The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[MakemineVanilla]

I've only ever truly desired three or four cars in my life.

As a nipper, I couldn't wait to be able to drive so I could buy a Jensen Interceptor (little concept of insurance and maintenance budgets as an 11 year old).

In to my twenties I almost had a VW Karmann Ghia a couple of times and it never quite came off.

If I ever win the lottery that I don't do as it's for chavs, I shall immediately purchase a 60's / 70's east european spy film genre Mercedes saloon and a shiny new Maserati. One for the supermarket shopping trips, one for those european city breaks. 

 

That is not very ambitious - why not dream of having as much money as Jay Leno and like him, have one of everything? 

[chrisp65]

Methodist roots, Quaker sympathies. No need to get too ostentatious.

[MakemineVanilla]

Methodist roots, Quaker sympathies. No need to get too ostentatious.

I should have guessed - Cliff Richard used to own a Jensen Interceptor. 

[blandy]

 

You paying more tax to support those who have chosen an easier life-style would seem unfair because your rewards come at a cost others would not contemplate.

That's, if you don't mind me saying so, the way they want people to see this tax and benefits thing. The massive problem with it, is that it's largely bollex. They are cutting the IN WORK benefits by 4.5 billion quid. This is not taking money from idle life-style couch potatoes, weedoes and the like. It's taking money away from people who do 50 hour weeks as cleaners, milkmen, shop assistants, call centre operators and all that kind of stuff. People who get off their arses and graft, basically. For me at least that's why it's particularly objectionable. They're taking money from people who work hard and who need it to pay the rent and heating costs and giving money to people who might spend it on a Maserati (:p)

[tonyh29]

 

You paying more tax to support those who have chosen an easier life-style would seem unfair because your rewards come at a cost others would not contemplate.

That's, if you don't mind me saying so, the way they want people to see this tax and benefits thing. The massive problem with it, is that it's largely bollex. They are cutting the IN WORK benefits by 4.5 billion quid. This is not taking money from idle life-style couch potatoes, weedoes and the like. It's taking money away from people who do 50 hour weeks as cleaners, milkmen, shop assistants, call centre operators and all that kind of stuff. People who get off their arses and graft, basically. For me at least that's why it's particularly objectionable. They're taking money from people who work hard and who need it to pay the rent and heating costs and giving money to people who might spend it on a Maserati (:p)

Tbh I've not really followed the tax credits things but the hard working honest people working 50 hours in your example above surely benefit from the rise in the minimum wage ..along with the tax free threshold going up to £11,000

but (according to the IFS) people in households where no-one works will be the hardest hit by the changes, as they will lose out on income while seeing no benefit from the increase in the minimum wage.

 

so almost the opposite of what you just said ?

 

 

[blandy]

No absolutely not the opposite of what I said. Everyone will lose. No-one will benefit this year at all. 

 IFS director Paul Johnson said: “Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the budget on average.” So what they're doing, Tony, is cutting the credits now, and then over the next few years, IF the changes to wages and that come through, people in work will apparently be brought back to where they were, but in they mean time they lose money. And it's significant amounts of money for low income people, and it affects huge numbers of them - The changes to Universal Credit, that affect the amount people can earn before benefits start to be withdrawn, will cost 3million families an average of £1,000 a year.

The IFS said there were bound to be more losers than winners, as higher wages from the increase in the minimum wage would amount to £4bn in income, while the welfare changes will save the government £12bn. And there clearly have to be, or it wouldn't be "worth" Osborne doing it.

The IFS also said that another 13m families would lose an average of £5 a week as a result of extending the freeze in working-age benefits, tax credits and the local housing allowance, until 2020.

The whole IFS assessment thingummy is a pdf here and you only need to go a few pages in to get to the figures I've quoted page 8 says

Cuts to work allowances • Large reduction in how much families can earn before benefits start to be withdrawn (called ‘work allowances’ under UC) – Tax credits start to be withdrawn once family earnings above £3,850 rather than £6,420 – UC also withdrawn much earlier (straight away for non-disabled households without children) • Reduces spending by £3.4 billion in 2020-21 – Just over 3m families lose an average of just over £1,000 per year • Only affects working families – Protects the very poorest... – ...but weakens incentives for families to have someone in work

Edited October 23, 2015 by blandy
graph added showing who loses, and various incompetence on my part

[chrisp65]

Tony, the sums pan out that for somebody working a job and getting, say, £8,000 to £9,000 then net effect of all the changes is that between now and the year 2020 they will be worse off. The withdrawal of benefits is happening much faster than the boosting of pay and raising of thresholds. There is a 5 year lag in the full effects of the 'good' bits.

Ahh, beaten to it and put better!

 

[MakemineVanilla]

Tony, the sums pan out that for somebody working a job and getting, say, £8,000 to £9,000 then net effect of all the changes is that between now and the year 2020 they will be worse off. The withdrawal of benefits is happening much faster than the boosting of pay and raising of thresholds. There is a 5 year lag in the full effects of the 'good' bits.

Ahh, beaten to it and put better!

 

It looks like I have to restate the fact that I only ever set out to make the case that Chris deserved his tax-break and should not feel guilty about.

Blandy quoting one particular sentence written to that end and presenting it as a general statement on behalf of the Conservative party, does not make it so and misrepresents me.

I merely expressed an opinion that increasing taxation on Chris who works very hard and handing it to someone who works only 16 hours a week (the qualifying minimum) did not seem fair.

I made no general statement beyond that.

 

[snowychap]

 

I merely expressed an opinion that increasing taxation on Chris who works very hard and handing it to someone who works only 16 hours a week (the qualifying minimum) did not seem fair.

The phrasing of that (in bold) is surely part of the problem, isn't it? It doesn't take in to account why the person who is 'only' working 16 hours per week is 'only' doing that (other commitments/can't get increased hours, for example). Indeed, it is rather the Tory line being trotted out: the one that suggests that as everyone is always a master of their own destiny, anyone working 'only' 16 hours per week deserves what they get (or more correctly what they will no longer get).

That's before one gets in to making questionable comparisons and who is or isn't hard working.

Edited October 23, 2015 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Tbh I've not really followed the tax credits things but the hard working honest people working 50 hours in your example above surely benefit from the rise in the minimum wage ..along with the tax free threshold going up to £11,000

but (according to the IFS) people in households where no-one works will be the hardest hit by the changes, as they will lose out on income while seeing no benefit from the increase in the minimum wage.

so almost the opposite of what you just said ?

How can families where no one works lose out from reductions in (and changes in tapering of) working tax credits?

[chrisp65]

I suspect that having a low paid low hours job isn't absolutely always a lifestyle choice. It is for some, it was for a neighbour I used to have. But there is a chance here of slipping into presuming low pay or no pay means scrounger. These will be the same scroungers that previously worked in coal, BP, on the docks, Powell Dyffryn, Dow Corning etc., or who's fathers would have worked there, before they were all closed. Even when they do get a desk job answering phones for the AA or Admiral Insurance, it doesn't pay like being a docker did.

Literally getting on your bicycle and cycling 9 miles to a basic office job whilst the missus cleans the local leisure centre (if, the man with her zero hours contract texts her to come in) is not lazy. It shouldn't be punished. We are all one redundancy, one error away from that scenario.

I don't think it's as straightforward as simply upping your income by working as hard as the Chinese. Ask a steelworker.

 

[bickster]

fwiw I think the mine closures weren't the worst idea *for the country*.  For the communities which relied on them, yea, it's absolutely earth shattering and bad.  But, those resources will still be there in the future when something like Russia/Saudi/US goes berserk and we need to "fend for ourselves". 

Thats just the point, they won't. They flood, they become underground rivers. The resource is lost

[Jon]

 to support those who have chosen an easier life-style would seem unfair because your rewards come at a cost others would not contemplate.

 

right wing tory/thatcherite philosophy in a nutshell.

Edit.  That quote is by milli vanilla not Mr crisps. 

Edited October 24, 2015 by Jon

[OutByEaster?]

fwiw I think the mine closures weren't the worst idea *for the country*.  For the communities which relied on them, yea, it's absolutely earth shattering and bad.  But, those resources will still be there in the future when something like Russia/Saudi/US goes berserk and we need to "fend for ourselves". 

Thats just the point, they won't. They flood, they become underground rivers. The resource is lost

Or sold to the French for nothing.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

I suspect that having a low paid low hours job isn't absolutely always a lifestyle choice. It is for some, it was for a neighbour I used to have. But there is a chance here of slipping into presuming low pay or no pay means scrounger. These will be the same scroungers that previously worked in coal, BP, on the docks, Powell Dyffryn, Dow Corning etc., or who's fathers would have worked there, before they were all closed. Even when they do get a desk job answering phones for the AA or Admiral Insurance, it doesn't pay like being a docker did.

Literally getting on your bicycle and cycling 9 miles to a basic office job whilst the missus cleans the local leisure centre (if, the man with her zero hours contract texts her to come in) is not lazy. It shouldn't be punished. We are all one redundancy, one error away from that scenario.

I don't think it's as straightforward as simply upping your income by working as hard as the Chinese. Ask a steelworker.

 

That was my point exactly.

Left to the free market there are regions in the UK which will remain permanently economically disadvantaged and there is no better example than Wales - the valleys are amongst the most economically deprived in Europe.

So unless the government is prepared to build a 'Linwood' in every region there needs to be another solution.

One such solution would be to offer tax incentives to encourage those who are willing to commute from such disadvantaged regions, such as yourself.

It looks like I lost that argument and you are now morally obliged to give away your tax-break or be seen to endorse neo-Thatcherite policies but you might like to wait to find out how much others are going to give away before you choose your charity.

If the implicit logic of my argument that you deserve your tax-break is to make me a jackbooted Thatcherite, then by the same logic, stating that all people put in the same effort and all work is of equal value, then everyone should get paid exactly the same.

But once the name of Thatcher has been cited then all arguments must stop.

We already have Godwin's law and we probably now need one for Thatcher - Blodwyn's Law has a nice ring to it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisp65]

I don't think there's any winning or losing of arguments here to be fair. It's just the testing and tweeking of ideas by exposure to peer review!

I guess there are people that live in Sandwell that need more money. But what they should do, is accept the benefit cuts and just move on, literally, just move to Solihull get a better job and earn more money.

I presume the people of Malvern, Cheltenham, Evesham etc., are ok with 2.4 million affordable new homes being built in the nice places and are waiting to recruit ex Yodel van drivers and redundant Remploy workers into middle management.

Simples.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

I don't think there's any winning or losing of arguments here to be fair. It's just the testing and tweeking of ideas by exposure to peer review!

I guess there are people that live in Sandwell that need more money. But what they should do, is accept the benefit cuts and just move on, literally, just move to Solihull get a better job and earn more money.

I presume the people of Malvern, Cheltenham, Evesham etc., are ok with 2.4 million affordable new homes being built in the nice places and are waiting to recruit ex Yodel van drivers and redundant Remploy workers into middle management.

Simples.

 

The problem with structural unemployment is that people can't move to areas with better prospects because houses are too expensive.

My suggestion of offering work travel expenses from areas of low wages and high unemployment tax deductible was meant to remedy that. 

But it was deliberately ignored and I was gratuitously Thatchered by VT's Commissars and denounced as a bourgeois reactionary, who might be a suitable candidate for re-education. 

So I conclude that even if it can't be said that I lost the argument, I definitely failed to convince.

 

 

[chrisp65]

in other news today, the tampon tax is to stay

as we all know, sanitary towels are a luxury

 

[snowychap]

 

But once the name of Thatcher has been cited then all arguments must stop.

What utter drivel.

[snowychap]

in other news today, the tampon tax is to stay

as we all know, sanitary towels are a luxury

 

I don't think the government (via HMRC) are at liberty to reclassify them again and make them exempt.