Labour Party/government Watch

[johnhemming2]

Fair point. If the debate is with people who are not interested in truth and facts perhaps I should simply spend my time on improving my modal improvisation.

[UndercoverElephant]

Fair point. If the debate is with people who are not interested in truth and facts perhaps I should simply spend my time on improving my modal improvisation.

What you are seeing on this board - certain people's reaction to you, is a reflection of a widespread level of anger felt towards the ruling class and financial elite in this country that you are apparently unaware of. I'm very much aware of it, because so many people I associate with, both online and in real life, feel the same anger.

What is happening in this country, and the wider western world, right now, is leading us towards some sort of revolution. Heads on spikes time. Serious civil unrest. This "austerity" we have been subjected to since 2008 is nothing other than the biggest transfer or wealth from the poor to the super-rich in modern history. The people who were actually responsible for that crash - the bankers, regulators and politicians - have not only got off scot free, but have been quite happily getting richer. Not one banker has gone to prison. Meanwhile, the poor and the powerless are trodden into the dirt and told to accept that "we're all in it together".

What you have been posting clearly identifies you as a supporter of the status quo - a person who actually believes this "austerity" bullshit is economically justified rather than the ideological crusade it actually is.

That is why you are being subjected to abuse, even though the precise moments the anger is expressed can make it seem totally irrational.

The people are not as stupid as their political masters take them to be. What we are heading for is going to make the unrest of the early 1980s look like a tea party.

[johnhemming2]

What you have been posting clearly identifies you as a supporter of the status quo - a person who actually believes this "austerity" bullshit is economically justified rather than the ideological crusade it actually is.

Those who believes there is no limit on government expenditure are in a minority. I don't, however, support the status quo more generally. I think a number of changes are needed.

However, on the question of austerity I do believe some cuts are needed.

If you wish to argue otherwise then please explain how the government can be funded. There are those that go for the Zimbabwe option of printing more money to fund government. Apart from that option please explain how government can be funded without bringing the deficit down.

[Little John]

What you have been posting clearly identifies you as a supporter of the status quo - a person who actually believes this "austerity" bullshit is economically justified rather than the ideological crusade it actually is.

Those who believes there is no limit on government expenditure are in a minority. I don't, however, support the status quo more generally. I think a number of changes are needed.

However, on the question of austerity I do believe some cuts are needed.

I would wager there is not a single person on this site who believes that there is no requirement for significant reductions in consumption levels across the world. In particular, amongst the first world nations. You are quite deliberately setting up a false dichotomy.

The issue is one of equity of reductions in consumption per capita. The issue is one of sharing the burden of the climb down from our industrial perch. At the moment, the vast majority of that burden is born, per capita, by the poor and dispossessed. Meanwhile, the super rich, the banking elites and their political lackeys are carrying on as if nothing has happened and/or increasing their wealth.

And people like you are despicable apologists for that state of affairs.

[UndercoverElephant]

What you have been posting clearly identifies you as a supporter of the status quo - a person who actually believes this "austerity" bullshit is economically justified rather than the ideological crusade it actually is.

Those who believes there is no limit on government expenditure are in a minority.

I said nothing of the sort.

There are those that go for the Zimbabwe option of printing more money to fund government.

Jeremy Corbyn is not Robert Mugabe.

Apart from that option please explain how government can be funded without bringing the deficit down.

Very, very easily.

(1) Agressively go after both tax evasion and tax avoidance, raising £hundreds of billions.

(2) Introduce a 70% tax rate on earnings over £1m.

(3) Introduce a staged "wealth tax" on ownership of multiple residential properties, in order to destroy completely the "buy to let" culture. The more properties a person owns, the higher the tax, forcing owners of multiple properties to sell all but two of them. This would raise a vast windfall tax as those sales go through, and force down residential property prices.

That's just a start. Many other options are possible for reducing inequality in society, and making the rich pay they fair share, instead of allowing them to get ever richer while the poor get poorer.

[UndercoverElephant]

What you have been posting clearly identifies you as a supporter of the status quo - a person who actually believes this "austerity" bullshit is economically justified rather than the ideological crusade it actually is.

Those who believes there is no limit on government expenditure are in a minority. I don't, however, support the status quo more generally. I think a number of changes are needed.

However, on the question of austerity I do believe some cuts are needed.

I would wager there is not a single person on this site who believes that there is no requirement for significant reductions in consumption levels across the world. In particular, amongst the first world nations. You are quite deliberately setting up a false dichotomy.

The issue is one of equity of reductions in consumption per capita. The issue is one of sharing the burden of the climb down from our industrial perch. At the moment, the vast majority of that burden is born, per capita, by the poor and dispossessed. Meanwhile, the super rich, the banking elites and their political lackeys are carrying on as if nothing has happened and/or increasing their wealth.

And people like you are despicable apologists for that state of affairs.

Yes.

[johnhemming2]

(1) Agressively go after both tax evasion and tax avoidance, raising £hundreds of billions.

The government is in fact continuing a policy of reducing tax allowances on high earners' contributions to pensions. However, it should be noted that many ordinary employees whose earnings are not above the higher threshold get the benefit of avoiding tax on contributions to pensions.

Similarly if you increase tax on people whose incomes are over £1m sufficiently you will make it worthwhile them leaving the country. It is important in setting a tax policy to maximise revenue.

The coalition government made higher earners pay a lot more tax (more than the effect of the reduction in the headline figure from 50 to 45%.)

[biffvernon]

Was Keynes right or wrong?

[johnhemming2]

Was Keynes right or wrong?

It depends about what really.

I think as an individual he was quite reliable and therefore more likely to be right in his conclusions than wrong, but it depends about what really.

In that government spending can increase economic activity. Infrastructure spending particularly can do so in certain circumstances, but it can also fail to do so. It is a question of detail.

Encouraging people to retire at 50 rather than 65/67 is likely to discourage economic activity.

There is a multiplier effect from government spending, but it depends upon what sort of government spending.

[UndercoverElephant]

Similarly if you increase tax on people whose incomes are over £1m sufficiently you will make it worthwhile them leaving the country.

Stop licking the arses of the rich, John.

If they want to leave, then LET THE F***ERS LEAVE. Good riddance. This will also drive down property prices.

I am sick of hearing this scare-mongering nonsense. You have spent too much time reading the Murdoch press and not enough time thinking for yourself.

You are condoning what is dressed up as blackmail, but is actually a bluff.

It is important in setting a tax policy to maximise revenue.

It is also important not to get suckered into believing propaganda designed to perpetuate inequality.

[johnhemming2]

Stop licking the arses of the rich, John.

If they want to leave, then LET THE F***ERS LEAVE. Good riddance. This will also drive down property prices.

Clearly your objective is not to maximise revenue.

[UndercoverElephant]

Stop licking the arses of the rich, John.

If they want to leave, then LET THE F***ERS LEAVE. Good riddance. This will also drive down property prices.

Clearly your objective is not to maximise revenue.

My objective is a fairer society. I guess that concept is alien to you.

You are indeed an apologist for a grotesquely unfair society which is getting more unfair all the time.

[clv101]

It's a small thing, but I'd like to see all pensioner benefits, including the state pension means tested. Currently we are literally giving thousands of pounds of public money to millionaires because they are old - this is wrong in my book.

[johnhemming2]

The pension is a contract between the state and the individual where the individual pays national insurance expecting a pension to be paid over time. It is taxed.

Means testing it would break that contract.

[Little John]

The pension is a contract between the state and the individual where the individual pays national insurance expecting a pension to be paid over time. It is taxed.

Means testing it would break that contract.

Really?

So, we take it you are not in favour of the swinging cuts to Greek pensions then? not only in terms of the changes to retirement age, but also the changes to the actual amounts paid?