Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we have 100 billion to waste on trident then yeah.
    Also the idea that tax credits cause low wages is absurd - it was the other way round.

    If we had say a £10 minimum wage, and statutory provisions for the self employed I wouldn't mind slashing tax credits, but we don't.
    What are tax credits going to cost over the next 30 years?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What are tax credits going to cost over the next 30 years?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If we raised the minimum wage now to say £10 an hour and had statutory provisions for the self employed so we reach a position where tax credits aren't needed, then very little.

    At the moment millions rely on them to live and Osbornes 'living wage' won't even come close to making up the difference.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In 2012, the Tories vetoed a bill for the lords to be elected.
    Now they are complaining about unelected peers. You couldn't make it up.

    Also worth noting that in 1997 the lords voted against labour 38 times. At the time labour had a majority of over 100, I don't remember Blair complaining about a 'constitutional crisis'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As much as I despise tax credits as a subsidy I have to agree with B here in that wage growth won't change just because tax credits fall in the same way that when inflation hit 5% in 2011, wage growth was not impacted by the squeezed employee either. Firms pay the market rate and that's not significantly impacted by how flush its employees feel due to the labour market power they have.

    Now we should still cut tax credits but I don't care which economists buy into the relationship between welfare and pay growth, nothing I've seen has convinced me the correlation is anything other than weak.
    I used to agree with your position until I read an interesting paper on the issue (I have an interest in policy matters like these). It's not perfect and certainly doesn't prove the case that getting rid of tax credits would increase wages, but it argues the converse well. It's a few years old and American but gets the principle across at least.

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?...57/pol.2.1.177
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In 2012, the Tories vetoed a bill for the lords to be elected.
    Now they are complaining about unelected peers. You couldn't make it up.

    Also worth noting that in 1997 the lords voted against labour 38 times. At the time labour had a majority of over 100, I don't remember Blair complaining about a 'constitutional crisis'.
    Likewise with the LibDems. They wanted Lords reform but now they've got 100 more peers than MPs, they are happy to use their unelected clout. You couldn't make it up.

    What matters now is who is right. Even if you disagree with the measures (which I more or less do, incidentally), what matter is whether or not we give the Commons primacy in these matters.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Likewise with the LibDems. They wanted Lords reform but now they've got 100 more peers than MPs, they are happy to use their unelected clout. You couldn't make it up.

    What matters now is who is right. Even if you disagree with the measures (which I more or less do, incidentally), what matter is whether or not we give the Commons primacy in these matters.
    It wasn't a money bill and the lords were free to do as they wish.
    I find t very fake that the Tories are showing this false regard for 'democracy'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think the bill is too high, not while we're so lax about tax avoidance and not while we're about to spend 100 billion on something we don't need and will never use all for a false sense of 'security'.
    Considering tax avoidance was less than a tenth of the cost of tax credits, I'm not quite sure what you're on about.

    With respect to Trident, there will always be things you don't think we need when driven by an emotional and myopic view of how the state should spend money. Your views are out of touch with the public and politicians, by the way, as most people respect its use as a deterrent, meaning that we don't ever get round to using it. That's not evidence of it being a waste - rather, it's possible evidence of its success.

    Tax credits were brought in because wages were so low. There is zero empirical evidence that tax credits cause low wages. Rather it's the other way round. The idea that if we get rid of tax credits that Asda, Next and every other store will suddenly go 'ah they've got rid of tax credits, let's pay all our workers £10 an hour minimum' is utterly and truly absurd.
    Yes Asda pays low but there is no reason why we can't mandate a far higher minimum wage and keep tax credits.
    Unfortunately again your argument falters when it comes to the substance of the matter. There is empirical evidence that tax credits push wages down, and was the subject of a paper by Rothstein in 2010, which I have linked hereabouts.

    What you're advocating is akin to taking someone's medicine away by saying if we keep healing the effects we won't target the cause. We should be doing both.

    What we should be doing is mandating a far higher minimum wage of £10 an hour and then GRADUALLY reduce tax credits once people are feeling the real benefits of the new minimum wage.

    Research has shown that Osborne's 'living wage' won't even come close to covering the loss of tax credits - not even slightly. On average families are going to be about £1300 a year worse off and this is from impartial research done by the IFS and the like.
    On this we completely agree. I simply get the impression that you've, in your rage against government policy, defended the size of the bill when it's very hard to do so. Indeed, Labour also agree the bill's too high.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It wasn't a money bill and the lords were free to do as they wish.
    I find t very fake that the Tories are showing this false regard for 'democracy'.
    Yes, and you must therefore, in order to remain consistent, find it very troubling that the LibDem peers are acting in the way they have.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Considering tax avoidance was less than a tenth of the cost of tax credits, I'm not quite sure what you're on about.

    With respect to Trident, there will always be things you don't think we need when driven by an emotional and myopic view of how the state should spend money. Your views are out of touch with the public and politicians, by the way, as most people respect its use as a deterrent, meaning that we don't ever get round to using it. That's not evidence of it being a waste - rather, it's possible evidence of its success.
    Don't tell me my views are out of touch. There is no need for personal jibes. There are very real, legitimate views for not wanting trident just as there are for wanting it. Your problem is that in every debate, you assume that no one can possibly hold a differing opinion and if they do they are wrong.
    I rarely say you are wrong, just that I disagree. On the other hand you seem to regularly accuse me of being wrong just because I don't agree with your point of view.
    Stop it, it's incredibly arrogant and patronizing. As i've said, arrogance is a very unattractive quality.
    Unfortunately again your argument falters when it comes to the substance of the matter. There is empirical evidence that tax credits push wages down, and was the subject of a paper by Rothstein in 2010, which I have linked hereabouts.
    There's also conflicting evidence to the contrary.
    Answer me this, do you think if we get rid of tax credits, all of these companies will go 'ah they've got rid of tax credits so let's massively increase wages' - Of course not.

    Tax credits cover for low pay.
    On this we completely agree. I simply get the impression that you've, in your rage against government policy, defended the size of the bill when it's very hard to do so. Indeed, Labour also agree the bill's too high.
    I don't care what Labour say.
    If measures were proposed that would guarantee no families or people lost out from the abolition of tax credits such as a far higher minimum wage then i'd be all for gradually removing them. As it is, estimates show that the poorest families/ people could be worse off by £1300 a year.

    That's far worse than the size of the bill. The bill may be too high or it may not. But to reduce that we should increase wages significantly.

    The reason the bill is so high is because wages are so low NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. Before tax credits were all companies paying their employees far more? Did Mcdonalds pay £10 an hour? No, of course not.

    The bill is so high because wages are so low. We should aim to increase wages FIRST and then move on to cutting tax credits once the increase in wages has nullified the decrease in tax credits.

    I think that's eminently reasonable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Don't tell me my views are out of touch. There is no need for personal jibes. There are very real, legitimate views for not wanting trident just as there are for wanting it. Your problem is that in every debate, you assume that no one can possibly hold a differing opinion and if they do they are wrong.
    I rarely say you are wrong, just that I disagree. On the other hand you seem to regularly accuse me of being wrong just because I don't agree with your point of view.
    My comment was about your views, not you, and was therefore not a personal jibe. It is possible for a particular view to be out of touch with popular opinion. If I held the view that Jeremy Paxman should be made Queen of Surrey, you could very reasonably say my view is out of touch without that being a personal jibe. You don't need to pull the insult card all the time. Your views of Trident are out of touch with public opinion.
    Stop it, it's incredibly arrogant and patronizing. As i've said, arrogance is a very unattractive quality.
    Given we're both men and I'm straight, I have no problem appearing arrogant to you. I am much different in reality, but that's irrelevant.

    There's also conflicting evidence to the contrary.
    Answer me this, do you think if we get rid of tax credits, all of these companies will go 'ah they've got rid of tax credits so let's massively increase wages' - Of course not.

    Tax credits cover for low pay.
    Conflicting evidence to the contrary? Is it possible for conflicting evidence to be in accordance?

    You said there was 'zero empirical evidence'. That was a claim you clearly couldn't be bothered to research. I point to the link between tax credits and lower pay, not to the feasibility of the opposite. That is why I agree with you later on.

    I don't care what Labour say.
    Indeed, this is something shared by most people now.
    If measures were proposed that would guarantee no families or people lost out from the abolition of tax credits such as a far higher minimum wage then i'd be all for gradually removing them. As it is, estimates show that the poorest families/ people could be worse off by £1300 a year.

    That's far worse than the size of the bill. The bill may be too high or it may not. But to reduce that we should increase wages significantly.

    The reason the bill is so high is because wages are so low NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. Before tax credits were all companies paying their employees far more? Did Mcdonalds pay £10 an hour? No, of course not.

    The bill is so high because wages are so low. We should aim to increase wages FIRST and then move on to cutting tax credits once the increase in wages has nullified the decrease in tax credits.

    I think that's eminently reasonable.
    Your McDonalds claim makes no sense as it doesn't attempt to consider the counter-factual. The rest I don't disagree with enough to comment on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Given we're both men and I'm straight, I have no problem appearing arrogant to you. I am much different in reality, but that's irrelevant.
    You're arrogant in that every debate you seem to hold that your position is absolute truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You are very black and white.
    Like with the issues of whips being democratic or not - there are strong arguments on both sides and it is a good debate to have, there is no yes or no answer and while I disagree with you I don't say you are wrong. On the other hand you seemed to go 'i'm right and you're wrong'- it's very arrogant.

    On the issue of whether Corbyn will be a success, again as only time will tell there are strong arguments for both sides. Again, whilst I disagreed with you, i never said you were wrong, just that I disagree. On the other hand you go 'i'm right, you're wrong'.

    On the issue of trident, again there are strong arguments on both sides, I don't call you wrong just that I disagree. Yet again, however you resort to 'i'm right you're wrong'.

    And while you may not care because i'm a bloke, it's a bit of advice for the opposite gender, arrogance is incredibly unattractive and I sincerely hope in real life you are not as arrogant and dismissive of others as you are on here.

    Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean they are wrong and if you refuse to accept that point I won't bother debating with you in the future.




    Indeed, this is something shared by most people now.
    Oh come off it, that's nothing but a cheap, points scoring dig.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're arrogant in that every debate you seem to hold that your position is absolute truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You are very black and white.
    Like with the issues of whips being democratic or not - there are strong arguments on both sides and it is a good debate to have, there is no yes or no answer and while I disagree with you I don't say you are wrong. On the other hand you seemed to go 'i'm right and you're wrong'- it's very arrogant.

    On the issue of whether Corbyn will be a success, again as only time will tell there are strong arguments for both sides. Again, whilst I disagreed with you, i never said you were wrong, just that I disagree. On the other hand you go 'i'm right, you're wrong'.

    On the issue of trident, again there are strong arguments on both sides, I don't call you wrong just that I disagree. Yet again, however you resort to 'i'm right you're wrong'.

    And while you may not care because i'm a bloke, it's a bit of advice for the opposite gender, arrogance is incredibly unattractive and I sincerely hope in real life you are not as arrogant and dismissive of others as you are on here.

    Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean they are wrong and if you refuse to accept that point I won't bother debating with you in the future.

    Oh come off it, that's nothing but a cheap, points scoring dig.
    I'm very happy to say you are right at the moment you produce decent and well thought-through arguments. You don't, however; you claim one side of the debate has no evidence when that's not true, and you never engage with arguments put against you. When I say your opinions are out of touch with public opinion (as an incidental point anyway), you accuse me of making personal jibes when that's simply not the case. In fact, the only personal remarks have come from you, calling me arrogant rather than making substantive contributions to our discussion. And you don't need to worry about me - I'm not a belligerent here as in real life but arrogance is common-place where I'm from anyway so it goes unnoticed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm very happy to say you are right at the moment you produce decent and well thought-through arguments. You don't, however; you claim one side of the debate has no evidence when that's not true, and you never engage with arguments put against you. When I say your opinions are out of touch with public opinion (as an incidental point anyway), you accuse me of making personal jibes when that's simply not the case. In fact, the only personal remarks have come from you, calling me arrogant rather than making substantive contributions to our discussion. And you don't need to worry about me - I'm not a belligerent here as in real life but arrogance is common-place where I'm from anyway so it goes unnoticed.
    Again with the arrogance!
    My issue with you is that you treat questions of opinion as questions of fact.
    Whether something is democratic or not, is not a yes or no response. I put forward strong arguments and you just dismiss my position calling me wrong because I disagree with you. The argument that whips are democratic and that they aren't are both reasonably held. But you tried to make it into a matter of fact. 'democratic' has huge, subjective elements to it.

    Again whether or not we need trident and whether Corbyn will be a success or not are cases where differing opinions are reasonably held on both sides of the debates.
    Yet you again seem to suggest that your opinions are the only ones that are acceptable.

    Unless you can accept on issues such as those, that people can reasonably hold different opinions to yourself then there is not much point debating with you.


    And just for good measure I notice you went quite on whether that woman was likely to be a fan of Corbyn despite her saying a host of positive things about him and only one negative thing. Convenient.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Again with the arrogance!
    My issue with you is that you treat questions of opinion as questions of fact.
    Whether something is democratic or not, is not a yes or no response. I put forward strong arguments and you just dismiss my position calling me wrong because I disagree with you. The argument that whips are democratic and that they aren't are both reasonably held. But you tried to make it into a matter of fact. 'democratic' has huge, subjective elements to it.

    Again whether or not we need trident and whether Corbyn will be a success or not are cases where differing opinions are reasonably held on both sides of the debates.
    Yet you again seem to suggest that your opinions are the only ones that are acceptable.

    Unless you can accept on issues such as those, that people can reasonably hold different opinions to yourself then there is not much point debating with you.


    And just for good measure I notice you went quite on whether that woman was likely to be a fan of Corbyn despite her saying a host of positive things about him and only one negative thing. Convenient.
    I'm fairly sure I responded to you on that last point but I've been busy of late.

    You take the rather pointless and dull view that discussion should go no deeper than proposing arguments on both sides, acknowledging that contrary arguments exist, and then going home. The point of discussion is to ram those arguments together in order to reach a conclusion. If you want to just put forward another point of view to me and then react with horror when I tackle that view, you don't understand the value of discussion.

    So go on, pick one of those topics you mentioned, make your case, and let's have a discussion. No pulling the personal insult card. No surprise at the destruction of arguments - yours or mine. Just a proper discussion. I hope, given what you've accused me of, that you'll oblige.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm fairly sure I responded to you on that last point but I've been busy of late.

    You take the rather pointless and dull view that discussion should go no deeper than proposing arguments on both sides, acknowledging that contrary arguments exist, and then going home. The point of discussion is to ram those arguments together in order to reach a conclusion. If you want to just put forward another point of view to me and then react with horror when I tackle that view, you don't understand the value of discussion.

    So go on, pick one of those topics you mentioned, make your case, and let's have a discussion. No pulling the personal insult card. No surprise at the destruction of arguments - yours or mine. Just a proper discussion. I hope, given what you've accused me of, that you'll oblige.
    Okay, I will take it to PM though to avoid clogging up this thread.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:


    :rofl:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...t-cuts-cartoon
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hahah
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This really has put a dent in Osbourne's leadership chances.
    He's been attacked from the right as well as the left and he's also united the Labour party, which no one on the labour side seemed able to do!

    Above all, if these go through they really could be Osbourne's poll tax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Likewise with the LibDems. They wanted Lords reform but now they've got 100 more peers than MPs, they are happy to use their unelected clout. You couldn't make it up.

    What matters now is who is right. Even if you disagree with the measures (which I more or less do, incidentally), what matter is whether or not we give the Commons primacy in these matters.
    I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about that woman not being a fan of Corbyn, despite saying generally very positive things about him and confirming
    she would not vote tories again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Likewise with the LibDems. They wanted Lords reform but now they've got 100 more peers than MPs, they are happy to use their unelected clout. You couldn't make it up.

    What matters now is who is right. Even if you disagree with the measures (which I more or less do, incidentally), what matter is whether or not we give the Commons primacy in these matters.
    Although I suspect the Lib Dems see it as 'we feel entitled to as FPTP punishes us in the Commons, and we would rather the Lords be elected and more powerful, so we're inviting precisely what we desire'
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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