UK Politics

[pete75]

Yes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.

Well yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.
20:1 at most? In 1975 I earned about 75 quid a week winding stators on piece work, call it £4,000 a year. Someone towards the top of the income scale , say Paul Mcartney was probably earning a thousand times that or more - and at a time when Britain was about the most egalitarian country in the developed world. It ain't now and it's going to get even less so.
As the economy declines further it won't be the better off who suffer. Why do you think right of centre parties are turning to populist politics, if not to give those at the bottom the illusion someone is listening to their concerns and will address them. It'll work too.

As Warren Buffet said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

This post seems to directly contradict your post of capping income tax...

In what way? I said Britian is becoming a less egalitarian society, an dit's going to get worse. No comment on that being a good or bad thing. It's certainly bad for those made worse off by it, but good for those who profit from it.

[[XAP]Bob]

This post seems to directly contradict your post of capping income tax...

In what way? I said Britian is becoming a less egalitarian society, an dit's going to get worse. No comment on that being a good or bad thing. It's certainly bad for those made worse off by it, but good for those who profit from it.

Because you're simultaneously suggesting reducing tax on the ultra wealthy, increasing tax on the poor, and complaining that we're getting less egalitarian.

And yes it does come off as a complaint, particularly with the Warren Buffet quote.
It also *should* be a complaint - the current hoarding of wealth at the top of the economy is massively unhealthy.

A less insane cap would be at a billion dolllars everything more goes to the government; you get a dog park named after you and a plaque reading "I won capitalism".

[pete75]

This post seems to directly contradict your post of capping income tax...

In what way? I said Britian is becoming a less egalitarian society, an dit's going to get worse. No comment on that being a good or bad thing. It's certainly bad for those made worse off by it, but good for those who profit from it.

Because you're simultaneously suggesting reducing tax on the ultra wealthy, increasing tax on the poor, and complaining that we're getting less egalitarian.

And yes it does come off as a complaint, particularly with the Warren Buffet quote.
It also *should* be a complaint - the current hoarding of wealth at the top of the economy is massively unhealthy.

A less insane cap would be at a billion dolllars everything more goes to the government; you get a dog park named after you and a plaque reading "I won capitalism".

Not complaining, merely stating that it's happening. Seems there's been a long term project since the 1979 election to make it happen.

A billion dollars? What relevance has the US taxation system in this country.

There are many people who do complain about how the badly off are treated here,, and suggest others should pay more to change things, but never that they themselves should. Hypocrites the lot of them.

[gbnz]

. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Raison de etre, of many humans. As with an earlier post.......

"I love the countryside, isn't this climate change horrible, the roads are too busy, I lost my job and therefore haven't sufficient money for food, I love travelling by bus"............ therefore I travel by car, don't use the FOC bus pass I've had for quarter of a century avoiding the bus because it's too slow, spending more money on fuel, being stuck in traffic and experiencing horrific gale force winds on Friday........"

Why can't those with time walk, cycle, use the bus or train, to avoid all those issues, one causes for ones self ? Whilst inflicting the harm one causes, onto the rest of humanity and the natural world, to buy a newspaper or take the dog for walk, in the car

[djnotts]

Naive or just cynical window dressing? Expecting moral responsibility from media tech giants....

" Violent material viewed by the Southport killer should be removed from social media to ensure it does not inspire further attacks, the home secretary has told tech companies.

In a letter to X, Meta, TikTok, Google, and YouTube, Yvette Cooper said the ease of access to such content, including an al-Qaeda training manual, was "unacceptable" and that the firms had a "moral responsibility to act"." (BBC News)

I can't believe that Home Sec and officials think that such an "appeal" will have any effect, so that leaves .......

[[XAP]Bob]

. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Raison de etre, of many humans. As with an earlier post.......

"I love the countryside, isn't this climate change horrible, the roads are too busy, I lost my job and therefore haven't sufficient money for food, I love travelling by bus"............ therefore I travel by car, don't use the FOC bus pass I've had for quarter of a century avoiding the bus because it's too slow, spending more money on fuel, being stuck in traffic and experiencing horrific gale force winds on Friday........"

Why can't those with time walk, cycle, use the bus or train, to avoid all those issues, one causes for ones self ? Whilst inflicting the harm one causes, onto the rest of humanity and the natural world, to buy a newspaper or take the dog for walk, in the car

So you think those with disabilities have *more* time than those without?

And that those who have jobs should be allowed to risk the lives of others because? GDP more important than life?

[Stevek76]

Is it fair to charge soem more than others for the same thing? Perhaps there should be a limit -£100k tax in a year and a thnakyou letter, youve done your bit mate and we won't take any more off you until next year.

Yes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.

Well yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.
20:1 at most? In 1975 I earned about 75 quid a week winding stators on piece work, call it £4,000 a year. Someone towards the top of the income scale , say Paul Mcartney was probably earning a thousand times that or more -

I was talking about typical company ratios. Superstar musicians is a pretty niche exception. The gulf between director pay and lowest earners has widened drastically since that time and that is in part down to huge tax cuts for those earners.

The current levels aren't healthy for a country and we can see that from the voter reaction.

[pete75]

Yes it is, because generally those who are wealthier/higher income are doing so/have become so on the basis of the labour of those who are less well paid. Government intervention to correct distorted markets is generally a good thing for the overall country and massive wealth/income inequality as we currently have is such a distortion. Or do you think today's high wealth/earners have an order of magnitude better ability than those from half a century ago when top to bottom earnings ratios were more like 20:1 at most.

Well yes, they obviously have a much greater ability to make money, if what you say is correct.
20:1 at most? In 1975 I earned about 75 quid a week winding stators on piece work, call it £4,000 a year. Someone towards the top of the income scale , say Paul Mcartney was probably earning a thousand times that or more -

I was talking about typical company ratios. Superstar musicians is a pretty niche exception. The gulf between director pay and lowest earners has widened drastically since that time and that is in part down to huge tax cuts for those earners.

The current levels aren't healthy for a country and we can see that from the voter reaction.

Yes I said Britain was avery egalitarian country in 1975, though I'm sure the 20:1 ratio you quote is correct. In the firm I worked for the chairmain and MD, father and son, both lived in semi-stately homes, both owned racehorses, owned aholiday vill on Cap Ferat etc. They'd have been on a lot more than £80,000 a year to run to the that lot. I don't think they were untypical at the time.

Don't know what you mean about voter reaction, the majority voted for a party that wants to cut tax - Conservative or Reform. If there was real voter reaction to Britain's rising inequality Mr Corbyn would be PM.

[gbnz]

. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Raison de etre, of many humans. As with an earlier post.......

"I love the countryside, isn't this climate change horrible, the roads are too busy, I lost my job and therefore haven't sufficient money for food, I love travelling by bus"............ therefore I travel by car, don't use the FOC bus pass I've had for quarter of a century avoiding the bus because it's too slow, spending more money on fuel, being stuck in traffic and experiencing horrific gale force winds on Friday........"

Why can't those with time walk, cycle, use the bus or train, to avoid all those issues, one causes for ones self ? Whilst inflicting the harm one causes, onto the rest of humanity and the natural world, to buy a newspaper or take the dog for walk, in the car

So you think those with disabilities have *more* time than those without?

And that those who have jobs should be allowed to risk the lives of others because? GDP more important than life?

Time ? Those who aren't working, have vast amounts of time, compared to those who are. Regardless of whether it's due to a disability, being an OAP or whatever, though those actively seeking employment may well be as pushed for time, as someone working. I've only a partial disability & certainly have vast amounts of time available, due to it. Doing the 44 mile round ride to the gym, or 24 round ride to see an aged parent, isn't an issue in respect to time, as I've the time available, though is a nuisance now having to do a 14 Hr bus ride to the Lakes (Nb. One reason why I prefer the 110 mile ride there, as ever , riding takes a fraction of the time of travelling via bus)

And obviously the lives of those who are productive, aren't more valuable than those who aren't. But it is appalling that those with no actual NEED to drive, should be allowed to do so given the harm they inflict by doing so. Would be the first to suggest that those actively seeking employment in a motor vehicle dominated economy, need some means by which the use of a motor vehicle for interviews etc, can be arranged, likewise those with a genuine need to transport the infirm or whatever. But why should those with no NEED to drive, be allowed to drive, as a matter of routine ?

I know the above and would suggest that an OAP easily capable of walking up mountains, is more than capable of walking a few hundred feet to pick up a newspaper, rather than driving 400 - 500 miles a year, to pick up a newspaper. Why should such be allowed to do that ?

[pete75]

And obviously the lives of those who are productive, aren't more valuable than those who aren't.

But they are. I'm retired now, produce nothing and am just a cost to those who do. Finance rules these days, and financially my life is worthless as is that of every other retired person. The country would be a lot better off if they did away with all us old codgers.

[djnotts]

^ "The country would be a lot better off if they did away with all us old codgers."

And yet still the opposition to even assisted dying for those who WANT to save the NHS etc expenditure - and themselves pain and fear.

[[XAP]Bob]

So you think those with disabilities have *more* time than those without?

And that those who have jobs should be allowed to risk the lives of others because? GDP more important than life?

Time ? Those who aren't working, have vast amounts of time, compared to those who are. Regardless of whether it's due to a disability, being an OAP or whatever, though those actively seeking employment may well be as pushed for time, as someone working. I've only a partial disability & certainly have vast amounts of time available, due to it. Doing the 44 mile round ride to the gym, or 24 round ride to see an aged parent, isn't an issue in respect to time, as I've the time available, though is a nuisance now having to do a 14 Hr bus ride to the Lakes (Nb. One reason why I prefer the 110 mile ride there, as ever , riding takes a fraction of the time of travelling via bus)

You seen to completely overlook the fact that for many disabled people the sheer effort of living in such a disabling world means they have *far* less time than you. What do you even mean by "partially disabled"?
*You* might have lots of time, but I know plenty of people who have practically none, because of their disability. That doesn't devalue them as people at all - in fact many of them are amongst the best people I know.

I physically can't walk into town, so what are you suggesting I do? Teleport? It's not a question of time, it's a question of safety.
But since my trip into town isn't to get to work I clearly shouldn't be allowed to drive... so I'll have to stay at home all day, every day...

And obviously the lives of those who are productive, aren't more valuable than those who aren't. But it is appalling that those with no actual NEED to drive, should be allowed to do so given the harm they inflict by doing so. Would be the first to suggest that those actively seeking employment in a motor vehicle dominated economy, need some means by which the use of a motor vehicle for interviews etc, can be arranged, likewise those with a genuine need to transport the infirm or whatever. But why should those with no NEED to drive, be allowed to drive, as a matter of routine ?

So finally you are admitting that those who don't work have value... which is new for you "Why should individuals living without contributing via work..." That's pretty much declaring that an individual's value is determined by their economic output.

You don't get to define who "needs" to drive. You get to determine when you drive.
Why do people "need" to drive to work? I haven't driven for work since mid 2008 - that's four jobs over 17 years. Between my wife and I we still rack up around 12k miles a year.

I know the above and would suggest that an OAP easily capable of walking up mountains, is more than capable of walking a few hundred feet to pick up a newspaper, rather than driving 400 - 500 miles a year, to pick up a newspaper. Why should such be allowed to do that ?

Because we live in a society that isn't vindictive, and values people as people, not purely as economic units. Else we should just shoot anyone who retires. After all if they aren't valuable any more, why should we keep them around?
Mind you - twenty trips for newspapers a day does seem a little excessive.

You don't understand other people's ability, and certainly don't get access to their medical records - so yes, someone might be able to walk up a mountain one weekend, but not able to walk to the shop the next week. It's really quite common for disabilities to be variable in their effect wrt time. I'm very fortunate that mine is basically consistent - it makes it much easier to plan activities, because apart from general exhaustion, I know what I'll be like in a week's time, because it's the same as I am today. Indeed they may *need* to drive to the shop in order to have the ability to walk at the weekend.

But I still can't walk into town, and won't ever be. I mean if I could guarantee that there was no wind and no other people on the way then I probably could, but that's not realistic - and I'd still be at a pretty high risk of injury.
So... do I just stay at home 24/7 for the rest of my life, or do I use the technologies that are available to make my life better? And yes, the car is one of those technologies - it's a mobility aid, same as my wheelchair, or walking poles.



You still haven't addressed the fact that despite your outrageous claims 38% of UC claimants, 53% of disabled people, and 15% of pensioners are in work.
You write them all of as having no value to the country. You declare than any movement they do is not "needed", and should therefore be stopped.
The real offence here is that people are paid less than a living wage, and therefore the government is propping up business profits, whilst the media whip up a frenzy of rage at the very people who are being screwed over, not the ones doing the screwing.

[[XAP]Bob]

And obviously the lives of those who are productive, aren't more valuable than those who aren't.

But they are. I'm retired now, produce nothing and am just a cost to those who do. Finance rules these days, and financially my life is worthless as is that of every other retired person. The country would be a lot better off if they did away with all us old codgers.

No we wouldn't.

We absolutely wouldn't - the value of a person to society is not measured purely financially - don't rate something as important solely because it is easy to measure.

Otherwise we should also get rid of all children and babies as well - they're no financial use at all!

[mjr]

Don't know what you mean about voter reaction, the majority voted for a party that wants to cut tax - Conservative or Reform.

As with your earlier fascist-boosting, this is not true. Only 23% voted Conservative or Reform.

If there was real voter reaction to Britain's rising inequality Mr Corbyn would be PM.

Only if they'd agreed with his approach to it.

[Nearholmer]

All of this is completely _rs_ about face!

What we call “work” is what we do in order to subsist, it isn’t our sole purpose for existing, which is a whole other debate about options ranging from “we have no purpose; we just are” through to “because my god ordained it so”. Certainly if we are fortunate we can get more from it than mere subsistence. whether that be in material or other terms, but it’s basic function is to give us the means to avoid freezing of starving or death.

That being the case, if by a combination of individual effort and the pooling of our resources we can collectively support ourselves and support those who are too young, or too old, or too sick to work, why on earth shouldn’t we? Every society since the dawn of society has done precisely that; it’s almost certainly a defining characteristic of society. Even other species do it in many cases.

Societies have always looked badly upon those who wouldn’t work when there was work to be done, but all have to varying degrees supported those who couldn’t.

So, can our society as presently organised and constituted produce enough to give subsistence to the entire population? Yes.

Can it produce enough to give a proportion of that society a great deal more in material terms than are needed for bare subsistence? Yes, and I’d venture that in the case of the UK the proportion is 100%.

Can it produce enough to give everyone a very, very high material standard of living, as the proportion working falls, and the cost of caring for those not working rises? Hmmm ….. begins to get difficult, posing questions around either or all of expecting people to work for a greater proportion of their lives, or asking them to settle for a slightly less materially prosperous existence, or to bring in some more workers to help, or to invest in making workers more productive.

The idea that we should cull people because they don’t work is utterly barbaric, anti-societal, genuinely in-human. Which isn’t to say that we should devote infinite resource to preventing people dying, but is to say that we should devote a reasonable (i.e. arrived at after reasoned debate) proportion of our resource to it.

(I haven’t mentioned unequal distribution of the proceeds of our collective efforts, because anyone with a grain of sense will know that the more unequally the proceeds are distributed, the bigger the challenge posed in my last question gets)