The Politics Thread 4

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by lex-man » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:50 pm

I think the thing people forget when talking about taxation is that the only reason they can earn money is because we have a government. The work the government does massively improves all our lives and with out it we'd be back to a barter system. Money only exists because of the government.

User avatar
Cribs
Member
Joined in 2015

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Cribs » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:23 pm

Regginator3 wrote:Taking 10% is half as wrong as taking 20%, to me. Because by taking 10%, you're taking away one tenth of someone's income, by taking 20% you're taking a whole fifth. There is a demonstrable impact on someone's life between the two rates, especially on someone who is on a poorer income.


Are we just ignoring personal allowance?

Or, if we're talking corporation tax, why is anyone who could be considered struggling still running a company?

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by lex-man » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:50 pm

Cribs wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Taking 10% is half as wrong as taking 20%, to me. Because by taking 10%, you're taking away one tenth of someone's income, by taking 20% you're taking a whole fifth. There is a demonstrable impact on someone's life between the two rates, especially on someone who is on a poorer income.


Are we just ignoring personal allowance?

Or, if we're talking corporation tax, why is anyone who could be considered struggling still running a company?


If some bodies struggling shouldn't the government help them. Also I don't think the the difference between 10 and 20 would be that great when the wages get large enough. Your life style wouldnt change much by having 90k or 80k a year to play with.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by KK » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:51 pm

Mail On Sunday:

'He grabbed her hips, pulled her hair and forced his thumb into her mouth in a sexual way': Murdered MP Jo Cox's husband was reported to police over sex assault claim in Harvard bar - nine months before his wife's death

- Woman reported Brendan Cox to U.S. police, claiming he assaulted her late at night at Harvard University in 2015; Mr Cox strongly denies the allegation

-In report filed by police, she claims Mr Cox ‘grabbed [the woman] by the hips several times... forced his thumb into her mouth in a sexual way’; ‘touched her inappropriately’ in a restaurant

- Complaint came soon after Mr Cox quit as senior exec with Save The Children in 2015 following separate claims of inappropriate behaviour towards staff

A new charity sex scandal erupted last night after it emerged that the husband of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox was once accused of groping a senior US government official.

The woman reported Brendan Cox to American police, claiming he assaulted her late at night at Harvard University – although Mr Cox strongly denies the allegation.

Her complaint came soon after Mr Cox quit as a senior executive with the Save The Children in 2015 following separate claims of inappropriate behaviour towards staff.

According to a report filed by police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the woman claims Mr Cox:

‘Grabbed [the woman] by the hips several times, pulled her hair and forced his thumb into her mouth in a sexual way’;

‘Touched her inappropriately’ in a restaurant and tried to ‘push’ her into drinking more alcohol;

‘Pulled her towards him and touched her stomach’ despite her telling him to stop;

Texted her later, asking: ‘Are you touching yourself?’

The woman was so upset she ‘couldn’t even look at Mr Cox’. She also said she ‘feared repercussions’ from him. In the police report, seen by The Mail on Sunday, the ‘incident type/offence’ is described as ‘indecent assault and battery on person 14 or over.’

Mr Cox’s lawyers last night said he denies the ‘spurious allegations’ and says no sexual assault took place.

This newspaper knows the identity of the woman, who is in her thirties, and has decided to protect her anonymity.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... claim.html

Image
User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Grumpy David » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:17 am

Third opinion poll showing an increase in the Tory lead over Labour.

Have I missed out on recent political events? What explains this?

User avatar
Benzin
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Benzin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:51 am

Corbyn is a bit useless?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:56 am

Benzin wrote:Corbyn is a bit useless?


That’s unfair, it’s not just Corbyn. There’s also McDonnell and Abbott.

User avatar
Vermilion
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Vermilion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:06 am

Moggy wrote:That’s unfair, it’s not just Corbyn. There’s also McDonnell and Abbott.


...and that rabble of extremists calling themselves Momentum.

ImageImage
Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by KK » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:21 am

If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.

Maybe there’s also been an increase in support from women because of the suffragettes being back in the news, and May gave some good speeches on that.

The anti-semitism hovering over Labour hasn’t helped either.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:32 am

KK wrote:If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.


I mostly agree with your points there but the Rees-Mogg thing really does show how anti-Corbyn the press are.

The first punch was one of Mogg’s people hitting a woman. The same guy who seems to enjoy dressing up as an SS officer.

Corbyn/Momentum might be twats, but let’s not pretend Rees-Mogg and his people are poor innocents.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:33 am

lex-man wrote:I think the thing people forget when talking about taxation is that the only reason they can earn money is because we have a government. The work the government does massively improves all our lives and with out it we'd be back to a barter system. Money only exists because of the government.


I feel like I'm missing something here. I'm not an advocate for getting rid of government - we need one, I think only the most ardent anarchist would claim we literally do not need one - but why if we did would we be back to a barter system? Just because the government introduced it doesn't mean a country would stop being able to use existing money afterwards. There would be a lot of other problems caused, but that would not be one of them. Money doesn't "only exist because of the government". Would companies in the UK suddenly stop deciding to accept the pound as legal tender, and ruin their market reach? No. Would they stop paying their workers in money and letting them die of poverty? No. Would individuals stop deciding to use money and... I dunno, have to choose between growing their own crops or dying of poverty? No. There's no evidence that money in a government-less system wouldn't work. How well it would work, we have no idea, because it's never been tried before. I personally wouldn't like to be part of that experiment, but I doubt the money would be the issue.

Assuming the Bank of England wouldn't exist, we'd actually have a deflationary currency, which has its own problems (such as contracts being incredibly difficult to sort out/resolve since the value would always be going up) but would arguably be better in the system we're in where inflation rates dwarf interest rates meaning people who "save" money in "savings accounts" are literally losing money over time because although the amount of £ they have go up, it's by less than the value decreases.

Cribs wrote:Are we just ignoring personal allowance?

lex-man wrote:If some bodies struggling shouldn't the government help them. Also I don't think the the difference between 10 and 20 would be that great when the wages get large enough. Your life style wouldnt change much by having 90k or 80k a year to play with.


Yes, personal allowance is a good thing. I'm glad governments have risen it significantly. The point was more to demonstrate how tax rates can hit someone. Even if someone is earning, let's say, £20k (which is less than I do), even including the personal allowance the amount of tax taken would be, after April this year, 20% of (£20000 - £11500). Which works out at £1700 in tax. For someone on this low wage, if it were 10% (hypothetically) it would be £850. An £850 loss to someone earning that much, when bills, rent, living costs, and other financial costs is actually pretty damn life-style changing because disposable income goes down significantly. You're right that on a high wage, having 90k/80k to play with wouldn't be a big difference, but we get higher tax rates as the wages increase. Any earnings over £45,000 up to £150,000 have a 40% tax rate, and any earnings over that have 45%. So if you're on "£200k a year" salary, you actually end up paying (as of right now):

45% of (200000 - 150000) = £22500
40% of (150000 - 45000) = £42000 +
20% of (45000 - 11500) = £6700

= £71200 in tax, making your "actual" salary around £128800 Still definitely a very good salary, and I would personally be extremely happy with that amount, but the amount taken is significant when you know your work is worth £200k to a company. I don't expect many people to be shedding tears for these people since they're hardly struggling, and I'm certainly not, but I still consider it pretty high.

Cribs wrote:Or, if we're talking corporation tax, why is anyone who could be considered struggling still running a company?

What do you mean here? As in, if a company is struggling to shouldn't continue, or if a person in charge is struggling, they should be forbidden from running it? If so, why to either if profit is still being made?

Moggy wrote:
KK wrote:If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.


I mostly agree with your points there but the Rees-Mogg thing really does show how anti-Corbyn the press are.

The first punch was one of Mogg’s people hitting a woman. The same guy who seems to enjoy dressing up as an SS officer.

Corbyn/Momentum might be twats, but let’s not pretend Rees-Mogg and his people are poor innocents.


The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

User avatar
satriales
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by satriales » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:36 am

Benzin wrote:Corbyn is a bit useless?

I really think the media has a lot to answer for. Labour have done quite a good job recently at winning votes and forcing u-turns but sometimes those aren't even reported in the papers and I've rarely seen them mentioned on TV.

Corbyn is not like most politicians in that he doesn't dish out personal attacks. For some that is a good thing, for others it looks like he's useless. They focus on policy and it just isn't 'exciting' enough to make the news.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:38 am

Vermilion wrote:
Moggy wrote:That’s unfair, it’s not just Corbyn. There’s also McDonnell and Abbott.


...and that rabble of extremists calling themselves Momentum.

And it's not just "useless", though, it's "toxic".

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:42 am

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.


We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:51 am

Moggy wrote:
The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.


We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:53 am

Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:
The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.


We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.


They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:05 am

Moggy wrote:They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

In masked balaclavas. Mogg then went over to them to try and politely engage in debate with them. Rather than actually try and talk to him when he made the effort of actually going up to them and trying to engage in respectful discussion, they yelled stuff like "GET OFF OUR CAMPUS" and "YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE" and "FASCIST SCUM" while getting closer and closer to him. If that's not intimidation trying to stop his speech, I have no idea what is. I'd consider that violence, absolutely.

The guy came up later.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:07 am

Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

In masked balaclavas. Mogg then went over to them to try and politely engage in debate with them. Rather than actually try and talk to him when he made the effort of actually going up to them and trying to engage in respectful discussion, they yelled stuff like "GET OFF OUR CAMPUS" and "YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE" and "FASCIST SCUM" while getting closer and closer to him. If that's not intimidation trying to stop his speech, I have no idea what is. I'd consider that violence, absolutely.

The guy came up later.


Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by KK » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:12 am

Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.

2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'

Image
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:19 am

Moggy wrote:Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

"Speaking out of turn" and intimidation are two wholly separate things.


Return to “Stuff”