Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

Give me some examples.

I think a look through your posts provides plenty of examples that you are a long way to the right of centre (which you're perfectly entitled to be of course). It's a pretty consistent pattern, and while I haven't got either the time or inclination to trawl through them all, a couple of obvious examples are shown below.

westernpromise wrote: »

Of course not. They would sooner sit tight on their invincible 5-year contract till they get wiped out in 2020, and then walk off trousering a big fat wad of taxpayers' money for having been useless parasites. Much like their voters' lifestyles, in fact.

Much of this post is referring to Labour MPs, but the part in bold is relevant here, as it refers to Labour voters as a whole. I don't think describing all (or even the bulk of) Labour voters as "useless parasites" is exactly an example of "moderate centrism".

Or this thread ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5476781 ) that you started, in which you basically suggested that Universal suffrage was a bad idea as it would result in the rich paying more tax.

Or this one ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5502462 ) which while admittedly tongue in cheek in some ways, sums up a view you seem to hold that anyone who suggests that anyone pay more tax on anything is acting out of a selfish desire to get their hands on other people's money. The idea that tax pays for essential public services, and that many people (myself included) actively support higher taxes that they would / do lose out from due to the wider benefits to society seems to be something you refuse to even acknowledge.

Now you are of course entitled to hold all of these views, and different opinions are an essential part of good debate. But I don't think the opinions expressed in your posts can ever really be described as those of a "moderate centrist".

gadgetmind

Jason74 wrote: »

I think a look through your posts provides plenty of examples that you are a long way to the right of centre

Many friends, acquaintances and those I chat to online who are well left of centre consider me to be far right. Political Compass suggests that I'm a *very* slightly right of centre libertarian.

In the other quadrant are Castro, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Ceaușescu, and Pol Pot, so I'm happy where I am!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

cells

mrginge wrote: »

That's all very well unless the old people spend 4 trillion of it before they die and those who inherit what's left have run up 4 trillion in debt.

its a net figure so its £8.8 trillion after debts

also the savings rate is still positive which means this £8.8 trillion is growing.

mrginge

cells wrote: »

its a net figure so its £8.8 trillion after debts

also the savings rate is still positive which means this £8.8 trillion is growing.

What it's net after the debts of the people who will inherit it, or net after the debts of the people who currently hold it?

cells

mrginge wrote: »

What it's net after the debts of the people who will inherit it, or net after the debts of the people who currently hold it?

Its the net worth of the whole country

Households have a total net wealth – the value of their assets minus their debts – of £10.2 trillion.

The reason the country’s net wealth sits below that level is because of government and corporate debts.

---

If we take a crude simple model and assume the age group 0-30 own nothing, the age group 30-60 own 1 unit and the age group 60-90 own 2 units you can conclude that the 60-90 age group owns £6.8 trillion and they pass this on over a 30 year cycle or £227 billion a year each year is gifted or passed on as inheritances.

The official statistics I have seen which are out of date by a few years is that £72 billion for that year (2013??) was left as inheritances. More will be given as gifts to avoid inheritance tax or get to get your affairs in order before you lose it mentally or physically. Also a lot of parents help their children through life.

So I am fairly confident that my estimate of £227billion per year (which I often just round to £200 Billion) is a good guess


The important point I want to make and I make it often here, is that this ~£200 billion is simply forgotten about and not considered much at all when people talk about housing affordability or other economic and political issues. Its not the elephant in the room its the blue whale in the room

Alan_Brown

The biggest con of the late 20th and 21st century is making ordinary people believe that they are rich and so they approve of reducing the higher rate tax thresholds and argue against increasing benefits and reducing taxes for the poor. They are deluded in the belief that eventually they will become rich and so they vote accordingly. This is why Corbyn should be Pm but never will be.

Malthusian

Taxes have been significantly reduced for the poor in recent years via the increase in the personal allowance at which you don't pay income tax. The higher rate threshold on the other hand has been increased by less than the increase in the personal allowance in recent years. In other words, people start paying 20% tax later but they pay 40% tax earlier than they used to. Even ignoring inflation.

The reason Corbyn will never be PM is because not everyone is as economically illiterate as you.

westernpromise

Jason74 wrote: »

I think a look through your posts provides plenty of examples that you are a long way to the right of centre (which you're perfectly entitled to be of course). It's a pretty consistent pattern, and while I haven't got either the time or inclination to trawl through them all, a couple of obvious examples are shown below.



Much of this post is referring to Labour MPs, but the part in bold is relevant here, as it refers to Labour voters as a whole. I don't think describing all (or even the bulk of) Labour voters as "useless parasites" is exactly an example of "moderate centrism".

Or this thread ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5476781 ) that you started, in which you basically suggested that Universal suffrage was a bad idea as it would result in the rich paying more tax.

Or this one ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5502462 ) which while admittedly tongue in cheek in some ways, sums up a view you seem to hold that anyone who suggests that anyone pay more tax on anything is acting out of a selfish desire to get their hands on other people's money. The idea that tax pays for essential public services, and that many people (myself included) actively support higher taxes that they would / do lose out from due to the wider benefits to society seems to be something you refuse to even acknowledge.

Now you are of course entitled to hold all of these views, and different opinions are an essential part of good debate. But I don't think the opinions expressed in your posts can ever really be described as those of a "moderate centrist".

The fact is that what you've characterised as "a long way to the right of centre" is mainstream opinion and very well supported as such. Here, for example, is an article from 2006 about Gordon Brown's client state:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511253/Labours-bulging-client-state-now-employs-44pc-of-people.html

The state-dependency research...showed that more than 60 per cent of people work for or live off the State in some of Britain's poorer areas. The highest was the Labour-held constituency of Cynon Valley in South Wales where 70.8 per cent of local adults were heavily dependent on the public sector in one way or another. The lowest is Conservative-held Horsham in West Sussex where the proportion was 35.8 per cent. Of the 10 constituencies with the highest level of state dependency, scattered across Wales, the North-West and the West Midlands, nine were Labour

It is thus objectively true that Labour supporters generally live off the state and demand even more of other people's money. The safer the Labour seat, the likelier this is to be so. To call this parasitism is quite reasonable in that it meets the definition: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3A%20parasite

If parasites aren't happy about being called out as such they can always try not being one.

It is also objectively true that most people object to others leeching off the state. Here is an Ipsos-MORI poll of 2013 which found that the benefit cap had over 6 times as many supporters as opponents:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3194/Benefit-Cap-popular-with-public-but-what-impact-is-it-having-preimplementation.aspx

there is strong popular support for the Benefit Cap, and ... many of those who were notified that they would be affected by the cap found work after receiving this notification.
...a national poll ...found that the Benefit Cap receives wide public support, even when it is framed in different ways; nearly three quarters of the British public support it in principle (73%), with just 12% opposed ...The strength of support for the Cap across these measures indicates a popular policy at a time when the benefits system in Britain is considered too generous (by 50%) rather than not generous enough (20%).

I did not suggest "that Universal suffrage was a bad idea as it would result in the rich paying more tax." I quoted Lord Salisbury who pointed out that universal suffrage would enable people to vote themselves other people's money. Are you suggesting he was wrong? Pretty much every post by, say, ruggedtoast is a shrill demand for other people's money.

You've also asserted that "The idea that tax pays for essential public services, and that many people (myself included) actively support higher taxes that they would / do lose out from due to the wider benefits to society seems to be something you refuse to even acknowledge." but this is a/ nonsense, I have never said any such thing and b/ just a typical Labour Party football chant. As a matter of policy Labour always overspends, so they can cast elections as a choice between Labour spending (and taxes on other people) or Tory cuts to rebalance the budget.

Everyone gets that taxes pay for essential public services. But the centrist POV, which is also mine, is that the state should not spend like a drunken sailor and raise taxes on people it hates to fund it all.. The Labour voter's mentality is usually that high earners should be expropriated by the state to fund it all because impoverishing them is a worthwhile end in itself.

I have noticed that the further left somebody is, the more likely they are to see anyone to their right as extreme right, even if they're still on the left. Hence we have the splendid spectacle of Labour supporters calling other Labour supporters "right wing" and "Tories" because they are centre-left Blairites.

The right-wing version of this is the UKIPper loony who insists that Labour, the Liberals and the Conservatives are identical. This view can only form if you're so far off the reservation everyone else is close together, in the same way that Pluto, Saturn and the sun look close together when seen from Alpha Centauri.

So no. I'm centre right and most of the country is of the right.

westernpromise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

The biggest con of the late 20th and 21st century is making ordinary people believe that they are rich and so they approve of reducing the higher rate tax thresholds and argue against increasing benefits and reducing taxes for the poor. They are deluded in the belief that eventually they will become rich and so they vote accordingly. This is why Corbyn should be Pm but never will be.

This post is a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post ("The Labour voter's mentality is usually that high earners should be expropriated by the state...because impoverishing them is a worthwhile end in itself").

Alan here thinks that there should be higher taxes on "the rich" (= anyone who earns more than Alan). But Osborne raised the overall tax take by lowering the top rate of tax.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11411790/Britains-highest-earners-pay-a-quarter-of-nations-income-tax.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html

It follows that if the top rate of tax were to be reversed, it would lower the tax take overall, which would entail higher taxes for everyone else, or worse public services. Alan is happy for everybody to be made poorer by the state as long as rich people are made poorer, because that's a good in itself.

It's a very odd belief, especially when over half the country put in nothing at all or are net takers. It does explain why Labour has such a vested interest in schools being bad and in considering good schools to be a "great danger" (John Prescott, 2005). It's because if people could think straight, they wouldn't vote Labour.

TrickyTree83

westernpromise wrote: »

This post is a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post ("The Labour voter's mentality is usually that high earners should be expropriated by the state...because impoverishing them is a worthwhile end in itself").

Alan here thinks that there should be higher taxes on "the rich" (= anyone who earns more than Alan). But Osborne raised the overall tax take by lowering the top rate of tax.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11411790/Britains-highest-earners-pay-a-quarter-of-nations-income-tax.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html

It follows that if the top rate of tax were to be reversed, it would lower the tax take overall, which would entail higher taxes for everyone else, or worse public services. Alan is happy for everybody to be made poorer by the state as long as rich people are made poorer, because that's a good in itself.

It's a very odd belief, especially when over half the country put in nothing at all or are net takers. It does explain why Labour has such a vested interest in schools being bad and in considering good schools to be a "great danger" (John Prescott, 2005). It's because if people could think straight, they wouldn't vote Labour.

They can't stand a meritocracy.

In my view that's the best system, if you can't be bothered to get off your bum and improve your own lot in life don't expect others to do so for you, including the state by means of taxation on others.

Personal responsibility needs to make a comeback.

At the same time I'm quite happy to be taxed enough to provide for the NHS, emergency housing, food, free education for all (although the current Uni financing system is fine by me, do a degree that gets you a job instead of one that won't). I disagree with the way we dish out money as welfare, should be vouchers for the necessities. I also disagree with the way we operate housing welfare, the state shouldn't be going near the private rental sector, and no social housing should be permanent. But that's just my opinion.