Conservative party/opposition watch
Moderator: Peak Moderation
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711
Here we go ... again.The government is considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families as part of its £12bn welfare cuts, the BBC understands.
Allies of George Osborne are studying an Institute for Fiscal Studies idea to return tax credits to 2003/4 levels, plus inflation - saving £5bn.
Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about £1,400 a year, the IFS said.
Political allies of Mr Osborne say the move would increase incentives to work.
a3rdRock wrote:A salutary tale from Lola Okolosie.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... dial-state
Society is buying the Tory message that poverty is all the fault of the individual.
I know first-hand how vital state support can be.
Clearly the working classes aren't working hard enough, and that's why the country is in a mess .
I wonder how reducing Working Tax Credits will be an incentive to work, when they are paid to people who are already working?!3rdRock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711
Here we go ... again.The government is considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families as part of its £12bn welfare cuts, the BBC understands.
Allies of George Osborne are studying an Institute for Fiscal Studies idea to return tax credits to 2003/4 levels, plus inflation - saving £5bn.
Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about £1,400 a year, the IFS said.
Political allies of Mr Osborne say the move would increase incentives to work.
Actually, the article in full does quote some other views within the Tory camp, recognising that WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
And just to make sure that people continue to work, for less wages, they'll reduce the unemployment benefits accordingly.Tarrel wrote:Actually, the article in full does quote some other views within the Tory camp, recognising that WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Yes. A compulsory, independently-audited minimum living wage.Tarrel wrote:WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.
Oooh, look up there...a pig.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:
Starts at col 1264
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tm_spnew72
(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
Starts at col 1264
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tm_spnew72
(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
Of course, the situation that has led up to the Government having to subsidise wages is by no means simple.emordnilap wrote:Yes. A compulsory, independently-audited minimum living wage.Tarrel wrote:WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.
Oooh, look up there...a pig.
Essentially, the economic environment that allowed one employed person to keep a family in a manner far more luxurious than Emperors of old could ever dream of can best be characterised by skilled and semi-skilled people leveraging the power of fossil fuels to produce high value goods for which there was high demand. High wages were therefore justified.
Much of this activity has been off-shored and /or automated, leaving a limited choice of low value-added jobs. Family breakdown and occupational mobility causing generations within families to drift apart add to the problem by creating a need for (very expensive) professional child care which adds to the financial burden of many families.
I think there is a strong argument for enshrining in law a broader set of responsibilities for company directors, based around the "triple bottom line" idea of profit, people and planet. This would ensure that Directors took a balanced approach to, say, profitability and paying a wage based on what the employee needs rather than on what can be justified in terms of "added value".
Many of us may also have to accept that the wealth created by industrial economies is now being shared amongst many more people, globally. So, in the UK, our "share" of high value jobs has fallen which means many of us may have to accept a lower standard of living than the industrial economy has previously supplied. I for one would be perfectly prepared to accept this, apart from the "fly in the ointment" of a small elite becoming conspicuously richer and richer!
A "super tax" on super-high earnings should, it goes without saying, be introduced.
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:biffvernon wrote:Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:
Starts at col 1264
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tm_spnew72
(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaign ... -shale-gasI will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.
I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
Top Cat? No?oobers wrote:At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:biffvernon wrote:Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:
Starts at col 1264
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tm_spnew72
(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaign ... -shale-gasI will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.
I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
50% on earnings over £100,000, 75% on earnings over a million would be a start and not in the least unfair. According to Owen Jones, the lowest-paid 10% hand over 45% of their earnings in tax, the top 10%: 35%. OK, the actual amount paid by one person from each category may be wildly different but it's weird thinking all the same.Tarrel wrote:A "super tax" on super-high earnings should, it goes without saying, be introduced.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
True Conservative of course.3rdRock wrote:Top Cat? No?oobers wrote:At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:biffvernon wrote:Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:
Starts at col 1264
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... tm_spnew72
(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaign ... -shale-gasI will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.
I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Oh yes, sorry. Total Conservative.3rdRock wrote:Two words. First word = Totalemordnilap wrote:True Conservative of course.3rdRock wrote: Top Cat? No?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker