[Closed] The labour party

Junky post up your own calculations then

If we do identical work, I will be better off financially but I may be unhappier

your unhappiness is entirely within your ownership and jealousy, [u]you are still 10% better off than you were yesterday,[/u] whether you choose to utilise that as a matter of joy or anger is not societies fault.

I wasn't aware you were rich, Jambalaya. Even if you think you are I suggest your income falls well short of what most people would consider rich in British or French terms. If you spend as much of your income on things that carry VAT as you claim I reckon you are middle income bracket and a lot closer to poor than rich, poor enough to be shocked by your water bill anyhow.

your unhappiness is entirely within your ownership and jealousy, you are still 10% better off than you were yesterday, whether you choose to utilise that as a matter of joy or anger is not societies fault.

No doubt. You could also say that if you steal all my money and burn down my house it's still my choice how I respond. But that is how people are made, and it's not even in your own interest to pretend otherwise.

Edukator - Troll
I wasn't aware you were rich, Jambalaya.

I am absolutely sure majority if not all of you are richer than me. My income is so low that most of you would give up living or venture into criminal activities like selling cokes or start looting ...

You will be very surprised to see how people will adopt to changes.

I say cut All benefits i.e. absolutely no handouts, unless you are a pensioner or old people or in the process of dying horribly (leave the detail anal discussion or calculation later on) ... let the society adjust themselves.

🙄

Shadow Attorney General quits for the backbenches.

Plus ça change.....

And then there were none - Agatha Christie would be proud.

Resignation of McKinnell MP means there are no north east MPs in shadow cabinet.

And the PA are reporting that Corbyn won't address the PLP meeting tonight. Now that's leadership 🙄

And then there were none - Agatha Christie would be proud.

Careful now.....

Could someone explain what @thm means when he/she writes "cappuccino's to go"...

Also, @thm you've yet again contradicted yourself.

Your own link confirms my original post regarding income inequality - contradicting the response you made to me...

You trolls really need to sharpen up your act.... 😀

You trolls really need to sharpen up your act....

[quote=sunnydaze310 spake unto the masses, saying]Could someone explain what @thm means when he/she writes "cappuccino's to go"...

I think it's an obscure reference to what he calls "froth", which is basically anything not involving money.

Could someone explain what @thm means generally

FTFY

The bit that people keep failing to grasp, [i]every[/i] time we have this argument, is that more equal societies are better for [b]everyone[/b], not just the poor.

In rich societies, poorer people have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. Likewise, large inequalities of income are often regarded as divisive and corrosive. Now, in a groundbreaking book, UK-based researchers go beyond either of these ideas to demonstrate that [b]more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them — the well-off as well as the poor.[/b] The authors forcefully demonstrate that nearly every modern social and environmental problem — ill-health, lack of community, life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations — is more likely to occur in a less equal society, and adversely affects all of those within it.

http://www.gizmag.com/equitable-societies-are-better-for-everyone/11135/

Almost there Dr, almost there.

So sunney, help me sharpen up (its tough for those of us with only half a brain, so bear with us thickies)

Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis. That's neither defending nor attacking anything.

But the current policy mix while stopping the economy getting a lot worse does run the risk of future inequality through the uneven impact of rising asset prices

Which bit of the/your hard data refutes the above (some needs a bit of updating BTW)?

When did the most noticeable period of rising inequality in the UK actually happen?

When did this stop?

What's happened since?

Why "might" it change in the near future (as I suggest)?

All of the above can be found in your very helpful links earlier BTW - and then we can return to some nice raw filter stuff

Grum - a full 😀 cheers

From your own helpful link:

• Recent falls in inequality are likely to prove temporary. Stronger earnings growth and the Conservatives’ planned income tax cuts would do most for incomes towards the top of the distribution, while planned benefit cuts will hit low-income households (both in and out of work) hardest.

What policies do people think would give Labour a chance in the next election? Or what policies would you like Labour to be putting forward.

I can't remember any of Milliband's except the freeze energy bills jobbie (which was pretty half hearted)

OK me- Cancel HS2 and come up with a much better joined up transport infrastructure plan.

Thanks Dr - saying the same thing but with different drivers.

QED

Americano's to go

Yeah but the drivers quoted in your link are deliberate Tory policy - cuts for everyone - tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor!!

Espresso here.

ctk - have to say that I don't think that will work. Unless they've lived abroad British people have no idea what a joined up transport system looks like. The only sure fire vote winner is tax cuts.

You might like to google QE doc (the policy I referred to) - not an expresso yet

(Oh and check out my views on [s]stealing[/s]QE)

and don't forget as the ONS note

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households

unsurprising in a mixed, centrist economy with a progressive tax system!

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households

Being undone as a matter of Tory policy.

Really?

2010/11 according to ONS

Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £81,500 in 2010/11, 16 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,100.

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth households (£61,400 and £15,200 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.

2013/14 data (latest available)

Before taxes and benefits the richest fifth of households had an average income of £80,800 in 2013/14, 15 times greater than the poorest fifth who had an average income of £5,500.

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£60,000 and £15,500 per year respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.

Those nasty Tories are not very good at undoing things are they!

unsurprising in a mixed, centrist economy with a progressive tax system!

@wrecker - you're probably right...

@thm. - I cannot answer your q"s. You're a positivist and will always be able to dig out a stat to back up your viewpoint - believing your stat is the only way it is.....therefore any dialogue we have (between us) regarding poverty and inequality is pointless and will go round in circles...

Have a cappuccino on me.....

Cheers - I'll stick to the filter all the same!

On a serious note, the answers really are in the links you provided. I know it goes against the current narrative, but in essence, income inequality has largely remained unchanged/dipped slightly since the crisis. That is NOT to say that current levels are ok, but we should not confuse the absolute and the trend.

The other interesting (?) trend is that the most rapid trends in rising inequality have occurred in those economies that are typically associated with low absolute levels (eg the Scandies) but that doesn't suit the conventional narrative either!!

@thm - I'm just quoting the document you referenced.

The other interesting (?) trend is that the most rapid trends in rising inequality have occurred in those economies that are typically associated with low absolute levels (eg the Scandies) but that doesn't suit the conventional narrative either!!

That trend is unsurprising since in both DK and SE the governments have been abandoning the previous social models, with tax cuts and benefit cuts.

@thm - you don't get it do you. Your positivist lens means you're unable to look critically and subjectively at the stats you beleieve in....some of the links I posted challenged your stasts but you have chosen to ignore that part...as I said we'll go round and round with this..I'll leave you to post again how you're right....

I know you are Dr - I am v. familiar with the IFS report. I added another reason why income inequality may rise again too.

Doesn't take away from the fact that earlier "wilder" statements about income inequality, and the assertion that anyone who didn't believe them had only half a brain, were incorrect.

Closing borders too!! 😉

[edit] No sunny, I just prefer to use up-to-date data, that's all. Much better to stick to the raw coffee. 😉

Anyway, back to dear old Jezza and his on-going trials and tribulations

Doesn't take away from the fact that earlier "wilder" statements about income inequality were incorrect.

Depending on your definition of inequality, since as you're well aware the IFS report also comments on the runaway inequality of the top 1%.

THM if you want to show that the tax and benefits regime isn't hitting the poorest maybe you shouldn't quote figures that include the statement

Before taxes and benefits

Which clearly exclude the effects of, you know, stuff like taxes and benefits on wealth and poverty.

??? MSP ??? you are perhaps missing what that data shows?

Indeed Dr and go to the top 0.1% and its even worse!

Still trying to make political points re the impact of Tories and Labour on income inequality (Mrs T aside) requires plenty of statistical gymnastics after all...

What policies do people think would give Labour a chance in the next election? Or what policies would you like Labour to be putting forward.

Making the usual suspects pay their taxes is a winner for most I think.

I'd be interested to see if something like having a state owned and run bank (and I'm not talking about Lloyds, TSB etc..)/utility company/<insert particular business> could be run against current private industries. Probably a compromise against the full "nationalise everything" stance.

I think much of the problem is just getting away from the JC bashing and actual discussion about his current proposals. Labour are not helping themselves in that respect. To be fair, the media aren't helping either but it's a better story for them than a wishlist that isn't (potentially) going to happen for another 4.5 years.

you are perhaps missing what that data shows?

No, but you seem to be. I will again quote the rather important statement that you are unable to grasp.

Before taxes and benefits

I'd be interested to see if something like having a state owned and run bank/utility company/<insert particular business> could be run against current private industries. Probably a compromise against the full "nationalise everything" stance.

Well wasn't the east midland line run publicly after the franchise was taken off the private company, becoming one of the only real companies to make a profit and not hoover up subsidies ala virgin etc?

Certainly network rail (and its huge debts) was quietly renationalised last summer because it had been run into the groung providing the infrastructure so Brandon can pay to keep his island perfect 😉

...and the second para is.....? (to show the impact of what we are talking about)

FWIW since 1990, the tax burden on the highest earners has gone up not down (albeit only slightly) - so the narrative that we have a far right/extreme capitalist society or that we have a non-progressive tax system is simply not true - unless you stay in Café Costa!

I'll catch up later but trying to describe the top 1% as though they are a single being/type is a bit daft it goes from those with a couple of million to billionaires. The top 10%-1% have more in common than the top 1%. The top 1% don't need anyone in partocular in charge because as I said they are, in general, very geographically mobile.

@breatheasy, who are the "usual suspects" exactly ?

MSP - read the second paragraph of each piece.

inequality [i]after taxes and benefits have been taken into account[/i] has contracted between the two data periods.

pre taxes and benefits inequality has contracted by £1,700 (-2.2%), and post taxes and benefits it has contracted by £1,100 (-2.4%)

So T&B are amplifying the reduction in inequality between the two periods.

Original post too old to edit somre-post

I'll catch up later but trying to describe the top 1% as though they are a single being/type is a bit daft it goes from those with a couple of million to billionaires. The top 10%-1% have more in common than the top 1%. The top 1% don't need anyone in partocular in charge because as I said they are, in general, very geographically mobile.

@breatheasy, who are the "usual suspects" exactly ?

@Edukator, I'm prety open on here probably too much so. According to news reports of definitions I'm top 1% and certainly consider myself well off, not rich but I can see others would have a differemt view. See my point above, people hear top 1% and think of Abramovich, Mittal, Duke of Westminster or PL footballers - even within those you have a huge variation.

@JY I am happy for you to prove me wrong on VAT, I did my own calcs and its pretty clear someone on low income pays very little VAT as essentials aren't taxed / taxed lowly and they don't have much/any discretionary spending.

Pretty much everwhere else in the EU has VAT on food and no discounted rate for utilities either, this inckudes left-wing France but somehow they are not "mega regressive" countries. Its absolutely the EU's aim to harmoise taxes so sooner or later they are going to try amd force us to put VAT on food, they have already tried to get us to raise VAT on utiilities and they complained when oir VAT was 15% and most where near 20%

@thm - please don't misquote me.

I wrote...
[i]Anybody with half a brain can read a newspaper, listen to the news or scour the internet and find multiple sources of empirical evidence that demonstrates, in the UK, the status quo is unequal and either staying that way or getting worse..[/i]

You write about that earlier comment...
[i]Doesn't take away from the fact that earlier "wilder" statements about income inequality, and the assertion that anyone who didn't believe them had only half a brain, were incorrect.[/i]

Ironic really in that you've even agreed with the point in my original statement regards income inequality by writing later...
[i]..but in essence, income inequality has largely remained unchanged/dipped slightly since the crisis. That is NOT to say that current levels are ok...[/i]

🙄

Top 1% of revenue or wealth, Jambalaya. In world terms or UK terms? From your posting I rightly or wrongly assumed you work for an oil/oil services company, Schlum' or something. So you'll have made a fair bit of cash in exchange for a big chunk of your life. You're still working at my age so very much in the income group where you pay all the salary related taxes (though you may have been exempt for some of the time due to long periods abroad). You say that a lot of things you spend the cash on carry VAT so you must have an expensive lifestyle. Whichever way I look at it I can't put you in the group of people who are rich to the point where they pay very little tax.

I absolutely agree with you that France having VAT on water and basic foodstuffs is shameful. Blaming EU is unfair as France decides what to apply VAT to and has already ignored Europe when it suited in this respect.

@JY I am happy for you to prove me wrong on VAT

@thm - please don't misquote me.

Don't worry I won't.

I wrote...
[b]Anybody with half a brain [/b]can read a newspaper, listen to the news or scour the internet and find multiple sources of empirical evidence that demonstrates, in the UK, the status quo is unequal and either staying that way [b]or getting worse..[/b]

You did and it is incorrect. It isn't getting worse. My version, is different and correct and supported by your data sources.

Or were you saying that to believe that it was, you would have to be in the unfortunate position of only having half a brain? A trifle harsh but might make a bit more sense perhaps, not sure?

the assertion that anyone who didn't believe them had only half a brain

So - can you show us where this assertion was made?

Yes thanks

And how are you getting on with the Tories undoing everything? Any luck?

Then do so. Or admit that you were wrong.

Oh you tease....