Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Malthusian

The difference between May refusing to condemn Saudi Arabia and Corbyn refusing to condemn Venezuela is that May can't condemn Saudi Arabia without putting billions worth of UK contracts at risk and !!!!ing off one of our supposed allies in the "war on terror". (Personally, I think she should do it anyway and I think that the significance of both those things is grossly exaggerated, however I can sympathise with her reasons for not doing so.) Corbyn is under no such restriction when it comes to Venezuela. Corbyn is not in power and does not have the ability to !!!! other countries off diplomatically, and even if he was, Venezuela is not a significant trading partner or military ally.

May refuses to condemn Saudi Arabia because of realpolitik, not because she actively supports what the regime is doing - she is not in favour of floggings and executions and the oppression of women. Corbyn however is not constrained by realpolitik and he refuses to condemn Venezuela because he does actively support what the regime is doing.

When applied to discussions like we have here it's a pretty hopeless argument. "Corbyn should condemn Venezuela." "Wotabout Saudi Arabia, don't you think May should condemn them?" "Yes, of course she should. Now what about Corbyn and Venezuela?"

Fella

The HUGE difference is that May might support the Saudi regime but she's not suggesting we adopt it.

Corbyn emphatically IS suggesting we adopt a Venezuela-style Socialist regime & has every intention of doing so if he get's the chance.

It's apples & oranges. SA has no relevance whatsoever to the Venezuela debate.

Every mention of Saudi Arabia is simply a Chewbacca defense from the Corbynistas.

Moby

Malthusian wrote: »

The difference between May refusing to condemn Saudi Arabia and Corbyn refusing to condemn Venezuela is that May can't condemn Saudi Arabia without putting billions worth of UK contracts at risk and !!!!ing off one of our supposed allies in the "war on terror". (Personally, I think she should do it anyway and I think that the significance of both those things is grossly exaggerated, however I can sympathise with her reasons for not doing so.) Corbyn is under no such restriction when it comes to Venezuela. Corbyn is not in power and does not have the ability to !!!! other countries off diplomatically, and even if he was, Venezuela is not a significant trading partner or military ally.

May refuses to condemn Saudi Arabia because of realpolitik, not because she actively supports what the regime is doing - she is not in favour of floggings and executions and the oppression of women. Corbyn however is not constrained by realpolitik and he refuses to condemn Venezuela because he does actively support what the regime is doing.

When applied to discussions like we have here it's a pretty hopeless argument. "Corbyn should condemn Venezuela." "Wotabout Saudi Arabia, don't you think May should condemn them?" "Yes, of course she should. Now what about Corbyn and Venezuela?"

So.......... you are saying Corbyn's stance is actually more principled. Totally agree and more and more people are beginning to realise it despite the millions spent by the tories. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/08/tories-paid-crosbys-firm-millions-advising-mays-disastrous-election-campaign

[Deleted User]

Moby wrote: »

The numbers are growing. Do you think you're little one man campaign of hate on this forum will change that?

If it helps, although "hate" is probably too strong a word for me, I think Corbyn is an economically illiterate knob as well.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that any politicians of any party have all the answers, but the kind of jealousy-ridden politics of evny and the loony left wing 'solutions' proposed by The Blessed Jeremy and his shower would set us back decades.

Does Labour have the occasional good idea? Of course. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day; but living in an economy modelled on the notion of 'you have something I don't have, so I'm taking it from you', would be disastrous. What the loony left don't seem to accept is that if applied worldwide (a laudable fantasy), the trendy lefties and their admirers on this forum wouldn't have pot to p!ss in, as their lifestyle would disappear overnight and be 'redistributed in the interests of fairness' :rotfl:.

As for Corbyn and Venezuela, I have no idea why he finds it so hard to condemn its government. He is like a football supporter who has never seen one of his own team's players commit a foul, let alone ever admit one deserved to be booked or sent off. Blinkered or what?

What about just condemning Venezuela? It can't be because the suppression of dissent is part of the momentum playbook, can It? :rotfl:

Why does the leader of an allegedly democratic party have an problem condemning a government like that of Venezuela?

(Cue relentless"whatabouterry".... what about Saudi, what about China, what about Israel....etc etc - all without managing to criticise Corbyn or Venezuela of course....;) )

WR

Malthusian

Moby wrote: »

So.......... you are saying Corbyn's stance is actually more principled.

Yes I am, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were also very principled men. As is King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Nicolas Maduro. Principled the lot of them.

When someone is described as "principled" it means they are a complete ----hole. When someone has good principles they are described as "kind" "charitable" "dedicated" or other words specific to the good principle they embody. Only those who embody bad principles are described euphemistically as "principled".

Any cretin can be principled, to expect praise for it displays a total poverty of expectation and judgement.

onlyroz

How about this for an idea:


- Scrap all benefits (including the state pension and student maintenance loans) and replace them with a universal basic income - with differing rates for children, adults, the disabled and pensioners


- Reduce the basic income tax threshold to zero and increase the basic income tax level to 25%


- Raise the higher income tax level to 45%


- Reduce the inheritance tax threshold to £100k and increase the inheritance tax level to 50%


- Increase corporation tax to the G8 average

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

If a government wishes to spend more money it needs to raise more revenue. That's just a plain fact.

Well of course it is, I've never said otherwise to my knowledge.
Look past your predilection to stating the obvious and recognise the the fact that political choices have defunded public services and in some areas effected delivery to the public severely, and again to my knowledge I don't recall being told that would happen. The fact that this Government is spending half its time denying the problems in our public services, would backup the theory that its engaged in a doctrinal defunding exercise rather than a managed rationing of money to produce efficiencies, but not effect delivery.
You and others on here can glibly say "we can't afford it" and not worry how public services perform, responsible Governments however cannot.

[Deleted User]

onlyroz wrote: »

How about this for an idea:


- Scrap all benefits (including the state pension and student maintenance loans) and replace them with a universal basic income - with differing rates for children, adults, the disabled and pensioners


- Reduce the basic income tax threshold to zero and increase the basic income tax level to 25%


- Raise the higher income tax level to 45%


- Reduce the inheritance tax threshold to £100k and increase the inheritance tax level to 50%


- Increase corporation tax to the G8 average

Some interesting stuff there but, for me, the inheritance tax item is too severe. Do you mean the total estate value is to be taxed at 50% above 100k? Or cash only? Or land and buildings, and/or other possessions? We want people to save and invest, not have a "total wealth" of 100k then p!ss the rest up a wall in the knowledge that if they don't the state will appropriate half of it.

100k is far, far too low and will just be a goldmine for those who help avoid punitive taxes. Billions in cash would leave the country.

Better a carrot than a stick, IMO. :cool:

WR

Edit to add.... if you have different rates for different 'types' of people, your proposed universal basic income is neither "universal" nor "basic"!

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

You and others on here can glibly say "we can't afford it" and not worry how public services perform, responsible Governments however cannot.

Yet again you talk as if the choice is to reduce public spending or not.

It isn't. The choice is reduce public spending now or reduce it by much more further down the line when the country is bankrupt & repayment of interest on our debts is sky-high.

You've already demonstrated that you cannot stand even the small amount of austerity imposed by the Tories to reduce some of the deficit Labour handed them. Just think how much you would hate actual austerity, the kind that would be necessary post-Corbyn.

onlyroz

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Some interesting stuff there but, for me, the inheritance tax item is too severe. Do you mean the total estate value is to be taxed at 50% above 100k? Or cash only? Or land and buildings, and/or other possessions? We want people to save and invest, not have a "total wealth" of 100k then p!ss the rest up a wall in the knowledge that if they don't the state will appropriate half of it.

100k is far, far too low and will just be a goldmine for those who help avoid punitive taxes. Billions in cash would leave the country.

From the "Dementia Tax" debacle there were many tory-boys proclaiming that an inheritance of £100k was plenty, and why would anyone need any more than this? My view is that, sure, some people will go out of their way to avoid it, but if we reduce the threshold to a point where most people contributed something then I think overall avoidance would reduce (because the average joe doesn't typically have the inclination or ability to carry out extreme tax avoidance measures). And even if the elderly did decide to !!!! their assets up the wall and spend their money on fast cars and Caribbean cruises, this would benefit the economy in other ways.

Edit to add.... if you have different rates for different 'types' of people, your proposed universal basic income is neither "universal" nor "basic"!

I'm thinking of three levels for the universal income:
1) Children - set at half the working adult amount
2) Working adults - set at somewhere around the current level of JSA
3) Pensioners and the disabled - set at somewhere around the current state pension level
It would be paid for by all my other taxes as set out in my previous post.