Axe personal allowance and pay everyone £48 a week, says thinktank

Bear said:
And yet the poor person often refuses to acknowledge the part they had in their own failure and blames everyone else. Which in turn used to justify exploitation of the wealthy of wanting better and better services despite not contributing to those services themselves.
Click to expand...
I note that you state that the poor are not contributing to the running of services.

Are you assuming that the poor do not work at all? Or are you bemoaning that people who earn the least pay the least tax?

What about the hard-working poor? Those households who are poor despite earning a wage (or two), because rents are so high that many vocations only pay enough for a distinctly hand-to-mouth existence?

What about the hard-working poor who depend on food banks still?

I'm not sure why you think the poor are doing nothing to contribute. Heck, they are probably the ones providing many of the services you talk about. Fixing your roads, providing care for the elderly, working in schools and hospitals, doing paperwork in your local council offices. And being paid a pittance.
 
h4rm0ny said:
All of this seems to me to tie very neatly in the survey results I posted near the start, showing a majority of Labour voters actually want the better off to have less even if it produces no gain for them personally. The politics of envy you describe but I'm curious why you attribute it to better off people wanting poor people to be poor (not something I'm sure I've ever actually encountered in real life), rather than lower-income people wanting wealthier people to have less. This latter being something I routinely encounter and which the survey shows is endemic amongst Labour and Liberal Democrat voters.

I think in part this attitude comes from a flawed assumption that wealth is found rather than primarily something we create. Communist friends I had seemed to have this belief underlying their entire arguments. It's a flawed belief. It hasn't been true since our days as hunter-gatherers and even then, I'd argue the labour in acquiring the pre-existing resources still counted as wealth creation.



It's only a horrible way of thinking to your mindset because you presume the reader is financially secure and putting money above things you consider more important in life. You imagine them to have a mindset of greed. But I think most people are just trying to get by. Most people even above the £37K income level have mortgages hanging over their heads, they have children that they are trying to pay to give everything child needs or wants, they're working 40-45 hours per week and wondering if they'll need to work more or if they can afford to take their family on a holiday somewhere or not. Poorer people who read the budget report certainly aren't doing so out of avarice - it can make a real difference to you if the cost of petrol goes up and makes your commute even more expensive. I think plenty of middle income people read it the same way. I think most people who care about changes to their income not because you're Scrooge, but because it meaningfully affects their life and their family. Or at least that they believe so.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to work hard and use your natural abilities to the fullest extent, applying yourself to make as much money as possible through your talents and creative endeavours.

We both know that's not the only way to make money.

The fact is that many people who manage to get ahead of the curve, then leverage their good position to exploit those who are, for whatever reason, less successful.

Of course I'm going to mention by-to-let landlords in this, but that is merely one example.

Another is employers forcing people into the "gig economy" - so-called "self employed" jobs where the (low-paid) worker assumes all the risk and takes very little of the profits.

Perhaps it's human nature but stepping on people to get ahead, to stay on top, to protect your own future... it's a thing.
 
dowie said:
Only for a minority of jobs... still that is employment regardless and people are seemingly advocating mass unemployment... which isn't happening.
Click to expand...

No. People are talking about a inadequate amount of paid work. They're not advocating mass unemployment, they're saying that it's going to happen. They're not talking about no paid work and they're not talking about "super duper AI". Working 10 hours a week at minimum wage is employment, but it's not enough of an income to survive.
 
FoxEye said:
It's one thing to work hard and use your natural abilities to the fullest extent, applying yourself to make as much money as possible through your talents and creative endeavours.

We both know that's not the only way to make money.

The fact is that many people who manage to get ahead of the curve, then leverage their good position to exploit those who are, for whatever reason, less successful.

Of course I'm going to mention by-to-let landlords in this, but that is merely one example.
Click to expand...

Let's just reverse that for a second.

FoxEye said:
It's one thing for many people to manage to get ahead of the curve, then leverage their good position to exploit those who are, for whatever reason, less successful..

We both know that's not the only way to make money.

The fact is that many people work hard and use your natural abilities to the fullest extent, applying yourself to make as much money as possible through your talents and creative endeavours.

Of course I'm going to mention by-to-let landlords in this, but that is merely one example.
Click to expand...

And when we do, we see that there's really no difference between the two, and that your problem is really with buy to let landlords, who you see as exploitative but you are equally unable to accept that they may have natural ability and be talented and creative.

Why is that?
 
I have no idea what your mangled quote of my post is supposed to be telling me. Heck the mangled version doesn't really make any sense.

Are you really saying that exploitation is being creative and using your talents?

So... a talented exploiter should be applauded?

If so then I'm sorry but I can never agree to that. I have some morals.
 
Apologies for being too subtle.

You're unable to separate hard work and endeavour in activities that impact you and activities that don't. What do you think about somebody working hard and using their natural abilities to make a success of a buy to let? Any different to using those same abilities to do something else, like, I don't know, run a bakery for example?
 
The_Abyss said:
Apologies for being too subtle.

You're unable to separate hard work and endeavour in activities that impact you and activities that don't. What do you think about somebody working hard and using their natural abilities to make a success of a buy to let? Any different to using those same abilities to do something else, like, I don't know, run a bakery for example?
Click to expand...

Because someone running a bakery is a hobby at best, providing for a niche or if they’re really good, a service. For the most part almost everyone uses a supermarket anyway.

Buy to let is literally pulling the rug out from under first time buyers or indeed lateral movers, especially in England it is poor indeed as the rental practices are beyond draconian.

You may be providing a service, but in doing so you’re inherently removing options for people less (currently) able. Fundamentally though houses are different, they’re the foundations on which people build communities and if you’re forced to rent... why bother? And people wonder why communities have actually died.

There are for sure plenty of people out there who truly want to provide good housing, but they’re image is entirely ruined by a select few property tycoons who game the system because they know the government doesn’t give a toss.

I swear I remember reading about one dude with dozens and dozens of properties, and yet the guy is massively in the red??? How is that fair?
 
Try something else instead of a bakery.

Or try and see a buy to let being really good, a service. Because for the most part almost everyone uses a house anyway.
 
Angilion said:
No. People are talking about a inadequate amount of paid work. They're not advocating mass unemployment, they're saying that it's going to happen. They're not talking about no paid work and they're not talking about "super duper AI". Working 10 hours a week at minimum wage is employment, but it's not enough of an income to survive.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn’t seem like that over the past few pages where people are talking about needing to create new jobs... there is lots of paid work available regardless.
 
krooton said:
In this instance, yes, I am being selfish.

We have an affordability buffer in case of interest rate rises on our new house.

My wife just had an unexpected pay cut of 16%, which has hit the buffer quite a bit, throw in me losing more money to this tax will basically null and void our buffer, and any interest rate rise would probably mean us losing the house we haven't even moved in to yet.

I am fine being selfish in relation to this.
Click to expand...

A better economy may have avoided that pay cut.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I<snip>
Click to expand...

for reference I have no issue with policies been worked on to try and improve employment, there is nothing wrong with trying to get more people working, but I just dont think methods utilised that damage the economy are worth bothering with.

UC lets low paid workers keep more of their benefits when working to ensure working is better than not working, these kind of policies I am in agreement with as a stop gap measure until we get to the point that the living wage is high enough where wage subsidy is not needed and there is an absolute clear incentive to work.

So if we look at what the tories have done in this respect during the past 2 governments, they have reduced the amounts people get on extreme levels of benefit e.g. scrapping disability premiums on UC and the benefit cap. Two policies I have no issue with. But those who get the minimal amount's, is who will gain from UC. This I agree with as I believe it to be far more beneficial to the economy than the older legacy system, and in addition it prevents people been too well off on benefits to the point a job gives less money.

The proposed £48 a week idea wouldnt really change this.

Also there is an assumption been made that many people who are unemployed are doing it out of choice, there is no basis to that assumption, according to DWP's own data the majority of people on JSA are short term claimants.
 
Mercutio said:
Haven't read through all this... but... sorta odd in places near the start.

The UK's currently... pretty right wing. The left is painted as a pantomime bad guy by most of our right wing owned press, when they're suggesting stuff that's ultra common everywhere else in Europe.
Consider how most European countries seem to run compared to the US. I... think I'd prefer German or Scandinavian style governance and general country feel to that of the states...

The whole thing with e.g the trains. Vilified for suggesting to bringing it back into public ownership, instead it should be run by private companies, owned by other states so profits are spent on their publicly owned rail network...
The only folks winning there are those at the top (who profit from the shares in these companies). Meanwhile there's a few suggestions on us spreading our crumbs around a little more fairly, at the same time as their press seeks to neatly divide us into different camps, all sniping at each other and trying to rob each others crumbs... it's nuts. I don't get how people think.
Follow where money goes and the problem quickly becomes apparent.
Click to expand...

Pretty good post, the argument for a privatised railway system would be fine if it was self sustaining, not needing taxpayer money to stay afloat and had a good track record with customers. However it isnt the case, instead we have private companies been able to pay profits to shareholders thanks to taxpayer subsidy. I dont know how members of the public can support this policy unless they one of said shareholders. I think the only reason it has support is simply because its a right wing government policy. If the tories proposed tomorrow to buy it all back, people would probably rejoice it.
 
Bear said:
And yet the poor person often refuses to acknowledge the part they had in their own failure and blames everyone else. Which in turn used to justify exploitation of the wealthy of wanting better and better services despite not contributing to those services themselves.
Click to expand...

simply been alive, eating, buying your food from a shop. Is contributing to the economy, as you are circulating money.

If these so called non contributors were removed from society, then what would happen is things like refuse collection would have lower demand so council's would lay off staff, supermarkets would sell less food, so they lay off staff, all companies in supply chain to said supermarkets would also lay off staff, and so on and so on, you get my drift I hope.

Now I get your point that if they were working or at least getting paid more if they already working, they could contribute more, thats a reasonable argument, but I dont agree with the claim they contribute nothing.

There is a valid argument its a drain on government, but not on the economy as a whole. But even thats kind of shaky as government revenue is dictated by the state of the economy, more GDP means more government revenue. A better GDP makes things like tax cuts more likely, job losses less likely, pay rises more likely, hence me saying it benefits everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom