49 reasons never to vote Labour . . .

123457»

Comments

  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What by pretending income inequality is not a growing problem by focusing on a temporary blip of falling income inequaity and disregarding the causes for that blip and that the trend is rising income inequality which going forward is expected to carry on increasing. And by viewing the increasing absolute poverty of working age people which is also expected to carry on increasing going forward, and the growing inequality in accumalated weath, as not being worthy of discussion.
    .

    Who's pretending? There's been zero discussion about the future. I made a simple remark that income inequality was falling which I was challenged on and which you then confirmed. Thanks.

    I also gave a massive hint to another poster that if he really wanted to argue the toss on this issue to look at why income inequality was falling - which you, and for reasons that in themselves speak volumes - only you, did.

    As for your final para, I've never said that accumulated wealth is not worthy of discussion. I've simply said (repeatedly) that it's not the way that inequality is most commonly measured. And you ('cos you're obviously intelligent), will know why. Unlike income inequality, it's staggeringly difficult to measure. It's also boringly predictable to the point of being almost redundant. You could have income growing 5 times faster at the bottom than the top and it would still be decades, if not centuries, before wealth inequality would be reversed. For those who like to know how wealth is distributed - it's useful. For those who like to know who, comparatively, is doing better - it's not.

    For me, the real question (the one that never gets asked) about accumulated wealth is what is all that money doing?
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    While the recession caused a drop in inequality the expectation going forward is rising inequality and increasing numbers of working age people in absolute poverty.

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r81.pdf

    If someone earning two hundred thousand pounds a year loses twenty-five per cent of their income, they are still left with one hundred and fifty thousand a year. More than sufficient to pay for their daily foie gras and caviar sandwiches, but if someone on minimum wage loses twenty-five per cent of their wages, it will mean the difference between homelessness and somewhere to live.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You keep banging on about income inequality, but you haven't addressed the fact that people more and more people are having to rely on the state to support them. People are not able to earn enough to put food on their tables, a roof over their families' heads and keep themselves warm in the winter, without the state having to subsidise the profits of their employers. Whilst the collective wealth, of the top one per cent, has double since the financial crisis.

    Because we haven't even been talking about it. The last time I spoke to you, you still hadn't agreed that under the general defintions of inequality, the gap between the poor and the rich had been falling.

    One thing at a time - eh?
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    The point you keep missing is that those discussions focus on different measures of Income Inequality NOT Wealth Inequality.

    One more time - From the IFS.



    Can you see the phrase "Wealth Inequality" anywhere in that section? No, me neither. In fact, in the 137 page report on Living standards, poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2012 (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), the phrase "Wealth Inequality" isn't mentioned at all. Not once. By contrast there is an entire chapter devoted to Income Inequality.

    Which is why I asked the poster to prove that "wealth" inequality is a more widely accepted measure of Inequality (i.e. "the gap between the rich and the poor") than various measures of Income inequality. In other words, to prove that the approach the IFS (and by dint, the JRF and all those out there using the "most widely used" Gini Coefficient) are adopting is wrong and that we shouldn't be measuring inequality in terms of income, but wealth. I'm still looking forward to the reply...

    You really ought to read the quotes you post:
    Chapter 3 – Income Inequality
    Most people would define inequality as the gap between rich and poor. However, it is remarkably difficult to define precise measures of inequality that everyone can agree on. For this reason, we have always stressed the importance of looking at a range of inequality measures. The most widely used measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1 with higher levels indicating higher levels of inequality.

    ...the gap between rich and poor.... kind of implies that it is alluding to the difference between people who have lots of money, i.e. the rich and people who have little or none, i.e. the poor.
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    DTee has nailed the debate regarding inequality.

    Err, no......no he hasn't.
  • spotty_catspotty_cat Posts: 557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ennerjee wrote: »
    1) Up to 50 thousand 'excess' deaths were recorded at hospitals during the last Labour Goverment. (Research by Sir Brian Jarman of Imperial College).

    2) The 'Bedroom Tax' was part of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 proposed by Labour.

    3) Between 1997 to 2010 gas prices rose 133% and electricity prices rose 69%. Why would the public ever trust Labour on energy prices again?.

    4) The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility).

    5) Labour spent £148.7 million on a National Measurements Office which forces traders to measure their goods in kilograms rather than pounds.

    6) The Royal Mail is now sold because of EU Postal Directive 2008/6/EC, brought in by the last Labour government.

    7) Council Tax doubled under Labour - 105% increase in England, 146% Wales. (The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy: 26/03/09).

    8) In 2012/13 Labour councils employed nearly 23,000 people on zero-hour contracts.

    9) £660 million has been cut from Labour run NHS Wales over the last three years according to the Welsh TUC.

    10) When Labour came to power in 1997, spending on NHS managers was less than £190m. By 2010 this had increased by 450% to over £1bn per year.

    11) Labour wasted £11bn of taxpayers money on a failed IT project which was eventually scrapped by the NHS in 2013.

    12) Labour lumbered the NHS with vast PFI repayments - £50 billion worth of loans which are costing £300 billion in repayments.

    13) It was the Labour Party who awarded the DWP Medical Services Contract to ATOS on the 15th March 2005.

    14) Labour started the privatisation of the NHS. They brought in the 2006 NHS Act that introduced competition into the NHS.

    15) Labour introduced competition into the NHS: Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 & Public Sector Procurement Regulations 2006.

    16) In 2006 Gordon Brown cut the flood defence budget by £14 million.

    17) Youth unemployment rose by more than 40% during Labour's 13 years in office.

    18) Total stock of social housing fell under Labour - 421,000 homes were lost from the social housing stock between 1997 and 2010.

    19) British manufacturing grew by 28% between 1980 and 1997. Then, under Labour, it shrank by 6%: falling from 20% of GDP to just 11%.

    20) Labour left a deficit of £156 billion, PFI liability of £301 billion, EU Rebate loss £9.3 billion, Sold the Gold loss £6 billion.

    21) The last Labour government spent so much money on Labour cronies that it had a 5% structural deficit at the height of the boom.

    22) The use of food banks went up tenfold under Labour. From 3,000 users in 2005/06 to over 40,000 by 2009/10. (The Trussell Trust/C4 FactCheck).

    23) When Labour's Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007, UK public debt was 44.1% of GDP. When he left in 2010, it was 148.1%.

    24) Only 6,330 council houses were completed from 1998 to 2010 under Labour, compared with 17,710 in 1990 alone - Thatcher's final year as PM.

    25) Tony Blair gave away a chunk of the UK's EU rebate estimated now to have cost the UK £9.3 billion between 2007-2013.

    26) In 2010 Gordon Brown branded Rochdale voter Gillian Duffy "a bigoted woman" for daring to voice her concern about uncontrolled immigration.

    27) Labour are now complaining about gambling. But they were the ones who wanted to build Super Casinos in some of the poorest areas in Britain.

    28) Labour closed more mines in 5 years than Thatcher did in 11 years.. 211 mines closed under Wilson 1965-70.. 154 under Thatcher 1979-90.

    29) Under Labour zero hour contracts increased by 74% between 2004 - 2009.

    30) Since Labour liberalised the law in 2000 to allow postal voting on demand, the number of postal voting fraud in Labour areas has soared.

    31) Labour wants to charge patients. Lord Warner said people should pay a £10-a-month fee to use NHS/£20 for every night they stay in hospital.

    32) Labour signed the Lisbon Treaty which gave away powers to the EU and reduced UK sovereignty and the power of our Westminster Parliament.

    33) Labour were responsible for the rise in payday lenders. Now they are campaigning against them.

    34) Labour presided over the slowest growth in 50 years and produced the fastest decline in British manufacturing since manufacturing began.

    35) Labour destroyed our border controls then with the help of the BBC denounced anybody who voiced concerns about mass immigration as racists.

    36) Labour councils are the biggest users of zero contracts.

    37) Under Labour between 1997 to 2010 the gap between rich and poor got wider.

    38) The last Labour government doubled the rate of income tax on the lowest paid.

    39) Labour claims to be the party of the working man, but they have absolutely destroyed the working class through mass immigration.

    40) Labour MPs to remember: Denis MacShane (jailed), David Chaytor (jailed), Eric Illsley (jailed), Elliot Morley (jailed), Jim Devine (jailed).

    41) Blair invaded Iraq and Brown invaded the Treasury, both actions crippled us.

    42) Labour opposes democracy in Britain by denying the British people a referendum on EU membership.

    43) Labour Party Manifesto Pledge 2001: 'We will not introduce top-up fees'.

    44) One of the reasons for high energy prices is EU driven 'Green Taxes' brought in by the last Labour government.

    45) It was Labour under Blair who handed control of British food regulation to the EU, (Regulation EC no 178/2002).

    46) Remember when Tony Blair and Labour essentially traded guns for access to oil with Libya.

    47) The Labour Party paid only £14,000 in tax last year on total income of £33.3 million. (The Spectator, 30/07/2014).

    48) If Ed Miliband can easily stab his own brother in the back, imagine what he will do to us if he ever becomes Prime Minister.

    49) (Illegal?) Wars.

    I think you're concerned Labour will get in next year. I can't think of another reason for this claptrap.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If someone earning two hundred thousand pounds a year loses twenty-five per cent of their income, they are still left with one hundred and fifty thousand a year. More than sufficient to pay for their daily foie gras and caviar sandwiches, but if someone on minimum wage loses twenty-five per cent of their wages, it will mean the difference between homelessness and somewhere to live.

    But that £50,000 cut in income would mean a £24,000 less paid in tax.
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    But that £50,000 cut in income would mean a £24,000 less paid in tax.

    How does that affect the gap between rich and poor? I was debating the difference between how much a rich person gets paid and how much a poor person earns and what the effect of losing equal proportions of their income would have on their lives.

    FYI, The loss in income tax would be £22,500 not £24,000. ;-)
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How does that affect the gap between rich and poor? I was debating the difference between how much a rich person gets paid and how much a poor person earns and what the effect of losing equal proportions of their income would have on their lives.

    FYI, The loss in income tax would be £22,500 not £24,000. ;-)

    I was also including NI. And rounding a bit. Plus there would be the loss of VAT an other taxes that they would have paid on that lost £50,000.

    In your example the "gap" between rich and poor may have come down but the country as a whole would be worse off. If we were all equally poor then there would be no gap at all but would that be a good thing?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,772
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The number one reason not to vote Tory is the same as the number 1 reason not to vote Labour.

    1/ Neo-Liberalism.
  • Omniconsumer93Omniconsumer93 Posts: 735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Reasons not to vote Tory:

    1. They're Tories.
    2. They all love Thatcher.
    3. David Cameron.
    4. Rampant Homophobia.
    5. They don't care about the working class.
  • SoppyfanSoppyfan Posts: 29,911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Reasons not to vote Tory:

    1. They're Tories.
    2. They all love Thatcher.
    3. David Cameron.
    4. Rampant Homophobia.
    5. They don't care about the working class.

    That sums up all parties in a nutshell.
Sign In or Register to comment.