The Politics Thread 2019

[Anon]

4 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

I should never have dipped my toe into this thread, I knew it was a mistake from the outset.

No one is going to change their views or give an inch on their political views.

Probably not, but I find it useful to read what people are thinking. I think most are more combative and expressive regarding politics than we would be in person and although it can sometimes feel like banging your head against a brick wall it's better than sealing oneself in an ideological echo chamber. We're mostly free of overzealous moderation here too. I'm certain I get a far more accurate view of the country here than I would on more censorious sites like twitter.

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Once again you seem to be missing the point or maybe haven’t noticed, people eating over 80k a year already do pay more taxes, a lot more. Why though should you continue to increase this percentage and not anyone else’s, why is this fair and why do you expect this ?

People see percentages. Im sure @DarkFruitsRam7 doesn't as he seems quite intelligent, however many of the public just see the headline percentage and jump and say 'they' should pay more. 

As you say they do anyway.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

Back to the student loans issue.

I finished Uni in 2017 after completing 5 years (sandwich course). The 'true cost' (tuition fees plus maintenance loans) was roughly £55,000. At this current moment in time this is roughly what I have. 

I must stress that I have no problem what so ever with repaying the 'true cost' at the rate of inflation. To be honest, that's what I estimate I'll end up repaying anyway. In 30 years time, I doubt I'll clear this 'debt' due to the interest being in the ballpark of 2.5% above inflation for the majority of that. In the 18/19 tax year total interest was £2387.25. I'd need to be earning £55k just to pay off the interest each year! This is then compounded by the rising threshold every year, meaning I repay even less.

The truth is it's not a debt... it's an additional tax - 9% of income above the threshold which for the vast majority isn't even equivalent to a couple of pints a week. The balance I shared is irrelevant. The only time it's of any use is when I gloat about how big my 'student debt' is compared to everyone else.

My personal income puts me near to the 75th percentile, and combined with my girlfriend's income we're in the top 10% for household income. If i'm incredibly unliekly to pay off my 'debt', most other people must therefore be unable to clear of their 'debt' as well. In my opinion, Government should abolish student debts and just put a flat x.x% tax on all future university graduates. I have a feeling that would also remove the stigma @TuffLuff was speaking about due to not being burdened with a debt (although there may not be an actual difference). Labour voters will then have that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing they'll be able to get more money off the rich - under the current system the high earning graduates pay off their debt before the 30 year cutoff, whereas my policy would see them continuing to pay in to the system.

I'd be more than happy to see the threshold drop and increase the repayment rates... but I doubt that would win many votes.

[JoetheRam]

10 hours ago, Highgate said:

Because they have more money to spare?

Progressive taxation systems are a must for any sort of fair society.  At low and moderate income, what is earned is crucial for a taxpayer and their family's health, education and all the essentials for a decent life.  As their income increases the money they earn becomes less valuable to them in real terms and they can spend it on luxuries.  So it makes sense to tax higher incomes at higher rates, that money is far less essential for people's general well being.

Flat tax rates (or anything close to it) are for plutocracies.

Rarely agree with you on the owd politics but this is spot on. 

I guess the problem, and where much of the conflict comes, is in defining essentials. 

Which I think is where the Scandinavians have it right with the Universal Basic Income.  However, float that as an idea in this country and you're derided as the 2nd coming of Lenin.

[AdamRam]

9 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

People see percentages. Im sure @DarkFruitsRam7 doesn't as he seems quite intelligent, however many of the public just see the headline percentage and jump and say 'they' should pay more. 

As you say they do anyway.

 

Having a quick look, our higher tax bands are amongst the highest in the world.

We will drive the rich, and I mean those earning hundreds of thousands, out of the country if we carry on. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

35 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Once again you seem to be missing the point or maybe haven’t noticed, people eating over 80k a year already do pay more taxes, a lot more. Why though should you continue to increase this percentage and not anyone else’s, why is this fair and why do you expect this ?

They pay more taxes than other people because they earn more, before and after tax. I think it's fairer to increase taxes on those earning 80k than those earning 30k, regardless of the current rate of tax that they pay. You don't. That's the crux of the issue and we're never going to agree.

32 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

They do dont they?

Mostly, yes. The lack of tax paid by huge corporations is a far bigger problem than what we're discussing now, but that's another issue. I was just saying that our discussion was about the fairness of taxes, and not whether rich people should be charitable, as AdamRam was implying.

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

@DarkFruitsRam7

Out of interest, how many hours a week is your university course?

For Law, contact hours average at about 10 hours a week, but the vast majority of the workload is doing reading outside of class. A typical day for me is starting work at around 09:30 after going to the gym, and finishing at about 20:00 (with a few breaks). I generally work 6 days a week, with matchday being my day off. A lot of that is down to me being a very slow worker, so others work less and even fit in a part-time job. But it's a very demanding course.

[ramesses]

46 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

I should never have dipped my toe into this thread, I knew it was a mistake from the outset.

No one is going to change their views or give an inch on their political views.

Not true. After reading your posts I edged a bit more to the left...

[Sith Happens]

36 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Having a quick look, our higher tax bands are amongst the highest in the world.

We will drive the rich, and I mean those earning hundreds of thousands, out of the country if we carry on. 

And in todays world thats much easier. I could easily do my job anywhere on the planet with a phone and an internet connection.

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

And in todays world thats much easier. I could easily do my job anywhere on the planet with a phone and an internet connection.

Who makes up for the lost taxes if the rich leave this country?

[Sith Happens]

31 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Mostly, yes. The lack of tax paid by huge corporations is a far bigger problem than what we're discussing now, but that's another issue. I was just saying that our discussion was about the fairness of taxes, and not whether rich people should be charitable, as AdamRam was implying.

 

I wonder how many of those that demand those earning high salaries pay more are happy to turn a blind eye when its suggested by a small business they pay cash in order to obtain a cheaper price? Knowing full well that less tax is being paid as a result. 

 

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Who makes up for the lost taxes if the rich leave this country?

You need to ask Jezza that sorry cant help you.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Just now, Paul71 said:

I wonder how many of those that demand those earning high salaries pay more are happy to turn a blind eye when its suggested by a small business they pay cash in order to obtain a cheaper price? Knowing full well that less tax is being paid as a result. 

I think this question came up before in the old politics thread. In my view, it's wrong (assuming what they're doing is illegal), and I've never suggested otherwise.

But the priority is making the bigger corporations pay their fair share, even if what they're doing is legal. Tighten up the loopholes.

[G STAR RAM]

44 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

They pay more taxes than other people because they earn more, before and after tax. I think it's fairer to increase taxes on those earning 80k than those earning 30k, regardless of the current rate of tax that they pay. You don't. That's the crux of the issue and we're never going to agree.

Mostly, yes. The lack of tax paid by huge corporations is a far bigger problem than what we're discussing now, but that's another issue. I was just saying that our discussion was about the fairness of taxes, and not whether rich people should be charitable, as AdamRam was implying.

For Law, contact hours average at about 10 hours a week, but the vast majority of the workload is doing reading outside of class. A typical day for me is starting work at around 09:30 after going to the gym, and finishing at about 20:00 (with a few breaks). I generally work 6 days a week, with matchday being my day off. A lot of that is down to me being a very slow worker, so others work less and even fit in a part-time job. But it's a very demanding course.

Thats all fair enough. 

I think the general perception for many is that university is a bit of a laugh for many students, out drinking most nights, very few hours actually spent on campus.

Now for people who are working 70 or 80 hours a week to earn a good living, I am sure you can understand why they would feel aggrieved to be taxed more to fund student loans.

Not saying that is my personal opinion, although I will admit many of my friends who went to university treated it as 3 years of getting drunk and many dis courses that bear no resemblance to the jobs they do today.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thats all fair enough. 

I think the general perception for many is that university is a bit of a laugh for many students, out drinking most nights, very few hours actually spent on campus.

Now for people who are working 70 or 80 hours a week to earn a good living, I am sure you can understand why they would feel aggrieved to be taxed more to fund student loans.

Not saying that is my personal opinion, although I will admit many of my friends who went to university treated it as 3 years of getting drunk and many dis courses that bear no resemblance to the jobs they do today.

That's the perception I had before I went, but the majority of people I know at my uni work hard. My friends and cousins at other unis don't though.

I think it varies massively based on the uni, the course and the individual student. I understand the point you're making, but I don't think people should treat students as one single body (not saying you are).

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thats all fair enough. 

I think the general perception for many is that university is a bit of a laugh for many students, out drinking most nights, very few hours actually spent on campus.

Now for people who are working 70 or 80 hours a week to earn a good living, I am sure you can understand why they would feel aggrieved to be taxed more to fund student loans.

Not saying that is my personal opinion, although I will admit many of my friends who went to university treated it as 3 years of getting drunk and many dis courses that bear no resemblance to the jobs they do today.

Not sure students treat University like that .

Many work very hard to get a degree. 
 

Yes they may go to the pub but don’t forget many are away from home and use the pub as a catch up event. 

[AdamRam]

57 minutes ago, ramesses said:

Not true. After reading your posts I edged a bit more to the left...

I was going to say your welcome, however looking at some of your previous posts you are already firmly on the left.

No surprise then that you support someone else paying to try and implement could cuckoo ideas like free broadband for everyone.

[AdamRam]

10 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

That's the perception I had before I went, but the majority of people I know at my uni work hard. My friends and cousins at other unis don't though.

I think it varies massively based on the uni, the course and the individual student. I understand the point you're making, but I don't think people should treat students as one single body (not saying you are).

I have no issue with funding university students, nor would it matter to me what they choose with that opportunity. What I do find bizarre is that you got rewarded for good marks ?
 

Is that a standard thing, do students need incentives to learn ? 

[Ramshankered]

2 hours ago, AdamRam said:

Wish my parents had been wealthy enough to pay my rent or the government had provided me with the tools to goto university. Alas I had to go out and earn a living, £30 a week, I couldn’t afford to do anything in them days and never once expected anyone to pay the way for me.

Throughout my life I have faced redundancy where I lost everything as the company went bust, finance issues and years of hard working to increase my salary. Finally I’m able to earn a good wage, and am able to address years of debt and finally able to enjoy the finer things in life for my family and me due to years of hard work.

It won’t last, I’m in a cut throat industry where my job is as risk every year, the pressure of delivering results is intense.

My reward for this, this year I will have paid 40k tax, and now have people telling me that I don’t pay enough and I should pay more. Why, because I am assumed to be rich, I’m in a 5% minority and its therefore my 40k a year isn’t good enough, you want more. 
 

Let’s reward success by penalising it, no wonder why so many are on benefits nowadays, it’s easier.

Oh and if you really felt that strongly about food banks, why not sacrifice your away games, contribute that money...no thought not.

My problem with this stance – and I say this as someone who's also struggled his way up the ladder through difficult circumstances (two redundancies – my industry likewise can be volatile) is this.

I wouldn't be where I am now without the society around me. In effect British society has enabled me to tap into my potential. I get opportunities and a quality of life I probably wouldn't get if I worked elsewhere in the World.  If the system enables me to continue to increase my wealth, then the reality is I have a duty of care to contribute more to that system. In other words high wages are a direct benefit of living within a society with a sophisticated infrastructure.  

[AndyinLiverpool]

12 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

I was going to say your welcome, however looking at some of your previous posts you are already firmly on the left.

No surprise then that you support someone else paying to try and implement could cuckoo ideas like free broadband for everyone.

Why is it 'cuckoo'?

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Would depend on their political views would it not.. I am sure the Tories could get a similar number who could pull it apart.

I doubt it somehow. If an economist were to forecast solely based on his or her political leanings I think they'd soon be unemployed and unemployable. Perhaps some will allow their judgement to be coloured by their political views, but all 163 of them? Seems massively unlikely to me.  As for the Tories, well they have secured the alternate view from a few economists, just not 163 of them. Should we dismiss their opinions too then?

After the financial crash, 140 economists wrote an open letter to The Observer stating that austerity measures would not stimulate the economy. As it turns out, they were right. I don't think in either case these people made their views known because of political leanings but rather because in their professional opinions, the Government was making assumptions that were at very least, questionable. Is it really as likely as you suggest that each and every contributor was simply playing lip-service to the Labour party?