and anyone who calls it road tax ?
I tend to edge towards proportional representation as others do, how it's implemented is another argument all together!
As for the old voting tendencies, it's just something that tends to happen for a lot of people, they move towards the right as they get older, and from discussions they tend to agree with the daily mail view of the world, we talk about the young not understanding things like tax, policy, etc, a lot of the old are just as bad when i have discussed things like Brexit, or privatisation, and unfortunately they vote with those beliefs.
@blokeuptheroad apologies I probably came back a bit hard with that response.
As did I with the one preceding it, for which I too apologise, not an excuse but it's an emotive subject - for both of us it seems. Again, I am sorry for your loss.
convert
It’s also the case if you live in a rock solid safe seat or a swing seat.
True but in a different way than I meant. (sort of)
What I really meant is there is an actual financial £/$ cost per reach / vote changed/not voted and yes that is more in a marginal seat or certain demographics.
This is because as I think you are pointing out correctly that changing a few votes in a safe seat is almost valueless.
I guess the difference is subtle...I think what I see as worse at the moment is it is really pretty much buying votes or non votes
Obviously for ages a party leader or big-wig would spend actual money going to a marginal seat etc. but I personally find the newer paying someone like CA money on a per vote delivered or prevented basis more disturbing?
cookeaa
They Probably would have said that
Based on other elections CA rigged it's FAR easier and more effective to just convince a demographic to not vote.
@blokeuptheroad. Thank you. And I trust things go well as possible with your relatives.
Thanks! 🙂
The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly
In some countries, there's more private insurance and lower taxes. We pay National Insurance. The state pension isn't a welfare benefit, it's paid for while working.
I'm 67. If my vote counted for less I'd be pretty annoyed, and I was strongly opposed to Brexit.
The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in. The pension is paid for by present tax payers.
Like I said, correct me if I’m wrong.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/statepensionfunds
The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in.
You are not wrong. It's still amusing that people still believe the national insurance is something different to other general taxation and the revenue does not just get lobbed in the treasury coffers along with all other tax. There are still people out there who think there is some little pot of their NI building up with their name on to pay for their care or pension one day.
The only difference with NI is that to get a full state pension you need to have paid 30 years worth of national insurance contributions OR credits. You get credits when unemployed, or a carer or parent. How much you paid in is entirely irrelevant to what you get out - just the fact that you were paying in for the required number of years is sufficient. So you don't really pay for it whilst your were working.
convert
You are not wrong. It’s still amusing that people still believe the national insurance is something different to other general taxation and the revenue does not just get lobbed in the treasury coffers along with all other tax. There are still people out there who think there is some little pot of their NI building up with their name on to pay for their care or pension one day.
The only difference with NI is that to get a full state pension you need to have paid 30 years worth of national insurance contributions OR credits. You get credits when unemployed, or a carer or parent. How much you paid in is entirely irrelevant to what you get out – just the fact that you were paying in for the required number of years is sufficient. So you don’t really pay for it whilst your were working.
Which begs the question of "these people" should be allowed to vote.
This at least questions the point of a democratic system where people can be lied to and misled on the proviso then can then not vote for the party that lied/misled them decades later (in this case).
Which begs the question of “these people” should be allowed to vote.
The whole tax system is pretty disingenuous, politicians are quite happy for people to believe that NI pays for pensions and VED / Road Tax pays for roads etc as they are somehow easier to put up than Income Tax.
the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in.
Of course they don't. They put them into the Treasury with everything else. That doesn't mean the contributions weren't paid.
The pension is paid for by present tax payers.
It's paid from the Treasury, which puts all its income into one pot and owns the national debt (which is smaller because of the tax contributions). The concept of any government expenditure being paid from a specific source is nonsense.
So you don’t really pay for it whilst your were working.
You do, except that what you pay is related to what you earn.
That doesn’t mean the contributions weren’t paid.
You pay your NI for a sufficient number of years (or gain unpaid for credits) to qualify for a pension.
but this
The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.
is deluded/ muddled thinking.
Other way round I reckon. The older you are the more experience you have of government cock ups. The youngsters I meet who can be bothered to think about this issue haven't a clue.
I have my doubts about the whole system. I mean, our MPs will support issues in Parliament without our opinion. We elect them on trust based on our views of a supposed system or value of the party. Do they ask the voters about issues? Nope. It will be party first, personal bias next then local opinion. My MP was for a while a junior minister. That meant that he had less time for us as he had another job to do. The whole idea is crackers.
Ignoring that the Best idea for voting I have found was invented by Nevil Shute. Basically you get a basic vot plus others for contributions to society. The more you give the more votes you get. Go and read In the Wet.
I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.
I think we're all getting an eduction on how our version of democracy works.
The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.
is deluded/ muddled thinking.
If it was a welfare benefit, it would be based on need, not on contributions or deemed contributions.
Life expectancy based voting
No.
- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit you would have some idea of the basis of the payout when you were paying in - the government couldn’t just change it up or down completely at random, including when you get it and what contributions might be required
- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit then your level of contributions would reflect your level of payout (it never did in cash terms, which has become more tenuous, and only vaguely in years)
- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit then the triple lock would not exist
It’s a bit like child benefit used to be - though that was a universal welfare benefit and I don’t think the pension is quite as universal.
Or maybe it’s just a way of paying off old folk to get them to vote the right way. 😉
Me, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable welfare benefit, and a reasonable society should look after it’s elderly, those who can’t work, or can’t find work, or are too young to work or have caring duties. We do need to make sure it’s not to the undue detriment of other parts of society or society as a whole.
And while I’m on a roll, let me rant about university fees. Yes a good education is to the benefit of the individual, but equally an educated and capable workforce is to the benefit of all society. The recipient of that education will probably be better paid (probably), and society benefits from more tax take, more economic activity and more jobs (again generally and probably). Why are we putting all the costs in one place? Ageist, short-termism.
There's a strong case for raising the voting age to at least 25. Just look at the joke MPs that get elected in university dorm constituencies such as Sheffield Hallam.
If anyone would like to read some background (facts!) on the strange direction this thread has taken, which appears to be welfare state stuff, Google the Beveridge report.
It's interesting, honestly, and you'd be surprised how much is still in play as the basis of policy today.
Other way round I reckon. The older you are the more experience you have of government cock ups.
Depends on whether you pay attention to such things.
A 24yo who reads private eye each week since they were 17 is liable to be rather better informed than a 70yo who only watched coronation street.
Time spent only counts if it is done productively.
If it helps, my 11 year old was insisting on listening to the VONC coverage on Radio 4 this evening as we drove up to his cycle coaching.
He and his 16 year old brother both read Private Eye. They have a subscription.
The young have little wisdom but plenty of passion which is easily appealed to by malignant politicians. The old can get set in their ways.
It (democracy) is a terrible system, just everything else is even worse 😀
There’s a strong case for raising the voting age to at least 25. Just look at the joke MPs that get elected in university dorm constituencies such as Sheffield Hallam.
Yeah, and student union politics is an eye-opener for how politically wacko young people can be.
It (democracy) is a terrible system, just everything else is even worse
benign dictatorship with me as dictator. thats the best way.
We dont actually live in a democracy.
I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.
I have no ability to influence any elections without moving house.
Westminster is a pseudo / partial democracy
Voting should be compulsory and PR.
We dont actually live in a democracy.
I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.
Same for me. If there are going to be parties then have a party vote and a representative vote. The representative would be not party affiliated and the vote would be be for the person you think is best suited rather than the person who happens to wear a certain colour of rosette. They could also only stay in job for 4 years and get reviewed each year to ensure they are still representing what the area wants.
Let’s be honest, many believe in Rishi’s magic money tree that just means the next generation will have to pay.
And you've just proved by your own standards that you don't understand the role of the national 'debt' and taxation.
It's not an age thing. It's an informed thing.
(Future generations are not liable for previous generations spending. See my many posts on government spending.)
footflaps
The whole (tax) system is pretty disingenuous, politicians are quite happy for people to believe....
Just remove the word tax....
i scoff cakes
The young have little wisdom but plenty of passion which is easily appealed to by malignant politicians. The old can get set in their ways.
This is true but it's also a reason why buying social media votes is so concerning.
maccruiskeen
I think we’re all getting an eduction on how our version of democracy works.
Well, some are ... others will feel more comfortable not.
Fundamentally the issue is that we rely on elections to express our dissatisfaction .. or that itself isn't the issue but that these elections are then manipulated.
To use one example:
oldmanmtb2
I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.
This is partially true....
I have no ability to influence any elections without moving house.
This is just a counter...I'm not actually suggesting you should move so basically you don't have the power of your convictions or you'd move house. I'm guessing property would be cheaper as well 😉 .. and fundamentally i'm wondering about your local council .. I'm guessing they are Conservative as well (it being a supersafe seat)... but people presumably vote for them?
The other big thing for me though is that because of this there is no accountability for lying to the electorate. [or for that matter parliament or full council meetings]
As an example I don't know how many people really believed the £350M a week bus... it was fairly comprehensively debunked yet many people STILL voted for 'the liars' regardless. Just one example.. the point is people know politicians are lying and just accept it. There are a million and one other examples but the fundamental seems to be some idea that "I know they are lying about that BUT...surely they aren't lying about this other thing I care about"
I guess few people even know how few MP's need to actually turn up to vote on an Act?
41.Quorum
(1)If it should appear that fewer than forty Members (including the occupant of the chair and the tellers) have taken part in a division, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House and the next business shall be taken.(2)The House shall not be counted at any time.
40/650 = 6.2%
So WE elect an MP... out MP is "meant" to vote in our interests yet new Acts are passed without MP's even being arsed to turn up and do what they are paid for?
It's way worse though because even assuming they turn up there is no requirement to read let alone understand the Bill they are voting on, assuming they are allowed to vote according to their convictions.
@Rone Your suggestion that future generations do not have to pay for today’s public debt is a view held by some, and works given certain caveats and limitations on the breadth of your context, but is not clear cut.
Nor to be fair, is my contention that they do.
I think overall we’re probably both right, depending on the actual circumstances and your choice of definitions.
I think the reality of it is that it comes down to a question of degree of debt, where that debt is held, what is done with the funds provided by the debt, effective interest rates, direct repayment (highly unlikely), proxy repayment (now that happens, and affects the pound in one’s pocket) and what you think “pay” means in the context of a future generation paying. And probably a load of other stuff.
Of course if I’m wrong we should all get the government to stop charging tuition fees, reinstate the grant and enjoy the benefits of a workforce educated and trained according to ability to learn and apply that learning, not the ability to pay.
Actually, we should do that anyway. But Blair is wrong, we don’t need 70% of folk with degrees, we need some degrees, some craft training etc, and a bit of respect for different sorts of abilities and capabilities.
Anyway, feel free to point out where I’m wrong and educate me. Always happy to learn.
igm
I think overall we’re probably both right, depending on the actual circumstances and your choice of definitions.
I was going to say the same ...
Anyway, feel free to point out where I’m wrong and educate me. Always happy to learn.
Even from a pure financial repayment I'm struggling to see how a future generation are not paying for debt unless the government just default ?
From a local council PoV my council has accrued £47,000 of Debt for me (based ion per capita/electorate) with no plan to pay back. Somehow this 55 Bn£ it will need to be paid somewhere and this is a single borough council.. with a significant part of that debt to central government.
Woking borrowed heavily from central government’s Public Works Loan Board for its £700m flagship housing and retail complex Victoria Square, for which it is not expected to break even for 40 years.
It needs to pay back £55.5m a year in interest payments and to put this in context, this year’s council tax revenue is £10.6m.
So my son can move elsewhere perhaps but still someone is paying back that debt???
@IGM thanks for you detailed response.
First understand it's not a debt as you and I would know debt - it's bond issuance - that is, matched to government spending that helps control liquidity and becomes a safe place for the private sector to store funds. Bond issuance is an option that governments can choose to take or not take.
Government spending comes before the bond issuance.
The national 'debt' acts as money that hasn't been taxed back out of circulation - an ongoing record of all public spending that has taken place. It doesn't get 'paid' back in any meaningful way. If it was totally paid back for instance - Premium Bonds / National Savings would cease to exist.
In over 70 years virtually none of the national debt has ever been 'paid' back - I believe about 40billion (99-2001) and a few odd years - that's about it. Given the national debt is currently recorded at over 2.2 trillion ... And the BoE owns 900 billion of that. It just doesn't get paid back as you understand it.
Here is the latest paper which details the way government spending occurs.
https://medium.com/iipp-blog/embrace-the-self-financing-state-it-is-already-here-35cef7595495
This can get complex quite quickly and I don't pretend to know all the exact ins and out of all the Government's accounting procedure but just know the country would grind to halt without government spending taking place first.
Even from a pure financial repayment I’m struggling to see how a future generation are not paying for debt unless the government just default ?
From a local council PoV my council has accrued £47,000 of Debt for me (based ion per capita/electorate) with no plan to pay back. Somehow this 55 Bn£ it will need to be paid somewhere and this is a single borough council.. with a significant part of that debt to central government.
Local councils are currency users and thus bound by raising revenue or borrowing money. They largely have the same fiscal constraints we have.
Central government is a totally different model.
The UK (along with any other sovereign countries with central banks / fiat currency.) The UK Government cannot default - it's impossible. It's THE issuer of the £££. By design.
Local councils are currency users and thus bound by raising revenue or borrowing money. They largely have the same fiscal constraints we have.
Central government is a totally different model.
The UK (along with any other sovereign countries with central banks / fiat currency.) The UK Government cannot default – it’s impossible. It’s THE issuer of the £££. By design.
I'm not seeing any difference other than who the money is owed to.... and consequences.
If the council issue a Section 114 notice there are consequences in that the government will step in.
The councillors have already checked out... their own companies will have been paid first and they leave the borough and they are debt free. (Indeed last council leader already did, wound hos companies up and sodded off to his estate in Scotland) We "the electorate" are left owning a failed set of projects the councillors companies got paid to build.
Of the UK's external debt the government can just refuse to pay... what's going to happen?
@Rone Agree with 99.9% of what you say, possibly more, and definitely the bit about bonds and debt.
Isn’t inflation the natural consequence of the impossibility of default - ie the default just takes a different shape?
(There are other causes of inflation of course)
The councillors have already checked out… their own companies will have been paid first and they leave the borough and they are debt free. (Indeed last council leader already did, wound hos companies up and sodded off to his estate in Scotland) We “the electorate” are left owning a failed set of projects the councillors companies got paid to build.
I think we're at cross-purposes. I don't really have anything to add on local councils other than they can't issue money so debt obligations have a real affect on balance sheets etc.
what’s going to happen?
Currency crash, and in the fallout of that asking the IMF and/or other states or intergovernmental bodies for a bailout.
Our government has full control (some supposedly arm's length, but still ultimately all down to the government in the end) over "how much" money exists... and where intragovernmental "debt" is accounted for... but it isn't totally in control of the "value" of that money (what it can ultimately buy or deliver)... the rest of the world still exists.
Isn’t inflation the natural consequence of the impossibility of default – ie the default just takes a different shape?
From what I can see about inflation - there isn't one thing that causes inflation. There are different scenarios just like a water leak can be caused by different things.
It's also complex and I don't pretend to know loads about inflation.
But I will say this - capitalists use inflation to support silly observations. I.e they say government spending causes inflation but they never say commercial banks issuing too many loans causes inflation.
In my bit of research most inflation / hyperinflation is driven by supply issues / or lack of available appropriately skilled labour. There is not enough emphasis on the the 'too few goods' part of the argument.
Agreed many causes.
Both to little and to much borrowing will cause issues.
At both government and corporate level.
See sub-prime mortgages followed by the credit crunch.
The problems can vary.
Anyway, I’ve forgotten the original topic now…
Fun though.
Of the UK’s external debt the government can just refuse to pay… what’s going to happen?
Debt denominated in a different currency is a whole different ball game.
Anyway, I’ve forgotten the original topic now…
Yes, sorry I keep doing this with topics - but it's so interwoven.
I must start a thread about MMT.
Both to little and to much borrowing will cause issues.
For sure that's why the approach should be a balanced economy and not balanced goverment books.
