Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

StevieJ wrote: »

Why is it always about cuts? What about tax increases, Scandinavia seems to have much better public services paid for by higher taxes.

The obvious answer would be, because people don't like paying higher taxes.

But if you want 'Scandinavian' levels of public services, then you need Scandinavian levels of taxation. UK tax revenues are about 35% of GDP, Sweden's are about 44%. That's about an extra £150 billion in tax.

What higher taxes do you have in mind that are going to raise that £150 billion?

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

The obvious answer would be, because people don't like paying higher taxes.

But if you want 'Scandinavian' levels of public services, then you need Scandinavian levels of taxation. UK tax revenues are about 35% of GDP, Sweden's are about 44%. That's about an extra £150 billion in tax.

What higher taxes do you have in mind that are going to raise that £150 billion?

Most of us would be happy with traditional British levels of public services.
Perhaps people like me will answer your question on higher taxes when others acknowledge that the current level of funding is creating basket-case public services as a result.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

Most of us would be happy with traditional British levels of public services.

Why do you think you're entitled to those? "Traditionally" most of the rest of the world was virtually starving to death. That's becoming less true because wealth is slowly moving from the West to other parts of the world.

Forget about what was possible traditionally, it has no relevance.

What you essentially want is to do the job of your choice & receive the wage of your choice in return. That's not how the world works. Unless you're extremely talented or lucky, you either do the job you want or a job that pays enough.

There are basically 4 positions that are viable.

1. You support "austerity" & want the country to live within it's means.

2. You don't support austerity where it affects your personally, in which case list the places you do want to see cuts?

3. You don't support austerity & would like to see everything paid for by increased debt & deficit, in which case simply acknowledge that you're happy to see future generations shafted in order to pay for your generation now.

4. You don't support austerity & would like to see everything paid for by a massive income tax increase across the board (the only tax increase that even "might" begin to raise the revenue needed).

There aren't any other options. Corbyn conned a few mugs into believing you could fund a utopian future with tax raises that would "only affect 5% of the population, and them only an affordable amount". Nobody with an IQ above 70 actually believe's that's possible.

Deep down most people who oppose austerity want a mixture of options 2 & 3. They just won't admit it or say which cuts they'd actually support.

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

Why do you think you're entitled to those?

Well, I haven't been told otherwise and neither have you.

setmefree2

DiggerUK wrote: »

Is it to be spent benefiting the few, or the many?

You do realize that "the few" as defined by the LP - those earning > £80k - include doctors, head teachers, fire chiefs, etc....?

setmefree2

StevieJ wrote: »

Why is it always about cuts? What about tax increases, Scandinavia seems to have much better public services paid for by higher taxes.

And a very different way of life. You can't go to the pub - too expensive, you rarely eat out - your life will be a much more "basic" one - think a lot fewer electronics (kettles, microwaves, vacuum cleaners). A lot less trips to the shop.No amazon. Basic food is expensive. Housing is expensive.

You will also suffer from the winter blues.

But don't worry - you can get pills for your depression cheaply. And easy and speedy access to a therapist.

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

Most of us would be happy with traditional British levels of public services. Perhaps people like me will answer your question on higher taxes when others acknowledge that the current level of funding is creating basket-case public services as a result.

No, it's down to you to specify what you mean by "traditional British levels of public services". I have no flippin idea myself.

Once you've done that, you can then work out how they differ from 'current British levels of public services', what its going to cost to implement them these 'traditional levels', and then work out how you're going to raise the revenue to pay for it.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that sticking 5p on the basic rate of income tax should raise about £25 billion, and that should be enough to sort out the immediate problems with the NHS, community care, whatever. I would not do it all in one go. Over the 'life of parliament' should do it.

However, I strongly suspect that such a proposal might well not make it into any party's manifesto on the obvious grounds that voters don't like higher taxes.

Conrad

Interesting vid here on how fascism was a product of the left, not the right;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytu5Kz6Y0CQ

antrobus

Fella wrote: »

..There aren't any other options. Corbyn conned a few mugs into believing you could fund a utopian future with tax raises that would "only affect 5% of the population, and them only an affordable amount". Nobody with an IQ above 70 actually believe's that's possible....

A total of 12,877,869 people voted Labour. Are you saying that there are 12.9 million people with an IQ under 70?

I think that's statistically unlikely.

Fella wrote: »

...Deep down most people who oppose austerity want a mixture of options 2 & 3. They just won't admit it or say which cuts they'd actually support.

It's really very simple. Government's raise money by means of taxation and spend it on stuff that they believe that people either want or need. Governments can, and do, spend more on stuff than they raise in taxes, and run a deficit, and borrow the difference. That's all fine and dandy, but there is a limit on what you can borrow. The larger the deficit the sooner you hit that limit and crash and burn and are forced to implement draconian austerity.

A sensible government faced with an 'unsustainable' deficit of say, ooh 10% of GDP, needs to do something that brings that down to something like 2%-3%. Because long term GDP growth has been 2.6% since 1948.

If you want to reduce the fiscal deficit you have two basic choices, (a) raise taxes, or (b) cut spending. Most governments will opt for a mixture of the two. But that's it.

P.S. I suppose there is option (c) do nothing, and hope it all turns out right in the end.

Conrad

Tromking wrote: »

Most of us would be happy with traditional British levels of public services.
Perhaps people like me will answer your question on higher taxes when others acknowledge that the current level of funding is creating basket-case public services as a result.

Many would agree with you that they would like to see a return to a proper police station in every town and that sort of 'basic level' services, but the problem is we now have an incredibly entitled mindset meaning ever more calls on funds.


Make a mental note over the coming weeks of the plethora of different interest groups all calling for more funding for their pet project / public service.


It just never ends, and that's the problem. Dianne Abbott and some green campaigner were calling for even more spending on sub Saharan Africa, no doubt applauded by the left. But this is just one of a bewildering number of calls for more spending day in day out.


To many of us this because something akin to a free-for-all for free loaders and anyone with a trendy minority 'cause' as well as ever more calls for money for benefits. This is where the social contract we all used to share sort of breaks down.


I don't want my money going into a massive bill for compensation for sponger whinging public sector workers claiming for bullying. Nor do I agree to paying BBC presenters more than the PM.
If the left were more proportionate and sensible on spending demands we might get agreement.