Turn on thread page Beta

Are the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Let's be real, we don't actually know how rich the rich really are.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41876942
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It really depends whether you are looking at it in terms of relative poverty or absolute.
    The conservative government have a tendency to look at poverty in absolute terms, with a critique of dependancy on the welfare state, suggesting that people are too lazy to go out and get jobs as the welfare state is too generous - why would you want to go and get a job that pays £100 a week when you could just stick with the JSA and get £130?
    A labour government, however, seem to align their views closer to marxists (I’m not implying that Jeremy Corbyn is a communist, only that labour have politics views closer to marxism than conservatives do), and argue that the welfare state doesn’t do enough to support low income families, opposing a £26,000 cap on the amount of benefits a family can receive constructed to prevent these families from earning more than the nominal household with a job/s.
    That being said, in recent years the conservative government has adjusted their policies slightly that suggest they believe that poverty is not simply being able to afford necessities to form a basic living standard, but rather that poverty is not being able to afford things that are expected at a social level by peers and colleagues.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    OK, let's talk substance then: as a good spokesman for the Corbynista movement, tell us what the plan to 'end poverty' is then. It is my contention such populist statements are mere political quackery but let's give it a chance, how is that going to be achieved by you guys?
    Given that more workers, both full time and part time voted for Labour than for the Tories, please explain how labour voters have 'no life experience'.

    The Tories did not get more votes than Labour across the age groups until voters turn 47.

    Do only people 47 and above have 'life experience'?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Given that more workers, both full time and part time voted for Labour than for the Tories, please explain how labour voters have 'no life experience'.

    The Tories did not get more votes than Labour across the age groups until voters turn 47.

    Do only people 47 and above have 'life experience'?
    They have more of it and it is equally relevant that those with a longer life experience are more likely to vote Tory, if we are to get technical about it. They have seen past politicians promise the moon and know how much substance there may be to their grandiose electoral slogans, it is not to be held against a young person that they may sound appealing on an idealistic basis. Older people know much better who Corbyn and McD are, they remember them in the old days. Young people don't, it is totally irrelevant to them but not older people.

    So how is Labour going to 'end poverty' again, where is the substance to that claim? Brown promised to abolish b&b and ended up supervising the biggest bust in living memory, how do we know Labour won't end up making everyone poorer instead of what they promise?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    They have more of it and it is equally relevant that those with a longer life experience are more likely to vote Tory, if we are to get technical about it. They have seen past politicians promise the moon and know how much substance there may be to their grandiose electoral slogans, it is not to be held against a young person that they may sound appealing on an idealistic basis. Older people know much better who Corbyn and McD are, they remember them in the old days. Young people don't, it is totally irrelevant to them but not older people.

    So how is Labour going to 'end poverty' again, where is the substance to that claim? Brown promised to abolish b&b and ended up supervising the biggest bust in living memory, how do we know Labour won't end up making everyone poorer instead of what they promise?
    Older people often vote Tory because it's in their best interests to. They tend to get lots of nice things from them, like the pension triple lock, they tend to be more socially conservative. That's not even a criticism per se, but rather, just like young people, they vote for what they think is best for themselves. Also the baby boomers benefited from cheap property and were able to acquire wealth, which they wish to protect. They don't vote Tory because of any wisdomous 'life experience', whatever that means.

    So people who are working, either full time or part time don't have life experience? People in the 35-44 age group paying mortgages, working and bringing up kids don't have life experience? You know, this is what you usually do. You assume that everyone who disagrees with you, or rather everyone to the left of you, is basically a complete naive moron with no 'life experience'.

    You make sweeping statements about all those who disagree with you. Rather than just accepting that others can have a different opinion to you, you seem to make out that those who are left wing have something seriously wrong with them or even have cynical motives.

    I don't think you're a bad person, or that you're greedy or that you have anything cynical in mind with your views. Nor do I think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with you or that you are lacking 'life experience.' I just disagree with you. Why can the same courtesy not be given by you?

    So i'll ask again. Do full time workers have no life experience?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So i'll ask again. Do full time workers have no life experience?
    It is an odd question to ask, how could anyone say no to that? Alright, they do have life experience.

    Now, and for the third time in succession, how can we expect Labour to better everyone's lot?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    It is an odd question to ask, how could anyone say no to that? Alright, they do have life experience.

    Now, and for the third time in succession, how can we expect Labour to better everyone's lot?
    So you retract your earlier statement that the only people who vote Labour are those without 'life experience'? Again though, you seem to completely reject the idea that anyone could have let wing views without there being something seriously wrong or sinister about them. It's bizarre. Even in this thread you claim that Labour voters can't possibly have life experience, despite the fact that the majority of people in their 30s and 40s vote Labour.

    I vote Labour because I much more agree with their proposals on housing, intervention in the market, healthcare and public ownership of key industries.

    You don't seem to have an issue with elderly people voting in their own self interests. Why can I not vote in my self interest?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you retract your earlier statement that the only people who vote Labour are those without 'life experience'? Again though, you seem to completely reject the idea that anyone could have let wing views without their being something seriously wrong or sinister about them. It's bizarre.

    I vote Labour because I much more agree with their proposals on housing, intervention in the market, healthcare and public ownership of key industries.

    You don't seem to have an issue with elderly people voting in their own self interests. Why can I not vote in my self interest?
    Oh get off your high horse. I have seen you personally say the right don't care about the poor more than once. You routinely ascribe sinister motives to people you disagree with, you utter hypocrite.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    For some reason my post got moved to Freshers Blogs (lol) so I'm reposting it.



    Oh get off your high horse. I have seen you personally say the right don't care about the poor more than once. You routinely ascribe sinister motives to people you disagree with, you utter hypocrite.
    Well you haven't.

    I don't think that most Tory voters hate the poor, nor do I think they have sinister motives. Sure, some do but the same could be said for any party's voters.

    I just disagree with them. There's lots of Tories on this site I frequently debate with. I don't doubt that they do care about those less well off and believe that the policies they support will benefit such people. I just think that they're wrong and such policies make life worse off for those at the bottom.

    The poster I am debating with currently though seems to assume that all left wing voters and labour voters are naive morons with no life experience, despite the fact that more workers both full time and part time voted Labour than the Tories. He frequently makes broad sweeping statements about those who diagrees with him and never seems to accept that they can think differently to him without being either a moron or having sinister motives.

    Just as I don't doubt that you support policies you genuinely believe will better the lives of those less well off and society as a whole. Doesn't mean I don't think you're wrong.

    There is however a rather strong sense of individualism which many right wing people have. The idea that people should look after themselves and their families, rather than each other.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    To put a simple answer to your question yes. It's true the that he minimum wage is going up, but so is the cost of living. Therefore even though people are getting paid more, they spend more to survive. Meaning that the CEO's of cooperations make a lot more money, but we do live in a capitalist society, what's the alternative; communism?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Well you haven't.

    I don't think that most Tory voters hate the poor, nor do I think they have sinister motives. Sure, some do but the same could be said for any party's voters.

    I just disagree with them. There's lots of Tories on this site I frequently debate with. I don't doubt that they do care about those less well off and believe that the policies they support will benefit such people. I just think that they're wrong and such policies make life worse off for those at the bottom.

    The poster I am debating with currently though seems to assume that all left wing voters and labour voters are naive morons with no life experience, despite the fact that more workers both full time and part time voted Labour than the Tories. He frequently makes broad sweeping statements about those who diagrees with him and never seems to accept that they can think differently to him without being either a moron or having sinister motives.

    Just as I don't doubt that you support policies you genuinely believe will better the lives of those less well off and society as a whole. Doesn't mean I don't think you're wrong.

    There is however a rather strong sense of individualism which many right wing people have. The idea that people should look after themselves and their families, rather than each other.
    TSR's advanced search function can be useful sometimes.

    (Original post by ;bornblue6666451)
    I respect those on the right who just admit they don't care rather than those on the right who pretend they do. If you're right wing you don't care about the most disadvantaged in society and that's fine but just don't pretend you do. That's why I preferred thatcher to Cameron , she didn't pretend to care
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Indeed you've dragged up a three year old post. Of course it was a silly one and a sentiment I don't share now.

    Though the sentiment stands in this thread. Do you think those who vote labour have no life experience?


    (Original post by Rinsed)
    TSR's advanced search function can be useful sometimes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Indeed you've dragged up a three year old post. Of course it was a silly one and a sentiment I don't share now.
    True, but it was such a nice encapsulation of the viewpoint. There were more recent examples but they weren't quite so neat.

    And while your rhetoric may have changed after the past few years, I don't think your views have particularly. I mean, our conversation about Rees-Mogg a couple of weeks ago made it perfectly clear you thought his motives were suspect. Or am I wrong and you do believe he wants to help the poor?

    But even if you have modified your opinion, it's still rather galling to see you getting all pious over something you've been guilty of in the not distant past.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Though the sentiment stands in this thread. Do you think those who vote labour have no life experience?
    I think the age divide is in part reflective of the receding memory of the damage wrought upon Britain by socialism in the 70s, rather than life experience per se. I also think younger voters are more prone to naivity than their more cynical elders, but that's obviously not always true.

    Don't get me wrong, I think socialism is a cancer. I think people who are seduced by it are severely mistaken, but I have never doubted they care.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    True, but it was such a nice encapsulation of the viewpoint. There were more recent examples but they weren't quite so neat.

    And while your rhetoric may have changed after the past few years, I don't think your views have particularly. I mean, our conversation about Rees-Mogg a couple of weeks ago made it perfectly clear you thought his motives were suspect. Or am I wrong and you do believe he wants to help the poor?

    But even if you have modified your opinion, it's still rather galling to see you getting all pious over something you've been guilty of in the not distant past.
    I don't think that Rees Mogg wants to hurt the poor or make life worse off for those at the bottom. I don't believe that's why he's in politics.

    However, I do believe that his brand of politics has that effect as have the sorts of things he's voted through. I also believe that his uber proveleged background understandably means he doesn't really know quite how those at the bottom live and the struggles they face. I could say the same about plenty of New Labour types too.

    In terms of whether he wants to help the poor. Well I think he kinda believes that the free market will do that by itself. I think he's wrong.

    I don't think he's a bad person. I just think that his politics are outdated and the types of policies he supports have a negative effect on those less well off.

    Contrast that with how the poster in question actually do seem to think Corbyn is a bad person and that those who vote Labour with him as leader have something wrong with them or sinister motives:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I think the age divide is in part reflective of the receding memory of the damage wrought upon Britain by socialism in the 70s, rather than life experience per se. I also think younger voters are more prone to naivity than their more cynical elders, but that's obviously not always true.

    Don't get me wrong, I think socialism is a cancer. I think people who are seduced by it are severely mistaken, but I have never doubted they care.
    Part of the problem is that the word socialism is thrown about so loosely by those across the political spectrum to the point where I'm not even sure what people mean when they say it anymore. The term has been used to describe anyone from Blair to Stalin.

    In my opinion, the vast majority of those on the left do not want revolutionary socialism but rather want us to adopt the Scandinavian model. High tax, high spend, low inequality, strong trade union rights and public ownership of key industries. Whether that counts as socialism, I don't know but it seems vastly preferable to the current system.

    I don't see how pointing to countries such as Norway and Finland, which have adopted such a model successfully and outperform us in all sorts of measures, is naive.

    I would repeat that Labour had a lead among 35-44 year olds. These are not naive young voters, but people with jobs, mortgages and kids.

    I could equally point to 2008 to show the devastation that free market capitalism can cause.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Smile88egc)
    The rich are certainly getting better at hiding their wealth looking at the latest "paradise papers" leak.
    I don't think so. In the good old days it was extremely easy to hide and laundry money, one didn't need to set up such complex schemes.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't see how pointing to countries such as Norway and Finland, which have adopted such a model successfully and outperform us in all sorts of measures, is naive.
    The Scandinavian model won't work in the UK; we're too integral to the global trade system, and lack the factor endowments per capita that they enjoy. Plus we've been badly mismanaged and have racked up a lot of debt already: piling more on that is unsustainable.
    Same reason that an EEA, Norway/Iceland-esque model wouldn't be better than the EU for us. We're in different starting positions, and the scale of the goalposts is different.
    Secondly, I suggest you have a closer look at Norway. Income taxes are only a tad higher, and most of that comes from those lower than the median (taxes are arguably less progressive than the UK's). Yes, spending is high, particularly capital expenditure, but that is sustainable due to the low levels of debt and interest earned on the sovereign wealth fund topping up the budget. State ownership however is very prominent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Part of the problem is that the word socialism is thrown about so loosely by those across the political spectrum to the point where I'm not even sure what people mean when they say it anymore. The term has been used to describe anyone from Blair to Stalin.

    In my opinion, the vast majority of those on the left do not want revolutionary socialism but rather want us to adopt the Scandinavian model. High tax, high spend, low inequality, strong trade union rights and public ownership of key industries. Whether that counts as socialism, I don't know but it seems vastly preferable to the current system.

    I don't see how pointing to countries such as Norway and Finland, which have adopted such a model successfully and outperform us in all sorts of measures, is naive.

    I would repeat that Labour had a lead among 35-44 year olds. These are not naive young voters, but people with jobs, mortgages and kids.

    I could equally point to 2008 to show the devastation that free market capitalism can cause.
    I agree socialism is an abused word, and as a case in point I don't think people understand what's really going on in Scandinavia economies. Despite high taxes they are frequently ranked as being amongst top of the economic freedom indices, not as hight as places like Singapore but a long, long way ahead of France. That's because they're good places to do business with pretty low regulation by European standards (and of course, Denmark is outside the Euro and Norway the whole EU, not to my mind unrelated).

    And yes they're fairly redistributive, but their tax levels aren't actually substantially higher than here or the US. The difference is that our taxes are stealthier (so they look lower if you just look at the headline rate) and their governments are more efficient. Whilst Danish taxes may not be low they are much simpler and more transparent than ours.

    So to me the lesson is that you can only afford a high tax economy if you're willing to cut businesses a break in other ways.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I agree socialism is an abused word, and as a case in point I don't think people understand what's really going on in Scandinavia economies. Despite high taxes they are frequently ranked as being amongst top of the economic freedom indices, not as hight as places like Singapore but a long, long way ahead of France. That's because they're good places to do business with pretty low regulation by European standards (and of course, Denmark is outside the Euro and Norway the whole EU, not to my mind unrelated).

    And yes they're fairly redistributive, but their tax levels aren't actually substantially higher than here or the US. The difference is that our taxes are stealthier (so they look lower if you just look at the headline rate) and their governments are more efficient. Whilst Danish taxes may not be low they are much simpler and more transparent than ours.

    So to me the lesson is that you can only afford a high tax economy if you're willing to cut businesses a break in other ways.
    Wages are much higher there and a big part of that is the fact that a far higher amount of their workforce is unionised and covered by collective bargaining agreements. Public ownership is also much higher there.

    For all the talk about Labour being far left and naive, there was little in the manifesto that would have looked out of place in Scandanavia. The public having ownership of key industries which form a natural monopoly seems more a case of common sense than anything radical.

    On issues like education, job satisfaction and even general happiness they outperform us.

    I will accept that there are a few on the left who do want something much more revolutionary but the vast majority do not. They just want something more akin to the Scanadanavian model. Yet they frequently get described as being naive.
 
 
 

840

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.