Labour admits the Tories were right all along

[leicsmac]

If you are such a fan of the idea of redistribution of wealth to those who have done more to deserve it then why are you a labour supporter?

Labour simply gift money to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it, while as we've seen, along with the lib dems the tories have stopped giving away so much money and instead rewarded work by raising the tax free allowance. That takes money out of the hands of people who have done "very little hard work" and puts it straight into the hands of the hard workers on low to mid salaries. Isn't that exactly what you want?

 

That's one good policy, which as Cap pointed out was essentially forced upon them by the Lib Dems in order to pass the legislation to reduce tax for their rich chums. 

 

I'm certainly game for the idea of reducing tax for low earners and increasing it for ultra-high earners, though. 

 

If the Tories wanted my vote they'd come up with a way to incentivise companies to take on more staff and lower unemployment drastically (particularly in the STEM area), along with reducing taxes on essential goods and increasing it on luxury ones. Mass employment works - I've no idea why people push economic ideas for a country that don't include it.

[DennisNedry]

Labour simply gift money to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it,

 

Doctors, nurses, care workers, shop workers, teachers and other low paid workers.

 

Doctors are paid way too much for doing less than they did before New Labour.

Nurses cannot be paid as much as they deserve because Labour flooded the NHS with unneccessary middle managment staff.

Shop workers may get an extra 10p and hour on minimum wage which makes no diference.

Teachers are paid too much, I bet their hours to wage ratio is very generous. If they worked a full year they'd be on 40k+

[leicsmac]

 

Teachers are paid too much, I bet their hours to wage ratio is very generous. If they worked a full year they'd be on 40k+

 

Yes, because a job that involves being derided by all and sundry and working possibly more hours 'out of work' than any other public service profession for less money than most public service professions really is being paid too much.

 

Sorry, but as I've said on here I'm sick of teachers being acceptable targets in the public eye right now.

[MooseBreath]

That's one good policy, which as Cap pointed out was essentially forced upon them by the Lib Dems in order to pass the legislation to reduce tax for their rich chums.

I'm certainly game for the idea of reducing tax for low earners and increasing it for ultra-high earners, though.

If the Tories wanted my vote they'd come up with a way to incentivise companies to take on more staff and lower unemployment drastically (particularly in the STEM area), along with reducing taxes on essential goods and increasing it on luxury ones. Mass employment works - I've no idea why people push economic ideas for a country that don't include it.

Most of their "rich chums" (by that I assume you mean the evil people who committed the crime of working hard and becoming successful) are employers. They provide jobs both directly and indirectly.

You constantly lavish broad criticism at those people (i think at one point you even said something like "every rich person in the world has done immoral things to attain their wealth"), yet you also want to take advantage of their wealth by making them pay an even more disproportionate amount of tax, and not only that but you also then expect those same people to be able to employ others, presumably on good salaries with perfect work life balances and perks galore.

You aren't just looking to have and to eat the cake, you're want it to wank you off as well.

[Rincewind]

Yes, because a job that involves being derided by all and sundry and working possibly more hours 'out of work' than any other public service profession for less money than most public service professions really is being paid too much.

 

Sorry, but as I've said on here I'm sick of teachers being acceptable targets in the public eye right now.

It seems that some think because they don't have to do the job then the person doing it are not worthy of a place in society or a decent wage.

[DennisNedry]

It seems that some think because they don't have to do the job then the person doing it are not worthy of a place in society or a decent wage.

 

I don't think anybody thinks that, I just think the public sector are paid over generously if you compare it to the private sector. Have a look at the figures:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2067258/Best-paid-jobs-2011-Tables-official-figures-UK-salaries.html

[leicsmac]

Most of their "rich chums" (by that I assume you mean the evil people who committed the crime of working hard and becoming successful) are employers. They provide jobs both directly and indirectly.

You constantly lavish broad criticism at those people (i think at one point you even said something like "every rich person in the world has done immoral things to attain their wealth"), yet you also want to take advantage of their wealth by making them pay an even more disproportionate amount of tax, and not only that but you also then expect those same people to be able to employ others, presumably on good salaries with perfect work life balances and perks galore.

You aren't just looking to have and to eat the cake, you're want it to wank you off as well.

 

If someone works hard to become rich and thereby successful, I have no problem with that. Kudos to them - aspiration is a damn good thing.

 

But how many of those "rags-to-riches" stories do you see these days? The few that do make it from lower-class backgrounds to being in the higher echelons of society are usually headline-makers when it happens, which tells you how rare it is. Hard work is no longer any guarantee of making enough money for an 'affluent' life, and that's a bit off to me. And additionally the gap between rich and poor and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority has increased drastically in the past few years. This lends additional weight to the 'closed shop' right at the top. The ladder has been pulled up, for the most part.

 

And yes, I was being somewhat facetious when I said that every single rich person has done something immoral to gain or maintain their riches...that's not accurate, and I was generalising.

 

As for the employment/tax matter - the high unemployment figures speak for themselves that either the employers or the Government are not doing enough to get people working. Try to strike a balance perhaps - if a rich person is running a company and paying their employees a fair days wage for a fair days work, that employer should be rewarded by paying less tax. Give them tax breaks to give them incentive to take on more staff, but get people working, get them off benefits, get them spending, get the money moving. I'm hoping we can agree on that at least. For me that's the key issue - too many disenfranchised people who are being conditioned by a lack of opportunity into becoming benefit spongers.

 

Oh, and I'm banging the drum again here, but manufacturing jobs and high-level engineering is where this country can create most of its wealth, not just the financial service industry alone which is far too vulnerable to the vagaries of the world market, as the past few years have shown. Putting all our eggs in one basket in that fashion was a mistake.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

This is what he said. I don't want others to get the wrong impression.

 

The Labour leader will tell the Birmingham conference: “If we win the election, we will come to power in tougher economic circumstances than we have seen in generations and that will have to shape the way we govern.  Our starting point for 2015-16 will be that we cannot reverse any cut in day-to-day, current spending unless it is fully funded from cuts elsewhere or extra revenue – not from more borrowing.â€

In an unpalatable message for some Labour MPs, trade unionists and party members in his audience, Mr Miliband will say: “People will only put their hope in us if we show how we will make a difference. But people will only put their trust in us if we show we are credible. Only if we have the discipline to face the challenge of our times, can we change the direction of our country.â€

 

 

So they are not saying the Tories are right just that they would have to ensure a structure was in place first.

 

Don't be a dick. Plenty of idiots on both sides and I don't agree with a lot of things the Tories have tried, but I do share the philosophy.

This. 100%     

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

This. 100%      Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

This. 100%     

 

  Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

 

 

[sphericalfox]

 

This. 100%      Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

This. 100%     

 

  Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

 

 

 

Fail. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

 

This. 100%      Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

This. 100%     

 

 

 

 

[sphericalfox]

 

 

This. 100%      Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

This. 100%     

 

 

 

 

 

Fail again. 

[Webbo]

 

 

This. 100%      Labour have no answers though, to sorting the economy. It was, after all, them that made the mess we are in.

This. 100%     

 

 

 

 

 

Can I quote you on that?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Me and my computer are falling out. 

[Guest]

Can I quote you on that?

You can. He obviously can't

[leicsmac]

[Guest Col city fan]

I always look on this in very simplistic terms. Perhaps too simply..

Labour have spent far too much money.. In some ways really well, in other ways not so well.

I've been bought up on not spending beyond my means. This has always been my family philosophy. On most occasions I've saved up to buy something. The only real exception has been my house.

When the Government spends well beyond its means, so too, I think, do individuals. The Labour years have seen huge levels of individual debt I believe?

For me, the Tories have had to make cuts in public spending. Quite rightly. Though I don't always agree with the areas in which cuts are made.

I think that Labour will get back into power next time. 'Joe public' usually lives for the moment and will have been hit hard, in some ways, by the cuts made. Therefore, many will demand a change.

Should Labour get in next time, they will have little choice IMO but to continue with the cuts. I think even they must realise that encouraging individual spending by increases in public spending hasn't worked.

The thing that frustrates me most is interest levels on savings. I like to save, I believe it's right and proper to save to be able to meet your own needs. However, interest rates are so low that even saving is basically discouraged.

I am no expert, and look on this quite simplistically. I also see similarities between the Economy and LCFC. We have spent, under Sven, money beyond our means. Now we are living with the consequences.

[leicsmac]

I always look on this in very simplistic terms. Perhaps too simply..

Labour have spent far too much money.. In some ways really well, in other ways not so well.

I've been bought up on not spending beyond my means. This has always been my family philosophy. On most occasions I've saved up to buy something. The only real exception has been my house.

When the Government spends well beyond its means, so too, I think, do individuals. The Labour years have seen huge levels of individual debt I believe?

For me, the Tories have had to make cuts in public spending. Quite rightly. Though I don't always agree with the areas in which cuts are made.

I think that Labour will get back into power next time. 'Joe public' usually lives for the moment and will have been hit hard, in some ways, by the cuts made. Therefore, many will demand a change.

Should Labour get in next time, they will have little choice IMO but to continue with the cuts. I think even they must realise that encouraging individual spending by increases in public spending hasn't worked.

The thing that frustrates me most is interest levels on savings. I like to save, I believe it's right and proper to save to be able to meet your own needs. However, interest rates are so low that even saving is basically discouraged.

I am no expert, and look on this quite simplistically. I also see similarities between the Economy and LCFC. We have spent, under Sven, money beyond our means. Now we are living with the consequences.

 

Agree with the vast majority of that Col.

 

That said, unless you're saving for a very particular objective (as you seem to have done) I think that too much saving damages an economy. If money isn't moving by people spending it then economies stagnate, as has happened recently and is still happening, to a degree. People have become afraid and are hoarding their money, and while that's a noble sentiment it isn't going to get and economy going again.

[Guest Col city fan]

Agree with the vast majority of that Col.

That said, unless you're saving for a very particular objective (as you seem to have done) I think that too much saving damages an economy. If money isn't moving by people spending it then economies stagnate, as has happened recently and is still happening, to a degree. People have become afraid and are hoarding their money, and while that's a noble sentiment it isn't going to get and economy going again.

I guess it's a vicious cycle mate.

Fear of the economic situation (wages being frozen, increased unemployment, rising inflationary pressures) instill apprehension in spending. Which further aggravates the problem.

There is no easy solution. I think mine is generally more of a philosophical argument. I would still continue to save (if I had the means too) even when the economy was flourishing. Because its what I've been brought up to do. 'If you can't afford it, you can't afford it' type thing.

[Rincewind]

I can hardly afford to save or spend. I'm living day to day. May more people are having to do this. Mainly working people who have had 'contract' redone so they earn less in real terms or have had hours cut to part time. I have never been one for all the latest X-Boxes, IPhones Sky TV etc so when it came down to tightening my belt I did not have to adjust it much unlike the families with young children, two cars half a dozen TV's and umpteen phone contracts who find bills like electricity and gas soar.

[Guest Col city fan]

I can hardly afford to save or spend. I'm living day to day. May more people are having to do this. Mainly working people who have had 'contract' redone so they earn less in real terms or have had hours cut to part time. I have never been one for all the latest X-Boxes, IPhones Sky TV etc so when it came down to tightening my belt I did not have to adjust it much unlike the families with young children, two cars half a dozen TV's and umpteen phone contracts who find bills like electricity and gas soar.

Can't fault you buddy.

My 'saving' is small potatoes let me tell you

We ain't talking big money here.

I know a couple of people who are even resorting to paying some of their mortgage on their credit cards. That's a slippery slope.

[Rincewind]

Not everyone can be financial wizards. That is why there is accountants and money lending shops. I would never pay £30 for a mobile contract per month. But some people are tied to a three year comtract. Same with Sky Sport and Movies There are some falling behind with mortgages and at risk of losing their homes. These are people that are working. I am relatively better off than some but I had a wake up call less than a year out of work when I was told that if I didn't review my spending I would be well into my overdraft by July of this year were if still unable to find work I could be legiable for pension Credit. My JSA will also increase because of my age. With my part time work I will be better off if I am still careful

I would like more hours but the pressure will be off me a little and I won't be answerable to faceless people behind a counter who do not know me and only concern is to make figure fit.

 

Saw a report that says the Work Programme has failed to find places for around 2 thirds. The best successes is within the young which I would expect. Now there are so many more on it including previously ESA and long term employed and 50's plus. A lot of these are ignored because the advisors do not get bonuses if they cannot find or help find work.

My advisor used to call once a month to ask about changes. Not heard from him for two at least months.. I did better without his help.

[MooseBreath]

If someone works hard to become rich and thereby successful, I have no problem with that. Kudos to them - aspiration is a damn good thing.

But how many of those "rags-to-riches" stories do you see these days? The few that do make it from lower-class backgrounds to being in the higher echelons of society are usually headline-makers when it happens, which tells you how rare it is. Hard work is no longer any guarantee of making enough money for an 'affluent' life, and that's a bit off to me. And additionally the gap between rich and poor and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority has increased drastically in the past few years. This lends additional weight to the 'closed shop' right at the top. The ladder has been pulled up, for the most part.

And yes, I was being somewhat facetious when I said that every single rich person has done something immoral to gain or maintain their riches...that's not accurate, and I was generalising.

As for the employment/tax matter - the high unemployment figures speak for themselves that either the employers or the Government are not doing enough to get people working. Try to strike a balance perhaps - if a rich person is running a company and paying their employees a fair days wage for a fair days work, that employer should be rewarded by paying less tax. Give them tax breaks to give them incentive to take on more staff, but get people working, get them off benefits, get them spending, get the money moving. I'm hoping we can agree on that at least. For me that's the key issue - too many disenfranchised people who are being conditioned by a lack of opportunity into becoming benefit spongers.

Oh, and I'm banging the drum again here, but manufacturing jobs and high-level engineering is where this country can create most of its wealth, not just the financial service industry alone which is far too vulnerable to the vagaries of the world market, as the past few years have shown. Putting all our eggs in one basket in that fashion was a mistake.

Obviously not everyone can be in the top-2%. I don't how you're defining "affluence" here but I don't agree that hard work is "no longer" enough to reach affluence. One because "no longer" implies that you believe there are now new blockers to wealth which didn't exist before, and home ownership aside (an issue which the tories seem intent on resolving) i'm struggling to see what they are; and two because my definition of affluence for the purposes of this conversation would be a 2.4 child family in a 3-bed semi in a nice neighbourhood with two cars, all mod cons and a couple of foreign holidays a year. Hard work (including making the right career choices, networking, constant upskilling etc) can definitely still get you all of that.

[leicsmac]

Obviously not everyone can be in the top-2%. I don't how you're defining "affluence" here but I don't agree that hard work is "no longer" enough to reach affluence. One because "no longer" implies that you believe there are now new blockers to wealth which didn't exist before, and home ownership aside (an issue which the tories seem intent on resolving) i'm struggling to see what they are; and two because my definition of affluence for the purposes of this conversation would be a 2.4 child family in a 3-bed semi in a nice neighbourhood with two cars, all mod cons and a couple of foreign holidays a year. Hard work (including making the right career choices, networking, constant upskilling etc) can definitely still get you all of that.

 

I think in that case our definition of 'affluent' differs. What you are describing there I would consider 'comfortable'...standard family life really - and you're right, that's definitely attainable with the current economy through hard work - in fact I'm hoping rather soon that's where I'll be.

But I think a person in that situation would still have a fair amount of worry about money - mortgage payments, possible credit card debt etc, and they'd have to work pretty hard to maintain the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. 

 

What I would mean by 'affluent' would be another stage or two up - large large house with multiple bedrooms and possibly a fair tract of land to go with it, money enough to afford medium-to-high level private education for each of your children, a few standard and one or two luxury cars, and holidays whenever you wanted them and could get time off, irrespective of location. Not rich enough to not have to work at all, but in a well-paying enough job to afford that and not have to worry about the money and be able to afford it all (apart from the mortgage) remaining debt-free. 

 

I think there has been numerous blockers to wealth through history (old class system being the biggest) and it has certainly been the case in the past that hard work wouldn't necessarily lead you to a fortune, but I think up until the financial crisis it was getting easier to work your way up the ladder. Now, because of the crash job security is such a tenuous thing such opportunities have become somewhat rarer.

 

I think it's a case of same lack of social mobility, different reason.

[MooseBreath]

I think in that case our definition of 'affluent' differs. What you are describing there I would consider 'comfortable'...standard family life really - and you're right, that's definitely attainable with the current economy through hard work - in fact I'm hoping rather soon that's where I'll be.

But I think a person in that situation would still have a fair amount of worry about money - mortgage payments, possible credit card debt etc, and they'd have to work pretty hard to maintain the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.

What I would mean by 'affluent' would be another stage or two up - large large house with multiple bedrooms and possibly a fair tract of land to go with it, money enough to afford medium-to-high level private education for each of your children, a few standard and one or two luxury cars, and holidays whenever you wanted them and could get time off, irrespective of location. Not rich enough to not have to work at all, but in a well-paying enough job to afford that and not have to worry about the money and be able to afford it all (apart from the mortgage) remaining debt-free.

I think there has been numerous blockers to wealth through history (old class system being the biggest) and it has certainly been the case in the past that hard work wouldn't necessarily lead you to a fortune, but I think up until the financial crisis it was getting easier to work your way up the ladder. Now, because of the crash job security is such a tenuous thing such opportunities have become somewhat rarer.

I think it's a case of same lack of social mobility, different reason.

Your definition of affluence has never been a realistic target from the bottom in one generation. You've always needed luck to make that kind of jump and probably always will. That kind of lifestyle is on the upper tail of the bell curve and if your wealth redistribution dreams come true it will be chopped off the end; it won't be available to anyone.