Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat…which is the greater need ? Help me out it is a tricky one.As I said you are either Ok with this or you want wealth /momey more fairly distributed.

so who decides the redistribution of wealth? you’re idea of fair, certainly will not be the same as someone from a different religion/geographical location/tribe.

you see, fairness would depend on humans being completely altruistic and we’re not genetically designed that way otherwise we’d have died out as species. The strong survive and protect their tribe at the cost of the weak. It’s the same all over the animal kingdom. Just because we wear a suit doesn’t suddenly remove us from that fact.

god dam tree hugging lefties

Not until now you didn’t,

Its just a repost from before

they’d just avoid our tax system altogether by leaving and taking their toys with them – remember these are the people largely driven by greed and personal wealth.

Some would for sure and it would need to be global – never said it was realistic just fairer. It did not fully occur when we had 95% TAX rates who knows how many but fewer than threaten too IMHO.

See my mention of pensions there? It’s not wealthy people I’m talking about here, but ordinary ones,

If you can put away for a pension to not work in old age you are rich – check out the global average wage – someone had a linky for how wealthy you are look how low you need to go to get to be at 50%. See we all think we are poor even those on 50 k

and could instead send everything you earn apart from what you need for basics to people poorer than you. Or don’t you practice what you preach? Are you in fact more motivated by wealth and personal possessions than social responsibility?

A usual criticism of anyone who says what i say and not without some merit. I do give to charity via DD but of course I could do more- who in the west could say differently?. I doubt very much world poverty and suffering will end by my actions alone, but I do my bit FWIW. Clearly we need to all act together to achieve this but we lack the will of the people for some of the reasons outlined by tazzy. It is just that some of us would like our behaviour to be further removed from apes than it currently is and share abit more – surely not a bad principle?

Is that picture a scene from ‘The Human Centipede?’

I’ll have to get down to Blockbusters tomorrow, I like political thrillers.

Hmmmm. Some interesting (read infuriating) views here.

The whole tax increase rich vs poor arguement kinda works on paper, but it’s just numbers and numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful. e.g. £20,000 household income with £400 /month rent will be hit a ridiculous amount compared to £30,000 household income with £400 /month rent. But say those with £30,000 , £50,000 , £70,000 household income don’t want to live in a £400 /month house? They can afford £1,000+ /month rent or mortgage. They can afford £100+ /month for a nice car, etc. And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it’s a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family.
But that’s the fault of the higher income family? That have strived for better? The arguement seems to be “you earn more than me, so why shouldn’t you pay more to keep my family off the breadline?”
Well I don’t buy that. We *do* pay more!

I have nothing but respect for those out there struggling with single or no income. The stress is unreal. I know: I’m currently one of them. But I certainly don’t blame the current government and their spending review for it. I don’t blame anyone*. It’s all just shit that happens that us small people have no control over and just have to deal with. I think the spending review is about as sensible as things could be right now, and I’m thankful Labour and their ‘scorched earth’ policy are out of the way. People may well lose their jobs, which is an individual tragedy in each case, but what would we rather have? Russia 1992? The Weimar Republic 1921-1923? Yes I know that’s exaggeration and hot air, but it seems to work for the tabloids.

*well, maybe I blame Labour a little bit. Maybe I’d have blamed whoever was in control at the time? I can’t say.

Onzadog
I haven’t read any of the replies yet, but that was a good answer.

On “Have I got News For You” last week, one of the panellists said, about Philip Green, who has nominated his Monaco-living wife as head of his company so that he doesn’t have to pay tax because he thinks £285 million is too much to pay, this:

“Of course you have to pay £285 million – you earned £1.2 BILLION, you fat greasy pig”.

A criticsim I find hard to fault.

I am often moved, when Green is on the News, to note that he seems most self-satisfied when photographed with his coke-whore model girlfriend on his arm…

But perhaps that IS a little unfair. What does the team think?

And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it’s a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family

You need to look at the standard of living though and the ability to tighten your belt – even you admit they have nicer things – does this not contribute to your wealth? By this argument a multi millionaiire with a stately home , 3 cars and a yacht may be poor because they spend all their 2000K monthly salary on things. It is much simpler to say that someone on 50k has more money than someone on 30 k even if you think that

numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful.

And that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.

You think it’s fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don’t have to.

I think I contribute a fair amount already. I work hard and don’t really want to have to sell my Mondeo to buy a “less” glamorous car…..

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far. People live within their means – but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.

OK, so they might not find themselves on the breadline, but that was never the point of the posts. It’s the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out. And on top of that it’s the venom and bile that seems directed at those on better incomes.

Anyway – it’s kept me entertained.

but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.

Not according to the IFS.

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far.

It’s just a simple fact.

It’s the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out.

It’s the other way round mate.

It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.

And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way……..£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.

The Tories and LibDems like to “balance” the books.

DrRSwank – Member

And that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.

You think it’s fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don’t have to.

This is not what is happening. Teh poorest will be losing a bigger % of their income according to the ifs

It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.

Well that’s clearly wrong. The tax system needs changing so that the richest 1% pay more than the other 99%. Do you think a 200% top rate of tax would do it?

And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way……..£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.

The government are giving bonuses to bankers? That’s scandalous.

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far

It really is that simple 50k really is more than 30k iirc it is 20 k more – just wait I will go and check with my 4 year old

yep he agrees it is 20 k more

You think it’s fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don’t have to

I would ask the billionaiires too. I would not expect the poorest people to tighten their belts more than the better off.

. It’s the expectation from the lower incomesbankers that the higherlower earners will bail them out.

That is what is happening* read the IFS report and try and develop a conscience, some maths skills and a bit of perspective.

* we are all being expected to bale out the bankers and we are putting a disproportionate burden on “normal ” people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits £2.5 billion bank tax. You seem to think the poor should be paying for tte [very] rich. If we are all in this together surely the better off, who have the broadest financial shouldres, should carry the largest burden – yes the already do I know but as above they can afford it unless 50 k realy is not more than 30k

we are all being expected to bale out the bankers

Are we? I must have missed that bit – I thought the banks were making profit, some of which was going into the treasury because we own them, and that we were actually bailing out the last government’s structural overspending. How wrong could I be.

we are putting a disproportionate burden on “normal ” people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits

Too right – how will all those poor people paying higher rate income tax cope without their child benefit?

The government are giving bonuses to bankers? That’s scandalous.

My my, you are in a silly mood this weekend aracer.

The government have let the bankers off the hook – so they can pay themselves nice bonuses. So yes, the government is responsible for the fact that bankers are going to have a good recession.

Take the £7billion off the bankers and use it to plug the benefit bill. They are after all the cause of the global mess and behind the burden of raising unemployment.

Are we? I must have missed that bit – I thought the banks were making profit, some of which was going into the treasury because we own them, and that we were actually bailing out the last government’s structural overspending.

aracer you are turning into ratty – are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances? And if we are making some of that money back from the banks – isn’t that because of the last government’s good response to the crisis? You can’t have it both ways.

one banks investment arm earned a good few billion. the few top dudes awarded themselves 1/4 of this in bonuses. Millions each. Thats money that is not going to the government that could and should be.

No one needs or deserves bonuses worth millions. Thats not reward, thats just greed.

here read up –

The financial crisis of 2007 to the present is a crisis triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system.[1] It has resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market has also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[2] It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[3] Many causes have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[4] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[5] while significant risks remain for the world economy over the 2010–2011 periods.[6]

The collapse of the housing bubble, which peaked in the U.S. in 2006, caused the values of securities tied to real estate pricing to plummet thereafter, damaging financial institutions globally.[7] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during late 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets.[9] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus[spending], monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts.

They spent to get us out of the recession – so did all governments and now we are paying the price – too quickly IMHO-what western govt did not end up with a structural defecit ?Is this a coincidence?
Banking, the economy would have been where without the spending etc.
you are takking your politcial view to a point wher reality cannot match it or trolling not sure which TBH

The government have let the bankers off the hook

So what should they be doing to keep them on the hook?

Take the £7billion off the bankers

How? I’m all for a realistic way to do this, but haven’t actually seen a practical suggestion.

aracer you are turning into ratty – are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances?

Just trying to introduce a bit of reality – of course I’m not suggesting that, but describing the current spending cuts as being to “bale out the bankers” is so far from the truth it’s ridiculous. The money which was spent on bailing out the banks is gone and is part of our debt, and has absolutely nothing to do with the structural deficit they’re trying to reduce.

They spent to get us out of the recession – so did all governments and now we are paying the price – too quickly IMHO-what western govt did not end up with a structural defecit ?

Any government which didn’t have a structural deficit before the recession!

FWIW I’m far from an apologist for the bankers and totally agree with TJ’s latest post – the thing is, unlike most people on this thread I’m a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

The money which was spent on bailing out the banks is gone and is part of our debt

You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn’t include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is still not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.

unlike most people on this thread I’m a realist rather than an idealist

So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo – I wonder where we would be without ‘idealists’ throughout human history? William Wilberforce, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela: hopeless idealists eh?

unlike most people on this thread I’m a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

Yes ,course you are only your interpretation is correct thanks for that.
So in your realist view then the the crisis had no effect on the defecit then. The structural defecit was in decline – see link and table and the actual defecit has increased x 20 inthe last 3 years- again you realist view must see these as unrelated facts and only a an idlelogical class war person will view this as related- yes very grounded in reality your view.
Thanks for linking to what a structural defecit is – to be fair I would be better describing this state as a small structural defecit [ you cant really defend these unless you are investing] which has massive cyclical elements- I asked what western govts did not have one though.

but describing the current spending cuts as being to “bale out the bankers”

It would be more accurate if everyone said to bale us out form the effetcs of the recession caused by the banking crisis. I suspect it is just an abbreviation rather than proof that they all believe in class war
I cant see anything on here about class war despite your assertion – seems to be people think tax should fall on those with most money – as has been shown on here many of those, affected by this, clearly have no class 😆 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn’t include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is still not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.

It’s easy to be nonchalent when the government has made a paper profit on their investments in the banks. In any case the only thing any of this has to do with the spending review is that it’s one of the reasons for having to do it.

So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo

No – it’s about picking fights you can win, something the “idealists” you mention knew all about.

Thanks for linking to what a structural defecit is

Shame you apparently didn’t read it, given:

The structural defecit was in decline – see link and table

<link to a table which shows the total deficit in decline and provides no evidence about the structural deficit>

deleted post – actually why bother

So the Govt are doing well out of the banks they part own and the investment is returning a profit.

So without the crisis and need to invest in the banks we’d be even worse off?

Blaming the banks for this whole mess is like putting a hole in a bucket and blaming the water for running out.

Better to blame whoever made the hole, no?

god dam tree hugging lefties

I’m a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.

Heh heh heh

Rather than dwelling on the fairness or not of the ‘solution’ – how about whether it will work or not?

Paul Krugman in the New York Times says it won’t.

NY Times

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/there-was-no-other-choice-%E2%80%93-now-george-osborne-must-hold-his-nerve

Apparently, of the £7Bn in bonuses, approximately £4.5Bn will be coming back to the government in the form of taxes.

Of course, the folk earning these bonuses will have them included in their contract of employment. I’m sure all you union-lefty-whingers wouldn’t want to see these workers having their contracts ripped up at a whim. Or is it OK in their case but not in the case of a nurse or a miner?

I think it tells you all you need to know that Rupert Murdoch has welcomed the Tory measures – I’m very confident that he has all our best interests at heart.

I really do find the “fair” taxation argument interesting!

how is a progressive taxation system ‘fair’?

Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is ‘fair’ – ie, the rich and poor are affected equally!

How is it fair for the rate to go up as you earn more? – the rich already pay more thats how percentages work

Even funnier is the ‘Keynsian economics’ argument for financial stimulus!

“We will borrow even more money to create jobs.”

That would be brilliant if we thought you could be trusted to decide which kinds of jobs ought to be created. Only you don’t. I don’t. No-one does. Better to lift the dead hand of centralist interveners and politicians and let people create their own jobs through innovation, experimentation and – yes! – failure.

Wiltshire covers 1,346 square miles. That works out at around 5,098,649,600 square yards. We could generate work for tens of thousands of carpet-fitters by agreeing to cover Wiltshire in carpet. Does that make any sense? Well no. But what would make sense?

Do you know where economic growth will come from in 5 years time… do I…. does anybody? Nope!

I’m a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.

I’m a tree hugging couldn’t give a sh1t about politics-ist but big hugs in hairy lets love the planet and be excellent to each other kind of way 😆

aracer – Member

I’m a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

And yet you support a bunch of politicians who are in the process of launching an undeclared ideological class war on the British people. That rather smacks of hypocrisy.

Professor David Blanchflower is a very highly respected economist holding posts at Stirling, Bonn, Munich and Dartmouth universities. For three years he was a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee which sets interest rates to enable the inflation targets to be met.

Last year he was awarded the CBE for services to Industry and the Bank of England, after correctly predicting in November 2007 that the UK would face a recession. He is precisely the sort of person you would expect David Cameron, George Osborne, and Nick Clegg, to listen to.

This is what Professor David Blanchflower has had to say about the present government’s economic policies :

“Implementing an austerity package on the scale and at the speed proposed by the coalition has the potential to be the greatest macro economic mistake of the century

“There’s no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. The only examples in history is where you’ve done this and it’s failed”

The warnings are all there ….. there is no proof or evidence that Osborne’s plan will succeed in its stated aim.
But the Bullingdon Boys don’t care.

Because if unemployment, low wages, poverty, homelessness, and social deprivation – with all its consequences of rising crime etc, all increase, they will simply blame Labour for everything.

They have already had remarkable success blaming this whole mess on Labour – despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

But more, much more than that, they are determined to achieve their lifetime’s burning ambition – to role back “socialism” and leave Britain and the British people in the hands of unfettered rampant Capitalism.

You don’t need a well-educated, healthy, fully employed, wealthy population, living in nice houses, to make vast amounts of profit and wealth – Victorian industrialists and financiers managed to do that extremely well.

The Tories just need people to vote for them. And the people have (just about) and undoubtedly will again, specially if the Tories keep Rupert and his media empire on their side. Which I think is pretty much guaranteed – especially now that they have well and truly shafted the BBC for him.

And even if they lose an election, its really no big deal – Labour governments of the 21st century have proved to, utterly lack both the courage and determination, to take on the industrialists, the financiers, and the media moguls. Or in any way at all, to reverse previous Tory governments agendas.

The Tories and their LibDem stooges have fired the first shots in a new ideological class war…..whilst Labour sits twiddling their thumbs consumed with worry about what the newspapers will say about them.

Zulu-eleven

Fair is what the other guy has to pay and I don’t.

ourmaninthenorth – Member

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – said by someone cleverer than me…

Isn’t that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.

Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is ‘fair’ – ie, the rich and poor are affected equally!

You need to look up the meanings of the words
Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.

more money = more tax and a higher percentage of your income paid in tax
a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer’s ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.

Less money = higher tax rate
In essence you are just wrong -the rich and poor are not equally affected by either taxation system or we would have no reason to give them different names or definitions – There is no room for our usual banter on this ..I suppose you could redefine all these words to mean something other than what they actually mean or just insult me because you cannot argue using logic or reason

the rich already pay more thats how percentages work

well only if you ignore the percentage bit of the percentage tax system.
The rest of your post made even less sense have you stolen my stash?

some STW forum members earlier today…

Isn’t that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.

No it isn’t really Marxism in a nutshell – there’s more to that quote for a start.

As as far as “human nature” is concerned, “normal” human nature is rather hard to define – it changes with time. There was a time when watching humans being eaten alive by starving animals was perfectly normal human nature. As was keeping slaves. I could go on……

It’s also fair to say that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” has been practised throughout the overwhelming history of our species – millions of years in fact. So it would be hard to argue that it doesn’t fit in with human nature.

Although I fully accept the sentiments behind your comment – human society is clearly not at that level of development. And God only knows how long it would take to reach that.

That’s why it should read as part of the whole quote.