Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Number_25]

One of the things that has really irritated me growing up is realising how everyone and everything has to be some sort of economic agent, and how that has led to a complete devaluement of human life.

Take the referendum/post-referendum chit-chat about EU migrants. I don't think people understand just how damaging it is to someone to constantly hear that they're here as they provide a "cheap resource for labour".

And yet we wonder why nobody respects anyone anymore, it's baffling.

I don't find it acceptable to have people spend 90% of their best days working. I believe that 65 is a good and fair compromise for retirement, and I'd also like the state to provide both the apparatus and fiscal means that will ensure that elderly people live comfortably - and if that comes at the expense of a CEO having to have a slightly less expensive car - then I'm willing to force that sacrifice.

Call it theft, all you like. It's just.

 

[tsubaki]

Except firefighters and police retire early. And train drivers and lorry drivers are already retested.

Bringing the retirement age down would be a huge mental health time bomb as well.

They don’t retire early, they retire when the deal between them and the state comes to an end - when the pension they have earned (in the case of the police after paying 11 - 14.5% of their wages for between 30 and as many as 42 years) comes due. Sadly agreements with recent Governments are not worth the paper they are written on though, so many people have found themselves with an extra decade to do, with a real terms pay cut every year for the past eight years.

Plus of course in many cases thirty plus years of shift work means they die sooner anyway (indeed that is the main reason the state wants them to work longer).

 

[Brendan Janus]

I remember Harold Wilson once saying 'retirement is our future' !

 

[PITA]

Didn't need to change it. And what's all this mumbo jumbo about selfishness?

Mate, I'm a Labour supporter but they had to raise retirement age. State pensions for all are not sustainable.

 

[PITA]

It's worked for me, my extended family and almost everyone else I've personally known. We were breadline working class during the recession years of the early-90's. Chips-n-beans was the staple, with own brand white bread in-between. I used to get told off for putting one slice of ham on a single white-bread slice as that was a waste when i should be putting one slice of ham between two white bread slices (as it would fill my belly while making the ham last longer).

Sounds like a Monty Python sketch. I hope that you understand my point.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They don’t retire early, they retire when the deal between them and the state comes to an end - when the pension they have earned (in the case of the police after paying 11 - 14.5% of their wages for between 30 and as many as 42 years) comes due. Sadly agreements with recent Governments are not worth the paper they are written on though, so many people have found themselves with an extra decade to do, with a real terms pay cut every year for the past eight years.

Plus of course in many cases thirty plus years of shift work means they die sooner anyway (indeed that is the main reason the state wants them to work longer).

The state wants people to work for a few years longer so they'll die? That's a bit dank.

 

[Carl O'Ancelotti]

Sounds like a Monty Python sketch. I hope that you understand my point.

Spam 'n' chips was the staple back in their day.

 

[PITA]

Spam 'n' chips was the staple back in their day.

A lot of spam though.

 

[Number_25]

The state wants people to work for a few years longer so they'll die? That's a bit dank.

Well it's not difficult to come to the conclusion once you accept that, for decades, the state has been an apparatus for private industry to grow at any cost - as opposed to a means of ensuring that people are well looked after and have their basic human amenities met.

 

[dholliday]

and I'd also like the state to provide both the apparatus and fiscal means that will ensure that elderly people live comfortably - and if that comes at the expense of a CEO having to have a slightly less expensive car - then I'm willing to force that sacrifice.

Call it theft, all you like. It's just.

when you make such a suggestion, you have to provide an idea how it might work: how exactly should the government implement your suggestion?

otherwise your posts just come across as naive idealism, especially when, as @peteblue said, CEO's do more than Prem footballers for society.

 

[dholliday]

This has been proven to be a failed idea. It's called 'trickle down economics' - it doesn't work as the wealth doesn't trickle down; it simply gets hoarded at the top.

Your theory would make sense if you didn't consider the alternative of wealth being more spread out, so the jobs are still created but in a different way. By that I don't mean socialism, but more businesses of decent wealth employing instead of fewer businesses of extreme wealth.

It's as busted a theory as communism in that in theory it might make sense but in practice it can never work due to simple human greed.

disagree...trickle-down economics is the best system we have, the balance may still need work (many EU countries have the same system, but better balance).

 

[Number_25]

when you make such a suggestion, you have to provide an idea how it might work: how exactly should the government implement your suggestion?

otherwise your posts just come across as naive idealism, especially when, as @peteblue said, CEO's do more than Prem footballers for society.

I'm suggesting that we have a fairer taxation system.

I'd also like to see a new wave of innovation, funded by the state, as a means of exploiting vast technological expansionism in things like machine learning, and green energy.

That would be a start.

 

[dholliday]

I'm suggesting that we have a fairer taxation system.

I'd also like to see a new wave of innovation, funded by the state, as a means of exploiting vast technological expansionism in things like machine learning, and green energy.

That would be a start.

you need to be specific. you do know what tax-rates high-earners have, i assume?

your second suggestion is just buzz-word waffle...be specific.

 

[hullefc]

Mate, I'm a Labour supporter but they had to raise retirement age. State pensions for all are not sustainable.

A 0.1% transaction tax on the City of London's shares, bonds and derivatives dealings would raise enough to lower the pension age to 60 and lower taxes for all.
This was in 2010 - "The Bank's triennial survey of forex and OTC interest rate derivative markets, conducted with the Bank for International Settlements, found that the average daily forex turnover in the UK has risen 25pc to $1.85bn. Average daily turnover in OTC interest rate derivatives was $1.24bn during April 2010, a 29pc rise on April 2007". Mind boggling amounts. A 0.1% tax seems peanuts really.

 

[Number_25]

you need to be specific. you do know what tax-rates high-earners have, i assume?

your second suggestion is just buzz-word waffle...be specific.

I have.

Using the current tax rates, you end up with the following:



With the changes put forward in the Labour manifesto, this changes slightly for high earners - increasing the total tax take from £571,444 to £631,967:



If we were to take a look at Sweden's system - and apply it to the same figures we'd have something like:



I'm not a huge fan of this as the total tax increase for low earners would tip a lot of people over the edge, so instead we should opt for a system of tax that reflects that.

You'll end up with something like this:



Which to me is a far fairer system.