Topical political theory

[Lat-Literal]

aaah

So in spite of what you wrote
You DID have enough money to pay for things
What always strikes me is the myriad of ways in which people describe the money they have
Some folks (and i'm not necessarily referring to you) say "I have no money and am living off my savings"
"SAVINGS" ? what on earth
THEY ARE MONEY FFS

"Lump sum" = MONEY to most of us
and so on and so on

Well, I don't think I said that I didn't have money to pay for essentials in those six years. That, of course, was my money. I claimed one third of it back and the government seized two thirds to pay for benefits and bankers. Actually, it is still the case that I am on balance in debt given the outstanding mortgage but only perhaps by £20,000 if my savings were used for the mortgage in one go which of course they can't be. And I could, in theory, downsize one day from my small semi-detached two bedroom, no dining room, garage at the end of the road in a block, bungalow. When the pension came in February it was like being let off a leash. I started to spend as if I were suddenly wealthy. That on two or three things I felt I wanted "before I die". Some things, though, are deemed unaffordable - a pet is one example and addressing the wallpaper peeling off in two rooms is another. It will have to be reined in again before autumn and that will unequivocally happen. See how the state does in parallel! But my self-description is neither rich nor poor and even when I was down to counting the last pennies I still didn't describe myself as poor. Just under strain and unsupported by anything other than what I had contributed to in the first place.

[MrGongGong]

Well, I don't think I said that I didn't have money to pay for essentials in those six years. That, of course, was my money. I claimed one third of it back and the government seized two thirds to pay for benefits and bankers. Actually, it is still the case that I am on balance in debt given the outstanding mortgage but only perhaps by £20,000 if my savings were used for the mortgage in one go which of course they can't be. And I could, in theory, downsize one day from my small semi-detached two bedroom, no dining room, garage at the end of the road in a block, bungalow. When the pension came in February it was like being let off a leash. I started to spend as if I were suddenly wealthy. That on two or three things I felt I wanted "before I die". Some things, though, are deemed unaffordable - a pet is one example and addressing the wallpaper peeling off in two rooms is another. It will have to be reined in again before autumn and that will unequivocally happen. See how the state does in parallel! But my self-description is neither rich nor poor and even when I was down to counting the last pennies I still didn't describe myself as poor. Just under strain and unsupported by anything other than what I had contributed to in the first place.

What are "savings" ?

Why do people think that the money that they pay in tax is somehow "theirs" and it's "taken" by the government ?

Have you never needed to go to hospital ?
Do you know anyone with a disability who needs support ?
and so on

I'm sure you have some very justified complaints
BUT it sounds a bit ugly to me

YES, we should have done what they did in Iceland and jailed the bankers
but attacking the most vulnerable is not the way to build a more content and tolerant society

[Lat-Literal]

What are "savings" ?

Why do people think that the money that they pay in tax is somehow "theirs" and it's "taken" by the government ?

Have you never needed to go to hospital ?
Do you know anyone with a disability who needs support ?
and so on

I'm sure you have some very justified complaints
BUT it sounds a bit ugly to me

YES, we should have done what they did in Iceland and jailed the bankers
but attacking the most vulnerable is not the way to build a more content and tolerant society

No, no....it isn't about tax. It is about the employment "contract" for state sector officials which was generous - would you believe - under Thatcher and then systematically ripped up by law in and around 2010. Brown tried it and failed in the courts. Cameron and Clegg achieved it. That arrangement was based on salaried employment and service to the state. You speak about universal service provision. I support those services. But can anyone explain to me why anyone needs a food bank unless they have huge credit card debt?

Any ugliness, of course, is purely in legalized theft - what it does is place unrealistic expectations of tolerance on those experiencing it that are weathered until a certain point.

All I am saying is that if and when the point comes - and it could for example be high interest rates - then the unfamiliar will be on the march and the country will rock but not very coolly. The withdrawal of labour from the non-unionised centre-right who are part of the nation's backbone - I suspect though that their principal "law breaking and holding the government to ransom lever" for forcing change would come from widespread non-payment of Council Tax - and their young offspring made into direct action ultra right wingers. It sounds like a threat and it is designed to be so with the very best of intentions. It's pro system - as I am - whatever its faults. It's in the name of saving the country from itself.

[MrGongGong]

But can anyone explain to me why anyone needs a food bank unless they have huge credit card debt?

Because lots of people have NO credit cards, NO bank account and NO money

Try to lose the anger mate
it will just make you old and ill

[burning dog]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/uk-food-bank-usage-rises-again-with-benefit-delays-the-most-comm/

"Over two in five people attending Trussell Trust food banks between April and September this year gave benefits changes or delays as one the reasons they needed emergency food."

Some of the worst affected are those who take short term work when it becomes available. There's something (used to be called?) rapid reclaim but it isn't always THAT rapid

[teamsaint]

What are "savings" ?

Why do people think that the money that they pay in tax is somehow "theirs" and it's "taken" by the government ?

Have you never needed to go to hospital ?
Do you know anyone with a disability who needs support ?
and so on

I'm sure you have some very justified complaints
BUT it sounds a bit ugly to me

YES, we should have done what they did in Iceland and jailed the bankers
but attacking the most vulnerable is not the way to build a more content and tolerant society

People may think that about tax, because they work very hard for not much money, and out of that around 40% of the top slice does get "taken" by the government to be spent, often, on things of which they don't approve. ( nuclear missiles, crap cladding, supporting banks, creating distorted markets, very high salaries for directors of classical music outfits etc)
It isn't that unreasonable ,especially for people who can't afford to rent let alone buy a decent house, save for anything much,or look forward to retiring before they are 70.

[MrGongGong]

People may think that about tax, because they work very hard for not much money, and out of that around 40% of the top slice does get "taken" by the government to be spent, often, on things of which they don't approve. ( nuclear missiles, crap cladding, supporting banks, creating distorted markets, very high salaries for directors of classical music outfits etc)
It isn't that unreasonable ,especially for people who can't afford to rent let alone buy a decent house, save for anything much,or look forward to retiring before they are 70.

Erm

Those who pay tax at 40% might be working "very hard" but it's a bit off to say it's for "not much money" as you have to be earning a sizeable sum to pay the 40% on the amount above the threshold.

My point is really that we have a rather daft attitude to tax in this country
People seem more offended at the suggestion that the money they "earn" through having money (in the form of interest and capital gains) is taxed than the money that people earn through toil.

[teamsaint]

Erm

Those who pay tax at 40% might be working "very hard" but it's a bit off to say it's for "not much money" as you have to be earning a sizeable sum to pay the 40% on the amount above the threshold.

My point is really that we have a rather daft attitude to tax in this country
People seem more offended at the suggestion that the money they "earn" through having money (in the form of interest and capital gains) is taxed than the money that people earn through toil.

If you have student debt, you effectively pay at 40%. 10% NIC, 20% IT, 10 % loan. It might as well be 40 %tax. That was my point.
I agree about the odd attitude to tax on " unearned income".

[MrGongGong]

If you have student debt, you effectively pay at 40%,10% NIC, 20% IT, 10 % loan. It might as well be 40 %tax. That was my point.
I agree about the odd attitude to tax on " unearned income".

Ok
I get what you mean

It annoys me when people complain about tax even though they always seem to have more money than I do
without it the surgeon who saved my life wouldn't be here (but there again they might send him back to Pakistan anyway now )

[Lat-Literal]

Because lots of people have NO credit cards, NO bank account and NO money

Try to lose the anger mate
it will just make you old and ill

At this point, it isn't anger.

It's worry about the implications of the economy going down the drain. For the record, I am not in any tax paying bracket and haven't been for over half a decade. I have also never applied for a credit card even though my maximum salary was never higher than the national average and always considerably lower in Greater London than the London average.

You keep talking about tax. I would have thought the very wealthy could pay a bit more. Certainly evasion and avoidance are problematic. It would be quite nice if the Council Tax bands were up rated from 1991 to address all the massive extensions that have been built but that won't happen. Inheritance tax levels would in my opinion be best left static for a while rather than radically revised but no radical left winger has been proposing changes in that area which would affect me. On benefits, I said that the cuts to disability benefits were wrong and absolutely the wrong priority in 2011. Again, not that they affected me directly although my GP at one point did produce for me a disability benefits form which she was prepared to consider endorsing. I said thanks but no. I don't like huge benefits subsidizing those who own properties to rent and I consider child benefits to be too generous.

Re social care, my parents at 87 and 86 claim precisely nothing. When my mother had her double heart bypass and fell several times which affected leverage they did get a free bath contraption but it was inadequate so they had to buy a different one. That was it. My father can barely walk and is starting to lose his marbles. He can't talk properly now and makes errors. Being attached to me in terms of where they live, literally, I would not be at all surprised if one day he inadvertently burns down their house and with it mine. I have had to live with that thought and I accept it. Should he - or indeed my mother - ever need to be placed in a care home and I am still alive, I stand ready for them to pay for the entire lot down to their last £23,000 which in some ways would be me paying for it. Fair enough. They have supported me as best as they could during all these years, ostensibly emotionally. I don't see why I should expect others to pick up the bill even though if I had to sell my home too to help them it would leave me facing utter financial oblivion.

It is a shame the £100,000 floor wasn't introduced. It would have been very reassuring. But then why should the state prioritise three people who have lived here and contributed for 227 years when it can be welcoming in hundreds of thousands every year and splashing money in their direction annually like Father Christmas while at the same time continuing to maintain British people who have never or rarely worked. My cousin, six months younger than me, was one such. Unemployed for more than three decades by choice, two wives, neither employed, five kids paid for by us and now having been made to work since 2012 is full of "work is so great" vigour. He hasn't done anything to deplete him!

You will detect a theme here.

While the anti austerity brigade want more to have more and the people who support austerity always want more for themselves, I am saying I don't want more on principle. And what I would also say is that it in order to provide slightly more funding to vital universal services I have a reasonable expectation that others would learn to start saying that too.

My concerns which are numerous include the possibility of sectors of public services being nationalized for short periods as a gimmick before they are privatized again. Some should never have been privatized in the first place but nothing will be gained from perpetual ping pong and it will involve unnecessary expense. They include the prospect of maintaining 50% of young people at university fully paid for by those who are not related to them - a cost that would go way beyond any in earlier days when attendance was lower. Then, for the second full decade us being told that we don't have enough educated people to be GPs and all the rest. It's absolutely ridiculous. They include a vast national house building programme which I have said for years would not lower prices to an extent that will help first time buyers. Last year a number of academics in Oxford finally got round to producing work that precisely underpinned that point. And they include high interest rates that would affect both existing home owners and those wishing to own a home.

Etc.

There is plenty more in terms of principle!

[MrGongGong]

I think it's possibly a nice day tomorrow
I would go for a long walk

[Lat-Literal]

I think it's possibly a nice day tomorrow
I would go for a long walk

Thank you - I take it that the challenges from the real world I have set out have quite exhausted you. I accept it is far easier to escape to a fantasy leftfield.

[MrGongGong]

Thank you - I take it that the challenges from the real world I have set out have quite exhausted you. I accept it is far easier to escape to a fantasy leftfield.

I would say that anyone who talks about the "real world" and isn't referring to a recording studio near Bath is usually missing the point (or talking out of their arse... but i'm not 100% "serious")
Many of us have challenges
there is nothing "fantasy" or "leftfield" about changing ones perspective

[Lat-Literal]

I would say that anyone who talks about the "real world" and isn't referring to a recording studio near Bath is usually missing the point (or talking out of their arse... but i'm not 100% "serious")
Many of us have challenges
there is nothing "fantasy" or "leftfield" about changing ones perspective

What challenges do you have as a matter of interest or is your position generally one based in theoretical application as mine used to be?

You refer to a surgeon from Pakistan who saved your life. A wonderful and very charming surgeon from India saved my mother's life.

Excellent - but I don't see the political relevance unless huge numbers are advocating repatriating non EU surgeons - and they are not so.

[MrGongGong]

Nothing to add
sleep well