Election propaganda

[Gavin Scott]

There are 7 billion people on this planet Gavin, there are simply too many people for everyone to have a high standard of living. So instead of pushing everyone up to the same level, the only option to make society 'fair' is to pull those who have a high standard of living down. Consequently you end up with a society in which everyone is equally unhappy, as opposed to one in which at least a modest percentage of the species are well off, able to achieve their aspirations, happy and live a long and healthy life.

So yes, I'm against the concept of fairness on that basis.

Imagine you have two children. One of them has a balloon. The other child wants a balloon too, but you can't afford another one. So, in the name of fairness, you pop the balloon. Now neither of them has a balloon and both children are 'equal' again.

Now wouldn't you rather at least one of your children have a balloon than neither of them? That's what I'm getting at here, but on a nationwide / global scale.

But to take the analogy further - you might choose to steal a balloon from someone who has an abundance of balloons, ie. the person who makes them (the wealth creator, if you will). So imagine if everyone did that - the person would simply stop making balloons (creating wealth) because there's no point in making them if other people are just going to take them off you. The result is a society completely destitute of balloons and, again, everyone is equally unhappy.


Well it made sense in my head!

Your analogy, like your grasp of taxation in a modern society is deeply, deeply flawed.

Everyone in society who is capable of doing so has a duty to generate their own balloons. They should use these balloons to provide for their children's needs.

The world we live in, or perhaps not you particularly, has to be paid for through taxation. This pays for schools where people gain the necessary skills to create their own balloons; and hospitals so that the poorly can get back on their feet and create more balloons.

Everyone who works - not just the super rich - pays a proportion of their earnings to the State. Everyone is a wealth creator, with their own little economy spiralling off - be they middle income families who pay someone else for childcare; or me as a single individual with no dependants who spends his money on "entertainment".

In your world, there's only a few real wealth creators; with millions of grubby little hands trying to take from them. In your world they sit atop a pile of balloons, sneering down at those who want to "steal" them - threatening to burst all their balloons and not make any more unless it all stops.

That's just bogus.

The VAST majority of the taxation pool comes from people like me - basic rate tax payers. I pay 20% of my earnings (above my personal allowance), and although that pinches, I'm left with sufficient balloons for myself and have paid back to the State to cover hospitals, schools and everything else.

If I earned over £37,500 I would pay 40% tax above my allowance; and if I earned more than £150,000 I would pay 50% on earnings above that figure.

Everyone pays - and everyone is left with enough balloons (if we must) to enjoy their lifestyle.

Your world view is fucked up. Totally.

But then of course YOU pay NOTHING. Not one penny do you pay for healthcare. Not one quid do you put to schools.

I read what you wrote in the chatroom last night. "Oh but my personal useage from the NHS is probably 0.00001p".

How dare you? Seriously.

I have no kids, and yet I pay towards child tax credits and schools. I have no disability, yet I pay for wheelchairs and ramps for other people's homes. I pay for prisons yet I've committed no crime, and I pay for speed cameras the length of the country, yet I drive no car.

How dare you say that you take nothing out of the country. Your non-contribution, your economic inactivity means that our burden is greater.

We all pay for the things whether they are relevant to us or not, or whether we use them or not. That's what insurance is like, Chie - National Insurance, if you will. Its not just there for your personal needs - we all pay our premiums so its there for EVERYONE. The well off, the middle income and the low income all pay for EVERYONE.

I don't know how you have a gall to opine to tax paying members of this board, I really don't.

God knows I don't want anything bad to happen to you chie, but were you struck down with MS or cancer or somesuch, you would be well taken care of in this country. And you've contributed how much to the NHS? You'd still expect to be given all the treatment that other British citizens expect though - wouldn't you?

So, lets return to the idea of what is fair in society. Lets talk about those with their hands out expecting a free balloon.

I've paid my stamp, so in return I will get some balloons.

Lets explore what's fair Chie.

Please respond.

[Nick Harvey]

Wouldn't it be nice if the NHS could refuse care to those who hadn't paid?

I'm bloody glad I paid up while I could.

[Chie]

No no no, you're just seeing what you want to see, as usual.

We both agree that people should provide for their own childrens' needs.

What I have said is that if you do not have the means (food, shelter, water) to support dependents, then don't have any. The rest of us should not have money taken off us and redistributed to them to pay for their lack of responsibility 'because it's fair'. Doing so only encourages complacency. That was part of my argument.

You're talking about public services, I'm talking about the wider issues of wealth redistribution and overpopulation. The balloons aren't just wealth, they're food, and water, and houses, and land. These are finite resources. If the population keeps on going up then the standard of living of everybody is going to drop.

Think of it like a loaf of bread. Imagine the global population is 5 people and fairness and equality are enforced. Each person gets three slices of bread accordingly. The population soon increases to 10 people and now everybody has to make do with 1.5 slices of bread each. 20 people will have to live on 0.75 of a slice of bread.

So you see the standards drop for all.

I would much rather 10 people get one slice each and the other 10 get half each. That is not fair, but it's pragmatic and ensures that at least some people have a good quality of life rather than everybody having a poor quality of life.

Frankly if you don't get it after that explanation then you never will.

And don't anybody try to argue with me about land - most of the Earth's land is either too hot or too cold to inhabit, not fertile enough to grow food, or covered in forest and mountains.

Say goodbye to houses - we'll have to knock them down and replace them with shitty apartment blocks.

Water - countries in the Middle East are already experiencing water shortages because dams are being built upstream in neighboring countries, curtailing the water supply of those downstream.

So what I'm saying is that the more people there are, the fewer resources there are to go round, the poorer the quality of life for us all. We could all live quite fairly and equally if the global population was about half a billion, but it's not, so it never will be fair. To expect fairness in this world is complete fantasy. It's survival of the fittest and the cleverest. If it wasn't and we shared everything equally between ourselves then we'd all being living on half a slice of bread a day and that would be atrocious. Better that a percentage of people get to be healthy and happy than everyone be unhappy.

Life is a lottery already. It's a lottery as to which country you're born in and what kind of socio-economic status your parents have. Surely that's as fair as it gets.

Goodness knows what kind of feeble excuse you're going to have to invent to skirt around the issues and make personal attacks when I DO start making National Insurance contributions Gavin. It's worth putting in the extra effort just to shut you up.

[Chie]

And Gavin, I said only a few days ago that I wish I'd started working when I was 18 instead of wasting my time at college for pointless qualifications. That was my mistake, but the government was complicit in that mistake as well. I left college two years ago just as the recession was starting and like every other college or university graduate who was fobbed off about not having to worry about growing up and facing your responsibilities until you're 30, I have not been able to secure employment.

So by all means please direct your bile at the dole dossers who have no intention of lifting a finger in their entire life - but I am most certainly not one of them.

[Gavin Scott]

What I have said is that if you do not have the means (food, shelter, water) to support dependents, then don't have any. The rest of us should not have money taken off us and redistributed to them to pay for their lack of responsibility 'because it's fair'. Doing so only encourages complacency. That was part of my argument.

There is no "us" in your analogy, because I pay and you do not. Therefore *I* will be the judge on what I deem to be fair. You want a say? Start to pay.

But I speak for all taxpayers when I say no one wants to pay out for unmarried mothers who churn out kids. No one thinks its right that they should get council houses just because they can't keep their knees together.

However - newsflash ass - that happens under Labour, under Conservative - and would happen under a lib/lab or a tory/lib pact. You can try to educate these kids when they are young - but I wouldn't hold my breath, because its happened for as long as I have lived, through a succession of different Governments.

But instead of screwing yourself up on the matter, try and see it within the perspective of Britain as a whole - where these people make up a small proportion of payouts compared to the the billions spent in schools and the NHS.

You're talking about public services, I'm talking about the wider issues of wealth redistribution and overpopulation. The balloons aren't just wealth, they're food, and water, and houses, and land. These are finite resources. If the population keeps on going up then the standard of living of everybody is going to drop.

What the fuck has global population got to do with your ludicrous balloon analogy? Who is talking about "wealth redistribution"? This is a free market. Wealth can increase in densely populated areas too, chie. Imagine how New York started. Millions swarmed in to work there as it grew, and raised the standard of living for all.

Think of it like a loaf of bread. Imagine the global population is 5 people and fairness and equality are enforced. Each person gets three slices of bread accordingly. The population soon increases to 10 people and now everybody has to make do with 1.5 slices of bread each. 20 people will have to live on 0.75 of a slice of bread.

Oh we're on to bread now. Bread is made from ingredients that can be farmed; baked by people who learn that skill; distributed by drivers in vans made by fabricators and maintained by mechanics.

Its not one loaf of bread for everyone - its everyone making the bread for themselves. That's how society grows and functions.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOUR BRAIN?

I can't bring myself to go through the rest of your points. The earth hasn't shrunk yet, Chie. We can still support life here for a couple of thousand years yet - so rather than washing your hands of everything just now, why don't you try and live in 2010 and not dismiss it all as if its Armageddon eve.

Goodness knows what kind of feeble excuse you're going to have to invent to skirt around the issues and make personal attacks when I DO start making National Insurance contributions Gavin. It's worth putting in the extra effort just to shut you up.

Yes well Chie, do you know what my degree is in?

Acting.

Do you know how helpful that is in other industries?

Not very.

Do you know when I was made redundant?

At the start of the recession.

Know how I got a job 22 months ago?

Because I persevered. I took rejections, lowered my sights and accepted the first offer.

Now quit bumping your gums and get a fucking job.

[Chie]

What the fuck?

You started a discussion about fairness and now you're asking me why I'M bringing up wealth redistribution.

It's clear there's obviously no point discussing this further.

We'll pick it up again when I have secured employment and then you won't have an excuse to gob off about national bloody insurance at every tenuous opportunity instead of debating the issue at hand.

[Pete]

I think I understand it now. Chie thinks we're still on the gold standard and the all other things in the entire world operate on a similar system.

[Gavin Scott]

What the fuck?

You started a discussion about fairness and now you're asking me why I'M bringing up wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution implies some Robin Hood-esque, or worse - communist approach to giving money to the poor.

We are discussing taxation, and how everyone should pay in so that they can receive something out.

It's clear there's obviously no point discussing this further.

There's everything to be gained by extending the scope of your understanding.

We'll pick it up again when I have secured employment and then you won't have an excuse to gob off about national bloody insurance at every tenuous opportunity instead of debating the issue at hand.

Well I'd buy a ticket to that.

The subject at hand IS national insurance, taxation, society and recovery from recession.

So yes - do what you propose and lets talk.

The biggest hug of congratulations will be from me, chie.

[scottishtv]

The subject at hand IS national insurance, taxation, society and recovery from recession.

Thank goodness we're back on topic. And yes, I probably would grumble about paying a bit more National Insurance in the next tax year, but then we have to pay for our public services somehow and I think this is a sensible way to do so. AND if I'm honest, I can afford it.

I found the view of James Caan on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago quite helpful in getting my head around this. He claimed that most SMEs will identify the need for an employee based on their business needs and will employ that person if they judge they have a need and judge they can afford it. In most cases, there is no way they can gather all the information they need to make the perfect decision (future sales revenue, growth etc - many don't know more than a couple of months ahead) so they take the risk and get on with it. If it works then fine, if not then that person loses their job. That's a risk a small/medium employer takes and quite frankly it's why I think small businesses are fantastic.

You'll note it's mainly the bigger manufacturers and corporates that work out their staffing based on accountants churning out FTE figures down to the decimal point that are whining over paying the few extra quid employers' contributions.

As for overpopulation - yes that is a worry but dragging it in here to try and confuse the other arguments seems just a bit weird. I think we all accept that in the short to medium term if we don't have enough bread, we just produce and buy more - or import some baguettes from France.

Shouldn't we all be refocusing our energy back on attacking the bankers? I know it's a populist thing to do but, um, they started it... and now we have to pay for it. The NI increase is the only credible way I think will do that.

[Cache]

What an interestingly long page.
I agree with Gavin.

On the whole banker issue, I'm surprised that the parties seem to have dropped this for the time being to concentrate on bickering PR rubbish. They were a great, and deserving scapegoat to dump problems on. Yes, yes, I know that their actions didn't help the matter, but my belief is that the recession would have happened anyway, up and down cycles and all that.

[barcode]

it does seem the Propaganda has stepped up a bit: http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/ ... 351ff01378

Questions is was labour right? that depends, How will the tories pay for all? and make all the cuts there want and lower taxes? its not possible. also its NOT in been in the interest of proving such policies. I;m not very happy with DC, as he really is pot calling the kettle black about scaremongering, He should know all about that.

I;m still not happy with brown.