Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Sounds right in your ears?
Topic Started: Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM (836 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance. Take the claim that the inequality between rich and poor has restricted growth, they offer no substance to support this but trail it around as a fact and then demand that taxes must be increased on those that have wealth to narrow the gap. The argument for narrowing can be made on other grounds, but there is no proof that there are economic gains to be had. Read this:


Quote:
 
In fact, an economy will grow, or not grow, based on a whole range of factors. In rough order, the most important are demographics, productivity, the rate of technological change, the labour participation rate, how big the state is, how much taxes punish enterprise, and how free and deregulated its markets are. How equal or unequal they are has nothing to do with it. No one would argue that more inequality creates faster growth. There is no evidence for that either. But neither does it reduce it.


Quote:
 
The first argument is that the rich, in the economic jargon, have a lower propensity to spend than the poor. For every extra £1,000 they earn, a fabulously wealthy person might spend very little of it, mostly because they have run out of stuff to buy, whereas a much poorer person will probably spend all of it, mainly because there is lots of stuff they need


Quote:
 
The trouble is, it is nonsense. Sure, the very rich don’t spend all their money. They save quite a bit of it. But neither do they stuff their money under the mattress. They either put it in the bank, and the bank will then lend it to people who do want it, or else they will invest it, and the money will go into a growing business which is creating jobs and wealth. The important point is that one way or another, money always gets spent, and feeds its way back into the economy. Whether it starts out in the hands of richer or poorer people doesn’t make any difference one way or another.


Quote:
 
The second main argument is that strong post-Second World War economic growth coincided with a period of narrowing inequality. In fairness, that’s true. But it is just a co-incidence. Post Second World War growth was the result of rapid technological change which boosted productivity, falling barriers to trade, and, a factor that is often over-looked, women re-joining the workforce on a massive scale. Equality didn’t have anything to do with it. Worse, that ignores the fact that 19th century growth, which sparked the industrial revolution, coincided with widening gulfs between the rich and poor. It also ignores the fact that some of the fastest-growing economies in the world right now are also some of the most unequal. The UK is regularly cited as a relatively unequal society compared to the rest of Europe – but it is growing faster than its rivals. Singapore and Hong Kong regularly top the inequality league tables – but neither of them are exactly slouches when it comes to rapid growth.


LINK- Lagarde is wrong

I believe there is a moral case here in the UK to shift ~£20b PA from the top to the bottom in a sustainable manner, but thus far nobody has shown how this can be achieved without a negative effect on the economy. Therefore the intellectually honest response is "hang the economy", but instead the left prefer the outpourings of the Red Nag Myth Factory as that chimes well in their ears.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance.
You do know the forum crashed due to an Irony Overload after you typed this, don't you.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance.
Why do you keep doing that RJD? In case you have not noticed over the last few weeks the Telegraph has turned into the Tory version of Pravda.
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 27 2015, 05:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
. . . I believe there is a moral case here in the UK to shift ~£20b PA from the top to the bottom in a sustainable manner, but thus far nobody has shown how this can be achieved without a negative effect on the economy. Therefore the intellectually honest response is "hang the economy", but instead the left prefer the outpourings of the Red Nag Myth Factory as that chimes well in their ears.



I guess that depends a lot on what you consider to be "a negative effect on the economy"

So many seem to worship the great god of GDP but it really is a flawed measure surviving as is only because it is a least worst easily read measure. But it does not measure how successful an economy is for the people that live in it.

I've outlined so many times that our taxation system is built around 'tax the employer for daring to employ' and 'don't tax too much the luxuries that the majority aspire to' philosophies that have a devastating impact on the less well off by moving jobs overseas. I've similarly said we have to end the taxes on employing and to balance that place higher taxes on the mostly imported luxuries. Why would that "a negative effect on the economy"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]


What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

For what it's worth, from an article in the Guardian, Friday 31 January 2014.

About super rich spending in 2012;

$460bn --- Travel and hotels.
$440bn --- Luxury cars.
$205bn --- Technology.
$165bn --- Watches and jewellery.
$95bn --- Arts.
$90bn --- Leather goods and accessories.
$80bn --- Apparel.
$80bn --- Alcohol and food.
$70bn --- Home and furniture.
$70bn --- Yachts etc.
$55bn --- Cosmetics.

Yes, it must have created quite a few jobs, still it seems to be an awful lot of cash floating around at the top. Could some of it be better spent?

Edited by C-too, Jan 27 2015, 11:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
How much of that was by UK resident rich?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 27 2015, 11:50 AM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'



Yes, it must have created quite a few jobs, still it seems to be an awful lot of cash floating around at the top. Could some of it be better spent?


Are you suggesting that these 'jobs' are a boost to UK employment ...... do we Brits own a luxury car industry? Travel and Hotels indicates overseas spending ..... going through them I see little prospect of them being UK job creators. In any case, if I'm honest, I worry more about how it is earned and on who's undervalued backs and labour it was reliant on.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C - too, I'm sure that money could have been better spent, then again I could say the same about the thousands me and the lads spent collectively on my stag do.

I daresay you yourself have spent a fair bit over the years on luxuries for you and your loved ones that would seem obscene to people in the third world.

My point is aren't these super rich just doing what most of us would be doing in their shoes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 27 2015, 08:57 AM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance.
Why do you keep doing that RJD? In case you have not noticed over the last few weeks the Telegraph has turned into the Tory version of Prada.
Only in your twisted opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 27 2015, 11:50 AM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

For what it's worth, from an article in the Guardian, Friday 31 January 2014.

About super rich spending in 2012;

$460bn --- Travel and hotels.
$440bn --- Luxury cars.
$205bn --- Technology.
$165bn --- Watches and jewellery.
$95bn --- Arts.
$90bn --- Leather goods and accessories.
$80bn --- Apparel.
$80bn --- Alcohol and food.
$70bn --- Home and furniture.
$70bn --- Yachts etc.
$55bn --- Cosmetics.

Yes, it must have created quite a few jobs, still it seems to be an awful lot of cash floating around at the top. Could some of it be better spent?

Does not address the points raised but certainly revs up the spite and envy Brigade.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 27 2015, 09:21 AM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
. . . I believe there is a moral case here in the UK to shift ~£20b PA from the top to the bottom in a sustainable manner, but thus far nobody has shown how this can be achieved without a negative effect on the economy. Therefore the intellectually honest response is "hang the economy", but instead the left prefer the outpourings of the Red Nag Myth Factory as that chimes well in their ears.



I guess that depends a lot on what you consider to be "a negative effect on the economy"

So many seem to worship the great god of GDP but it really is a flawed measure surviving as is only because it is a least worst easily read measure. But it does not measure how successful an economy is for the people that live in it.

I've outlined so many times that our taxation system is built around 'tax the employer for daring to employ' and 'don't tax too much the luxuries that the majority aspire to' philosophies that have a devastating impact on the less well off by moving jobs overseas. I've similarly said we have to end the taxes on employing and to balance that place higher taxes on the mostly imported luxuries. Why would that "a negative effect on the economy"?
It really is not a matter of what I think is negative, it is a matter of what is and here GDP was not offered as the sole Yardstick. You are free to propose your own measure.

At the moment I see no possibility of shifting significant amounts of income from the top to the bottom without recourse to negative income taxes. However the £20b PA I require to fund these must be found somewhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 05:12 PM
Only in your twisted opinion.
Not my opinion RJD, fact. Cameron has excelled himself with a big lie in the Torygraph. The same lie that got Iain Duncan Smith a public reprimand from Sir Andrew Dilnot CBE, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

Live links in the reference but not in my copy and paste.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/27/tories-benefit-cap-23k_n_6552424.html

David Cameron has insisted that reducing the annual benefits cap to £23,000 would cause a new "stampede to the job centre", despite a swathe of evidence suggesting the current £26,000 limit has actually had a limited effect.

The Prime Minister pledged to lower the cap by £3,000 immediately if the Tories win a majority at May's general election, telling the Telegraph it "tells you everything you need to know about our values".

However, mounting official evidence undermines the suggestion that the benefits cap, introduced by the Tories in 2013, has caused any "stampede to the job centre".

Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, warned last December that it was not possible to directly link the benefits cap to any move by those affected into work.

He wrote; "The available numerical evidence does not demonstrate a particularly strong causal link between the benefit cap and the decisions made by individuals about moving into work."

On top of this, the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has issued a damning verdict of the cap, which is currently set at £500 a week for couples and families and £350 for singles.

Using the Department for Work and Pensions' own figures, the IFS concluded: "What the quantitative analysis does tell us is that the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house."

Labour's Sheila Gilmore, a member of the Commons Work and Pensions committee, told the Huffington Post UK: "As in all developed economies, people in the UK regularly move into and out of work, so it’s hard to claim the benefits cap is solely responsible for individuals taking up one job or another.’

"And even if you do buy the Tories’ line on the benefits cap, any savings are well outweighed by spending increases elsewhere because they have failed to tackle the root causes of high social security spending. Labour would do so by boosting the minimum wage, building more houses and helping more people with disabilities into work."

Cameron indicated that the benefits cap change would pay for three million apprenticeships, allowing young people to get “the chance to make the most of their God-given talents”.

Downing Street estimates that the stricter benefits cap would save the public purse £135 million a year, while the apprenticeships boost will cost around £300 million a year. The shortfall will be made up by removing housing benefit from unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds.

He said: “This is about being ambitious for Britain. We can give many more young people the chance to get on. We can help people into work and out of poverty. We can secure a better future for everyone in Britain – but only if we stick to our long-term plan.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 27 2015, 09:21 AM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
. . . I believe there is a moral case here in the UK to shift ~£20b PA from the top to the bottom in a sustainable manner, but thus far nobody has shown how this can be achieved without a negative effect on the economy. Therefore the intellectually honest response is "hang the economy", but instead the left prefer the outpourings of the Red Nag Myth Factory as that chimes well in their ears.



I guess that depends a lot on what you consider to be "a negative effect on the economy"

So many seem to worship the great god of GDP but it really is a flawed measure surviving as is only because it is a least worst easily read measure. But it does not measure how successful an economy is for the people that live in it.

I've outlined so many times that our taxation system is built around 'tax the employer for daring to employ' and 'don't tax too much the luxuries that the majority aspire to' philosophies that have a devastating impact on the less well off by moving jobs overseas. I've similarly said we have to end the taxes on employing and to balance that place higher taxes on the mostly imported luxuries. Why would that "a negative effect on the economy"?

I see it in reverse ....... it is not to take more away from the super-rich, be they persons or business, but put a drag on how much of the earned wealth they take for themselves.

There is something amiss when living standards for the lowly employed are falling whilst the rich see no such reduction.

Can i remind you of where I actually sit and have said that I can see some merit in it - the fact is that what has really taken place is that the East and West have come closer together - one on the rise, the other in decline ..... and will eventually meet at a similar level. A situation contrived and not arrived through mistakes. ..... it didn't have to be done this way, time would see it happen by progression, but impatience has called for Austerity now.


edit : what it does say is that there is not a shortage of money, no real reason for there to be a deficit, and no justification for austerity - the reason we do not have that is because wealth s not in the Treasury ....... a chest that has also has not seen a real rise these four plus years of supposed growth.

Trickle down has lost out to suck up.



Edited by Affa, Jan 27 2015, 05:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance. Take the claim that the inequality between rich and poor has restricted growth, they offer no substance to support this but trail it around as a fact and then demand that taxes must be increased on those that have wealth to narrow the gap. The argument for narrowing can be made on other grounds, but there is no proof that there are economic gains to be had.


I've sadly come to the conclusion that you have been overdosing on hay fever tablets for several years now, the report into the effects of this and other over medding was published in the States this week, the contents of your post have confirmed my worst fears.....

 :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jan 27 2015, 08:30 AM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance.
You do know the forum crashed due to an Irony Overload after you typed this, don't you.

All The Best
Indeed, so according to a right wing newspaper owned by secretive and reclusive tax avoiding billionaire twins who live on a private island in the English channel, the IMF is wrong in it's assessment that wealth inequality is economically damaging!

Messenger shot dead, cremated, and ashes scattered to the four winds. Someone had to do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
What "sounds about right to me" is that the advocates of inequality point to "trickledown" as the means by which the poor pick up the scraps whilst the reality is that by tge time they have picked the leavings up prices have accelerated beyond tgeir scrapings.

What "sounds about right to me" is that men ... and women ... of talent and intelligence used to be able to set themselves up and make their way from next to nothing, but all sorts of red tape and bollocks prevent similar things today without bribing venture capitalists beforehand.

What "sounds about right to me" is the way those not already able to call on an inheritance the size of cornwall are well and truly fucked in this fucked up country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 27 2015, 10:01 PM
. . . those not already able to call on an inheritance the size of cornwall are well and truly fucked in this fucked up country.
Well I can't call on such an inheritance and I'm neither fucked nor live in a fucked up country.

Does seem to be suffering from a toxic spill of hyperbole though
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 27 2015, 10:21 PM
johnofgwent
Jan 27 2015, 10:01 PM
. . . those not already able to call on an inheritance the size of cornwall are well and truly fucked in this fucked up country.
Well I can't call on such an inheritance and I'm neither fucked nor live in a fucked up country.

Does seem to be suffering from a toxic spill of hyperbole though
Just reviewing the relative amounts of money my mentors needed to set up their innovation centre of excellence, the amounts my peers needed, and the amount my nephew will need.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 27 2015, 11:58 AM
How much of that was by UK resident rich?
Well I note that C-Too has not responded to this question

It is very clear when you read the actual article that all that "super rich" spending is very much a world phenomenon and since they talk to Chinese, Indian, US and Brazilian spending and the UK only as suppliers to same then the UK element of this "super rich" splurging is not very big at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/30/super-rich-shift-experiences-new-status-symbols



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
Er...Just a small matter of detail here the Magna Carta is not actually a legal document in the modern sense and the establishment in it's various forms has spent the last 800 years ignoring it.

Carry on. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped etc ..........

Why do you imagine that what I wrote was in any way a criticism of the right to free speech?

It was to tell you that the article is complete BS, conjecture, otherwise known as spin, and done to make fools of the gullible electorate ...... a surprising number of which post here.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball 2014
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 27 2015, 11:58 AM
How much of that was by UK resident rich?
There are in fact a lot of other questions to ask about that list of spending, such as was it all made and bought in this country and were their components made in this country? Also, how much VAT was actually paid?
Edited by Oddball 2014, Jan 28 2015, 10:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 11:10 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
Er...Just a small matter of detail here the Magna Carta is not actually a legal document in the modern sense and the establishment in it's various forms has spent the last 800 years ignoring it.

Carry on. :)
I understand that it is the basis of the USA constitution, has been mentioned over 400 times, the most recent over the detentions in Guantanamo bay. David Davis resigned from the front bench because of it, and because he was concerned about the principle involved to our loss of personal freedom, and the oppression by authority.
Just because some think it right to deprive others of their legally possessed property and personal freedoms, breaching the rights of a free citizen ,does not mean that the principles laid down and recognised for centuries are not sound.
Overbearing and demanding governments, supported by some citizens slowly but surely erodes our rights and freedoms, and becomes more dictatorial by the day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 28 2015, 11:05 AM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 11:10 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
Er...Just a small matter of detail here the Magna Carta is not actually a legal document in the modern sense and the establishment in it's various forms has spent the last 800 years ignoring it.

Carry on. :)
I understand that it is the basis of the USA constitution, has been mentioned over 400 times, the most recent over the detentions in Guantanamo bay. David Davis resigned from the front bench because of it, and because he was concerned about the principle involved to our loss of personal freedom, and the oppression by authority.
Just because some think it right to deprive others of their legally possessed property and personal freedoms, breaching the rights of a free citizen ,does not mean that the principles laid down and recognised for centuries are not sound.
Overbearing and demanding governments, supported by some citizens slowly but surely erodes our rights and freedoms, and becomes more dictatorial by the day.
To add to.

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights 1689 was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.[3]

Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms.[4]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Did you ever actually catch anyone?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 11:13 AM
Did you ever actually catch anyone?

Averaged one a fortnight from drunk to robbery with violence. The job was so much more diverse than just dealing with crime or arresting people.
How often have you contributed to the well being of society? BTW, was that necessary or contributed to debate.?

Assaults on police soaring | UK | News | Daily Express
www.express.co.uk › News › UK
Assaults on police soaring FIFTY-FOUR police officers are attacked every day in the UK, according to new figures released this week.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 07:51 PM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance. Take the claim that the inequality between rich and poor has restricted growth, they offer no substance to support this but trail it around as a fact and then demand that taxes must be increased on those that have wealth to narrow the gap. The argument for narrowing can be made on other grounds, but there is no proof that there are economic gains to be had.


I've sadly come to the conclusion that you have been overdosing on hay fever tablets for several years now, the report into the effects of this and other over medding was published in the States this week, the contents of your post have confirmed my worst fears.....

 :o
I have been long of the opinion that you do not have an opinion of merit. You are fuelled by hate and do not even understand that in reality you are a closet Tory. Your objective in coming here is not to inform, but to ridicule usually in a manner fitting for prepubescent teenagers. You must make your so-called educated son cringe every time you open your ignorant gob.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 27 2015, 05:30 PM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 05:12 PM
Only in your twisted opinion.
Not my opinion RJD, fact. Cameron has excelled himself with a big lie in the Torygraph. The same lie that got Iain Duncan Smith a public reprimand from Sir Andrew Dilnot CBE, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

Live links in the reference but not in my copy and paste.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/27/tories-benefit-cap-23k_n_6552424.html

David Cameron has insisted that reducing the annual benefits cap to £23,000 would cause a new "stampede to the job centre", despite a swathe of evidence suggesting the current £26,000 limit has actually had a limited effect.

The Prime Minister pledged to lower the cap by £3,000 immediately if the Tories win a majority at May's general election, telling the Telegraph it "tells you everything you need to know about our values".

However, mounting official evidence undermines the suggestion that the benefits cap, introduced by the Tories in 2013, has caused any "stampede to the job centre".

Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, warned last December that it was not possible to directly link the benefits cap to any move by those affected into work.

He wrote; "The available numerical evidence does not demonstrate a particularly strong causal link between the benefit cap and the decisions made by individuals about moving into work."

On top of this, the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has issued a damning verdict of the cap, which is currently set at £500 a week for couples and families and £350 for singles.

Using the Department for Work and Pensions' own figures, the IFS concluded: "What the quantitative analysis does tell us is that the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house."

Labour's Sheila Gilmore, a member of the Commons Work and Pensions committee, told the Huffington Post UK: "As in all developed economies, people in the UK regularly move into and out of work, so it’s hard to claim the benefits cap is solely responsible for individuals taking up one job or another.’

"And even if you do buy the Tories’ line on the benefits cap, any savings are well outweighed by spending increases elsewhere because they have failed to tackle the root causes of high social security spending. Labour would do so by boosting the minimum wage, building more houses and helping more people with disabilities into work."

Cameron indicated that the benefits cap change would pay for three million apprenticeships, allowing young people to get “the chance to make the most of their God-given talents”.

Downing Street estimates that the stricter benefits cap would save the public purse £135 million a year, while the apprenticeships boost will cost around £300 million a year. The shortfall will be made up by removing housing benefit from unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds.

He said: “This is about being ambitious for Britain. We can give many more young people the chance to get on. We can help people into work and out of poverty. We can secure a better future for everyone in Britain – but only if we stick to our long-term plan.”
What has that to do with the article referenced? I do not know when you will learn, maybe you are incapable of it, but it is only the content of the message, the article, that is of interest not the Messenger, the Newspaper. Your logic is flawed. If you have anything to add wrt to the article please do so. I have no interest in feeding your addiction to conspiracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 27 2015, 05:30 PM
RJD
Jan 27 2015, 05:12 PM
Only in your twisted opinion.
Not my opinion RJD, fact. Cameron has excelled himself with a big lie in the Torygraph. . . .
Are you English or are you one of the foreigners you want to deport? You do seem to struggle so with even one of the simplest words in the English language the way you misuse the word "lie" over and over again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 04:46 PM
You do seem to struggle so with even one of the simplest words in the English language the way you misuse the word "lie" over and over again.
"Stampede to the job centre" (David Cameron in the Torygraph) is complete total and utter bollocks, the man is now a laughing stock, he is being ridiculed all over the internet for repeating Iain Duncan Smiths lie.
He was pulled to bits over it on BBC PM yesterday (Just over 16 minutes into the podcast.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 28 2015, 05:00 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 04:46 PM
You do seem to struggle so with even one of the simplest words in the English language the way you misuse the word "lie" over and over again.
"Stampede to the job centre" (David Cameron in the Torygraph) is complete total and utter bollocks, the man is now a laughing stock, he is being ridiculed all over the internet for repeating Iain Duncan Smiths lie.
He was pulled to bits over it on BBC PM yesterday (Just over 16 minutes into the podcast.)
But you still misuse that very simple English word "lie". I do wonder what is your first language. Far from it from me to suggest the only alternative that you are deliberately making a statement knowing it to be false as that would make you a big fat liar wouldn't it.

Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM

Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?

His belief (or not) does not justify him stating it as a fact. He should call it a belief, and be ridiculed for that instead.

When appearing to be competent is all important I find it curious that the Tories should venture to mention evidence of their own incompetence so frequently - as if there is no expectation of being in the next government.

As board games go this has all the makings of Jumanji, where players cannot escape their roll of the dice and each must confront the dangers of the concrete jungle before freeing Brit Deficit from the clutches of the evil debt collector Corp Greed.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 06:56 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM

Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?

His belief (or not) does not justify him stating it as a fact. He should call it a belief, and be ridiculed for that instead.

When appearing to be competent is all important I find it curious that the Tories should venture to mention evidence of their own incompetence so frequently - as if there is no expectation of being in the next government.

As board games go this has all the makings of Jumanji, where players cannot escape their roll of the dice and each must confront the dangers of the concrete jungle before freeing Brit Deficit from the clutches of the evil debt collector Corp Greed.




if Cameron believes it than he is not lying and I note you seem happy to quote your beliefs as facts (in the same post no less) so who are you to throw the first stone?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 07:20 PM
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 06:56 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM

Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?

His belief (or not) does not justify him stating it as a fact. He should call it a belief, and be ridiculed for that instead.

When appearing to be competent is all important I find it curious that the Tories should venture to mention evidence of their own incompetence so frequently - as if there is no expectation of being in the next government.

As board games go this has all the makings of Jumanji, where players cannot escape their roll of the dice and each must confront the dangers of the concrete jungle before freeing Brit Deficit from the clutches of the evil debt collector Corp Greed.




if Cameron believes it than he is not lying and I note you seem happy to quote your beliefs as facts (in the same post no less) so who are you to throw the first stone?


Me? I'm not the PM looking for voters and charged with running the country.
He said we could learn a lot from the Muslim community, he was right, but he believed we would be a better society if we adopted their values ..... or did he still believe it when in Berlin calling Islam the biggest threat to world peace.

What he says and what he believes are rarely the same thing imo.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM


Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?
Given Iain Duncan Smith already has had a public bollocking from the statistics commissioner for telling the same lie months ago, it is completely inconceivable Cameron did not know when he talked to the Telegraph.
An analysis of the data by Full Fact, which should be on their website in the near future according to an email I had from them earlier, found that analysing the off flows from the benefits cap, the maxium number of people who "stampeded" to the jobcentre was a mere 2000.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 07:20 PM
I note you seem happy to quote your beliefs as facts (in the same post no less) so who are you to throw the first stone?

A flippant remark, and whilst I readily admit to often expressing my beliefs with conviction, I still would like to know what I wrote in that post which you deem to be belief presented as fact?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The other thread is closed, so here is an update on who qualifies to be in the top 1% and where they live.

That is wealth, not income. It is calculated as assets minus debt.

Obviously billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg are part of the 1%. But who else is? According to Credit Suisse, another 47m adults - everyone with wealth of £530,000 or more.

That includes many people in rich countries who may not regard themselves as particularly wealthy, but who simply own their house outright or have paid off a significant chunk off their mortgage.

Among them are:

18m people in the US
3.5m people in France
2.9m people in the UK
2.8m in Germany.
4m in Japan
1.6m in China

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
I do believe it is commonly known as envy and worst of all, SPITE, as long as the lefties can spend anyone elses money other than their own then they are happy to do so........I repeat once again, regardless of what party/political hue takes office after the next GE, they will HAVE to adopt right wing policies in order to get this country back into the black and running a surplus, and all those that are having their benefits capped and are resisting going out and earning a wage had best listen, the charlatans that last bought your votes in 97 will try the same little trick again in may, and lets face it they might just succeed, but if they do gain office they too will shit on you from a great height as there is only ONE way to balance the books and at the same time look after the needy and disabled and those that genuinely cannot fend for themselves, and what is more, if you are fed up with immigrants then you will get even more of the same with no chance of you voicing your opinion with regard to a referendum in your very own country by those claiming to look after your best interests.

I just thought I would remind you of exactly what the politics of envy are all about down at the old red nag (which has been flogged to death) on the alter of lies, lies and more damn lies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply