Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm 52, if the govt gave me enough to live on I'd retire , maybe I'd do a few cash jobs to pay for my holidays but that'd be it. I'd pay no or virtually no income tax, I'd be driving less so I'd be paying less petrol tax and I'd be spending less so I'd be paying less VAT. Not everyone would be the same as me I admit but there'd be enough to make a hole in the country's finances.

Pretty much what I would be doing I think by about the age of 40-45, I certainly wouldn't be slogging my guts out if the state was giving me enough to eat, drink and enjoy a few hobbies. It's going to be a huge tax burden for the workforce if you've got 35 million people retired and needing to be paid by the state.

[Captain...]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'd much prefer to see higher tax free allowances than any sort of UBI, work has always been the way to take people out of poverty and letting people as much of their own earned money as possible should be a desire of any government that values it's population.

I would expect UBI to replace the tax free allowance, you can't give people free money and then not start taxing them as soon as they start earning.

 

Assuming 20% the same income tax rate as the <45k band, then you claw back £2300 per annum per person on income tax and about a grand in NI (assuming 12% on the lowest threshold) and give back £73 per week, as proposed by some. You gain almost £3300 per person in full employment, and hand out £3796 per person.

 

Obviously the £73 per week is a figure that can be questioned and I've seen GTF quoting £220 per week, but if the UBI was £73 per week then it wouldn't actually cost us too much, assuming the tax free thresholds are removed.

Edited 31 October 2017 by Captain...

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

If anyone is actually interested in UBI or negative income tax then give this and the links at the bottom a scan http://www.scottsantens.com/negative-income-tax-nit-and-unconditional-basic-income-ubi-what-makes-them-the-same-and-what-makes-them-different. The Guardian article isn't actually particularly useful, as with anything that Aditya bloke writes. 

 

I've no idea if it can work, I'm sceptical but hopeful it can solve a few problems. When automation is an actual problem, it might very well be the only way. Tax property rights and carbon to pay for it. 

I do kind of agree with Ed Conway in The Times, it's a great quick-fix solution on paper particularly in the absence of a welfare state but not actually useful when put to work in complex societies.

Cheers i will look at that when i am home.

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If people can survive on what they are getting from the govt, they're less likely to get out of bed for a pittance.

 

Also the cost of living includes more than just housing costs.

 

I'm 52, if the govt gave me enough to live on I'd retire , maybe I'd do a few cash jobs to pay for my holidays but that'd be it. I'd pay no or virtually no income tax, I'd be driving less so I'd be paying less petrol tax and I'd be spending less so I'd be paying less VAT. Not everyone would be the same as me I admit but there'd be enough to make a hole in the country's finances.

 

 

You can argue that actually they have a guaranteed income so can afford to accept lower pay, possibly doing something they actually want to do rather than just pay the bills. Yes some people will be happy lying in bed, just about surviving, but actually most people would want to top up their income or just work because they have too much leisure time with which they can do very little with. 

 

I am aware of that. But if the average housing benefit is £95 a week, in my example £130 is left after housing costs which is plenty enough to live on a week. 

 

That's absolute nonsense. If that was true then you'd be working only to earn enough to live on now. The fact that you're not suggests that actually you want more income than just enough to live and that wouldn't change if given a basic income by the govt. Admittedly you might work less but I don't see why you'd cut your income when you can do exactly that now.

[Webbo]

18 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

You can argue that actually they have a guaranteed income so can afford to accept lower pay, possibly doing something they actually want to do rather than just pay the bills. Yes some people will be happy lying in bed, just about surviving, but actually most people would want to top up their income or just work because they have too much leisure time with which they can do very little with. 

 

I am aware of that. But if the average housing benefit is £95 a week, in my example £130 is left after housing costs which is plenty enough to live on a week. 

 

That's absolute nonsense. If that was true then you'd be working only to earn enough to live on now. The fact that you're not suggests that actually you want more income than just enough to live and that wouldn't change if given a basic income by the govt. Admittedly you might work less but I don't see why you'd cut your income when you can do exactly that now.

No, I've had a day off today when I could worked. My mortgage is paid, as long as I earn enough to pay my bills and feed me I'm reasonably happy.

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

No, I've had a day off today when I could worked. My mortgage is paid, as long as I earn enough to pay my bills and feed me I'm reasonably happy.

 

So then you're doing exactly what you said you would do if in receipt of a UBI which is what I was saying. So no difference in tax take. If you're choosing to work such that your income is above UBI then you would still do that when in receipt of UBI, albeit your hours worked would be less

[Webbo]

26 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

So then you're doing exactly what you said you would do if in receipt of a UBI which is what I was saying. So no difference in tax take. If you're choosing to work such that your income is above UBI then you would still do that when in receipt of UBI, albeit your hours worked would be less

My expenses too and therefore the amount I pay in indirect taxes.

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

My expenses too and therefore the amount I pay in indirect taxes.

 

You've just said you're doing it anyway with UBI so UBI isn't responsible for your change in tax payments (direct or indirect) but instead your life choices at 52 are. You're doing it regardless, the only difference UBI would make is your hours worked to achieve your desired income would be less.

 

As an aside, my 220 figure was arbitrary, for simplicity. Also people should probably note, Universal Credit isn't far off a UBI in many ways and certainly acts similarly to an NIT in it's withdrawal rate (effectively a 63% tax rate for people claiming UC). 

Edited 31 October 2017 by KingGTF

[lifted*fox]

i dunno, cocaine and hookers don't pay for themselves.

 

still, I guess baked beans on value white 5 nights a week would do the job if the govt can pay for my hobbies. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

A lot of tory  mps implicated, not a huge surprise mind

[Realist Guy In The Room]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

he is just an idiot with stupid ideas who has no place in our parliament.

Surely that would mean he’d fit right in?

[Guest MattP]

28 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

A lot of tory  mps implicated, not a huge surprise mind

Just read the leaked spreadsheet. All over Twitter, think it's harsh to have people like Amber Rudd on there just for having a consensual relationship with Kwarteng. Some of them mind, check out the Welsh Secretary

 

More breaking news from a girl called Bex Bailey, claiming she reported a rape to Labour staff and was told not to take it any further.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-41821671

 

This could all get very messy.

Edited 31 October 2017 by MattP

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

I meant the UK. We have record employment or is that #despitebrexit?

We actually don't have record unemployment.

Incapacity Benefit recipients were removed from the stats some years back so the actual jobless total is something like 760,000 higher than reported. It's actually more like 2.5m unemployed.

[Guest MattP]

What is wrong with these people? Do they really think the BBC should hide these stories? Some of this lot are mad.

[Kopfkino]

Do you google 'nonsense to write on foxes talk' before posts like this? Unemployment is measured using the Labour Force Survey, where you are classed as unemployed if you are out of work but seeking employment. Since the LFS started, we currently have the lowest % of this. We also have the highest % classed as employed and the highest number of people employed so what Webbo said is exactly correct. Also the economically inactive (not classed as unemployed) has fallen pretty consistently and is at its lowest (thanks to more participation by women)

 

The Claimant Count, whilst published, gets very little attention for good reason and I presume is where Incapacity Benefit was omitted so your fact is as irrelevant as can be. 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, KingGTF said:

 

You've just said you're doing it anyway with UBI so UBI isn't responsible for your change in tax payments (direct or indirect) but instead your life choices at 52 are. You're doing it regardless, the only difference UBI would make is your hours worked to achieve your desired income would be less.

 

As an aside, my 220 figure was arbitrary, for simplicity. Also people should probably note, Universal Credit isn't far off a UBI in many ways and certainly acts similarly to an NIT in it's withdrawal rate (effectively a 63% tax rate for people claiming UC). 

But I still work, I buy paint and equipment which I pay vat on, I fill my car which includes the tax on the fuel. If I didn't work I wouldn't do that. I suppose someone else would do it instead but I would no longer be economically active.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Do you google 'nonsense to write on foxes talk' before posts like this? Unemployment is measured using the Labour Force Survey, where you are classed as unemployed if you are out of work but seeking employment. Since the LFS started, we currently have the lowest % of this. We also have the highest % classed as employed and the highest number of people employed so what Webbo said is exactly correct. Also the economically inactive (not classed as unemployed) has fallen pretty consistently and is at its lowest (thanks to more participation by women)

 

The Claimant Count, whilst published, gets very little attention for good reason and I presume is where Incapacity Benefit was omitted so your fact is as irrelevant as can be. 

But we all know that IB is being paid to about 10% of the workforce across the north. It's a way of hiding numbers. Incap was used for this reason following the destruction of northern industries. The labour force survey ignores the fact that over 750,000 incap recipients are believed to be people who would ordinarily be considered as looking for work. It's known as hidden unemployment.

 

 

[Guest]

http://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7?r=UK&IR=T

 

[Guest]

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/17175/

 

 

 

Beatty-TheRealLevelOfUnemployment2017%28VoR%29.pdf

Edited 31 October 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But we all know that IB is being paid to about 10% of the workforce across the north. It's a way of hiding numbers. Incap was used for this reason following the destruction of northern industries. The labour force survey ignores the fact that over 750,000 incap recipients are believed to be people who would ordinarily be considered as looking for work. It's known as hidden unemployment.

 

 

Crikey, the tories introduce measures to get people who are fit off incapacity benifits and they are labelled cruel and nasty, they dont and they are massaging the figures. Damned if they do and damned if they dont.

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/17175/

 

 

 

Beatty-TheRealLevelOfUnemployment2017%28VoR%29.pdf

 

 

As I said, they're not looking for work so they don't register as unemployed and are instead economically inactive (which has consistently declined in the last 40 years) which is a separate figure. It's not even a political decision to make unemployment look lower because the LFS uses the ILO which is an international standard.

Edited 31 October 2017 by KingGTF

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But we all know that IB is being paid to about 10% of the workforce across the north. It's a way of hiding numbers. Incap was used for this reason following the destruction of northern industries. The labour force survey ignores the fact that over 750,000 incap recipients are believed to be people who would ordinarily be considered as looking for work. It's known as hidden unemployment.

 

 

Is Corbyn a faith healers as well as the messiah now? Will all the disabled be able to get up and walk as soon as he's in power? 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Crikey, the tories introduce measures to get people who are fit off incapacity benifits and they are labelled cruel and nasty, they dont and they are massaging the figures. Damned if they do and damned if they dont.

 

5 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

 

As I said, they're not looking for work so they don't register as unemployed and are instead economically inactive (which has consistently declined in the last 40 years) which is a separate figure. It's not even a political decision to make unemployment look lower because the LFS uses the ILO which is an international standard.

 

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Is Corbyn a faith healers as well as the messiah now? Will all the disabled be able to get up and walk as soon as he's in power? 

At no point have I mentioned labour or tory.

The international standard is fine but the estimates given suggest that around 750,000 ib recipients shouldn't really be on ib. This issue began in the 80s and hadn't been resolved by either party in government. My only point is that the explosion in ib recipients in the 80s makes it look like unemployment is lower than the stats should really say and it's disingenuous to say that unemployment is really as low as claimed.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

 

 

At no point have I mentioned labour or tory.

The international standard is fine but the estimates given suggest that around 750,000 ib recipients shouldn't really be on ib. This issue began in the 80s and hadn't been resolved by either party in government. My only point is that the explosion in ib recipients in the 80s makes it look like unemployment is lower than the stats should really say and it's disingenuous to say that unemployment is really as low as claimed.

So what you're saying is the govt should assess IB claimants to see if they are genuinely unable to work? 

[Kopfkino]

53 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But I still work, I buy paint and equipment which I pay vat on, I fill my car which includes the tax on the fuel. If I didn't work I wouldn't do that. I suppose someone else would do it instead but I would no longer be economically active.

 

Okay fair enough, you wouldn't have the costs associated with your current income of which some is given to the state in taxation (though I thought you claimed VAT back?). Point taken. 

 

As Captain said, there would have to be a change to the tax system for it to work anyway. Part of that for me would be to remove exemptions for VAT on food and children's clothes, which would actually bring back your lost revenue. Of course that's only the case initially.

Edited 31 October 2017 by KingGTF