The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

Some Labour MPs are likely to break away from the party

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-syria-assad-russia-labour-party-split-a8310151.html

[RickBFA]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[horseplayer]

Have every faith the longer May stays in charge the Tories will end up out of power by default

Long may she continue

[kukushkin88]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

[Jon MW]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

The top 1% of earners pay 25% of the income tax revenues the government receive.

It's pretty easy to say the rich should pay more - but even if you ignore the arguments about tax yield reducing if you increase the burden too high (because they can more easily leave the country or hire good accountants); isn't their a limit at some point?

Those with plenty do shoulder the most - isn't there a point where if you keep on increasing the burden on the richest then those lower down the chain just aren't shouldering their fair share?

[nirvana]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

This pretty decently encapsulates the problems with socialism and although I'm left leaning to a reasonable degree, I can't agree with this.

We can all meaningfully give up more to charity and volunteering rather than wait for Government to do it. The problem with most people is they won't do this because they think Government should - ie I don't mind paying more as long as everyone does but don't ask me to do more if there's any element of richer people not doing more (even though, they are of course contributing way more in tax take already). Badly worded but, I don't really get why we expect Governments to solve all the problems with poverty. I think charity and volunteering have a legitimate role to play - if we don't actually care, why should a Government.

If you think of (the many)  mega rich philanthropists that exist - I don't really feel comfortable saying - he (random rich guy, say Gates) should pay more tax when he already spends like a small country in philanthropic pursuits as well as probably paying more tax than me already. It would be more effective if lots of people like me (relatively comfortable) thought about what they could do as well.

I gave my only pair of wellies to a homeless guy the other day, well my wife did but I didn't moan. She works to help people find jobs, who are nigh on unemployable, some homeless, some with extreme learning difficulties or mental health problems - much as I rail against the injustice of these people being told they have to find a job and see them put on jobseekers rather than better forms of benefit more suited to their needs,I also marvel at the amount of charitable support that is out there when people are made aware of it and helped towards it. A lot of this help is voluntary or low paid but people do it because they want to take action to help people, real people, rather than call Tories scumbags or tweet about it from their Islington armchair.

There is something fundamentally broken about the way individuals needs are assessed though - I don't know enough about how these things have worked historically to know if it is much worse/much harsher now or pretty much the same as it was in the Labour 'city' years. I hate the process that brutally tells people 'go get a job' when it's pretty much impossible for them.

[Woodsey]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

There should be an option to voluntarily pay more tax if people want to, wonder how many people who suggest this would actually do it?

I’m sure you could sacrifice a snowboarding holiday or a surfing trip if it means that much, maybe even pretty girl would forego the odd dinner in pursuit of your ideals.......or not, you never know.......

[Longines]

There should be an option to voluntarily pay more tax if people want to, wonder how many people who suggest this would actually do it?

You can. 200 payments in the last 18 years totalling £8.3m. It paid off 0.0005% of the national debt.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

[Woodsey]

There should be an option to voluntarily pay more tax if people want to, wonder how many people who suggest this would actually do it?

You can. 200 payments in the last 18 years totalling £8.3m. It paid off 0.0005% of the national debt.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

Great so the people whinging about it are ponces and expect other people to foot the bill, all mouth no action, no suprise there....

[kukushkin88]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

There should be an option to voluntarily pay more tax if people want to, wonder how many people who suggest this would actually do it?

I’m sure you could sacrifice a snowboarding holiday or a surfing trip if it means that much, maybe even pretty girl would forego the odd dinner in pursuit of your ideals.......or not, you never know.......

It's a bit like the 'Prisoner Dilemma' I guess (more on that at the end). I wouldn't know what to do with the money......a food bank maybe? I get all the left overs from work to the one in Pimlico. I'm not sure depending on the generosity of people like me would get us far though, I have enough for me to live as I want. I live well but not extravagantly. I'd happily give up a chunk of my overly generous pension though.

Just to flip it around for fun, it would be interesting to see how many would opt out of tax altogether if they had the choice.

[kukushkin88]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

This pretty decently encapsulates the problems with socialism and although I'm left leaning to a reasonable degree, I can't agree with this.

We can all meaningfully give up more to charity and volunteering rather than wait for Government to do it. The problem with most people is they won't do this because they think Government should - ie I don't mind paying more as long as everyone does but don't ask me to do more if there's any element of richer people not doing more (even though, they are of course contributing way more in tax take already). Badly worded but, I don't really get why we expect Governments to solve all the problems with poverty. I think charity and volunteering have a legitimate role to play - if we don't actually care, why should a Government.

If you think of (the many)  mega rich philanthropists that exist - I don't really feel comfortable saying - he (random rich guy, say Gates) should pay more tax when he already spends like a small country in philanthropic pursuits as well as probably paying more tax than me already. It would be more effective if lots of people like me (relatively comfortable) thought about what they could do as well.

I gave my only pair of wellies to a homeless guy the other day, well my wife did but I didn't moan. She works to help people find jobs, who are nigh on unemployable, some homeless, some with extreme learning difficulties or mental health problems - much as I rail against the injustice of these people being told they have to find a job and see them put on jobseekers rather than better forms of benefit more suited to their needs,I also marvel at the amount of charitable support that is out there when people are made aware of it and helped towards it. A lot of this help is voluntary or low paid but people do it because they want to take action to help people, real people, rather than call Tories scumbags or tweet about it from their Islington armchair.

There is something fundamentally broken about the way individuals needs are assessed though - I don't know enough about how these things have worked historically to know if it is much worse/much harsher now or pretty much the same as it was in the Labour 'city' years. I hate the process that brutally tells people 'go get a job' when it's pretty much impossible for them.

Good evening

Good post, some more thinking to be done, thanks.

[Woodsey]

So, it's 2010 we have an economic crisis, there's a shortage of money. Let's give ourselves three options.

1. The relatively rich get poorer
2. The relatively poor get poorer
3. Everyone gets poorer

I like one best, three is just about OK if absolutely necessary. I don't like two, a country with ~1000 billionaires and people in full time employment who can't feed and clothe their children is broken. They've borrowed and spent magnitudes more than any British government in history, they've spent it protecting the rich.

Let me try again.

The crash was basically a once in a 100 year event.

Do you not think that an event that severe could have no impact on living standards across the country even under a Labour Government?

If you think it couldn't then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

My point is, the people with plenty should have been made to shoulder a lot more of the burden. I'd give up more if there was a meaningful way to do it. Charity and volunteering just hides the desperate shortcomings of our failing government though.

There should be an option to voluntarily pay more tax if people want to, wonder how many people who suggest this would actually do it?

I’m sure you could sacrifice a snowboarding holiday or a surfing trip if it means that much, maybe even pretty girl would forego the odd dinner in pursuit of your ideals.......or not, you never know.......

It's a bit like the 'Prisoner Dilemma' I guess (more on that at the end). I wouldn't know what to do with the money......a food bank maybe? I get all the left overs from work to the one in Pimlico. I'm not sure depending on the generosity of people like me would get us far though, I have enough for me to live as I want. I live well but not extravagantly. I'd happily give up a chunk of my overly generous pension though.

Just to flip it around for fun, it would be interesting to see how many would opt out of tax altogether if they had the choice.

I wouldn’t dip out but feel I pay my fair share already, I don’t want to pay more, I work fking hard to support my family and feel I deserve every penny I get. Then again I take responsibility for my own life and actions, even if I was a fkn numpty I’d still go out and get a job to support myself as that’s what any responsible adult does. Don’t care if I had to move to some shithole in London to do it, but I’d make sure I did and not ponce off anyone else including the govt, that’s just how I was brought up.....

[Woodsey]

It’s Friday, is Kukush on the ales? Hope so...... 

[DaveShoelace]

Fan Theory: Woodsey and kukushkin88 are the same person and they spend their weekend trolling this thread.

[Woodsey]

Fan Theory: Woodsey and kukushkin88 are the same person and they spend their weekend trolling this thread.

  I’d be surprised if there wasn’t someone on here who has met us both  

Well I’ve met loads from here anyway....