Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    I am a Labour supporter.

    I believe that people should be treated humanely and fairly, and that the circumstances into which you are born should not crush your chances in life. I believe that the free market provides the most profitable result, but that profits should not be the aim. I believe in workers' rights, comfortable living conditions, less inequality and state monopolies in places where competition is not necessary—because the profit incentive is removed, and it is just the production of commodity and people selling their labour for money. I believe that companies should be run with horizontal power structures instead of managerial pyramids, and that co-operatives should become the norm. I believe that people are a result of the society which shapes them, and so should be helped through, despite anything they have done. I believe that we live in a world which is increasingly fragile and under threat, and we need to do our utmost to preserve it for posterity, for future generations.

    So I support Labour. Because it best represents my views, even if it does not verbatim. Because they're the only party which could get anywhere close to making a country I'd like to see. Because I'm fed of of the coalition crushing things I hold dear.

    But I guess that's just me.

    Didn't the Conservative led coalition raise the personal allowance so much that around 3 million of the poorest will not pay any income tax at all!

    And didn't your precious labour abolish the 10p tax rate as well as raise NI?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sambookaa)
    'Being Northern' is not a valid reason for supporting Labour. I live in the North in one of the safest Tory seats & am a Tory boy myself. Think again guys.
    I assume your not from the (labour heartlands of ) Manchester or Liverpool , right ?

    Lool
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not disputing that some of the money gets spent on services we all want and need. But the point is the state raises it's money aggressively and this is bound to have far reaching consequences, like arrested growth or higher unemployment for example. Are you prepared to let dogma stand in the way of a rational analysis of the facts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    I don't know about that specific case, but you're always going to get a few piss takers. It's not the majority though. I'd rather a few idiots get paid for nothing and the most vulnerable be looked after though than the other option of punishing those who need help because of aformentioned idiots.
    The current system also punishes the vulnerable though. Do you know how expensive it is to run a car these days thanks to all the taxes motorists have to pay? These costs act as a massive barrier to poor, vulnerable people seeking to work their way out of poverty. This keep the very poorest in a state of dependency, but the left gloss over this because they're convinced their ideology is virtually infallable. All I'm saying is look at both sides of the equation, I agree that the state needs to raise a certain amount of revenue for the common good, but the way it currently does this is questionable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Didn't the Conservative led coalition raise the personal allowance so much that around 3 million of the poorest will not pay any income tax at all!

    And didn't your precious labour abolish the 10p tax rate as well as raise NI?!
    They raised the personal allowance, one of the few good things they did. They also dealt a brutal assault on the poor with bedroom tax, with cutting public services and raising VAT. They have done some things I agree with, but overwhelmingly I think that they have had a net negative effect on the country. Right? I disagree with many of the things that New Labour did, which One Nation Labour has pledged to reverse.

    I support Labour because I agree with many of their ideas. I support them based on their ideas, their ideas do not automatically become mine and I don't automatically oppose things done by a different faction.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The current system also punishes the vulnerable though. Do you know how expensive it is to run a car these days thanks to all the taxes motorists have to pay? These costs act as a massive barrier to poor, vulnerable people seeking to work their way out of poverty. This keep the very poorest in a state of dependency, but the left gloss over this because they're convinced their ideology is virtually infallable. All I'm saying is look at both sides of the equation, I agree that the state needs to raise a certain amount of revenue for the common good, but the way it currently does this is questionable.
    I don't completely disagree with you there. The transport system in this country is rubbish. The system is **** and needs reforming, scrapping it isn't the way to go though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I'm not disputing that some of the money gets spent on services we all want and need. But the point is the state raises it's money aggressively and this is bound to have far reaching consequences, like arrested growth or higher unemployment for example. Are you prepared to let dogma stand in the way of a rational analysis of the facts?
    What dogma have I proposed? I forgot the part of our discussion where I bound you to the ground and bludgeoned your head with Das Kapital.

    Taxation is not taken aggressively, it's like a subscription fee to live in a civilised society. Feel free to leave and not pay taxes at all. I think your options are the Disputed Territory of the Western Sahara and the northern half of Somalia.

    Besides, taxation does not prevent growth. Why would it? The same for unemployment, really, why? Growth was higher under the 90% and 80% tax rates in the UK between 1945 and 1960 than in the lower rates seen after Thatcher. Because the state had money which it could use to invest into workers and into the economy, perhaps. And unemployment went up under Thatcher faster than ever before. When taxes were cut. Not as a direct result certainly, but definitely as an indirect one.

    I'd suppose that your argument is that (like you think the minimum wage does) taxes make it unviable for employers to employ some people. Then it's not a job worth having. They can get another one, and they do. Besides, with respect to the minimum wage's effect—it's not there.

    Please. Just think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    They raised the personal allowance, one of the few good things they did. They also dealt a brutal assault on the poor with bedroom tax, with cutting public services and raising VAT. They have done some things I agree with, but overwhelmingly I think that they have had a net negative effect on the country. Right? I disagree with many of the things that New Labour did, which One Nation Labour has pledged to reverse.

    I support Labour because I agree with many of their ideas. I support them based on their ideas, their ideas do not automatically become mine and I don't automatically oppose things done by a different faction.
    Hmm but is is fair for people to have 1,2,3or more spare bedrooms in social housing when there are homeless and such high demand for social housing?

    You do forget that the minimum rate of VAT is 15% as long as we remain in the EU. Anyhow Labour would have had to cut or raise taxes too lol! Though I think the VAT rise was cou

    Personally I wouldn't want Ed Milliband to be PM - I'd rather his brother David if I had to choose.

    Surely the benefit cuts in conjunction with tax cuts will make working people less dependent on government (which is surely a good thing?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm but is is fair for people to have 1,2,3or more spare bedrooms in social housing when there are homeless and such high demand for social housing?

    You do forget that the minimum rate of VAT is 15% as long as we remain in the EU. Anyhow Labour would have had to cut or raise taxes too lol!

    Personally I wouldn't want Ed Milliband to be PM - I'd rather his brother David if I had to choose.

    Surely the benefit cuts in conjunction with tax cuts will make working people less dependent on government (which is surely a good thing?)
    There isn't the social housing available in which to house the people who are being charged for their spare bedrooms, and the bedroom tax is unfair on the disabled anyway. If there is high demand for social housing, then let councils build houses. They'd pay for themselves eventually in rent, and would save money on housing benefit, which mostly acts as a landlord subsidy.

    Then let's drop our VAT to 15%! VAT has a disproportionate impact on the poor, who spend more of their immediate income. Labour would raise funds by taxing the rich, who contribute less of their immediate income to the economy, and who earn so much more (the richest 10% of UK households are 850 times richer than the poorest 10%—I'd hate to see the figures for the top 1%), so who can lose the income.

    Personally I like Ed Miliband, but really you should vote for the party and the policies rather than the leader

    And I think that we should be trying to help people who are on benefits into work. ATOS is a failure of an organisation, and Labour's current suggestions are a little foolish, but we need to get these people into work somehow. But cutting benefits just makes it harder for them. Makes the worry about food, and heating, and electricity all the harder, making them stressed and hungry and tired and cold, and they can't get jobs because there are no jobs and so forth and so forth and so forth... Go back to the building council houses thing—that also creates jobs, low-skilled and high-skilled, so will to some extent indent the vast number of unemployed and will to some extent stimulate the economy, as well as reduce the welfare budget, allowing the government to spend money elsewhere (such as the NHS or education), creating more jobs... and so on.

    At least, that's what I think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    There isn't the social housing available in which to house the people who are being charged for their spare bedrooms, and the bedroom tax is unfair on the disabled anyway. If there is high demand for social housing, then let councils build houses. They'd pay for themselves eventually in rent, and would save money on housing benefit, which mostly acts as a landlord subsidy.
    In London that's just not feasible. In the inner boroughs there's simply not enough space (even if there was money) to build enough social housing.
    The Outer London boroughs (19 of them) are subject to green belt restrictions.

    The disabled are exempt from the 'bedroom tax'. Also where would this money come from? Council tax is already a burden - arguably it's not much better than poll tax!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Then let's drop our VAT to 15%! VAT has a disproportionate impact on the poor, who spend more of their immediate income. Labour would raise funds by taxing the rich, who contribute less of their immediate income to the economy, and who earn so much more (the richest 10% of UK households are 850 times richer than the poorest 10%—I'd hate to see the figures for the top 1%), so who can lose the income.
    But you forget they can move the easiest. I.e Britain has seen an influx of wealthy people from France and Israel who are fleeing from higher taxes for the rich.

    Every millionaire who leaves the country due to high taxes costs the government 100ks in lost tax revenue!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Personally I like Ed Miliband, but really you should vote for the party and the policies rather than the leader
    Ok, what if Ken or Blair was leader.
    You have to remember if the PM is weak/bad it doesn't matter what the party is

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    And I think that we should be trying to help people who are on benefits into work. ATOS is a failure of an organisation, and Labour's current suggestions are a little foolish, but we need to get these people into work somehow.
    redirecting funds spent on benefits to be spent on employment programs make sense

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    But cutting benefits just makes it harder for them.
    Isn't it an incentive to work,somewhat?

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Makes the worry about food, and heating, and electricity all the harder, making them stressed and hungry and tired and cold, and they can't get jobs because there are no jobs and so forth and so forth and so forth...
    What about the working class who don't get any government support at all( bar say child benefit of course)? Who have to pay council tax in full?


    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Go back to the building council houses thing—that also creates jobs, low-skilled and high-skilled, so will to some extent indent the vast number of unemployed and will to some extent stimulate the economy, as well as reduce the welfare budget, allowing the government to spend money elsewhere (such as the NHS or education), creating more jobs... and so on.
    You forget we need the money in the first point!

    The problem is building houses is very expensive, you have to buy the land too.

    Social housing should really be reserved for the very needy- i.e disabled and those totally unable to find suitable accomodation otherwise

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    At least, that's what I think.
    You have theoretically nice ideas but wouldn't work very well in practise
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Just study some proper Keynes (not the vulgar Keynesianism many subscribe to) or some of the neo-Marxians to get some idea of things tosh.
    What Keynes advocated isn't gospel. He favoured some government intervention; that doesn't justify Labourite idiots wanting everything nationalised. Go to North Korea for that and write home about it. One of his core premises was that wages were sticky downwards, prolonging unemployment, partly due to, you guessed it, trade unions. Is it not ironic Labourites have an unhealthy passion with the very problem Keynes pointed to? As for Marxists, I wouldn't waste my time. Their time ended the same time the iron curtain's did.

    But credit where it's due, at least you acknowledged that those who profess to be Keynesian often do so without understanding his views. It is these useful idiots to blame for the right's sometimes irrational hatred of Keynes.

    As for Austrian economics, I know which branch pointed out the cluster**** we were heading to. Keynesians wanted the bubble. The bubble was the problem. We've been on a consumption binge and now we're finally waking up with the hangover.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    What dogma have I proposed? I forgot the part of our discussion where I bound you to the ground and bludgeoned your head with Das Kapital.

    Taxation is not taken aggressively, it's like a subscription fee to live in a civilised society. Feel free to leave and not pay taxes at all. I think your options are the Disputed Territory of the Western Sahara and the northern half of Somalia.

    Besides, taxation does not prevent growth. Why would it? The same for unemployment, really, why? Growth was higher under the 90% and 80% tax rates in the UK between 1945 and 1960 than in the lower rates seen after Thatcher. Because the state had money which it could use to invest into workers and into the economy, perhaps. And unemployment went up under Thatcher faster than ever before. When taxes were cut. Not as a direct result certainly, but definitely as an indirect one.

    I'd suppose that your argument is that (like you think the minimum wage does) taxes make it unviable for employers to employ some people. Then it's not a job worth having. They can get another one, and they do. Besides, with respect to the minimum wage's effect—it's not there.

    Please. Just think.

    Taxation isn't analogous to a subscription fee, if it were I woul d be able to cancel the subcription without being forced to leave the country. What it really is is protection money. The state, in its capacity as the local heavy mob in nicely tailored clothing, demands a certain % of your income in return for 'protection'. If you refuse their demands they either lock you away at gunpoint (prison) or -as in your example- tell you to get lost altogether. We can dress this arrangement up with the cuddly language of socialism if we like and pretend the money is for the 'poor&vulnerable', but we'd only be kidding ourselves. Taxation represents a fundamental breach of our natural human rights, in particular the right not to be stolen from. I strongly disagree with your Machiavellian analysis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    In London that's just not feasible. In the inner boroughs there's simply not enough space (even if there was money) to build enough social housing.
    The Outer London boroughs (19 of them) are subject to green belt restrictions.
    I don't believe in a London-centric UK. Maybe other things can be done there?

    The disabled are exempt from the 'bedroom tax'. Also where would this money come from? Council tax is already a burden - arguably it's not much better than poll tax!
    From borrowing? And council tax can be increased onto more expensive homes. And a LVT would be nice. There are all sorts of things we can do

    But you forget they can move the easiest. I.e Britain has seen an influx of wealthy people from France and Israel who are fleeing from higher taxes for the rich.
    Studies have shown that if anyone leaves because of tax increases, it's barely anyone. Why would they? Their families live here, their businesses are here, their history has been here.

    Every millionaire who leaves the country due to high taxes costs the government 100ks in lost tax revenue!
    All six of them? They won't be missed, they're not economically important, and the money we lose is made up for by that gained by higher taxes. Plus it increases equality, which is always good.

    Ok, what if Ken or Blair was leader.
    You have to remember if the PM is weak/bad it doesn't matter what the party is
    Maybe there's something in what you're saying. But I'd rather a weak Labour than strong Tories. Though I would like Ken Livingstone to be leader. Not Blair however.

    redirecting funds spent on benefits to be spent on employment programs make sense
    Or... We can have *both*, so that people who are unemployed can live comfortably until they get a job.

    Isn't it an incentive to work,somewhat?
    They don't need incentives, there aren't any jobs! There are so many people applying for so few jobs the mind boggles.

    What about the working class who don't get any government support at all( bar say child benefit of course)? Who have to pay council tax in full?
    If they have to choose between food and heating, then they should be getting government support. And if you're that poor, council tax will be low (I advocate more progressive council taxes however).

    You forget we need the money in the first point!

    The problem is building houses is very expensive, you have to buy the land too.

    Social housing should really be reserved for the very needy- i.e disabled and those totally unable to find suitable accomodation otherwise
    If we need money, we can borrow it. Then we can repay it once the economy is going again, but bear in mind as Krugman says, "debt is basically money we've borrowed from ourselves".

    You have theoretically nice ideas but wouldn't work very well in practise
    I try to be pragmatic, but please criticise me as much as you like. I need to refine my opinions!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    What Keynes advocated isn't gospel. He favoured some government intervention; that doesn't justify Labourite idiots wanting everything nationalised. Go to North Korea for that and write home about it.
    Sometimes I feel like I'm alone in a field of skewered straw men...

    One of his core premises was that wages were sticky downwards, prolonging unemployment, partly due to, you guessed it, trade unions. Is it not ironic Labourites have an unhealthy passion with the very problem Keynes pointed to? As for Marxists, I wouldn't waste my time. Their time ended the same time the iron curtain's did.
    Straw man again, if you read some Marx you'll see it's a far cry from the Soviet model. And I said Marxians not Marxists, people who follow his economics, like Unger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Despite the rabid right-wingers you see on sites like these, pretty much all the Labour supporters I've met are genuinely nice people who want to look out for their fellow human beings - their emphasis is on helping the poor/needy, as opposed to disadvantaging the rich (which is generally seen as an undesirable(!) consequence of doing so).
    A most excellent comment, sir.

    I agree, and I think it's very instructive that the right-wingers on this site are always angry about something. And always making things up as they go along.

    They're completely detached from reality; from facts like that the Conservatives will rack up more debt from 2010 to 2015 than Labour did in 13 years of government.

    They get quite angry at vulnerable people; disabled, people with mental illnesses, those unable to look after themselves. I find it's usually the least talented and most insecure who desperately want to kick the ladder away after they've climbed onto it.

    Those who are truly talented and secure in themselves aren't worried that helping someone else will cause them to lose it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    People support Labour because they feel their policies are most in line with their own political beliefs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Taxation isn't analogous to a subscription fee, if it were I woul d be able to cancel the subcription without being forced to leave the country. What it really is is protection money. The state, in its capacity as the local heavy mob in nicely tailored clothing, demands a certain % of your income in return for 'protection'. If you refuse their demands they either lock you away at gunpoint (prison) or -as in your example- tell you to get lost altogether. We can dress this arrangement up with the cuddly language of socialism if we like and pretend the money is for the 'poor&vulnerable', but we'd only be kidding ourselves. Taxation represents a fundamental breach of our natural human rights, in particular the right not to be stolen from. I strongly disagree with your Machiavellian analysis.
    Seeing as you are contorting the traditional frame, let's use an analogy:

    The government owns all money. It just lends it to you, and lets you use it so that you can go about your daily business more conveniently. But it belongs to the government, and the government can use it.

    If you don't like that, consider that tax money helps us all.

    If you don't like that, consider that all of money and all of enterprise exists because of government funding and government intervention somewhere, and so forth and so forth and so forth.

    You are a fringe hard-rightwinger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Didn't the Conservative led coalition raise the personal allowance so much that around 3 million of the poorest will not pay any income tax at all!
    At the same time as slashing support to parents, public services, legal aid, and increasing the most regressive tax of all; VAT.

    Oh, and at the same time, they're completely ****ing the economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Sometimes I feel like I'm alone in a field of skewered straw men...
    It is all too easy to call another view a straw man one. Talk economics to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The state, in its capacity as the local heavy mob in nicely tailored clothing, demands a certain % of your income in return for 'protection'.
    So any taxation is socialism?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.