Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

Halloween top tip:

 

Dress up as a “Brexit” tonight. Go to the pub, abandon your friends, then sit in the corner by yourself whilst yelling at them to keep buying you drinks.

Or you good dress up as Mr Geldof and bully the person sat in the corner till you get your own way.

 

 

[Foxinscouseland]

Is this the dullest thread ever on foxes talk?

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, Foxinscouseland said:

Is this the dullest thread ever on foxes talk?

If it is your post is in the correct thread

[Foxinscouseland]

?

[Foxinscouseland]

Tbh I was just surprised to see it on foxestalk, but I know it is important!!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Are there any pubs left? They all seem to be disappearing since we joined the EU.

 One more reason to dump the f-----g E. U.

[Milo]

On 30/10/2018 at 15:53, Alf Bentley said:

 

As I mentioned, McDonnell has said that Labour isn't going to oppose the tax cuts. Given the comparatively small sums involved, it's no big deal, anyway.

 

The issue, insofar as one exists, is over priorities. People on low pay have been struggling through years of austerity and public services have been starved of funding. A bit of extra cash has been found. Pretty much none of it has been given to schools, councils, the police, the care system etc (a large chunk has gone to the NHS, whether enough is another matter) - and a large chunk of the tax cut has gone to those least in need of it.

 

Of the tax cuts, "proportional" might sound fair but people on low pay who have gone through years of austerity need money a lot more than people on £50k+ - and are more likely to spend it, too, boosting growth at a time when we're struggling with growth. As I recall, the IFS said that of the total (fairly small) tax giveaway about 90% would go to those on above-average incomes and about 50% to the top 10%......priorities!

This is the kind of Labour thinking and philosophy that I believe is fundamentally flawed.

 

Everyone being equal and deserving of equal pay rises is fine in theory - in an egalitarian, happy-clappy everyone-is-equal kind of way, but is completely unworkable in practice. 

 

My company, for example, might create £1m turnover and employ 5 staff. That's Corporation Tax on company profit and income tax on staff pay going to the Treasury. There are also pension contributions being paid into the pot as well.

 

The staff are well looked after and work no more hours than they are contracted to. They also receive generous holidays, sick pay and maternity/paternity leave. 

 

I, however, work at least a couple of extra hours most evenings. I get no pay for holidays or for being sick. I have had to pay staff whist suppliers have gone bust or when they take 4 or 5 months to pay an invoice.

 

This is boosting growth - working hard and being able to create your own little environment where you are allowed to create, drive and grow. To create jobs from nothing and employ people. Multiply me by the many thousands of small business owners in this country that are creating work and opportunities. I know it goes against everything that Labour seem to stand for, and a lot of lefties think business is all corporate greed and excess...but it's really not.     

 

Effectively, I am my company's most valuable asset (from a non-egotistical, dispassionate point of view). If I couldn't be arsed to do what I do, there would be fewer jobs and less taxes being paid.

 

Are you saying, then, that my staff should receive a higher tax cut because they are hard done by? It makes absolutely no sense, in my view. 

 

      

  

Edited 31 October 2018 by Milo

[DennisNedry]

I only earn 24k ish a year but am completely fine with the 40% threshold going to £50k.. at the end of the day people earning that much money have, well, earned it! To be earning that much you must be educated to a high standard and doing a highly skilled job. And let's be honest, a household with one person on £50k and the other not working, with kids etc, is hardly 'rich'. 

 

When you actually consider how much of your hard earned income goes on the huge array of taxes you pay, you wonder how the hell the government doesn't have enough!

[Foxxed]

The government says there's been a financial agreement reached with the EU.

 

It's of course good but this is the most interesting part - and will be echoed in other agreements:

 

Quote

The services deal would give UK companies access to European markets as long as British financial regulation remained broadly aligned with the EU’s, it said.

 

"You can have access to our markets - as long your laws are aligned with ours.

 

And when we change our laws, you will change your laws.

 

If you do not, we will remove access to our markets."

 

We are taking in the EU's laws, just as we did before - but this time we have no say in them.

[Alf Bentley]

10 hours ago, Milo said:

This is the kind of Labour thinking and philosophy that I believe is fundamentally flawed.

 

Everyone being equal and deserving of equal pay rises is fine in theory - in an egalitarian, happy-clappy everyone-is-equal kind of way, but is completely unworkable in practice. 

 

My company, for example, might create £1m turnover and employ 5 staff. That's Corporation Tax on company profit and income tax on staff pay going to the Treasury. There are also pension contributions being paid into the pot as well.

 

The staff are well looked after and work no more hours than they are contracted to. They also receive generous holidays, sick pay and maternity/paternity leave. 

 

I, however, work at least a couple of extra hours most evenings. I get no pay for holidays or for being sick. I have had to pay staff whist suppliers have gone bust or when they take 4 or 5 months to pay an invoice.

 

This is boosting growth - working hard and being able to create your own little environment where you are allowed to create, drive and grow. To create jobs from nothing and employ people. Multiply me by the many thousands of small business owners in this country that are creating work and opportunities. I know it goes against everything that Labour seem to stand for, and a lot of lefties think business is all corporate greed and excess...but it's really not.     

 

Effectively, I am my company's most valuable asset (from a non-egotistical, dispassionate point of view). If I couldn't be arsed to do what I do, there would be fewer jobs and less taxes being paid.

 

Are you saying, then, that my staff should receive a higher tax cut because they are hard done by? It makes absolutely no sense, in my view. 

 

      

  

 

This is a straw man argument. Aside from the anti-Labour jibes (and I was only speaking for myself, not Labour), I agree with most of your points.....yet you were supposedly arguing against my post! 

 

I didn't even mention income equality, pay rises or corporate greed. I certainly didn't advocate "everyone being equal and deserving of equal pay rises" or "an egalitarian, happy-clappy" world or claim that "business is all corporate greed and excess" or say that staff with good employment conditions are "hard done by".

 

I'll answer some of the points you made in response to things that I did NOT say:

- I agree that everyone being equal is unworkable in practice. Someone offering high skills, doing a highly-valued/dangerous job, accepting a high level of responsibility or risking their own money should indeed earn more than someone doing a routine job in an office, factory or whatever.

- I do not think business is all corporate greed and excess, and small business very rarely is. There's some greed and excess at some large corporations, but even there I certainly wouldn't deny the importance of business of all sizes in creating wealth, jobs and growth, as you say.

- I set up my small business (micro-business, really - it only employs me) 19 years ago. For the last 3 years or so, for personal reasons, I've been P/T but for 15+ years I was averaging 55 hours work per week, sometimes unsociable hours, with no sick/holiday pay, earning just enough to keep my family but certainly not megabucks. So, I definitely DO have some understanding of small business - and do not see it as all greed/excess.

- I actually think govt should be doing more for small and low-profit businesses: e.g. funding councils properly so that they can cut business rates, intervening to tackle the problem of high rents, maybe keeping corporation tax low when profits are low but increasing it for businesses that make high profits (perhaps with exceptions if the firms use high profits for productive investment rather than high dividends or excessive executive pay).  

 

What I DID question was the govt's priorities in making the tax cuts that it did. I obviously lack the knowledge to comment on your circumstances or those of your staff. But the wider context is well known: over recent years, there has been a massive increase in inequality, and even some people in F/T employment struggle to get by - many dependent on benefits and an increasing number resorting to food banks. In that context, I think the govt got its priorities wrong in devoting 90% of its income tax cut to those on above-average income and 50% to the top 10% of higher earners (IFS figures). I think that money could more usefully have gone to those struggling on low pay or benefits - or to increasing funds for schools, police, councils and the care system.

 

Did you see the Dispatches C4 programme "Born on the Breadline" the other day? Still available on catch-up and covers the burgeoning growth of "baby banks" (which I'd not heard of before - they're like food banks but provide baby equipment, they're not places you go if you can't be bothered waiting 9 months ). Several of the people featured were working in nurseries, hospitals, even a painter/decorator who'd had to cut his workload due to an injury (not Webbo, as far as I'm aware!). However worthy someone on £50k might be, I reckon people like that should be a higher priority for tax handouts.

 

Here are a couple of 2-minute trailers that open via Facebook (the full programme lasts 30 mins):

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I only earn 24k ish a year but am completely fine with the 40% threshold going to £50k.. at the end of the day people earning that much money have, well, earned it! To be earning that much you must be educated to a high standard and doing a highly skilled job. And let's be honest, a household with one person on £50k and the other not working, with kids etc, is hardly 'rich'. 

 

When you actually consider how much of your hard earned income goes on the huge array of taxes you pay, you wonder how the hell the government doesn't have enough!

 

£50k certainly isn't megabucks. For a single person with no commitments, it represents a comfortable lifestyle. But, as you suggest, for a single-income household with kids and a mortgage, it won't mean great wealth.

 

Even so, £50k is twice the median individual income and well above median as a household income. Furthermore, raising the two tax thresholds will also benefit someone on £100k much more than someone on £15k - priorities!

 

Yes, most people on £50k+ will be highly-educated, highly-skilled or successful in business. I bear them no resentment for their higher earnings. But plenty of people on much lower incomes also provide valuable skills or services.

Starting pay for a fully qualified nurse is £22,128, apparently. When I was working F/T and more self-employed, doing highly skilled work, £24k represented a very good year for me (though that was a few years ago). Admittedly, that was partly because I was rubbish at self-marketing, but that was only part of the story. A lot of people do skilled or valuable work for a lot less than £50k.

 

PRIORITIES is my point. For me, after years of austerity, public service cuts, real pay cuts/freezes and rising prices/housing costs, the priority for any tax cuts should be those who need it most - not those on above-average earnings, who will receive most of the income tax cut. That's the beauty of raising thresholds from a Tory perspective - everyone in F/T work gains a little, but those on above-average and even very high incomes gain the most (50% of the cut going to the top 10%, the IFS reckons).

 

As for tax generally.....we're going to have some tough decisions in the coming years, even assuming Brexit turns out OK (much tougher times if it doesn't).

We have an aging population so NHS & care costs will have to rise by more than inflation if we want to maintain the same level of service. Someone will have to pay more tax to fund that, unless we accept much lower care standards or achieve a much higher level of growth that boosts tax revenues and/or significantly increase immigration by people of working age.....there's no easy solution.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

The government says there's been a financial agreement reached with the EU.

 

It's of course good but this is the most interesting part - and will be echoed in other agreements:

 

 

"You can have access to our markets - as long your laws are aligned with ours.

 

And when we change our laws, you will change your laws.

 

If you do not, we will remove access to our markets."

 

We are taking in the EU's laws, just as we did before - but this time we have no say in them.

 

Brexit really could see us leaping stark bollock naked into a shark pool....

 

All the big economic powers will flex their muscles to get force terms on us that suit their interests, not ours. The same was apparent with Russia, US, Australia and others challenging and delaying our WTO plans

 

Here's the US, too, issuing threats about the tax on tech corporations introduced in the budget: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46050724

"The US has hit back against a UK plan to impose a new tax on sales by technology giants. US political leaders and business groups say the proposal would violate tax agreements by targeting US firms.

They warned the tax could spark US retaliation and hurt prospects for a US-UK trade deal".

 

It's hard to imagine a worse time to go it alone from the world's biggest economic bloc with the likes of Trump, Putin, the Chinese Communist Party & the EU dominating the scene.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

16 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Not even a link to the article, either, Andrew Doyle.

 

Naturally it's somewhat less batshit mental than you're expected to assume:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/01/police-crime-misogyny-burglary-women-harassment-violent

[Bellend Sebastian]

Interestingly, they've now changed the headline to something a bit softer

[Guest MattP]

Why has the Guardian gone pure clickbait now? Obviously never my cup of tea politically but I did recognise it had a lot of intelligent comment in it.

 

A few years ago it was people like Will Self and Robin Cook, does Freeland still write for them? He was interesting. Just this week I've seen this and the ludicrously ill timed nomsense from Afua Hirsch.

 

I'm presuming this is down to financing, they should go to a paywall - one of the reasons circulation is so low (148,000 now which is laughable) has to be that it's free as there is still a massive left wing market out there as shown by the last election.

 

The Mail get away with no paywall as I'd imagine it's main market is still people who prefer print. 

Edited 1 November 2018 by MattP

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why has the Guardian gone pure clickbait now? Obviously never my cup of tea politically but I did recognise it had a lot of intelligent comment in it.

 

A few years ago it was people like Will Self and Robin Cook, does Freeland still write for them? He was interesting. Just this week I've seen this and the ludicrously ill timed nomsense from Afua Hirsch.

 

I'm presuming this is down to financing, they should go to a paywall - one of the reasons circulation is so low (148,000 now which is laughable) has to be that it's free as there is still a massive left wing market out there as shown by the last election.

 

The Mail get away with no paywall as I'd imagine it's main market is still people who prefer print. 

It's definitely gone very clickbait and even as a reader I have to admit there is a lot of silly stuff in there now. Having said that when you read the articles you realise that they are often more nuanced than the clickbaity headlines. 

Edited 1 November 2018 by bovril

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

It's definitely gone very clickbait and even as a reader I have to admit there is a lot of silly stuff in there now. Having said that when you read the articles you realise that they are often more nuanced than the clickbaity headlines. 

Would you pay a subscription to read it if it meant better columnists and improved quality?

[bovril]

Just now, MattP said:

Would you pay a subscription to read it if it meant better columnists and improved quality?

Nah. I buy it on Saturdays which is as much as I am willing to spend on any kind of news media. 

[lifted*fox]

Ooh. Bannon, Farage, Banks all being investigated in one way or another now. 

 

House of cards gonna come crumbling down soon enough. About ****ing time tbh. 

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Not even a link to the article, either, Andrew Doyle.

 

Naturally it's somewhat less batshit mental than you're expected to assume:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/01/police-crime-misogyny-burglary-women-harassment-violent

 

3 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Interestingly, they've now changed the headline to something a bit softer

 

[Milo]

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This is a straw man argument. Aside from the anti-Labour jibes (and I was only speaking for myself, not Labour), I agree with most of your points.....yet you were supposedly arguing against my post! 

 

I didn't even mention income equality, pay rises or corporate greed. I certainly didn't advocate "everyone being equal and deserving of equal pay rises" or "an egalitarian, happy-clappy" world or claim that "business is all corporate greed and excess" or say that staff with good employment conditions are "hard done by".

 

I'll answer some of the points you made in response to things that I did NOT say:

- I agree that everyone being equal is unworkable in practice. Someone offering high skills, doing a highly-valued/dangerous job, accepting a high level of responsibility or risking their own money should indeed earn more than someone doing a routine job in an office, factory or whatever.

- I do not think business is all corporate greed and excess, and small business very rarely is. There's some greed and excess at some large corporations, but even there I certainly wouldn't deny the importance of business of all sizes in creating wealth, jobs and growth, as you say.

- I set up my small business (micro-business, really - it only employs me) 19 years ago. For the last 3 years or so, for personal reasons, I've been P/T but for 15+ years I was averaging 55 hours work per week, sometimes unsociable hours, with no sick/holiday pay, earning just enough to keep my family but certainly not megabucks. So, I definitely DO have some understanding of small business - and do not see it as all greed/excess.

- I actually think govt should be doing more for small and low-profit businesses: e.g. funding councils properly so that they can cut business rates, intervening to tackle the problem of high rents, maybe keeping corporation tax low when profits are low but increasing it for businesses that make high profits (perhaps with exceptions if the firms use high profits for productive investment rather than high dividends or excessive executive pay).  

 

What I DID question was the govt's priorities in making the tax cuts that it did. I obviously lack the knowledge to comment on your circumstances or those of your staff. But the wider context is well known: over recent years, there has been a massive increase in inequality, and even some people in F/T employment struggle to get by - many dependent on benefits and an increasing number resorting to food banks. In that context, I think the govt got its priorities wrong in devoting 90% of its income tax cut to those on above-average income and 50% to the top 10% of higher earners (IFS figures). I think that money could more usefully have gone to those struggling on low pay or benefits - or to increasing funds for schools, police, councils and the care system.

 

Did you see the Dispatches C4 programme "Born on the Breadline" the other day? Still available on catch-up and covers the burgeoning growth of "baby banks" (which I'd not heard of before - they're like food banks but provide baby equipment, they're not places you go if you can't be bothered waiting 9 months ). Several of the people featured were working in nurseries, hospitals, even a painter/decorator who'd had to cut his workload due to an injury (not Webbo, as far as I'm aware!). However worthy someone on £50k might be, I reckon people like that should be a higher priority for tax handouts.

 

Here are a couple of 2-minute trailers that open via Facebook (the full programme lasts 30 mins):

 

 

 

Not straw man at all - and I wasn't arguing against your post - I was just debating the point that you made regarding lower paid workers have been through austerity and need the tax cut money more, so that they can boost growth.

 

I disagree with that and explained why, from my own perspective, I think it is just as valid that higher earners (or even more valid in some cases) receive benefits from the tax cuts.

 

Please don't see offence where none was meant - my post was not at all a dig at you. I used the last sentence of your post to highlight my own experiences and viewpoint on the current topic of tax cuts in the budget. I probably should have started it as a separate topic.

 

I don't really watch tv so wouldn't have seen the two programmes you mentioned.    

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

It's definitely gone very clickbait and even as a reader I have to admit there is a lot of silly stuff in there now. Having said that when you read the articles you realise that they are often more nuanced than the clickbaity headlines. 

Because the point of the title is to get people clicking through. It's why even the most mundane thing printed will have "NUMBER 3 WILL SHOCK YOU" in the title. Clickbait is how a lot of websites stay in business.

[bovril]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Because the point of the title is to get people clicking through. It's why even the most mundane thing printed will have "NUMBER 3 WILL SHOCK YOU" in the title. Clickbait is how a lot of websites stay in business.

Yeah of course. Seems to have worked with urban spaceman too. 

[urban.spaceman]

27 minutes ago, bovril said:

Yeah of course. Seems to have worked with urban spaceman too. 

Cheers.