Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

JHB's statement, which I must say sounds extremely sensible. 

Grown woman in position of influence rebuffs grown man in position of influence. This is news?  Jesus.

[Fox Ulike]

22 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Surely if you give people who are earning UBI you are also taking it away from them again in tax, much like the better off can get child benefit, but pay tax to pay it back again.  Waste of time.  The irony here is that you make more people unemployed by paying everyone the same amount regardless, removing the admin burden of the current system.

Sorry didn't really understand what you're saying here.

 

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If there is one thing we can be sure of it is that the left will continue to come up with daft ideas , and the right will continue to shoot them down.

Why is it is a 'daft idea'. ?

 

The Finland experiment is giving unemployed people a monthly sum. They don't have to apply for loads of different benefits, they don't have to justify what they do with it, they don't have to provide evidence that they are applying for jobs. Nothing. They just get a monthly sum.

 

Surely it's just pure economics? Either it's cost-effective, or it's not. And the result of the experiment will either say it is or it isn't. Political ideologies shouldn't come into it.

 

Edited 31 October 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Alf Bentley]

There's a risk of all perspective being lost in this sexual harassment furore.

 

I gather that the list of Tory "offenders" includes MPs who've had affairs. If they've specifically promoted themselves as the epitome of family values, their exposure might just about be in the public interest on the grounds of hypocrisy, otherwise it's a matter for them and their partners, surely?

 

I agree that there's nothing in the Fallon story, apart from making him look a bit ridiculous. That's specifically because there's no abuse of power involved. I checked Hartley-Brewer's Wiki entry and by the time of the incident, she was in her 30s, had worked for The Evening Standard and The Guardian and was Political Correspondent for the Express. Someone at that stage of their career, particularly in journalism, isn't going to feel pressurised to provide sexual favours to MPs. If it had happened when she was a 21-year-old cub reporter or an intern in Fallon's office, it would have been a different matter - it could well have ended his career as an abuse of power.

 

Likewise, if Labour's investigation into O'Mara confirms that he recently crassly abused a woman, he'd have to go. If he's exonerated, it would be ridiculous to destroy his career for the other stupid comments that he made as a young man online 15 years before he was an MP, even if he does come across as a prat.

 

Lumping everything in the same basket (abuse of power/harassment, sexual assaults, affairs, youthful idiocies online and the making of mildly embarrassing passes) does no favour to those who've suffered serious abuse.

[Captain...]

On 10/26/2017 at 20:07, KingGTF said:

 

Then that's a moral question in itself. There's a known quote by an American judicial philosopher by the name of Leonard Hand which says:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

 

The moral issue isn't that some people can, it's that some people can't maximise their own welfare (although everyone can in some way such as an ISA or even choosing to buy food instead of clothes).

I tend to agree with this in the main, there is no reason to not claim the daily and weekly expense allowance as a self employed worker, they are there to simplify the system and not get caught up in paper work and receipts, it is the same as the single rate of VAT policy that allows a limited company to charge VAT at 20% but pay it to HMRC at a lower %, it may look like free money (and it feels like free money) but it is also reducing admin effort all round on claiming back VAT on every pissy little receipt. The government sets the rules, we interpret them to suit us best. Although I do find it funny that the government consults with the big accountancy firms on their tax approach, they guide and advise on tax policy, then tell all their clients how to dodge it.

 

I would draw the line at establishing my company in a country I don't live in to avoid paying a higher rate of tax, If @MattP moved to Ireland for tax reasons then that is his right, but to establish a company there and pay into their system whilst still living and working in the UK (correct me if I am wrong Matt) is immoral even if not technically illegal.

 

[Captain...]

Jared O'Mara is still getting a hard time I see, didn't know this until yesterday but he has cerebral palsy, only mild, but that could be a reason for his nomination as an MP and elevation to the Equalities commission. It also goes some way to explaining his odd behaviour (according to one source) but not enough to justify being a complete cvnt.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

Sorry didn't really understand what you're saying here.

 

Why is it is a 'daft idea'. ?

 

The Finland experiment is giving unemployed people a monthly sum. They don't have to apply for loads of different benefits, they don't have to justify what they do with it, they don't have to provide evidence that they are applying for jobs. Nothing. They just get a monthly sum.

 

Surely it's just pure economics? Either it's cost-effective, or it's not. And the result of the experiment will either say it is or it isn't. Political ideologies shouldn't come into it.

 

Lots of people are employed in the process of assessing and paying the multitude of benefits we currently have, so by introducing an universal benefit, you would reduce tax take and increase the number of people who would receive it.

 

It is a daft idea because is is predicated by the idea that there is not enough work to go around due to automation, then we have to pay people to keep them alive.  I don't really accept this - I think that if people work less, they will have more free time and spend more on leisure activities, which drive demand for jobs in other areas.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Likewise, if Labour's investigation into O'Mara confirms that he recently crassly abused a woman, he'd have to go. If he's exonerated, it would be ridiculous to destroy his career for the other stupid comments that he made as a young man online 15 years before he was an MP, even if he does come across as a prat.

Some of it is a lot more recent.  It looks increasingly like he is just an idiot with stupid ideas who has no place in our parliament.

[Fox Ulike]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Lots of people are employed in the process of assessing and paying the multitude of benefits we currently have, so by introducing an universal benefit, you would reduce tax take and increase the number of people who would receive it.

 

It is a daft idea because is is predicated by the idea that there is not enough work to go around due to automation, then we have to pay people to keep them alive.  I don't really accept this - I think that if people work less, they will have more free time and spend more on leisure activities, which drive demand for jobs in other areas.  

Only if the switch to automation is going to have zero effect on jobs in the leisure industry. I would say that was highly unlikely.

 

And you're against any form of UBI because it will leave some Job Centre employees without jobs!? Now that is a daft idea!  

[Rogstanley]

57 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Lots of people are employed in the process of assessing and paying the multitude of benefits we currently have, so by introducing an universal benefit, you would reduce tax take and increase the number of people who would receive it.

 

It is a daft idea because is is predicated by the idea that there is not enough work to go around due to automation, then we have to pay people to keep them alive.  I don't really accept this - I think that if people work less, they will have more free time and spend more on leisure activities, which drive demand for jobs in other areas.  

Where is the money going to come from for them to spend more on leisure if they are working and earning less? The average person barely gets by without debt as it is. 

 

Edited 31 October 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

If there is one thing we can be sure of it is that the left will continue to come up with daft ideas , and the right will continue to shoot them down.

The idea is gaining traction because of the idea that autonomy will replace humanity in significant tracts of the economy. What do we do if we get to the point that IT, AI and robotics makes industries almost jobless? It's all theoretical really but an interesting question. 

[Guest]

Of course the entire welfare state would disappear overnight, including many of the admin costs if flat rate payments were introduced. That probably finds half the money straight away. 

 

Again, I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea, just an interesting one. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Of course the entire welfare state would disappear overnight, including many of the admin costs if flat rate payments were introduced. That probably finds half the money straight away. 

 

Again, I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea, just an interesting one. 

The amount of money being suggested wouldn't cover the rent on an average house so we'd still need housing benefit. I don't think it'd work and I don't believe its affordable .

[davieG]

We'll just end up with more coffee  and eating places as the nation gorges itself into an evolutionary obese mammal Homofaticus

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Of course the entire welfare state would disappear overnight, including many of the admin costs if flat rate payments were introduced. That probably finds half the money straight away. 

 

Again, I'm not saying it is a good or bad idea, just an interesting one. 

Would it? There are a lot of people who receive and need a lot more than any citizens income would provide, housing benefit is going to be more than £50-70 a week, what about those who are disabled? Carers allowance etc - are they going to have their welfare cut so severly and still be OK?

 

Admin costs are probably 3-4 billion tops, even if you replace the current welfare system and cut all those I talk about above it comes to about 130billion short of the 400 billion you would need for a £70 a week UBI.

 

Unemployment benefit is actually tiny, it's about 2 billion, housing and disability benefit was 69 billion last year.

 

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

Edited 31 October 2017 by MattP

[Captain...]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The idea is gaining traction because of the idea that autonomy will replace humanity in significant tracts of the economy. What do we do if we get to the point that IT, AI and robotics makes industries almost jobless? It's all theoretical really but an interesting question. 

There would still be plenty of people needed to design, develop, code, update, debug, service and oversee these machines. Until we get to the point where AI outstrips human thinking capacity and then they will rise up and take over.

 

In theory the more automation we have, the cheaper things become to produce, package, sell etc a utopian future would see people working less but more flexible as a skilled society. I would expect a large part of the work force would be on call to react as and when they are needed either to respond to emergencies with automation or to respond to the next project. The flexible work will be better paid so there would be more money for spending less time in work, and everything would be cheaper as one of the highest costs is always salaries, especially once we solve the fuel/energy supply limitations.

 

The risk is that a flexible replaceable work force becomes a race to the bottom as supply outstrips demand people undercut each other in desperation for work. UBI would address that, but it does also require a stick, it can't be all carrot and people can't just live off UBI and not work. UBI could be applied to all of those that are in this flexible market pool, but it requires you to be on call and able to work when required.

Edited 31 October 2017 by Captain...

[Fox Ulike]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would it? There are a lot of people who receive and need a lot more than any citizens income would provide, housing benefit is going to be more than £50-70 a week, what about those who are disabled? Carers allowance etc - are they going to have their welfare cut so severly and still be OK?

 

Admin costs are probably 3-4 billion tops, even if you replace the current welfare system and cut all those I talk about above it comes to about 130billion short of the 400 billion you would need for a £70 a week UBI.

 

Unemployment benefit is actually tiny, it's about 2 billion, housing and disability benefit was 69 billion last year.

 

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

You're looking at this through the existing economic capitalist framework - in which case I think you're right. The sums just don't add up, and it's a bad idea.

 

The question is, if the advance of AI makes huge amounts of people unemployed: What do you do with them?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

You're looking at this through the existing economic capitalist framework - in which case I think you're right. The sums just don't add up, and it's a bad idea.

 

The question is, if the advance of AI makes huge amounts of people unemployed: What do you do with them?

Well then you look at it, it's not something that is going to happen anytime soon, even with the advancements we have made in our lifetime we still have move people employed at this time than ever before. I think people are jumping the gun massively, if this is to become a problem, it will be a problem for people in 2117, not 2017.

 

We always think we'll develop faster than we do, watch Back to the Future and we had flying cars, hoverboards and electric jackets in 2015, in reality we still saw people filling up bangers, pumping up tyres and wearing trousers with string for a belt.

[Kopfkino]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would it? There are a lot of people who receive and need a lot more than any citizens income would provide, housing benefit is going to be more than £50-70 a week, what about those who are disabled? Carers allowance etc - are they going to have their welfare cut so severly and still be OK?

 

Admin costs are probably 3-4 billion tops, even if you replace the current welfare system and cut all those I talk about above it comes to about 130billion short of the 400 billion you would need for a £70 a week UBI.

 

Unemployment benefit is actually tiny, it's about 2 billion, housing and disability benefit was 69 billion last year.

 

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

 

For simplicity, assuming two adults per household:

 

You could give the tax-free allowance of 11500 to each adult in the poorest 40% of households for just under the current welfare bill. That is 220 a week per person. The 4th decile has an income median of 440 a week which is equal to the UBI example I give. Now I would propose extending it further but it would be tapered and in fact by the time you get to the 4th decile you'll have clawed back some anyway. Whilst you give a UBI to everyone, that doesn't mean everyone keeps it (a negative income tax means you it doesn't have to be universal, but studies show it works better if universal and taken back I think). Why is that problematic? 

 

 

[Steven]

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Well then you look at it, it's not something that is going to happen anytime soon, even with the advancements we have made in our lifetime we still have move people employed at this time than ever before. I think people are jumping the gun massively, if this is to become a problem, it will be a problem for people in 2117, not 2017.

 

We always think we'll develop faster than we do, watch Back to the Future and we had flying cars, hoverboards and electric jackets in 2015, in reality we still saw people filling up bangers, pumping up tyres and wearing trousers with string for a belt.

At the same time, people also thought we'd be lugging around personal computers the size of bricks with horrendous displays - instead we get more computing power than the Apollo Program in something that fits easily in a pocket.

 

Some things advance quicker than people predict, some advance slower...and often it's really difficult to call.

 

I've made my standpoint on such futures pretty clear in any case but I'll repeat them here: bring on an automated future and a totally different economic model as a result, because long term it will be helpful to humanity's survival.

[Webbo]

25 minutes ago, Steven said:

We haven't left yet.

[davieG]

The paperless office was predicted to arrive in the 80s yet there seems to be paper around now than there's ever been. 

[Steven]

Just now, Webbo said:

We haven't left yet.

Quite. As you can see the vote itself has already had a negative effect and we are yet to see the consequences of leaving the EU occur.

 

If you are close to suicidal don't read this.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/18/brexit-death-of-british-business/

 

"The UK has long depended on heavy flows of investment from abroad to make up for the weaknesses in its own corporate and financial institutions.

In 2015 the UK ran a deficit in its external trade in goods and services of 96 billion pounds ($146 billion in 2015), or 5.2 percent of GDP, the largest percentage deficit in postwar British history and by far the largest of any of the G-7 group of industrialized economies.

By comparison, the US ran a deficit of 2.6 percent of GDP, while Germany earned a surplus of 8.3 percent, Japan a surplus of 3.6 percent, and France broke even.""

""All the leading industrial economies increased their exports of advanced goods between 2005 and 2011, some spectacularly. South Korea, with its proximity to China, was the big winner with a 93 percent increase in the value of advanced goods exports, followed by Germany with a 46 percent increase, Italy with a 35 percent increase, Japan with 31 percent, France with 24 percent, and the US with 22 percent.

The UK could manage just a 7 percent increase, even though it benefited from an 18 percent devaluation of the pound."

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We haven't left yet.

 

Just imagine how bad it will get when we have, when our trajectory is already that bad - and we then become less competitive in a booming export market like the Eurozone. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

Quite. As you can see the vote itself has already had a negative effect and we are yet to see the consequences of leaving the EU occur.

 

If you are close to suicidal don't read this.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/18/brexit-death-of-british-business/

 

"The UK has long depended on heavy flows of investment from abroad to make up for the weaknesses in its own corporate and financial institutions.

In 2015 the UK ran a deficit in its external trade in goods and services of 96 billion pounds ($146 billion in 2015), or 5.2 percent of GDP, the largest percentage deficit in postwar British history and by far the largest of any of the G-7 group of industrialized economies.

By comparison, the US ran a deficit of 2.6 percent of GDP, while Germany earned a surplus of 8.3 percent, Japan a surplus of 3.6 percent, and France broke even.""

""All the leading industrial economies increased their exports of advanced goods between 2005 and 2011, some spectacularly. South Korea, with its proximity to China, was the big winner with a 93 percent increase in the value of advanced goods exports, followed by Germany with a 46 percent increase, Italy with a 35 percent increase, Japan with 31 percent, France with 24 percent, and the US with 22 percent.

The UK could manage just a 7 percent increase, even though it benefited from an 18 percent devaluation of the pound."

Have you got a graph on employment since the vote?