The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Mrk]

The bottom 50% of earners contributed 27.4% of all Income Tax revenues in 2013-14.

The "admirable" comment relates to those who see the value in contributing to society as a whole rather than using income for personal consumption which was your original point.

Out of interest, do you have a link for this? In 2010, the bottom 50% paid 11%, so I'd be amazed if that has jumped to 27.4% seeing as the personal allowance has continued to rise since 2010.

 

[peteblue]

Out of interest, do you have a link for this? In 2010, the bottom 50% paid 11%, so I'd be amazed if that has jumped to 27.4% seeing as the personal allowance has continued to rise since 2010.

This should be interesting........

 

[The Esk]

Is that why Labour did away with grammar schools, the greatest equaliser this country ever had.........

That's the whole point Pete - I went to a grammar school and got a better education than my brother at the local Comprehensive. Grammar schools were not equalisers they were half way houses between private education and the rest in state funded education.

Why not start at the beginning and say everyone has a similar standard of education and similar expectations regardless of being private, grammar or comprehensive (as was).

This is not lowest denominator thinking neither, it is equality of opportunity and chance. What is wrong with that?

 

[The Cowboy]

I have no problems with you being a banker, however you'd agree that you're the exception rather than the rule. I'm pretty familiar with the City and talk to City folk regularly as part of my business - not many are "common folk".

But I did it by going to 6th Form, then to John Moores, then did a placement year (part of my degree, not something I did independently) then returned after I graduated. Nothing special, and a route open to all.

 

[peteblue]

That's the whole point Pete - I went to a grammar school and got a better education than my brother at the local Comprehensive. Grammar schools were not equalisers they were half way houses between private education and the rest in state funded education.

Why not start at the beginning and say everyone has a similar standard of education and similar expectations regardless of being private, grammar or comprehensive (as was).

This is not lowest denominator thinking neither, it is equality of opportunity and chance. What is wrong with that?

I took the same route. Came from a desperately poor council estate, but because there was an opportunity I was able to go to one of the best grammar schools in Liverpool. Two of my brothers did as well. It raised all of our standards, even those of my sisters and other brother who didn't go, because we all saw that there was another way. Today, those on sink estates have a much more difficult way out, and tbh I've no idea what I would now be doing without the opportunity I was given, probably running a gang or selling drugs. We all want equal opportunities but IMO Labour removed the best way for kids like myself to get on and put nothing else in it's place..........

 

[The Esk]

Out of interest, do you have a link for this? In 2010, the bottom 50% paid 11%, so I'd be amazed if that has jumped to 27.4% seeing as the personal allowance has continued to rise since 2010.

My apologies - the lowest 50% earned 27.4% of total revenues but contributed 9.6% of total income tax revenues - I misread the spreadsheet.

However my point still stands that there are many who value their contribution to society as a whole through taxation, rather than value personal consumption.

 

[The Esk]

I took the same route. Came from a desperately poor council estate, but because there was an opportunity I was able to go to one of the best grammar schools in Liverpool. Two of my brothers did as well. It raised all of our standards, even those of my sisters and other brother who didn't go, because we all saw that there was another way. Today, those on sink estates have a much more difficult way out, and tbh I've no idea what I would now be doing without the opportunity I was given, probably running a gang or selling drugs. We all want equal opportunities but IMO Labour removed the best way for kids like myself to get on and put nothing else in it's place..........

Pete, we probably have more in common than you think, certainly in terms of personal experience. However I cannot, and never will, accept that the Tory approach to tiered education - private, grammar, comprehensive, benefits the poor as a whole. Sure, one or two individuals will battle through and good luck to them, but for each one that does there's many equally talented but less fortunate that does not.

Surely there's a system that allows all talented kids, regardless of parental income and status, to rise to the top, not just a fortunate few like me, you and @The Cowboy?

 

[peteblue]

My apologies - the lowest 50% earned 27.4% of total revenues but contributed 9.6% of total income tax revenues - I misread the spreadsheet.

However my point still stands that there are many who value their contribution to society as a whole through taxation, rather than value personal consumption.

This is the problem though Esk. In South America all the governments get voted in by those that contribute the least in taxation so that those that contribute the most can pay. The problem is that the governments are basically incompetent and so generate little growth or wealth for the countries. The socialist governments are basically popular due to their captive clientele. We need to ensure that those that cannot cope or contribute are looked after but this can only happen if we generate massive tax takes, and that comes from the 50% who pay the most. So we need to ensure they make even more so that the bottom 50% can reap any rewards. Otherwise we become just another Venezuela..........we just need competent governments and not those driven by their 'beliefs'........

 

[The Esk]

This is the problem though Esk. In South America all the governments get voted in by those that contribute the least in taxation so that those that contribute the most can pay. The problem is that the governments are basically incompetent and so generate little growth or wealth for the countries. The socialist governments are basically popular due to their captive clientele. We need to ensure that those that cannot cope or contribute are looked after but this can only happen if we generate massive tax takes, and that comes from the 50% who pay the most. So we need to ensure they make even more so that the bottom 50% can reap any rewards. Otherwise we become just another Venezuela..........we just need competent governments and not those driven by their 'beliefs'........

Pete, at the end of the day we have a choice - a country like ours which provides education, health and welfare benefits to those that require it - or a system that does not.

I've said before, would you rather be poor, sick, elderly or unemployed in Britain or in China, Brazil and India? The choice is stark - you either have a country that looks after ( to the best of their abilities) the needy or not. The price is the rate of taxation.

I for one believe the price we pay is good value, because from my perspective, you judge a country on how it treats the poor not the rich.

 

[peteblue]

Pete, we probably have more in common than you think, certainly in terms of personal experience. However I cannot, and never will, accept that the Tory approach to tiered education - private, grammar, comprehensive, benefits the poor as a whole. Sure, one or two individuals will battle through and good luck to them, but for each one that does there's many equally talented but less fortunate that does not.

Surely there's a system that allows all talented kids, regardless of parental income and status, to rise to the top, not just a fortunate few like me, you and @The Cowboy?

I agree mate and would love to see one level of education that delivers. But Grammar schools were done away with over 50 years ago and Labour governments and councils have had more than enough time to put something better in their place, which they have not done. The elite and the rich will always have the best education, labour politicians demand it for their kids, but those at the bottom where I started off now have no chance..........

 

[The Esk]

I agree mate and would love to see one level of education that delivers. But Grammar schools were done away with over 50 years ago and Labour governments and councils have had more than enough time to put something better in their place, which they have not done. The elite and the rich will always have the best education, labour politicians demand it for their kids, but those at the bottom where I started off now have no chance..........

To be fair I'd lay that charge against both political parties...

 

[tsubaki]

This is the problem though Esk. In South America all the governments get voted in by those that contribute the least in taxation so that those that contribute the most can pay. The problem is that the governments are basically incompetent and so generate little growth or wealth for the countries. The socialist governments are basically popular due to their captive clientele. We need to ensure that those that cannot cope or contribute are looked after but this can only happen if we generate massive tax takes, and that comes from the 50% who pay the most. So we need to ensure they make even more so that the bottom 50% can reap any rewards. Otherwise we become just another Venezuela..........we just need competent governments and not those driven by their 'beliefs'........

That is a bit daft, tbh - socialist regimes get voted for in South American countries largely because those same countries have usually all been ruled at some stage in the recent past by immensely corrupt and deeply unpleasant right wing regimes, indeed most of them have that sort of people still close enough to power to influence what goes on.

 

[peteblue]

Pete, at the end of the day we have a choice - a country like ours which provides education, health and welfare benefits to those that require it - or a system that does not.

I've said before, would you rather be poor, sick, elderly or unemployed in Britain or in China, Brazil and India? The choice is stark - you either have a country that looks after ( to the best of their abilities) the needy or not. The price is the rate of taxation.

I for one believe the price we pay is good value, because from my perspective, you judge a country on how it treats the poor not the rich.

I have no problem with taxation, having paid and continue to pay large chunks of it. I have a problem with incompetent governments wasting it. I could have adopted another family and more than paid for them to have a great life if I hadn't had to see my tax pissed down the drain. We are a very wealthy country, with morals and beliefs, but I still wouldn't give a vacuous politician like Ed Miliband a fiver and trust him with it...........

 

[peteblue]

That is a bit daft, tbh - socialist regimes get voted for in South American countries largely because those same countries have usually all been ruled at some stage in the recent past by immensely corrupt and deeply unpleasant right wing regimes, indeed most of them have that sort of people still close enough to power to influence what goes on.

You need to study South American politics. Venezuela has the largest oil deposits on the planet, the people are still poor and cannot get the basics of life. Pure incompetence, nothing else........

 

[peteblue]

To be fair I'd lay that charge against both political parties...

If the Tories actually grew a pair and said "we don't give a stuff above previous political dogma, we're reintroducing Grammar schools" then life would be different. The problem is that no one has the balls..............