Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Seabee42

Actually it does not say over their lifetime, just at the moment. The point being is they get old to.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Yes, there's the argument that we can always pay marginally more, which is is why I specifically said I don't think we provide enough and to an acceptable standard of the basics. I'm not advocating full on communism for gods sake!

Sure so you think we should be taxed more and I think we shouldn't, who is right? How do we determine which way to go?

I have put forward a starting point, if additional taxes clearly buy us additional benefits then lets do it. Your assertion seems more bland just more now more forever. Maybe I should ask it in another way, what if any government service do we have sufficient amounts of today?

Of course I would choose my own child given the choice, that's a ridiculous question to ask.

You would also vote against the government that said you could not help your child and you must help lots of others instead because they are more deserving of your help. Hence you (or most people) would vote against more IHTs

There are a lot of people going hungry (evidenced by food banks),

What sort of evidence is that? Almost no one in the UK goes hungry, in fact the poor in this country are in many cases obese. There will be some going hungry again due to substance abuse and in some cases medical problems like anorexia

This reminds me of the BBC woman who had a go at a tory politician about the cuts and that it meant she had to go hungry to feed her kids. The BBC did a follow up and it was so funny to watch, she was saying how her kids come first and she has to go without food. The funny bit is that her two large dogs can be seen in the interview and she looks to be between fat and obese so clearly she was lying. A single mother of...... 4 kids.....who looks to me to have a front business for tax credits. Shameful really

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34552721/michelle-dorrell-why-i-was-so-angry-on-question-time

'Are you going short on food because you prioritize the children'
'Of course I am......'

So she feeds the 4 kids first, then she feed this big dog sitting down next to her and then she feed the other dog in the background and then she subsidize her 2 years failing front for tax credits business and after all that she finds she hasnt the money to eat for herself but dont worry she has about 15kg of body fat that needs shifting so its probably for the best.

What makes it even better if that the woman is now running a regional momentum group, that is what labor currently represents. lying fat women who run sham business and have 4 children for tax credits

there are lots of people who are homeless (ONS will tell you that),

Yes because they are on drugs or have other such problems

there are lots of people receiving substandard healthcare (NHS waiting lists, certain treatments not provided as too expensive... not the NHS' fault by the way, they of course have to prioritise with the resources they've got).

You can say that even if we taxed everything at 100% because healthcare costs can be infinite there is always more than can be done to slow or stem death

As for "people in difficult situations in the UK are primarily down to things like drug/alcohol/gambling addictions not lack of more taxes" - that's pretty appalling and I'd love to see your evidence for such a claim.

I am willing to donate a tenner to charity if you find data that says the oppoiste

Everyone I know in !!!! situations has one if not multiples of those problems, on the other hand I do not know any decent people with no addictions or mental/physics problems who do not have decent lives

Even accepting it at face value, what about the children of those people?

They are screwed not only have their parents !!!!ed up their childhood in most likeliness they have damaged them to the point that the children will have a very hard time not repeating their parents mistakes.

I dont know what can be done but sometimes its best if a couple split up and the more functional of the two takes over as a single parent.

Lack of funding for things like Sure Start centres is punishing children for their parents actions.

Children with !!!! parts are screwed no matter how you look at it, the only way is to remove them from the parents very early on but who is to say that is moral or that the state childcare/fostercare etc will be better

Do you believe addiction is entirely down to the individual, or do you recognise that many addicts get to that point because things have gone horribly wrong in their lives, and some of it is beyond their control.

sure

however whats your point, look these people have !!!! lives so lets tax more to give to a fat woman with two dogs 4 kids and a front business stealing tax credits?

There is no certainty that you or I couldn't become alcoholics through life dealing us a bad hand in the future, and us being unable to cope as individuals, and a couple of drinks here and there spiralling out of control.

There is no certainty in anything. More importantly what do you propose to do for alcoholics or drug addicts that will work? I know one alcholic his wife is an angle and with the full time dedication of a loving wife he is just barely alive and functional but of course a huge burden and not well. If she cant fix her own husband how are you going to fix people in his situation or worse? Increase income taxes that will do it?

Even if somebody has become an addict through their own lack of self control, don't you think society helping them to recover is a worthwhile cause?

Yes it is worthwhile

Or is your preferred approach literally just f*** them

?

No, but at some point maybe the human race will find genetic links which can be engineered out of them so at that pont we should get rid of it

How about your own self interest, heroin addicts commit crime to feed their habit, so treating them has benefits to society beyond the good deed of helping someone who needs help.

sure help them help them a lot, even put them in a full time care home
I dont think there is a lot of sucess in curing them so the best bet is to try and stop one getting into that position in the first place. I dont know what can be done but you have my support if you do know what can be done.

I acknowledge that there is of course confirmation bias and it affects everyone to some degree, but as for 'my tribe', I have a mostly pro-tory, daily mail reading family. My colleagues are mostly right of centre right. I have one friend who is as left wing as I am, majority are centre left, a couple centre right (certainly lab, con and lib voters in the group, as well as remain and leave voters). By no means do my social groups agree with me on most things. That's fine, we enjoy debating. I don't think my social groups are an echo chamber in the slightest, the only voices missing are actual communists and extreme right wingers. The most obvious lack of representation in my social groups are very poor (although I have friends on NMW, and not temporarily either) and wealthy beyond middle class (a friend in a family of doctors is about as wealthy as it gets)... what's your take on that make up?

People you know are not necessarily your tribe, its people you associate with perhaps the top 5 people you are closest to. In some cases it doesnt even have to be real life people eg people might spend hours on forums or facebook with other lefties or righties and that would be their political tribe what informas and melds their views

As for this ongoing thing about 10% to charity, let me illustrate my position in the hope you'll finally move on. I'm currently buying a house, so have been saving substantially recently to cover all the inherent costs. Shortly, my savings will be (almost) wiped out. Most of my disposable income will go back to building up savings to cover things like, if I lost my job, if the boiler breaks etc. etc. etc. so while, yes technically I could give 10% of my income (and more) to charity, to do so could leave me in a precarious position. I've given less to charity in the past 6 months or so due to this position. I will end up giving more to charity when its sensible for me to do so, not because you're bizarrely attempting to goad me on a forum! I've also volunteered with various charities since I was quite young. None of this has any bearing on my willingness to pay more tax, it might take me longer to build up my savings, but I would adjust. However to voluntarily do so now would be irresponsible at this point in my life.

So when you call for more taxes you are exempting yourself from doing more of the tax paying. You have just described a situation whereby in the last year or so you couldn't really afford to pay more taxes so clearly the only reason you can call for more taxes is because you expect it to fall on others not yourself

Rusty_Shackleton

Greatape, I think the problem is in our respective approaches, highlighted by your comment: "You would also vote against the government that said you could not help your child and you must help lots of others instead because they are more deserving of your help. Hence you (or most people) would vote against more IHTs" - at no point is anyone seriously voting in a GE to 'save their child' in a direct way... all you can do is vote for whoever you think will foster the best society for them to inherit.

I could be incredibly wealthy, but that doesnt guarantee much security for my child in the future, plenty could go wrong. Whereas strong social security and public services has better chance of guaranteeing at least the important stuff is taken care of. I'm much more keen on hedging my bets regardless of who I am and where i think my life will go. Please don't confuse this with "expecting others to care for me" in the way so often thrown against socialists... I save considerable amounts of money so I wouldn't need to rely on JSA. My savings are plan A if I lose my job, and JSA plan B if it comes to it.

Anyway, as much as I really want to respond to your last post in full, I think others above have a point that this has gone far off topic. thanks for an interesting and lively debate.

Rusty_Shackleton

mrginge wrote: »

You have absolutely no comprehension about what I agree or disagree with.
So I'd rather you either backed up such claims, or alternatively !!!!!!.

pot meet kettle.

Rusty_Shackleton

Brexit blamed for 260 job losses as UK food supplier Southern Salads collapses into administration

Discuss....

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Brexit blamed for 260 job losses as UK food supplier Southern Salads collapses into administration

Discuss....

its only 260 jobs. end of.

Rinoa

gfplux wrote: »

Rinoa I am not going to find the data, BUT, there have been many, many study's showing that EU nationals make a huge positive financial contribution to the UK economy.

You're not going to find the data because it isn't there.

True, some will contribute by paying taxes, but unskilled migrants on minimum wage don't pay taxes, they receive health care and schooling for their kids (around £3k p.a per pupil) and enjoy a free house (average price £200,000?) just for being here.

Easy to see what attracts them, I'd do the same if I were them. But economically it's a very bad deal for UK plc.

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

its only 260 jobs. end of.

So far... and what a delightful response - if that was your employer would that still be your attitude?

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

So far... and what a delightful response - if that was your employer would that still be your attitude?

if that was my employer and i was fired, i would get on with life and look for another job/skill. not moan about brexit all day.

mrginge

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

pot meet kettle.

Come on rusty, so well read and educated yet you can't even grasp the difference between made up assumptions based on no evidence and questioning someone based on their own comments.