Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

The relentless pursuit of growth is the biggest nonsense in economics.

 

I agree with this to an extent. The problem is, I don't think, as a society, we are quite developed enough to be able to do this yet. Ultimately I think the focus should be on improving productivity enough that we can achieve very modest growth and work less to have more leisure time (which we can choose to do what we like with it, including helping those less fortunate). I just don't think we yet have the means to improve productivity sufficiently (ignoring the fact it's going backwards), nor do I think we are far enough along to start forgoing the opportunity to keep pushing our development in pursuit of other causes. It's one of those things where as individual beings we are conscious of trying to help the less fortunate but we, in my opinion, don't yet have the means to be able to act on that.

[Guest BlueBrett]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Up there with "the wealth will trickle down" and the invisible hand myth on the list of popular economic fallacies.

I don't see how it's a fallacy? The only alternative to passing the costs along the chain until they're absorbed by consumers would be for the government to step in and prop up the industry and either by diverting resources away from public services or raising taxes which effectively amounts to the same thing?

Edited 24 August 2017 by BlueBrett

[Guest]

Just now, BlueBrett said:

I don't see how it's a fallacy? The only alternative to passing the costs along the chain until they're absorbed by consumers would be for the government to step in and prop up the industry and either diverting resources public services or raising taxes which effectively amounts to the same thing?

Its been shown to be fallicy time and again

[Guest BlueBrett]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Its been shown to be fallicy time and again

Nobody has shown me but if you have a method of running a sustainable business which is immune to cost increases without ever raising prices I'm all ears.

[Guest Kopfkino]

30 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Its been shown to be fallicy time and again

 

Misread. I actually agree so that was stupid of me.

Edited 24 August 2017 by KingGTF

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I agree with this to an extent. The problem is, I don't think, as a society, we are quite developed enough to be able to do this yet. Ultimately I think the focus should be on improving productivity enough that we can achieve very modest growth and work less to have more leisure time (which we can choose to do what we like with it, including helping those less fortunate). I just don't think we yet have the means to improve productivity sufficiently (ignoring the fact it's going backwards), nor do I think we are far enough along to start forgoing the opportunity to keep pushing our development in pursuit of other causes. It's one of those things where as individual beings we are conscious of trying to help the less fortunate but we, in my opinion, don't yet have the means to be able to act on that.

I agree that we're not there yet, but I also think we're closer than some folks want us to appear to be and it has to be the overall end goal.

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

I don't see how it's a fallacy? The only alternative to passing the costs along the chain until they're absorbed by consumers would be for the government to step in and prop up the industry and either diverting resources public services or raising taxes which effectively amounts to the same thing?

The fallacy being that "they'd be no better off because companies would pass on their costs, inflating prices in direct proportion to cancel out their employees' increased spending power".  This is obviously not true if you understand that a company's wage payout is only part of the larger cost to produce a good/service and that a minimum wage increase only affects the company's outlay to their employees on minimum wage, it doesn't affect them across the entire company.  So a x% increase in minimum wage would, up to a point, increase prices across the economy by <x%. 

 

It's actually quite an evil argument since it's often used to justify not increasing minimum wage to match inflation, incurring even less spending power on the poor as prices rise faster than their income.

 

But since you're the one asserting this as a fact, the onus is on you to prove rather than on me to disprove. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

[Claridge]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

You are @Claridge and I claim my £100.

Fully agree with what was said,but I could never type all that with my fat fingers.?

[Buce]

51 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Fully agree with what was said,but I could never type all that with my fat fingers.?

 

You and me both.

[Guest]

Six things we learned about the Tories' strategy for Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/25/six-things-we-learned-about-the-tories-strategy-for-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Does anyone know what Labour brexit policy is yet, perhaps the guardian could write a piece on that! Corbyn says out of the single market, the rest of the party are saying stay in the single market, does anyone have a clue in there?!

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Does anyone know what Labour brexit policy is yet, perhaps the guardian could write a piece on that! Corbyn says out of the single market, the rest of the party are saying stay in the single market, does anyone have a clue in there?!

Labour aren't in government. 

Their policy was clearly spelt out in the manifesto and wasn't really a million miles away from the tory position. There are plenty of tory backbenchers complaining about how the government are approaching brexit yet you aren't questioning what the tory position is. The difference between Labour and Tory proposals was really about how they negotiated rather than what they negotiated. It's therefore interesting to see how the tory approach is coming along.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Labour aren't in government. 

Their policy was clearly spelt out in the manifesto and wasn't really a million miles away from the tory position. There are plenty of tory backbenchers complaining about how the government are approaching brexit yet you aren't questioning what the tory position is. The difference between Labour and Tory proposals was really about how they negotiated rather than what they negotiated. It's therefore interesting to see how the tory approach is coming along.

You want them to be though. They need to be more clear on their position.

 

I am perfectly happy questioning the Tory position but find it funny all the talk of the government being in chaos about Brexit yet labour are claiming they are some kind of alternative when even their frontbench can not agree on a position. You have Corbyn saying he will take us out of the single market, McDonnell, Abbot and others saying we will stay in, which one is it? Stammer says he would keep us in and put 'jobs first' whatever that means. What is in the manifesto is irrelevant really as they seem to have a completely different position now, basically they are hedging their bets so they can switch sides to attract the popular vote. Corbyn is pretty clear he hates the EU, his voting record shows this, he wants us out so he can implement his hard left Socialist policies which the EU would never allow.

 

At least the Tory front bench are fairly united on the way forward whether you agree or disagree with their proposals.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

You want them to be though. They need to be more clear on their position.

 

I am perfectly happy questioning the Tory position but find it funny all the talk of the government being in chaos about Brexit yet labour are claiming they are some kind of alternative when even their frontbench can not agree on a position. You have Corbyn saying he will take us out of the single market, McDonnell, Abbot and others saying we will stay in, which one is it? Stammer says he would keep us in and put 'jobs first' whatever that means. What is in the manifesto is irrelevant really as they seem to have a completely different position now, basically they are hedging their bets so they can switch sides to attract the popular vote. Corbyn is pretty clear he hates the EU, his voting record shows this, he wants us out so he can implement his hard left Socialist policies which the EU would never allow.

 

At least the Tory front bench are fairly united on the way forward whether you agree or disagree with their proposals.

So you don't think it's worth checking on how the government are doing then? Not due why labour are relevant.

 

In terms of labour though, I'm  not sure that a bit of nationalisation and a slightly higher corporation and top rate tax bracket counts as hard left politics. 40 years ago it would have been relatively centrist. Although their manifesto did talk of a very significant tranche of capital investment through initial borrowing, it also pledged to bring down the deficit in relation to ordinary spending.

[Carl the Llama]

@Foxin_mad Can I infer from your lack of response to my previous comment that you now agree that a higher minimum wage (as in one that can reasonably be lived off) is necessary if we want to scrap in-work benefits?

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

@Foxin_mad Can I infer from your lack of response to my previous comment that you now agree that a higher minimum wage (as in one that can reasonably be lived off) is necessary if we want to scrap in-work benefits?

As if he has an answer 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

@Foxin_mad Can I infer from your lack of response to my previous comment that you now agree that a higher minimum wage (as in one that can reasonably be lived off) is necessary if we want to scrap in-work benefits?

I think that's preferable to the government subsidising businesses payroll, I think it would be easier create a system that helps smaller businesses compete this way too.

[Webbo]

If you increase the minimum wage to a point where there's no need for in work benefits then the govt will have to find more money for out of work benefits because firms won't be able to afford to employ so many people.

 

I think its better that people can work.

[Guest MattP]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tensions-within-manchester-labour-erupt-13525847

 

The Muslim Labour councillor who stood up for Sarah Champion deselected. 

 

So they've both been punished, but Naz Shah still has had no action taken against her.

 

Unbelievable. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

@Foxin_mad Can I infer from your lack of response to my previous comment that you now agree that a higher minimum wage (as in one that can reasonably be lived off) is necessary if we want to scrap in-work benefits?

Apologies, missed this post.

 

I personally would rather the low paid pay no tax or NI obviously there would be some work to achieve this. Making the tax system more efficient would be a start, Merging Income Tax and NI reduced the administrative burden for business and HMRC. I would then set a personal allowance above the minimum wage rate. There is really nothing to be gained by taking with one hand and giving back with the other IMO.

 

Who determines what is a rate one can reasonably live off? I have in the past survived off a much lower than current minimum wage around £3 an hour in the late 90s early 2000s. You have to prioritise your funds, I did not have a fancy car, I drove a 1986 car, I had second hand furniture, an old small TV, no Sky, the cheapest pay as you go mobile phone. I made sure my meters were topped up and all bills paid before I spent money on luxuries. You can do a weekly shop for 1 at a budget supermarket very reasonably if you are willing to make your own food. I personally think that people need to lower expectations of what normal life is. For around £1000 a month after tax you should be able to pay rent,  heat and feed yourself.

 

I am not seeing many people around without a big screen TV, Netflix and the latest mobile phone. I frequently see people who are claiming poverty with the latest iPhone in their hand, is this a necessity to live?

Edited 25 August 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

If you increase the minimum wage to a point where there's no need for in work benefits then the govt will have to find more money for out of work benefits because firms won't be able to afford to employ so many people.

 

I think its better that people can work.

Remember how angry you got at Osbourne's 'punishment budget' (which never happened)?  This argument is essentially the same thing. 

 

See my post towards the top of this page for an explanation.

 

 

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Apologies, missed this post.

 

I personally would rather the low paid pay no tax or NI obviously there would be some work to achieve this. Making the tax system more efficient would be a start, Merging Income Tax and NI reduced the administrative burden for business and HMRC. I would then set a personal allowance above the minimum wage rate. There is really nothing to be gained by taking with one hand and giving back with the other IMO.

 

Who determines what is a rate one can reasonably live off? I have in the past survived off a much lower than current minimum wage around £3 an hour in the late 90s early 2000s. You have to prioritise you funds, I did not have a fancy car, I drove a 1986 car, I had second hand furniture, an old small TV, no Sky, the cheapest pay as you go mobile phone. I made sure my metres were topped up and all bills paid before I spent money on luxuries. You can do a weekly shop for 1 at a budget supermarket very reasonably if you are willing to make your own food. I personally think that people need to lower expectations of what normal life if. For around £1000 a month after tax you should be able to pay rent,  heat and feed yourself.

 

I am not seeing many people around without a big screen TV, Netflix and the latest mobile phone. I frequently see people who are claiming poverty with the latest iPhone in their hand, is this a necessity to live?

Well that's more than a little condescending.  If you're telling me that you managed to pay rent, feed yourself, pay your bills, run a car, pay for a TV back when even a small one was expensive, the licence to go with it, keep yourself clothed and still make luxury purchases on £3/h (assuming a standard 40h week and not taking unpaid breaks into account that's £7,020/y or £525/m) without dipping into your savings or receiving any extra money from elsewhere then I'd suggest there's a piece of the jigsaw you're deliberately leaving out.  That just about covers my rent and 1-2 weeks of food.  I certainly wouldn't be able to travel anywhere (ie. work), top up my cheap Chinese phone's low PAYG fees, eat for at least half the month, spend the one night a week I currently allow myself to socialise outside of the house, pay medical costs, cover emergencies, or even think about considering a luxury purchase.

 

Your last line is just a sad generalisation not even worth addressing.

 

Edit:  I would say that to provide someone an income which at least gives them the option of bettering themselves then you need to be looking at somewhere around at least £1400 - 1500/m if they pay rent at today's rates.  If they choose to squander their money in that scenario then that would be their own fault but how about we don't make it impossible for them to put money towards improving their prospects out of some weird spite?  Admittedly this figure probably could be lowered the further north you get but then you're getting into fascistic ghettoïsation territory, forcing all the poor people to move out far away from the richer folk (and then who would do all the low-paid work in the south?  Will we all have to commute from Sunderland to Guildford?)

Edited 25 August 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Remember how angry you got at Osbourne's 'punishment budget' (which never happened)?  This argument is essentially the same thing. 

 

See my post towards the top of this page for an explanation

There is absolutely no similarity at all.

 

No body goes into business to lose money. If you have to raise the price of the thing you sell to cover the cost of wages to such a point that nobody wants to buy your product then you'll go out of business. If you cover the cost of the wages out of income you'll have no profit so there's no point being in business.

 

Businesses pay what they have to to get the employees they need and no more. If they did pay over the odds they'd be undercut by their competitors. They don't owe anyone a job or an unrealistic wage. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

There is absolutely no similarity at all.

 

No body goes into business to lose money. If you have to raise the price of the thing you sell to cover the cost of wages to such a point that nobody wants to buy your product then you'll go out of business. If you cover the cost of the wages out of income you'll have no profit so there's no point being in business.

 

Businesses pay what they have to to get the employees they need and no more. If they did pay over the odds they'd be undercut by their competitors. They don't owe anyone a job or an unrealistic wage. 

Sigh.  "See my post at the top of this page for an explanation."

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Sigh.  "See my post at the top of this page for an explanation."

I saw it, you're wrong.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

I saw it, you're wrong.

You've convinced me.