Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll just leave this here :p

DBvuodlXcAA4qqu.jpg
 
h4rm0ny said:
The question contains no such assumption. I'm not trying to be disingenuous here, I'm trying to strip away the varnish and get at what the poster actually thought in meaningful terms. And they confirmed in the end that they thought it fair if someone on £150,000 paid as much as eleven to fifteen people on £25,000. I phrase this in terms of morality rather than as cheesyboy suggested "necessity" because it is a moral question. (Apologies to cheesyboy that I didn't reply - I'll do so after this point). You can talk about cause and effect, you can talk about what is needed to achieve a given result. But the moment a poster such as Greebo starts talking about what somebody should pay, it becomes a question of moral viewpoint. I find the contrast of one person being made to pay eleven or more times that of their fellows difficult to reconcile with most moral systems including fairness. I don't think it is fair. Which brings us neatly onto the rest of your post where you discuss whether it is fair or not because of factors such as are they really contributing 7.5 times as much to society (actually, the appropriate multiplier would be the 11 to 15 of the tax equivalent if we're talking about fairness of taxation as that is what they are paying in Greebo's scenario). The most effective way we have of measuring someone's contribution is to put a value on their services. As a society we handle such a monstrously complex matter by crowdsourcing the assessment to a nationwide body of people who carry out continuously updated assessments of the value of that service in relative terms to other services within the nation by a tool known as money. *ahem*. Well, it's the best we have. Of course this doesn't recognize the value added of things not measured in money such as kindness or raising children. But then if it's not sold in terms of money then it's not taxed either, so that works. This is my answer to the rest of your post below. I do think you can make meaningful moral judgements about tax burdens even if £1 is less vital to a rich person than to a poor. It's besides the point. I say so because fair distribution of financial burden does not depend on how happy or unhappy the tax payers are to pay it. If one person is charged eleven times more than another person, whether they care or not doesn't change the size of the multiplier. You seem to be arguing for a system of fairness based on perceived worth but such is neither objective nor workable. Nobody can tell me how much worth I place on something, except for I myself.



It's a more complex issue without clear answers if you're trying to do what you're trying to do. But it's a pretty easy one if you're trying to do what I'm trying to do which is to get Greebo to tell me how many people on £26k they think it's morally appropriate for a person earning £125k to pay the equivalent of. Turns out Greebo thinks if you earn 7.5 times the national average salary, you should pay as much as 11.6 to 15.0 times as much tax as anyone on that average. That's what they perceive as fair.

@cheesyboy The reason I used morality rather than necessity is as given above - it's a moral question the moment Greebo starts talking about how much people SHOULD give. I don't think one can make it about necessity unless one first discusses what necessity means. And perhaps the best way to do that is to say what you think would happen if the condition were violated. E.g. are you saying it's necessary to prevent riots, necessary to prevent inequality, necessary for social mobility. I'm happy to discuss. Interested even. But "necessary" means very different things to different people.
Click to expand...

Take the majority of people on 150k, ask them if they would be happy to earn 25k but pay 11 times less tax
Take the majority of the people on 25k, ask them if they would be happy to earn 150k but have to pay 11 times more tax

I think you would get a clear answer, those on 25 would rather earn 150 and pay the tax, those on 150 would use quite a few expletives about earning 25k and would disregard the amount of tax they wouldn't have to pay as immaterial, they would rather earn 150k and pay a bit more tax than 25k even if it was tax free

The point would be made ;)
 
YouGov have released their final poll. Cons ahead by 7 points and have 'adjusted' their methodology after trying to sway the result toward Labour all week. Even they know it's game over.
 
The_Abyss said:
It would be good if we could have one and allow people to vote all day tomorrow and simply not reveal the poll results until 10 pm.
Click to expand...
We looked at that but it's not possible with this software so we are just going to close this one and open a new one at 10pm, although I'm not sure a new one is worth doing as I doubt many people will bother with it once the actual results start coming in.
 
Having serious discussions with the family in the coming weeks about selling up the house and leaving this ****** island. Other half is one qualification away from it being viable tbh.

This just isn't the country I grew up in. Surveillance state under constant terrorist threat, health service falling apart, stagnant wages, no growth.

Would get us out tomorrow if I could. Had enough of it.
 
Stumble Bum said:
I'll just leave this here :p

DBvuodlXcAA4qqu.jpg
Click to expand...

Of course Rupert Murdochs garbage is shilling for the Tories...I also don't understand why newspapers are allowed to basically print such ********.

Arthur Hucksake said:
Having serious discussions with the family in the coming weeks about selling up the house and leaving this ****** island. Other half is one qualification away from it being viable tbh.

This just isn't the country I grew up in. Surveillance state under constant terrorist threat, health service falling apart, stagnant wages, no growth.

Would get us out tomorrow if I could. Had enough of it.
Click to expand...

Join the club, I plan to leave myself because let's face it. It's not going to change.
 
SpeedFreak said:
Brexit polls were wrong, 2015 GE polls were wrong, Trump polls were wrong. They are all rubbish and if any are correct I am confident it is by chance and not through judgement or methodology.
Click to expand...

Again they were wrong except for the ones on the last day. Most got it right give or take the margin of error. Problem is brexit and trump were really close fought battles and just the weather on the day could make the difference between who won.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom