An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

cells

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

ruggedtoast- how do you think Corbyn is going to win votes across middle class, small c conservative England? I suspect calling boomers names may not be a successful tactic.

people project their own circumstances and views across the country. Mr toast probably believes the majority are on crap wages and in poverty that the 1% have everything and the 99% have nothing so come the revolution (next GE) they will vote for 'change'.

But come the revolution, the country elects center right parties and sometimes center left parties as perhaps 2/3rds of the country, not 1%, is doing quite well

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think you need to get your argument sorted out. Because on the one hand you are saying that everyone who wants to be rich can be, and on the other hand you are complaining that:

"wealthier people already do pay more while most people either take out or net pay nothing"

Well which is it? Are we living in a glorious meritocracy, or one that actually fails "most people", because they work as hard or harder than the minority but never even earn enough to make a net contribution.

You can't have both.

But you hate and envy people who make enough to make a net contribution. You want them robbed by the state so people who pay in nothing and who only take out can take out even more. Not content with being given free money you didn't earn, you think you should be given even more free money you didn't earn, so you can buy things you feel entitled to even though the free money plus the value of your economic contribution adds up to far less than what these things cost.

You almost certainly feel you are more entitled to my mother's house than I am, for example. Or than she is; in 2015 Labour wanted a wealth tax on people who had amassed possessions such as a house and was quite prepared to tax them out of something they had already paid for. People on the same lifetime income who had instead squandered the money on cars, caravans and holidays, and who didn't have such a house, would face no such penalty.

And spare me the crocodile tears about how not enough people own their own homes. Labour has opposed every single measure ever taken to widen ownership, from council sales through to Help To Buy. What Labour wants is huge concrete gulags full of council tenants on benefits, ideally all so badly educated they're unemployable, all obediently voting Labour.

Giving you what you want is impossible because if anyone has more than you you'll hate them and want it taken away. A certain type of Labour voter - whom you seem intent on personifying - will, to quite a lot of people, always appear to be no more than a greedy entitled spendthrift whose idea of fairness is everybody being made as miserable as himself.

For you, comrade, Venezuela awaits.

cells

Mr Toast thinks the country is divided into the 1% vs the 99%

If we look at the inheritance figures again we have something that looks more like 1% leave >£3million If that were the end of it, the hard left would win

2.5% leave £1.5m to £3m
8% leave £0.75m to £1.5m
20.5% leave £0.45m to £0.75m

So already we are at 32% and he is starting to worry as its the 32% vs the 68%. doesn't sound all that good as even a lot of his comrades dont want to harm 32% of the population

16% leave £0.3m to £0.45m taking it to 48% vs the 52% and he is slowly beginning to understand why the revolution isnt happening. Another 28% receive £0.15m to £0.3m


Wealth is broadly spread. The youthful poor 20 something in a crap job cheering on dear leader becomes the 40 year old with a good job and family about to inherit quarter of a million pounds and realises he is no longer so keen on distributing wealth now that he has a lot of it

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

7 years is more than a couple



why would that apply to any significant number of people?
I've already shown you that about £6.5 trillion is inherited or gifted per generation and that it is spread wide. Ive already shown you that wages are higher than you think they are


One of my friends, An african man who is I think 33 now married last year to his African girlfriend and bought a house. Both on low wages and from 3rd world countries with no help. They could not have done that in London so they moved to the midlands where they were able to do that. If two people from a 3rd world country with no assistance can achieve it why do you think its beyond the possibility for natives with their higher opportunities and wealth?

Its funny you're quite willing to use anonymous statistics when you believe they uphold your argument, but its back to anecdotes when they don't.

I am happy for your African friends. I guess all the invective about the housing benefit bill for immigrants that Brexiteers are angry about can be put to bed now.,

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

The beauty of the internet age is that data is available to all and mostly for free. so instead of using gut feelings go and take a look and learn

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc126/index.html

Manchester
Full time male, median earnings = £29,900
Full time female, median earning = £26,150

Average terrace = £138.8k


Also consider that the average wages include 16-17 year olds and 18-21 year olds who typically earn a lot less. That is to say if you looked at the averages of 22+ year olds the average wage figures would be higher.

Also consider, the average terrace might be £138.8k but that means half of them are actually cheaper

Also consider, the median terrace is actually about 15-20% cheaper than the mean average price (going by scottish data which actually lists median and mean averages)


So once again, your world view does not match reality

Marvellous, using the figures we have already established as correct, men in Manchester earn more there than men in the South East by over £10k. I wonder why everyone doesn't move.

Must be the BBC. Or you cherry picking your data to say what you want it to.

By the way, £30k still isn't as much as you think it is.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

But you hate and envy people who make enough to make a net contribution. You want them robbed by the state so people who pay in nothing and who only take out can take out even more. Not content with being given free money you didn't earn, you think you should be given even more free money you didn't earn, so you can buy things you feel entitled to even though the free money plus the value of your economic contribution adds up to far less than what these things cost.

You almost certainly feel you are more entitled to my mother's house than I am, for example. Or than she is; in 2015 Labour wanted a wealth tax on people who had amassed possessions such as a house and was quite prepared to tax them out of something they had already paid for. People on the same lifetime income who had instead squandered the money on cars, caravans and holidays, and who didn't have such a house, would face no such penalty.

And spare me the crocodile tears about how not enough people own their own homes. Labour has opposed every single measure ever taken to widen ownership, from council sales through to Help To Buy. What Labour wants is huge concrete gulags full of council tenants on benefits, ideally all so badly educated they're unemployable, all obediently voting Labour.

Giving you what you want is impossible because if anyone has more than you you'll hate them and want it taken away. A certain type of Labour voter - whom you seem intent on personifying - will, to quite a lot of people, always appear to be no more than a greedy entitled spendthrift whose idea of fairness is everybody being made as miserable as himself.

For you, comrade, Venezuela awaits.

No, I actually think that everyone should have the opportunity to make enough to make a net contribution. Not some twisted system based on unfairness, inequality, unearned wealth, inheritance and privilege that you favour because an accident of chance means that it has favoured you, and you get to puff your chest out and think you are better than other people because of your bank balance.

If you think selling council houses, most of which end up as buy to lets, without building any more, or further inflating house prices using public money with Help to Buy is "widening access", then you need to re-educate yourself as to how supply and demand affects price.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Marvellous, using the figures we have already established as correct, men in Manchester earn more there than men in the South East by over £10k. I wonder why everyone doesn't move.

Must be the BBC. Or you cherry picking your data to say what you want it to.

By the way, £30k still isn't as much as you think it is.

can you please look at the link and data rather than blindly going off on one? The stats show that full time male wages are quite uniform across the country varying about 5-10%

Area: Weekly Full time male wage
Birmingham = £592
Manchester = £575
Leeds = £569
Telford = £535
Doncaster = £517
Enfield = £540
Waltham Forest = £574
Hackney = £586


Clearly homes are very affordable for a couple in much of the country. Here is the second biggest city in England

Birmingham average terrace price £143.9k
Birmginham average full time male wage £30,784 and female full time wage £24,596

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, I actually think that everyone should have the opportunity to make enough to make a net contribution.

you definitely dont want that if you think it through
it would result in a flat tax
but clearly you dont really know or think through your views

Not some twisted system based on unfairness, inequality, unearned wealth, inheritance and privilege that you favour because an accident of chance

people arent voting to distribute wealth from the 2/3rds to the bottom 1/6th. Why would they?

The majority dont want it and they vote that way

If you think selling council houses, most of which end up as buy to lets, without building any more, or further inflating house prices using public money with Help to Buy is "widening access", then you need to re-educate yourself as to how supply and demand affects price.

well you cry with one breath that you want more for the poor and with the second breath you cry that you dont want to give the poor anything. which one is it that you want?

what would be good for the poor is to sell off the council/social homes to them. You dont even need to give them a discount just give them access to a government mortgage at a reasonable rate although I would not object to them receiving a discount

about 5% of the stock should be kept as social as some people have problems that make it difficult if not impossible for them to find private rentals or buy. But some areas are over 50% social homes that clearly crazy

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

By the way, £30k still isn't as much as you think it is.

The more people earn, the less inclined they are to vote for 'distribution'





The £25-£30k band is where the conservatives pull ahead of labor
The problem for the hard left is that, most households earn more than £25-30k

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

Manchester
Full time male, median earnings = £29,900
Full time female, median earning = £26,150

Average terrace = £138.8k

Which means that 50% of the working population earn below those levels.

The price is still over 4 times an average single persons wage.

Saving whilst paying rent isn't easy.