Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[MrZigster]

1 hour ago, frostypaw said:

That's what you were meant to do, be pushed and strained enough not to notice this going on

Link tells me I need to subscribe to read.

[frostypaw]

50 minutes ago, MrZigster said:

Link tells me I need to subscribe to read.

Assholes. It let me straight in, can't get back now though. This is a much more 'lite' version of the same data https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed basically a vast increase in inequality during thatcher's years, with the higher percentile's pay rocketing away while lower earners have stayed relatively flat

Ooh I got back in. The 6 graphs were:

1. The incomes of the poorest are likely to fall the fastest over next five years - a dramatic 15% fall for lowest earners, 5% rise for upper levels

2. There is little chance of further decreases in unemployment or increases in employment - the rises so far have been additional numbers from new groups and can't be repeated (all the zhc jobs for young'uns and barely part time hours stuff)

3. A period of low inflation is likely to come to an end and with it the end of real wage growth - awkward graph to describe, wage's dropped for a while in real terms but are briefly bouncing back

4. Changes to the tax and benefits and system over the next few years will make the rich richer and the poor poorer - from the poor being £400 worse off to the rich being £300 better off - though the extreme low paid do a little better at -£300 and the very rich seeing a £100 drop too.

5. Growth in private renting means fewer people will enjoy the benefit from low interest rates - the graph here shows number of years salary for a deposit and the huge rises, doubling twice in the 11 years from 1999.

6. Income inequality, once housing costs have been taken into account, will rise to new highs - alongside the rises shown in the link to the Equality Trust this prediction shows how it's expected to get much worse with the radio of 90th to 10th percentile exceeding 6.

tl;dr: We're screwed, the whole last decade has been a sham-recovery that's only benefited the few

Edited July 11, 2017 by frostypaw

[JacquelineS]

Take a look at the same situation in the U.S. 

https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, frostypaw said:

It's strange - how did we once afford students at all? 

by having 80% less of them, and sending that other 80% out to do productive work that benefits the wealth of the country as well as tax revenues...?

Next up, would you like to know how the 1945 govt could afford to nationalise everything? The answer is: by restricting what you're allowed to eat.

If you want to do equivalences, you have to do equivalences.

[Thunderstruck]

11 hours ago, Zac Quinn said:

That's exactly what they'd want you to think though. Any 'employment rate' statistics which include zero hours contract jobs and jobs that earn less than £7.85 an hour are jolly well bogus.

Except they're not really are they? Zero hours contracts are subject to the same basic employment rights as everybody else. The mis information about zero hours contracts is pretty annoying at times. Thinking back to my uni days I'd love to be on one rather than bound to a certain amount of hours.

[Ommadawn]

7 hours ago, babyblade41 said:

anyway , way past my bedtime and have an appt with a vet at 9.00 for 4 lame ducks .. 

I

Is Teresa May one of them

[Dave_c]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

by having 80% less of them, and sending that other 80% out to do productive work that benefits the wealth of the country as well as tax revenues...?

Next up, would you like to know how the 1945 govt could afford to nationalise everything? The answer is: by restricting what you're allowed to eat.

If you want to do equivalences, you have to do equivalences.

Agree on the student bit. It seems like society is obsessed with getting a degree these days. A large proportion of degrees on offer in this country are utterly useless, and the criteria for entry into said degrees is so low that anyone can get in. This results in tens of thousands of students graduating each year with useless degrees and a mountain of debt, or not graduating at all.

There is no shame in not having a degree, it's not for everyone and society needs to recognise this. Skilled work pays well these days.

[Ommadawn]

7 hours ago, jonodillieono said:

Retired at 53, that's quite nice, alright for some. I'm an accountant and will be working well into my 60s

 

7 hours ago, frostypaw said:

You sound very dedicated - but I'm curious - why do you think everyone else should do that?

And why if you've had to slave like that so hard are you not more bothered that you've been worked like that while others have coasted it on VAST salaries with relatively little effort? There's no reason it should have been like that, and inequality is far lower in other countries

 

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Interesting. So even by that logic we could raise it from where it is now and it would be productive.

That simply isn't true. There are two things that got you where you are today. And this will be hard to hear. Because one of them is hard work. And the other is luck. The right circumstances aligned for you to be able to do everything you did, millions of tiny little things went the right way for you along the way and it wasn't down to hard work alone. Some of it was just dumb luck. And some big things too. You went right back to work after having a kid? Then you're lucky both you and the child were healthy enough that this was a viable option. Imagine your kid wasn't we'll. Imagine your kid needed more care and attention than you could offer and keep a full time job. And imagine someone comes along and says to you "well you just need to work harder, it's simple". Do you understand how heartless that sounds?

Retired at 53 and you have the cheek to call others workshy?! Get a proper job!

Ah - the politics of envy.

[babyblade41]

8 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

 

 

Ah - the politics of envy.

have you got your tin hat on ready for incoming missiles 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, babyblade41 said:

have you got your tin hat on ready for incoming missiles 

you can justify your non-contribution to the wealth of society when you're fit and able?

Cos i'm sure I saw you slagging off the idle before ... or did I imagine you saying that idleness is unacceptable?

[babyblade41]

Just now, eFestivals said:

you can justify your non-contribution to the wealth of society when you're fit and able?

Cos i'm sure I saw you slagging off the idle before ... or did I imagine you saying that idleness is unacceptable?

I still pay my tax and I don't cost society so contributing just as much as when I was working although my tax contribution is n't as high as it once was 

[Ommadawn]

7 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

have you got your tin hat on ready for incoming missiles 

I couldn't give a toss really. I must admit I don't agree with people earning vast salaries (bankers and CEO's of large companies for instance) but it seems anyone earning over say 100K is seen as greedy regardless of how they got to that situation.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Ommadawn

[babyblade41]

Just now, Ommadawn said:

I couldn't give a toss really. I must admit I don't agree with people earning vast salaries (bankers and CEO's of large companies for instance) but it seems anyone earning over say 100K is seen as greedy regardless of how they got to that stage. 

my thoughts are the same , but it seems I have to justify my existence but I am jumped on if I question  some others... so much for equality and respecting others view point without abuse 

[eFestivals]

Just now, babyblade41 said:

I still pay my tax and I don't cost society so contributing just as much as when I was working although my tax contribution is n't as high as it once was 

so what you mean is that you're not contributing as much as you were, which you've just admitted.

Fuck me, the politics of the self-justifying is always as dumb as fuck.

(PS: I'd apply that to plenty of the posts of the opposing view to yours, too - just so you don't feel got at. )

So go on then, tell me how come you think you don't have to contribute with everything you can, but that others have to. 

[babyblade41]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: I'd apply that to plenty of the posts of the opposing view to yours, too - just so you don't feel got at. )

So go on then, tell me how come you think you don't have to contribute with everything you can, but that others have to. 

Im used to being got at..broad shoulders 

I contributed a spectacular amount when I was in full time employment and not just through my income tax either, plus employing others  ... I am not able to physically or mentally cope with the work load I once had so it is why I am where I am but my tax bill still has to be paid and as long as I'm not taking out anything from the system then I am comfortable with that. 

I claimed family allowance and that is all I have claimed, I didn't even take up the single parent allowance when I could have 

 

I have to bugger off now.. vets to visit 

Edited July 11, 2017 by babyblade41

[jonodillieono]

45 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I couldn't give a toss really. I must admit I don't agree with people earning vast salaries (bankers and CEO's of large companies for instance) but it seems anyone earning over say 100K is seen as greedy regardless of how they got to that situation.

Nah anyone earning over that and either tax dodging or voting tory so they can get a reduction in tax rates is greedy. 

Fuck the poor, I need that extra money despite earning over 100k

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

I contributed a spectacular amount when...

... you decided that the value of your work to society on your own measures was more spectacular than anyone else's...?

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

I claimed family allowance and that is all I have claimed...

... and therefore it's now time to claim back everything you contributed like a good little self-obsessed fuck everyone else (who might need your contributions more than you do) tory?

I know it's a strange concept to tories, but an individual's tax contributions are not their own little savings account.

[KingPin]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

... and therefore it's now time to claim back everything you contributed like a good little self-obsessed fuck everyone else (who might need your contributions more than you do) tory?

I know it's a strange concept to tories, but an individual's tax contributions are not their own little savings account.

But at the same time why do leftists think they have a right to other peoples money?

[arcade fireman]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

Im used to being got at..broad shoulders 

I contributed a spectacular amount when I was in full time employment and not just through my income tax either, plus employing others  ... I am not able to physically or mentally cope with the work load I once had so it is why I am where I am but my tax bill still has to be paid and as long as I'm not taking out anything from the system then I am comfortable with that. 

I claimed family allowance and that is all I have claimed, I didn't even take up the single parent allowance when I could have 

 

I have to bugger off now.. vets to visit 

What Tory simpletons like you don't get is how much you get from the state.

Your workers had a decent education right? At least good enough to do a job for you? Who paid for that? 

They didn't have to worry about healthcare and any medical needs were promptly attended to - who paid for that? 

Did you ever use the NHS or the state education system to help you get where you are?

Your business must have required some sort of infrastructure? Did you use vehicles which needed well maintained roads? Could your business have run anywhere near as well in a developing country with little healthcare, education and infrastructure provided by the state? Will you be claiming a state pension at any point? If someone wanted to break into your premises and steal your stuff, who did you rely on for protection? 

It isn't just the family allowance you benefited from. If you run a business the net gains you get from having a functioning society like ours is far more than most people on benefits. Taxes are essential for that functioning society.  

Edited July 11, 2017 by arcade fireman

[adjwholovesmusic]

Kingpin, 

to say that Leftists want to take other peoples money is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous!! Why do you say this?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, KingPin said:

But at the same time why do leftists think they have a right to other peoples money?

Don't go thinking that just because I pointed out the flaw in that person's thinking that I necessarily agree with every other post made towards that same person.

Rather amusingly there's posts in this thread that point out the resources problem before going on to (essentially) say that printing more money will create the extra resources - and I'm not someone who confuses the finite and infinite as the same thing or as things of the same value.

Edited July 11, 2017 by eFestivals

[stuartbert two hats]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

... and therefore it's now time to claim back everything you contributed like a good little self-obsessed fuck everyone else (who might need your contributions more than you do) tory?

I know it's a strange concept to tories, but an individual's tax contributions are not their own little savings account.

Is she though?  I thought anyone who has taken early retirement would be solely relying on a private pension until reaching the age eligible for an OAP.

Yes, net contributions will have gone down (maybe negative when all services are taken into account), but that's not the same as claiming everything back.

[arcade fireman]

7 minutes ago, KingPin said:

But at the same time why do leftists think they have a right to other peoples money?

What a stupid post. That's what taxation is. It's pretty much how every society operates. Do you define raising taxes as taking "other people's money"? 

If so then it's not just leftists that think that's essential, it's almost everyone across the political spectrum. The only question is how much money and what it should be spent on. 

 

[KingPin]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Don't go thinking that just because I pointed out the flaw in that person's thinking that I necessarily agree with every other post made towards that same person.

Rather amusingly there's posts in this thread that point out the resources problem before going on to (essentially) say that printing more money will create the extra resources - and I'm not someone who confuses the finite and infinite as the same thing or as things of the same value.

I didn't I was just making the point that it goes both ways. FWIW from what I've read of your posts on here you seem to me to be classically liberal of a centrists position. This might be wrong of course, but that's the impression I get from you.

3 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

What a stupid post. That's what taxation is. It's pretty much how every society operates. Do you define raising taxes as taking "other people's money"? 

If so then it's not just leftists that think that's essential, it's almost everyone across the political spectrum. The only question is how much money and what it should be spent on. 

 

You do know that taxation is legalised theft right?