the ills of the country, blame it on the politicians of ALL Parties, they are the perpetrators of our demise, NOT the unemployed or other claimants. If you think that we are about to emerge from this 'global' malaise, then you are WRONG, a plan is in hand that will ensure that Europe will never escape that future. It's the TTIP between America\Europe that will do for us, more so than the global situation, this is a deal that is about increasing the American hegemony over Europe, the short term gains for us will be massively overstated by comparison to the debilitating losses to the whole of Europe for the foreseeable future. It will make the current global situation seem like a sideshow by comparison. America has done to Europe on Ukraine, what TRUEMAN would call, "handling" in chaining Europe to the enslavement of American capitalism. It has made Europe impose sanctions on Russia, AGAINST our long-term interest for it's own benefit, that's how stupid our politicians are. We should deal with Russia in Europe, in much the same way as America has with China over the decades since Korea, yet, without allowing debt pile-up to occur & loosen our dependency on America. America is too big for it's boots, it's a bankrupt country, it's debt is so massive that it needs massive printing power to keep the dollars being created by the trillions. It thinks that it's too big to fail, it's not, when it does so, look out, it will make the 1920's look like a hiccup. Just as in America, so here, the property debt bubble has kept rising since Gordon Brown failed to raise interest rates in 2008 to keep the property market going(don't say he couldn't instruct the B of E to raise them, he could-if he took power to do so). Not only has the property debt bubble kept inflating, government has been increasing the fiscal deficit, as well as long-term debt,£375 BILLIONS, the bank bailout money, HS2, with many other money wasting projects, partly funded by Benefit cuts, with more, much more of those to follow the election this year. It's 'some' people's 'austerity', that's paying for this little spending bonanza by OSBORNE, with deeper austerity to follow to pay for it. Tell me that's the way to a better - fairer future for the have-not's, I will eat my hat if it is. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 08:08 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
|
Oh, the reality as we are expected to see it as opposed to actuality ...... the actuality that is and despite your assertion that this globalisation issue has made the UK, the West unable to compete, the richest most wealth productive countries are Westernised, and are the most competitive ....... and if that created wealth were widely distributed there would be no austerity, no deficit, and no debt to speak of. The UK still generates more wealth than those you say we cannot compete with, is still in the top six earners ...... that's the reality you do know but cannot resist arguing that we are a lazy bunch of moaners wanting a hand-out from our lord and masters. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Jan 2 2015, 08:13 PM Post #18 |
Senior Member
|
Good points Affa. According to this website: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2189289/UK-wealth-grew-6-8-trillion-year--making-worth-110-000.html In 2012 the UK wealth was £6.8 trillion or £110,000 for each of us. Now if that wealth was distributed there wouldn't as you state be a mess. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 2 2015, 08:26 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
|
In other words expecting a humane society is no longer affordable and we will have to make some concessions, that much seems certain in a finite World, but of course the better off should be exempt! That is the long road to civil unrest and revolution, the history books are littered with examples of it. And despite it being pointed out to you on numerous occasions the EU actually trades with the ROW at a healthy profit, unlike the UK with it's dickhead economic policies which as time goes by is only beneficial to a wealthy minority. Edited by Tigger, Jan 2 2015, 08:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 2 2015, 08:42 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
|
Some interesting asides here, the most pressing one is the way different ideologies determine 'what is affordable'. I'll start by challenging the whole concept of affordability and call it what it actually is - 'desire'. When people mention affordability or more pertinent what is unaffordable, they are actually expressing their unwillingness to afford (whatever 'it' is). eg, if the central desire was to have full employment with no-one on Welfare unless severely handicapped, then it would then be entirely possible and affordable. ........ It would mean the means of wealth creation and its distribution were radically altered, but does not at all mean Communism, but made possible through capitalism. You see the wealth is already there, it how it is used that creates these problems - and as I take the opportunity to remind, it was not that Nationalisation was a failed exercise, it was rather that the political will to make it succeed was ever lacking. Edited by Affa, Jan 2 2015, 08:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 2 2015, 10:21 PM Post #21 |
|
Regular Member
|
A reasonable post Affa , of course, yes, it's there as you say about the wealth, it's the poison of 'ideology' that creates division in society. The Tories will always say that spending on this or that, especially personal welfare spending is 'unaffordable, that's their 'ideological' standpoint, the "them & us". It's the knowledge that spending requires taxes that leaves the Tories cold, because they want zero taxes on the better-off, whilst starving the poor or less well-off in society. An example is housing cost under the 'buy-to-let' sector, the Tories have utterly failed to tackle the problem of rents that are generally in the position of being a very significant spending problem for government now & in the future. Rather than tackle the problem head on, they have attacked the poor who need taxpayers help through the Housing Benefit system, the cost in total under the coalition is in excess of £130 BILLION, when the Tories said that the country was virtually broke when they came to office. Lamely, they attacked tenants on the 'bedroom tax', looking at these 'social' tenants as though they were mere consumers in a market place, with landlords getting off 'Scott free' & accumulating wealth to boot at taxpayers expense. These same Tories, when New Labour were setting up the conditions for greedy people to become landlords with taxpayers assistance, NEVER uttered any opposition to the measures, Well! they wouldn't, would they? after all, it's alright by Tory HYPOCRISY to accept taxpayers money for BUSINESS or for like-minded 'TORY' types, but, NOT to spend it on Benefits for the needy. The 'buy-to-let' landlords get capital appreciation on taxpayer funded assets, they also get the yield through sky-high rents paid by those same taxpayers through the Housing Benefit system. It seems that with Tory hypocrisy, they cannot lose, for they have the MILLIBAND's & CAMERON's of this world on their side, laughing at the rest of us in the process. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 2 2015, 10:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 2 2015, 10:41 PM Post #22 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
£110k seems a lot but is it? The average house price is £175k, a pension pot to give a £10k pension will be about £300k and all of that is in that £7T net UK worth. As is the UK motorway system which would be hard to distribute to each and all but I'd bet is worth a fair sum. Don't get me wrong, we do need to do more to address the excessive and unacceptable levels of wealth inequality but I always find the measures proposed would actually just destroy wealth and the ability to sustain a society |
|
|
|
| Rich | Jan 2 2015, 11:09 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
|
Good evening RJD, as any sensible person will know, equality per se is only an "opportunity" for everyone to partake of,( everyone has the same chance) in reality it is a fantasy for if everyone in life were to be equal and every commodity were to be of a universal price then there would be no need for a competitive market place and therefore no incentive for a business to thrive.....just ask the Dysons, Sugars, and Bransons of this world, without their entrepreneurialship their would be one hell of a loss in the jobs market. Someone will ALWAYS want to be one step ahead of a competitor be it sport, business or politics, it is a natural trait, capitalism is the way of a progressive world and there can be no going back to pseudo socialism and as long as philanthropy is alive and well then society as a whole will benefit. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Jan 2 2015, 11:32 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
|
Just the realities of life Tigger. Idealism just slows down the facing of reality, and the doing of what needs to be done. Your like the nurse just returned from Africa whilst incubating Ebola having put at risk the many passengers returning with her, and the residents coming in contact with her, all of which is costing many thousands of pounds treating her, and monitoring those coming in contact with her. Far better for all if she had kept her idealism and the welfare of others to herself and the money spent on treating those in real need of help. When are you off to do your bit for mankind? |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 2 2015, 11:40 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
|
I'm not going anywhere, I'll just pray that people like you become extinct, and the sooner the better for humanity. 
|
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 3 2015, 12:35 PM Post #26 |
|
Regular Member
|
"Don't get me wrong, we do need to do more to address the excessive and unacceptable levels of wealth inequality but I always find the measures proposed would actually just destroy wealth and the ability to sustain a society". All goes well until...."but I always find the measures proposed would actually just destroy wealth and the ability to sustain a society", which is the 'get out of jail card' that the rich use as an excuse to keep the status quo anti. You know, the 'poor' never get to have any say over how much of their disposable income they must pay over to the big companies or small business owners for goods or services. Some may argue that it's a 'free' market, tell that to the utility companies that synchronise their price increases to all & sundry. What say do the poor have over what\how much taxes the better off pay, whose salaries are not set by market conditions, rather by their own diktat or collective power such as in the 'professions'? The poor, in general, are paid less, yet pay proportionately more of their income in taxes, the better off pay less, often receiving 'discounts' off their taxes in the form of tax 'breaks'. A simplified income tax system would tax ALL at one rate, the state then returning a proportion by way of redistribution to the needier members of society, of course, we know that was the original plan, but, as usual, things go awry when the middle class politicians get their thieving hands on taxpayers money. From that point of view, the welfare state hasn't changed anything much, save to say that we live under a 'two system' state, the 'welfare' state & the 'wealthfare' state, one operates a poor law system for the poor, the other for the better off with tax 'breaks' aplenty. This is why, for consistency, under the Universal Credit system, a 'ceiling' on all tax benefits or 'breaks' should apply, in order that the middle\upper classes pay their dues, in FULL. Those who object, need to ask why those 'earning' £25K+ require tax 'breaks, IF those getting less get nothing at all? The Tories know all too well that, when tax cuts are produced in their budgets, the better off always(mathematically provable)get more benefit from such cuts, which is why a better system to redistribute 'tax cuts' into higher pay for the poorer workers would save on benefits & improve the work ethic\satisfaction rate. Such 'tax cuts' are micro- management of demand anyway, so give it where it's needed, NOT where it's wanted. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 3 2015, 12:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 3 2015, 02:21 PM Post #27 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
You need to look at the net position Nonsense. Once you take benefits into account "the poor" net receive and only "the rich" net contribute. Not so unfair "the poor" all get a vote, why do they support policies that keep them poor? |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 3 2015, 02:33 PM Post #28 |
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
Well, I have to say, everything after post 1 is pretty pointless until we get past this bollocks about "radical theory" being "repudiation of actualism". If my clicks on various links led me to the correct definitions, "actualism" is a philosophy that everything that could be, already is. Which is a bit of a pisser for owners of / inventors and contributors to patents of any form since the whole thing about having been granted a patent is that the thing for which the patent was granted "patently" (groan) weren't until the patent holder thought of them. So is this just another load of bollox spouted by some asshole consultant who intends to charge you a fortune for telling you what you knew already ? Sounds like it to me ... |
|
|
|
| Montjoie | Jan 3 2015, 03:15 PM Post #29 |
Regular Member
|
That's not wealth. There is a very wrong issue with accounting property values as global wealth. Since if the UK & British were to try to sell their properties all at once, it would be worth nothing. And when a property bubble bursts, then you can easily "lose" 50% of a nation's wealth. It's not a serious economic indicator by any mean. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Jan 3 2015, 03:19 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
|
You put too much emphasis on the definition of the theory, and none on what the theory is ......... I gave the link to that definition primarily because it had this
My intention was to cause others to give it (theory) some consideration and not to dismiss it as 'yet another conspiracy theory'. I conspired with nobody in reaching the conclusions I do - all the evidence points to it it being accurate, and if it is then every debate we have had regarding the economy and future prosperity has been a complete waste of effort. This Austerity thing falsely imposed for no other purpose than the purpose it has established. Edited by Affa, Jan 3 2015, 03:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Malum Unus | Jan 3 2015, 07:07 PM Post #31 |
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
|
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but if you can actually find a party which cares about the long AND short term future for the 'poor' and working people in this country, I'm sure they WOULD vote for them (assuming the other parties don't dirty trick them out of the business). |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 3 2015, 07:53 PM Post #32 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
I still think the poor wouldn't vote for them They get the policies they vote for. You can try showing someone that they need to think long term but too often the reason they are poor in the first place is they just don't get that. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Jan 3 2015, 08:26 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
|
This is very true, as the former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King said a few years back, the value of a house is simply a matter of opinion, any debt secured on it is a matter of fact. |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 3 2015, 11:55 PM Post #34 |
|
Regular Member
|
The truth is that they do NOT support such policies. As Dennis HEALEY once said , "we'll squeeze the pips until they squeak", as yet they haven't "squeaked", that alone tells you that the party whom the poor in general support, fail to benefit entirely from that party. This government have proven that the benefit prescription for redistribution has failed, it's time for a 'new' redistributive policy. One would like to think that the penny dropped with Milliband when Cameron & Osborne clobbered the poor with benefit cuts. That 'penny' dropping, means that the policy should be to raise the incomes of the poor in work,to get as many as possible of the poor into work, that's 'fair' & it's the correct policy prescription. Again, the current government's housing policy, of letting private sector rents rise exponentially is a policy designed to return the workers to Victorian poverty & squalor. The next government should levy a 20% tax on private rentals, to be paid by the landlords, accompanied by a zero rate increase in rents over the lifetime of the next two governments at least, that will allow the housing debt bubble to settle a bit. Young people deserve a fair chance to get on the housing ladder, the policy must be directed at reducing house prices, the levy on landlords will help that process by making many sell up. Such a levy would also fund new house-building to the needy of homes to rent at an affordable price equivalent to the social sector. Rather than give large building contracts out to large build firms, local councils should be empowered to train the unemployed to build the required houses, offering the workers both homes & 'apprenticeships' to aquire the skills to build them. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 4 2015, 12:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Jan 4 2015, 12:05 AM Post #35 |
|
Senior Member
|
I'm tolerant of others views and opinions and have no strong feelings of antagonism against anyone, in fact I wish no harm to befall anyone. its the caring hearts on sleeves like you Tigger that seem to wish harm on others who do not agree with your sense of idealism or political opinions. Honi soit qui mal y pense Evil be to those that evil think must apply to us both by your reasoning, though I see my way as being good for the many not the few for the longer period of time. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 4 2015, 12:08 AM Post #36 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
Beware the law on unintended consequences Nonsense. What you propose would see hundreds of thousands of homeless The one thing that would truly help the poor is more jobs, what do they vote for? More taxes on employers. And the result is jobs go overseas. What would also help the poor? Transferring taxes from employment to higher VAT as that would hinder imported goods from those jobs that went overseas. Will the poor vote for higher VAT and lower employment tax? No, because they aspire to have those very same imported goods. |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 4 2015, 12:21 AM Post #37 |
|
Regular Member
|
The tax credit system should be scrapped, by converting the payments into wages through the employer payroll system, thus offsetting employer taxes. At the same time, ALL tax 'breaks' should be scrapped for business & employers or employees earning over £25K per annum. That would create a level playing field in respect of Universal Credit, after all, why should those not on UC be treated differently(with tax breaks, such as pension contribution relief's) than those who are getting it. With Osborne bringing in more tax 'breaks' for the better-off, who leave the private pensions to their children, it's right to stop them having 'relief's' or tax 'breaks' through the treatment of such contributions being regarded as 'deferred income' for tax purposes, they therefore should be taxed before transfer. Again, the pensions taken as lump sums by the children should be wholly taxable as income for tax purposes on the children's income's if not by the above means. In general, the tax system in this country is grossly unfair, it requires a radical change fit for the 21st century. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Jan 4 2015, 12:26 AM Post #38 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
I won't disagree with your last sentence but have to point out that this government has cracked down very firmly on pensions being used to avoid tax. What I hate is that the rich just do not pay tax on their wealth that the state defends for them and we grievously tax both the lower paid and those that would create jobs We need to create more worthwhile jobs, it won't be easy |
|
|
|
| Rich | Jan 4 2015, 12:54 AM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
|
Ahem,.....I understand from your many and varied posts that you undertake consultancy work. |
|
|
|
| Nonsense | Jan 4 2015, 12:27 PM Post #40 |
|
Regular Member
|
Here is a response straight from the horse's mouth(Steve WEBB), Minister for pensions says, http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/sell-your-pensions-for-cash-in-retirement-steve-webb-says/ar-BBhumET?ocid=iehpA. "Currently we spend more than £35bn a year on tax relief on pension contributions. Yet this money is spent overwhelmingly on the highest earners". A total sum of money that would cover the Housing Benefit total each year. Conclusions; government priorities are WRONG, scrap these reliefs for the rich, which are basically a discount on their tax liabilities, reducing the tax take from these rich people, at OUR cost & use the money to build new houses as well as reducing taxpayer cost of Housing Benefit. These better-off people, including very rich one's currently obtaining reliefs, will still be liable to tax on their pension pots, whether they take them out as cash under the new scheme proposed or as an annuity, or, as a legacy to their children or friends, as these latter groups will be required to pay tax on these 'gifts' as income. That £35 BILLION annually, is a price that we as taxpayers can no longer afford, indeed, it's a price that we should never have been lumbered with in the first place. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 4 2015, 03:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:34 AM Jul 14