Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Charlie Sweet]

The impact of government (central and local) high street policies really cannot be overestimated. I grew up near Wrexham, which used to have one of the best high streets / set of markets going but which has been completely destroyed - at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds - by the people meant to run the place (a Labour council, shamefully).

I was in the South of France last week and it was really remarkable how few chain stores there were actually on the high streets (only really a few Monoprix and Carrefour, though there were more the one shopping centre I saw), and how full the high streets were of what appeared to be independent shops of the kind that have been pushed out down here.

It's not the fault.of business rates mate. small businesses are exempt and even more generally the rates only represent a small proportion of overall costs.

 

[zzr45]

TBF any discussion on what is a correct level of tax for people to pay should never take place until a complete assessment is made of what the money the state currently takes is spent on, and whether that represents good value. Currently, and for almost entirely political reasons, we waste many tens of billions trying to pretend that "private industry" can do things better than nationalized ones, or that paying rent to private landlords is somehow more ethical than the state building homes and then charging rents, or that it is cheaper to pay a firm with PFI contract to build and run a hospital than it would be for the NHS to do it.

Until we stop doing that, it really is immoral to take any more money off anyone else - we would just be shovelling it down a bottomless pit.

Oh hey buddy, I see you’re spouting off about money again. It’s funny last week I asked about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping private schools would cost and you seemed to go very quiet very quickly.

Why is it that Labour policies that p*ss taxpayers money/reduce tax intake up the wall are a-okay but everyone else must be held accountable?

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[catcherintherye]

For me, it's the fact that 50% is half. And I don't believe more than half of a section of your earnings should be taken away via tax. That's my fundamental belief in this regard.

45-50% is still plenty. If everyone paid their fair share it would be enough. The issue is we have the biggest corporations not paying their fair share. But someone earning 80k a year aren't really in the 1%, are they...

Thanks for the response. Would you say that people in the top 1% can pay 50% of their wealth? I mean if the number it started at began at say 150k would it make a difference?

I respect that it's a point of principle for yourself on this. I suppose I'm a bit more pragmatic, I'd look at how much money is required to run decent services and try to collect that in as fair a way as possible, and put more of the burden onto incomes that are as far away from people's essential earning as possible. However it doesn't make me right, it's just a different philosophical approach.

 

[catcherintherye]

He isn't single.

He is working class. Working class in my book does not equate to 'poor' or a low earner. It's your background and where you're from and what values you have. He wasn't born into money. He's worked too earn that money. Same with me. Same with all my friends.

Football players who come from working class backgrounds are still working class when they go on to earn millions, mate.

But a tax system isn't based upon cultural identity (if we are viewing class as a cultural category) but a more clinical analysis of the most effective way to raise values.

I am sure you and all of your friends work hard. I've worked at minimum wage, a bit above it and now am at the point where I earn reasonable money. I meet/interact with people who earn substantial packages. If I'm honest, what differentiates them is not really work rate. Everyone I have worked with have worked hard, irrespective of salary.

The teacher, police officer, doctor, nurse, post officer, social work, lecturer, youth worker, teaching assistant etc etc all work hard too, and have all had their pay cut because of mistakes that were centrally caused by people earning lots of money in the private sector.

 

[tsubaki]

Oh hey buddy, I see you’re spouting off about money again. It’s funny last week I asked about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping private schools would cost and you seemed to go very quiet very quickly.

Why is it that Labour policies that p*ss taxpayers money/reduce tax intake up the wall are a-okay but everyone else must be held accountable?

Going on holiday does tend to do that, though anyone who was reading the thread (including you) could see the replies I made.

Although please note that at no point did you ask "about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping (!) private schools would cost". For a start, it was three billion last week.

 

[zzr45]

Going on holiday does tend to do that, though anyone who was reading the thread (including you) could see the replies I made.

Although please note that at no point did you ask "about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping (!) private schools would cost". For a start, it was three billion last week.

It’s funny because you seemed to be able to argue other points. I noted that it would be £3 billion to find the extra places and it’s been in the news in the week that the VAT paid by the schools and suppliers is worth £4.1 billion. Hence £7 billion.

I see you’re avoiding the answer, as you did last week because there’s no answer that paints Labour in a good light.

Such a little sheep.

 

[tsubaki]

It’s funny because you seemed to be able to argue other points. I noted that it would be £3 billion to find the extra places and it’s been in the news in the week that the VAT paid by the schools and suppliers is worth £4.1 billion. Hence £7 billion.

I see you’re avoiding the answer, as you did last week because there’s no answer that paints Labour in a good light.

Such a little sheep.

So you didn't ask about seven billion last week then?

As for avoiding the answer, sorry but I fail to understand where (a) I said Labour were not to blame for the waste and (b) I was happy with money being pissed up the wall?

 

[zzr45]

So you didn't ask about seven billion last week then?

As for avoiding the answer, sorry but I fail to understand where (a) I said Labour were not to blame for the waste and (b) I was happy with money being pissed up the wall?

No I mentioned the cost and the loss of money and jobs to which your response was ‘ lol ‘ it was 3 billion because I’d didn’t know the other amount of money. I now do hence how it is 7 billion.

And quite simply, because you immediately last week tried to deflect it onto Tory spending on academies. As ever, you seem far too happy to shout about tax rates etc. but last week were in full favour of something which would cost the country £7 billion a year because the Labour Party told you so.

 

[tsubaki]

No I mentioned the cost and the loss of money and jobs to which your response was ‘ lol ‘ it was 3 billion because I’d didn’t know the other amount of money. I now do hence how it is 7 billion.

And quite simply, because you immediately last week tried to deflect it onto Tory spending on academies. As ever, you seem far too happy to shout about tax rates etc. but last week were in full favour of something which would cost the country £7 billion a year because the Labour Party told you so.

Your exact quote:

It’s funny last week I asked about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping private schools would cost and you seemed to go very quiet very quickly.

So that was wrong, then - you didn't mention seven billion, nor did I go very quiet very quickly in response to it. Also, my response was to you claiming that "industry" would have to close down as the result of this policy.

Finally, where did I say I was in full favour of what Labour wanted to do with private schools? I actually described it as probably ending up as "one of a long list of popcorn motions passed by a Labour Conference down the years", and was trying to point out the daftness of the outrage that the mention of the policy brought up here. The mention of free schools and academies was meant to highlight to you in particular how much money is actually wasted, now, that you do not have a problem with (it seems).

 

[tsubaki]

It's not the fault.of business rates mate. small businesses are exempt and even more generally the rates only represent a small proportion of overall costs.

I did not say that it was. I said "The impact of government (central and local) high street policies really cannot be overestimated ".

 

[zzr45]

Your exact quote:



So that was wrong, then - you didn't mention seven billion, nor did I go very quiet very quickly in response to it. Also, my lol response was to you claiming that "industry" would have to close down as the result of this policy.

Finally, where did I say I was in full favour of what Labour wanted to do with private schools? I actually described it as probably ending up as "one of a long list of popcorn motions passed by a Labour Conference down the years", and was trying to point out the daftness of the outrage that the mention of the policy brought up here. The mention of free schools and academies was meant to highlight to you in particular how much money is actually wasted, now, that you do not have a problem with (it seems).

No I didn’t exactly say 7 billion. As I pointed out it’s an amended number which quantifies the value of the cost of bringing in the extra pupils to state schools and the loss of tax revenues. Bit of a straw man.

You see, when people start making impassioned defences of policies it tends to indicate a level of support for it. Don’t try to wave your hand and pretend that you were dismissive of it.

Again though, it’s whataboutery. The Tories have spent £4 billion on academies in 8 years. Some of that has been wasted and people should have to account for that. Does pale slightly to £7 billion extra a year needed to fund a change from a system that isn’t exactly broken. Also negates the outlay cost of buying the schools so they can be divided up.

So it’s a bit jarring to bang on about tax rates when the party you support are happy to create a funding black hole based on pettiness.

 

[tsubaki]

No I didn’t exactly say 7 billion. As I pointed out it’s an amended number which quantifies the value of the cost of bringing in the extra pupils to state schools and the loss of tax revenues. Bit of a straw man.

You see, when people start making impassioned defences of policies it tends to indicate a level of support for it. Don’t try to wave your hand and pretend that you were dismissive of it.

Again though, it’s whataboutery. The Tories have spent £4 billion on academies in 8 years. Some of that has been wasted and people should have to account for that. Does pale slightly to £7 billion extra a year needed to fund a change from a system that isn’t exactly broken. Also negates the outlay cost of buying the schools so they can be divided up.

So it’s a bit jarring to bang on about tax rates when the party you support are happy to create a funding black hole based on pettiness.

Look, I think this would go a lot better for you if you realised that people can actually go back and check what was said at the time.

If you did, you might find out that there were no "impassioned defences" of the policy (edit: from me at least), that the £4 billion point was about free schools (not academies), and what you said six hours ago which is at some variance to what you now claim you said.

 

[Billy Dean]

Interestingly from a Murdoch paper

 

[zzr45]

Look, I think this would go a lot better for you if you realised that people can actually go back and check what was said at the time.

If you did, you might find out that there were no "impassioned defences" of the policy (edit: from me at least), that the £4 billion point was about free schools (not academies), and what you said six hours ago which is at some variance to what you now claim you said.

Oh hey buddy, I see you’re spouting off about money again. It’s funny last week I asked about the £7 billion hole a year that scraping private schools would cost and you seemed to go very quiet very quickly.

It’s funny because you seemed to be able to argue other points. I noted that it would be £3 billion to find the extra places and it’s been in the news in the week that the VAT paid by the schools and suppliers is worth £4.1 billion. Hence £7 billion.

No I mentioned the cost and the loss of money and jobs to which your response was ‘ lol ‘ it was 3 billion because I’d didn’t know the other amount of money. I now do hence how it is 7 billion.

No I didn’t exactly say 7 billion. As I pointed out it’s an amended number which quantifies the value of the cost of bringing in the extra pupils to state schools and the loss of tax revenues.

I’m not sure exactly that’s changed. I notice you still haven’t actually answered and have gone round the houses to avoid doing so.