leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 3 hours ago, MattP said: I actually think one of the biggest mistakes the modern political elite have made (mainly on the left, but also on the right) is that "reasonable people" can't vote for what they regard as extremists in any sort of numbers so we can literally throw any policy onto them without consequence, whether it's the EU enforcing austerity onto elected governments or Angela Merkel deciding to try an force huge cultural change onto a nation wihout even asking it's people first if they even want it. If voting for a few far-right or far left parties helps to stop that it could turn out to be a good thing. Hmmm...again though, I don't think this is putting the blame in all the places that it needs to be. If leaders enact unpopular policy, nationalists and whoever else don't like it and as a result extremists get in and the result is increased isolation and distrust leading to conflict and widespread trouble, then the people who voted in those extremists are just as culpable as anyone else. At the risk of Godwinning, the Nazis only took power the first time because they were voted in by people worried about the direction of their country. Those folks can't then turn around and wash their hands of the dire consequences should those dire consequences occur. 1 hour ago, Webbo said: As foxin has said,there is lots of healthy food cheaper than junk food. Bad parenting is definitely to blame and it's no coincidence that parents who are too lazy to cook their own food tend to be poor. I do hope this isn't a generalisation that poor people are poor simply because they're lazy, Webs.
Donut Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: No, you told me I didn't know, I gave you plenty of answers. I never said it ruined my life, yet again you're making things up. I don't think we will be any poorer but I would accept that to be free of the EU. So to sum up ,yes getting out is the most important thing. Do I need to explain that again? You cant seem to grasp that the different types of leave are all going to come with different consequences and are going to affect you different ways. Either that or you don't care. Its don't care, because you didn't care when you cast your vote.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, Buce said: That means you are negating any savings made by batch cooking by increasing your gas/electric bill by using an oven twice per serving. Again depends on the method. I cook the meat in a pan/could be quorn if desired. Add it onions/carrots/seasoning and gravy leave to simmer Boils potatoes Put a layer into plastic tubs or other containers Cover with mash leave to cool freeze or chill when ready to eat put in oven/microwave etc. can grate cheese on top I brown in pan and cook with oven to finish off/crisp Again entirely up to the individual. My electric/gas bill always seems reasonable.
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Hmmm...again though, I don't think this is putting the blame in all the places that it needs to be. If leaders enact unpopular policy, nationalists and whoever else don't like it and as a result extremists get in and the result is increased isolation and distrust leading to conflict and widespread trouble, then the people who voted in those extremists are just as culpable as anyone else. At the risk of Godwinning, the Nazis only took power the first time because they were voted in by people worried about the direction of their country. Those folks can't then turn around and wash their hands of the dire consequences should those dire consequences occur. I do hope this isn't a generalisation that poor people are poor simply because they're lazy, Webs. The generalisation is that lazy people tend to be poor, not the other way around.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I do hope this isn't a generalisation that poor people are poor simply because they're lazy, Webs. Much like the generalisation that all the rich are scandalous, tax dodging, evil, nasty, uncaring, thick, undeserving, poor hating people who 'deserve to pay' and should be 'brought down' and their wealth 'redistributed'. Edited 5 June 2018 by Foxin_mad
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Donut said: You cant seem to grasp that the different types of leave are all going to come with different consequences and are going to affect you different ways. Either that or you don't care. Its don't care, because you didn't care when you cast your vote. The type of brexit we get will be decided in subsequent elections by the voters of this country. What you seem to saying is that because some leavers want a different outcome to others we should stay in a Union that none of us like? How does that make any sense at all?
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: The generalisation is that lazy people tend to be poor, not the other way around. Thanks for the clarification. I'd posit that some rich people tend to be lazy too when they have a solid form of income (whether inherited or whatever) and enough to pay someone to manage their affairs. Though the definition of "lazy" in this case might be quite subjective. 2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Much like the generalisation that all the rich are scandalous, tax dodging, evil, nasty, uncaring, thick, undeserving, poor hating people who 'deserve to pay' and should be 'brought down' and their wealth 'redistributed'. And when I display a view with that degree of memorable lack of nuance, do feel free to pull me up. Until then, it's a strawman. 1 1
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Thanks for the clarification. I'd posit that some rich people tend to be lazy too when they have a solid form of income (whether inherited or whatever) and enough to pay someone to manage their affairs. Though the definition of "lazy" in this case might be quite subjective. That is undoubtedly true but as far as I know they're not claiming to be victims.
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: That is undoubtedly true but as far as I know they're not claiming to be victims. Of course they're not, because they're not - the system works for them and as such they don't need to have a grievance of it.
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Of course they're not, because they're not - the system works for them and as such they don't need to have a grievance of it. What's the system doing for them, apart from leaving them alone?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Thanks for the clarification. I'd posit that some rich people tend to be lazy too when they have a solid form of income (whether inherited or whatever) and enough to pay someone to manage their affairs. Though the definition of "lazy" in this case might be quite subjective. And when I display a view with that degree of memorable lack of nuance, do feel free to pull me up. Until then, it's a strawman. The line above appears to be verging on that. Either way its not in anyway specific to a individual but if you believe certain folk and the doom and gloom they portray on here the rich are to blame for all the wrongs in the world. Interesting read despite being a little old. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/george-osborne-has-squeezed-more-from-the-rich-than-any-uk-chancellor-ever/ George Osborne has squeezed more from the rich than any UK Chancellor, ever Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson 26 April 2015 1:41 PM The Sunday Times Rich List is out today – and it says a lot about Britain. Mainly: what type of country are we? One that reads that supplement with admiration, or with outrage? I’d argue that the former, but this runs contrary to the bovine populism being encouraged by Labour. Ed Miliband wants to raise the top rate of tax to 52 per cent which, as he knows, will raise next to no money. The real purpose of that tax rise is to perform a basic populist manoeuvre: identify an enemy (the highly-paid) and then promise to hurt them. Today, it’s landlords: rent would be capped by the government. Like all left-wing populists, he is out to draw dividing lines: tenant vs landlord, worker vs employer, rich vs poor. His government is all about thwacking the bad guys (including the rich) in the name of fairness. But here’s one statistic Miliband will never repeat: the best-paid 1pc already contribute 27pc of the income tax. (They earn about 12pc of salaries). The best-paid 3,000 contribute, on average, £2.6 million in tax per year. To listen to the hype, you’d be forgiven for thinking the richest pay not a penny in tax. The truth is that the UK income tax system is reliant upon a very small number of highly mobile rich people. I’m not saying they pay too much; I’d like it to be even more. I’m just saying that it’s untrue to insinuate, as Miliband does, that the rich are not paying their fair share. As today’s Sunday Times Rich List shows, the richest are rich not because they are gaming the system but – by and large – because they’re very talented, took risks and worked their guts out. It includes many immigrants, who made their fortunes abroad but come here to pay tax. And who would not welcome that? The nature of wealth is changing, and not in an attractive way. JK Rowling is far richer than was – say – John Buchan, a far more prolific and far more talented. Why? Because today’s stars – from the world of business, literature and sport – are able to leverage their talents on a global scale. If Ms Rowling’s books are read as voraciously in Tokyo as they are in Telford, then the money will follow. The same is true for architects, software programmers and – yes – for bankers: it’s a global market. The Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw recently conducted a study recently most of the very wealthy got that way showing that the pay of the 1% was justified by global forces. Or, as he put it, “by making substantial economic contributions, not by gaming the system or taking advantage of some market failure” Now, I can’t say I welcome this global trend. I’m not wild about the fact that David Beckham earned vastly more than Bobby Moore, but it’s a sign of the times. Let’s look at the Sunday Times Rich List. The people in the top 1000 are not those who inherited a fortune – most of the billionaires are self-made. Philip Beresford, the list’s complier, says that some about four in five of those on his list made their own fortune. We have: James Dyson – whose his eponymous vacuum cleaners, hand dryers and fans have sucked in a £3bn fortune Chris Dawson, who left school at 15 and says that he can read what he needs to but he can barely write. But he built a chain of discount gardens centres – and a £1.28bn fortune. Paul Sykes, the son of a miner, who left school with no qualifications before setting up a company to sell scrap from busses to the far east, then moving into property he built Sheffield’s Meadowhall shopping centre, then moved into technology building what was once Britain’s largest internet service provider. Worth: £650m. Mark Dixon, a former sandwich salesman who has made £820m providing people with places to work in his serviced office business Regus And Jamie Oliver – his cookbooks and restaurants have netted him £240 million. I’m all for getting the richest to pay a fair share. But I’m up for doing it with intelligence, a sense of fairness – and a sense of purpose. Some 44 of the 104 billionaires at the top of the Sunday Times Rich List are from overseas. These are people who can (and do) decided to go anywhere, to make and declare tax. And they spend an estimated £16bn here a year. Not to mention £45 billion of income tax. But it wasn’t always this way. The last time that Labour was going through an Ed Miliband phase and went swinging for the very richest, with a top rate of an eye-watering 83% per cent, did it work? The top 1% paid just 11% of all income tax: a pathetic figure. So Thatcher dropped the top rate to 60%. And in 1987, the top 1% were paying 14% per cent of all income tax: a far healthier figure. But then Nigel Lawson came along with his 1988 Budget that cut the top rate to 40%. That infuriated the left: tax cuts for millionaires! But Lawson grasped what John F Kennedy called the “paradoxical truth”: that lower tax rates lead to higher tax yields. Because the conservatives were deadly serious about having the richest shoulder a greater burden. Shaking you fist at the rich, calling them names, does not work. Encouraging wealth creation, and asking fair tax rates – in Britain it’s 47 per cent of top earnings – does work. I’d like to close with two final facts. When George Osborne cut the top rate of tax, he milked them better than Dennis Healey ever did. We had the top 3,000 earners paying an average £2.6 million each in tax. So the top 3,000 paid more tax than the bottom 7.5 million. That’s what I call a fair share. And my vision of fairness is a Britain that rejects the politics of envy, where success is celebrated – and the tax system makes works because it shares the success. Inequality is a big problem in our society. But the difference between the Conservative policies and Labour ones is that the Conservatives want to tackle it – not just talk about it. I accept that the Tories have not made this point (or others) very well, but this will be the next challenge for Conservatism. The only question is whether they’ll do this in government or opposition. Edited 5 June 2018 by Foxin_mad
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: The line above appears to be verging on that. Either way its not in anyway specific to a individual but if you believe certain folk and the doom and gloom they portray on here the rich are to blame for all the wrongs in the world. Interesting read despite being a little old. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/george-osborne-has-squeezed-more-from-the-rich-than-any-uk-chancellor-ever/ Could you copy and paste that, it's behind a paywall.
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: What's the system doing for them, apart from leaving them alone? Allowing them to live a comfortable life and/or be "lazy" while other people who put in an equal amount of effort in their lives (or sometimes more) have much less comfort. I think we've had the discussion before wrt correlation between various kinds of work (hard or whatever else) and reward/comfort as a result, and I think it is reasonably obvious that the current system isn't fair in that regard in even close to every circumstance IMO. 10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: The line above appears to be verging on that. Did I not use the qualifier "some" and "tend to" as well as mentioning how the matter is very subjective, then, taking care to qualify my remarks? Sorry if that didn't appear clear.
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 8 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Allowing them to live a comfortable life and/or be "lazy" while other people who put in an equal amount of effort in their lives (or sometimes more) have much less comfort. I think we've had the discussion before wrt correlation between various kinds of work (hard or whatever else) and reward/comfort as a result, and I think it is reasonably obvious that the current system isn't fair in that regard in even close to every circumstance IMO. It's their money, why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy it? Without wanting to sound pretentious I'll just quote some Hayek. Quote From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time”
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: It's their money, why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy it? Money that they themselves made through a (rather subjective) equal amount of "work" to a peer, every time? It's their money, they can do what they like with it and I'm not trying to stop them (this strawman thing must be catching today), I'm just pointing out that there really isn't any kind of strict correlation between laziness, hard work and income/comfort of life under the current system IMO and it's foolhardy to attempt to generalise based on it when every situation is different.
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Money that they themselves made through a (rather subjective) equal amount of "work" to a peer, every time? It's their money, they can do what they like with it and I'm not trying to stop them (this strawman thing must be catching today), I'm just pointing out that there really isn't any kind of strict correlation between laziness, hard work and income/comfort of life under the current system IMO and it's foolhardy to attempt to generalise based on it when every situation is different. What I'm trying to say is, why do I deserve Jamie Vardy's money more than he does? 1
Alf Bentley Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: What I'm trying to say is, why do I deserve Jamie Vardy's money more than he does? You've organised a FT World Cup Sweepstake. What the hell has Vardy ever done for Leicester fans?
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: You've organised a FT World Cup Sweepstake. What the hell has Vardy ever done for Leicester fans? Exactly!
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 14 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Allowing them to live a comfortable life and/or be "lazy" while other people who put in an equal amount of effort in their lives (or sometimes more) have much less comfort. I think we've had the discussion before wrt correlation between various kinds of work (hard or whatever else) and reward/comfort as a result, and I think it is reasonably obvious that the current system isn't fair in that regard in even close to every circumstance IMO. This right here is the very difficult thing to deal with. In nature not all things are equal, some are stronger and better than others by nature. This same thing happens in the real world, some people are stronger, more intelligent, resourceful than others, these people may as a result be more successful. How can we create a fair world when not everyone is of equal ability? are some of the advances we make in technology/medicine not overriding a natural process of selection? Its very complicated but I am not sure we will ever see a 'fair' world, in life and in nature life is sometimes 'not fair'. There is of course an issue where for instance someone a number of years a go worked hard to become a pilot, they are now rich, their children want to be come pilots, this is possible as they can afford the training fees. Again is this fundamentally against a natural process?
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: What I'm trying to say is, why do I deserve Jamie Vardy's money more than he does? I was gonna respond to this but Alf pretty much nailed it. 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: This right here is the very difficult thing to deal with. In nature not all things are equal, some are stronger and better than others by nature. This same thing happens in the real world, some people are stronger, more intelligent, resourceful than others, these people may as a result be more successful. How can we create a fair world when not everyone is of equal ability? are some of the advances we make in technology/medicine not overriding a natural process of selection? Its very complicated but I am not sure we will ever see a 'fair' world, in life and in nature life is sometimes 'not fair'. There is of course an issue where for instance someone a number of years a go worked hard to become a pilot, they are now rich, their children want to be come pilots, this is possible as they can afford the training fees. Again is this fundamentally against a natural process? I think we can do some things to at least attempt to level the playing field some (indeed we do already; look at the amount of good care available to those not as capable physically or mentally of fending for themselves), but as you say once you get down to a fundamental level we're human, part of nature, and as such we can't achieve perfect parity; the dilemma here is pretty much unsolvable as the minds working on it are part of that same natural system. I guess the best we can do is just keep doing little things here and there to at least try and offer some equality of opportunity in some things, and push back against measures that would be more animalistic/"natural"/unfair. We'll never achieve true equality, I don't think (or perhaps not even close) but maybe we can move towards a system that is more geared to rewarding effort of all kinds more equally.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I was gonna respond to this but Alf pretty much nailed it. I think we can do some things to at least attempt to level the playing field some (indeed we do already; look at the amount of good care available to those not as capable physically or mentally of fending for themselves), but as you say once you get down to a fundamental level we're human, part of nature, and as such we can't achieve perfect parity; the dilemma here is pretty much unsolvable as the minds working on it are part of that same natural system. I guess the best we can do is just keep doing little things here and there to at least try and offer some equality of opportunity in some things, and push back against measures that would be more animalistic/"natural"/unfair. We'll never achieve true equality, I don't think (or perhaps not even close) but maybe we can move towards a system that is more geared to rewarding effort of all kinds more equally. We do already do a lot, which is why I think the current system is not bad. I would say it works for the majority despite Corbyns nonsense. I suppose the difficulty is in terms of rewarding people with 'money' who determines what is a worthwhile role, who should earn the most, why should some earn many times that of another? If you have put the work in to get a degree/master/phd etc then surely you deserve to earn more over a lifetime than someone who hasn't done that or else what is the point? The dynamics are very difficult to work out.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 5 hours ago, Donut said: Or is leaving the EU the be all and end all, no matter what the deal is? absolutely anything will do as long as we are free of the European superstate ruining your life? 5 hours ago, MattP said: People can answer for themselves but to me it's an absolute yes to this, the whole idea of Brexit is to have the British parliament making the decisions that the British people elected them to do so, if they cock it up we can change the government. If this was about money I'd be campaigning to join the USA. But it's not about money. 3 hours ago, Webbo said: In a word " yes". Bear with me on this.... I think that I get the gist of what you Brexiteers are saying, but am curious as to whether expectations of the outcome are colouring what we all think. As I understand it from previous posts, your expectations are that the early months/years of Brexit might be a bit rocky, but you're hopeful that things will turn out for the better in the long run - but even if you personally and the nation generally end up a bit worse off in economic terms (your worst case scenario?), that's well worth it for the benefits of having taken back democratic control of our affairs at a national level. In contrast, while I'm a strong democrat and see an important role for national democracy in that, I feel that more democratic decisions need to be taken internationally now - though I'm aware that there are flaws in EU democracy, as there are in national democracy. So, the economic/social impact of Brexit matters more to me. As for expectations, I share your expectation of some rocky days initially, but assume that the economic/social impact in the long-term (I'm talking decades) will be somewhere between tolerably negative and utterly disastrous, depending on any deal and the post-Brexit actions of govt, business etc. The truth is that none of us know what the short-term or long-term impact will be. Let's imagine for a minute that I'm as wrong as wrong can be. Let's imagine that there aren't too many teething problems with Brexit, the public appreciate the renewed national democracy, the UK continues to enjoy good relations with its European neighbours but does great new trade deals around the world and Britain is more prosperous and happier than the EU, which falls apart, riven by disputes over lack of democracy, economic inflexibility, nationalism etc. I don't expect that to happen, but I cannot rule it out. If it happens, I'll be glad to turn to you lot and say: "Thank God your lot won. It turns out that you were right and I was wrong". Now let's imagine for a minute that you're as wrong as wrong can be. Let's imagine that we crash out without a deal and all the bad "New Project Fear" stuff happens, short-term and long-term: gridlock at ports, sharp decline in trade, few new trade deals, increased prices from main trading partners, firms closing down or moving abroad, big rise in unemployment, younger generations on the dole or going abroad for work, no money for public services, problems in Ireland, social/racial tensions, increased crime etc. Imagine that continues to some extent for the rest of our lifetimes, while the EU copes OK with the Brexit shock and other existing tensions, so that the EU is much more prosperous and happierthan the UK. I don't really expect all that to happen either - it's very much at the far end of the "disaster" scenario, but I cannot rule it out any more than the rosy scenario. If such a nightmare scenario happened, due essentially to Brexit not incompetent post-Brexit govts, would you turn round and say: "Sorry, we got it wrong. Brexit was a bad idea". If not, could you complete this tie-breaker: If necessary, it is worth ruining my prosperity, my family's opportunities and my country's harmony for the sake of Brexit because........................................
Guest Kopfkino Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 (edited) You were saying @MattP Effectively is staying in that Edited 5 June 2018 by Kopfkino
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 Just now, Kopfkino said: You were saying @MattP Translated to mean 'the government should seek to stay in the EU' Isn't that what Theresa May wants?
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Bear with me on this.... I think that I get the gist of what you Brexiteers are saying, but am curious as to whether expectations of the outcome are colouring what we all think. As I understand it from previous posts, your expectations are that the early months/years of Brexit might be a bit rocky, but you're hopeful that things will turn out for the better in the long run - but even if you personally and the nation generally end up a bit worse off in economic terms (your worst case scenario?), that's well worth it for the benefits of having taken back democratic control of our affairs at a national level. In contrast, while I'm a strong democrat and see an important role for national democracy in that, I feel that more democratic decisions need to be taken internationally now - though I'm aware that there are flaws in EU democracy, as there are in national democracy. So, the economic/social impact of Brexit matters more to me. As for expectations, I share your expectation of some rocky days initially, but assume that the economic/social impact in the long-term (I'm talking decades) will be somewhere between tolerably negative and utterly disastrous, depending on any deal and the post-Brexit actions of govt, business etc. The truth is that none of us know what the short-term or long-term impact will be. Let's imagine for a minute that I'm as wrong as wrong can be. Let's imagine that there aren't too many teething problems with Brexit, the public appreciate the renewed national democracy, the UK continues to enjoy good relations with its European neighbours but does great new trade deals around the world and Britain is more prosperous and happier than the EU, which falls apart, riven by disputes over lack of democracy, economic inflexibility, nationalism etc. I don't expect that to happen, but I cannot rule it out. If it happens, I'll be glad to turn to you lot and say: "Thank God your lot won. It turns out that you were right and I was wrong". Now let's imagine for a minute that you're as wrong as wrong can be. Let's imagine that we crash out without a deal and all the bad "New Project Fear" stuff happens, short-term and long-term: gridlock at ports, sharp decline in trade, few new trade deals, increased prices from main trading partners, firms closing down or moving abroad, big rise in unemployment, younger generations on the dole or going abroad for work, no money for public services, problems in Ireland, social/racial tensions, increased crime etc. Imagine that continues to some extent for the rest of our lifetimes, while the EU copes OK with the Brexit shock and other existing tensions, so that the EU is much more prosperous and happierthan the UK. I don't really expect all that to happen either - it's very much at the far end of the "disaster" scenario, but I cannot rule it out any more than the rosy scenario. If such a nightmare scenario happened, due essentially to Brexit not incompetent post-Brexit govts, would you turn round and say: "Sorry, we got it wrong. Brexit was a bad idea". If not, could you complete this tie-breaker: If necessary, it is worth ruining my prosperity, my family's opportunities and my country's harmony for the sake of Brexit because........................................ I'm guessing that Ireland would have been a more wealthy country in the 20/30s if it had stuck in the UK but they wanted to run their own country. I doubt many people in the Republic or Ireland regret their independence from us.
Recommended Posts