[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Our best bits.
User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Tineash » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:01 pm

[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


Even better, execute it through a negative income tax.
"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:21 pm

[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


The thinking is that the rich wouldn't get this. You can think of it as a minimum income guaranteed to every (adult) citizen. It doesn't need to be manually means tested as it would be applied as a negative tax onto low earners. It's a simple but fair system which would cut a shitload of complication and bureaucracy. Trials with this system actually didn't show a reduction in people working, only amongst mothers.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: The north of Ireland.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Meep » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:21 pm

[iup=3577599]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:Housing benefit would be less of an issue today if Thatcher hadn't sold off the council houses.... The Tories have made this worse with the bedroom tax. By 'taxing' spare rooms they push families who can't afford this into private letting, paid for by the tax payer. This costs them more money. They're privatising social housing and then complaining about what it costs :fp: The ever decreasing stock of council houses also helps drive up the bill. In fact many of the private rentals being used are ex-council houses being rented back to the council for more money. Some owned by MPs....

But of course this bill is the poor's fault for being lazy.

We created a society were people are paid below subsistence wages and then have to be aided by the government to get by, then only to have politicians demonise them for this fact. Here is an idea; why don't we actually target the people responsible for this scandalously low pay and do something about that? No, of course not. After all, those employers are making money and the right consider wealth to be a signifier of moral worth. If your employer underpays you it's obviously your fault.

These cretins cannot be allowed another term. The damage to people's lives will be very real.

The really sad truth is that Labour will not be much different. A culture of meanness and selfishness has arisen during the last five years that is quickly eroding all civic good will and charitable sensibilities. The vulnerable have been turned into scapegoats to distract from those who actually caused the current economic situation and it has worked.
SpiderRobbo
Member
Joined in 2014

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by SpiderRobbo » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:01 pm

Hands up whos a champagne socialist
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:14 pm

[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist

I don't know which banned poster's parachute account you are, but posting form behind a proxy and making a bad post is not endearing.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Moggy » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:23 pm

[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist


I don't like champagne but if the taxpayer is paying for it then I'll try and force it down. :datass:
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Irene Demova

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Dual » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:23 pm

[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist


me
SpiderRobbo
Member
Joined in 2014

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by SpiderRobbo » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:12 pm

[iup=3578552]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist

I don't know which banned poster's parachute account you are, but posting form behind a proxy and making a bad post is not endearing.


PC supremacy
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:27 pm

[iup=3578599]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578552]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist

I don't know which banned poster's parachute account you are, but posting form behind a proxy and making a bad post is not endearing.


PC supremacy

Well they are pretty good.
User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Tineash » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:45 pm

[iup=3578614]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578599]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578552]Winckle[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3578546]SpiderRobbo[/iup] wrote:Hands up whos a champagne socialist

I don't know which banned poster's parachute account you are, but posting form behind a proxy and making a bad post is not endearing.


PC supremacy

Well they are pretty good.


strawberry floating welsh nationalists.
"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Hime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:29 pm

Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


The thinking is that the rich wouldn't get this. You can think of it as a minimum income guaranteed to every (adult) citizen. It doesn't need to be manually means tested as it would be applied as a negative tax onto low earners. It's a simple but fair system which would cut a shitload of complication and bureaucracy. Trials with this system actually didn't show a reduction in people working, only amongst mothers.

Wouldn't increasing the basic income just result in inflation going up?
Image
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:34 pm

[iup=3578751]Hime[/iup] wrote:
Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


The thinking is that the rich wouldn't get this. You can think of it as a minimum income guaranteed to every (adult) citizen. It doesn't need to be manually means tested as it would be applied as a negative tax onto low earners. It's a simple but fair system which would cut a shitload of complication and bureaucracy. Trials with this system actually didn't show a reduction in people working, only amongst mothers.

Wouldn't increasing the basic income just result in inflation going up?


Assuming it's funded through taxation and not borrowing, no.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Winckle
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Winckle » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:46 pm

No you see poors can't have money because *reaches into bag of excuses* inflation.
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Hime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:47 pm

Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3578751]Hime[/iup] wrote:
Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


The thinking is that the rich wouldn't get this. You can think of it as a minimum income guaranteed to every (adult) citizen. It doesn't need to be manually means tested as it would be applied as a negative tax onto low earners. It's a simple but fair system which would cut a shitload of complication and bureaucracy. Trials with this system actually didn't show a reduction in people working, only amongst mothers.

Wouldn't increasing the basic income just result in inflation going up?


Assuming it's funded through taxation and not borrowing, no.

Excuse my ignorance but why would that make a difference? People having more money to spend would likely result in the price of goods going up wouldn't it?

Also, when you say that it would be funded by taxation I assume this is a wealth distribution scheme which means massive taxation of those deemed as rich?
Image
User avatar
Return_of_the_STAR
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Northampton

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Return_of_the_STAR » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:52 pm

I've never understood the more disposable income equals inflation argument. I simply don't believe this to be true.

The are many countries around the world that have higher family incomes than us yet it many case prices are cheaper.

The theory has always been that if everyone had more money then companies would put up prices so that they could charge more for their products but another way of looking at it is that they wouldn't need to as if people have more money then they will simply buy more, go out more. If takings and sale go up then a business wouldn't need to start charging more for their products, in fact it may lead to price drops and more competition enters the market to try to get a slice of the spending.
Image

GRAPL Heavyweight Champion 2010, Runner Up 2017, tag team Champion 2011, 2015, Wrestlemania PPV Winner 2012 and your current all time highest GRAPL points scorer.
Fixture feeling champion 2013.

I'm a Paul Heyman guy!
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Hime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:24 pm

Winckle wrote:No you see poors can't have money because *reaches into bag of excuses* inflation.

Eh? Is such a dramatic change to the current economical model not allowed to be discussed because obviously giving more money to the poor equals better?
Image
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Hime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:28 pm

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I've never understood the more disposable income equals inflation argument. I simply don't believe this to be true.

The are many countries around the world that have higher family incomes than us yet it many case prices are cheaper.

The theory has always been that if everyone had more money then companies would put up prices so that they could charge more for their products but another way of looking at it is that they wouldn't need to as if people have more money then they will simply buy more, go out more. If takings and sale go up then a business wouldn't need to start charging more for their products, in fact it may lead to price drops and more competition enters the market to try to get a slice of the spending.

Either could be true, that's why the question was worth asking.
Image
User avatar
Fatal Exception
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Racist chinese lover
Location: ಠ_ಠ

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Fatal Exception » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:35 pm

[iup=3578779]Hime[/iup] wrote:
Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3578751]Hime[/iup] wrote:
Fatal Exception wrote:
[iup=3577867]ianf[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3577535]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:The solution to this is UBI, but you won't hear anything about that from anyone other than actual left wing parties like The Greens.

That's an interesting idea, I'd never heard of it before today.

So is the thinking that the costs and relative pointlessness of giving the rich a sum of money would be outweighed by the cut in beauracracy that comes from means testing?


The thinking is that the rich wouldn't get this. You can think of it as a minimum income guaranteed to every (adult) citizen. It doesn't need to be manually means tested as it would be applied as a negative tax onto low earners. It's a simple but fair system which would cut a shitload of complication and bureaucracy. Trials with this system actually didn't show a reduction in people working, only amongst mothers.

Wouldn't increasing the basic income just result in inflation going up?


Assuming it's funded through taxation and not borrowing, no.

Excuse my ignorance but why would that make a difference? People having more money to spend would likely result in the price of goods going up wouldn't it?

Also, when you say that it would be funded by taxation I assume this is a wealth distribution scheme which means massive taxation of those deemed as rich?


Inflation is caused by governments printing money, not equality (They 'make' more, so what you have is worth less). You might see a few prices go up once the system is in place, but then things would equalise.

You'd have a similar tax system to what we have now, which scales the more you earn.
The above post, unless specifically stated to the contrary, should not be taken seriously. If the above post has offended you in any way, please fill in this form and return it to your nearest moderator.
Image
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: The north of Ireland.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Meep » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:04 pm

If most people were better off (better equality in other words) I would expect basic commodities like food to become marginally more expensive, because there would be less pressure on supermarkets and such to lower prices, whilst things like luxury electronics (basically anything people do not have to buy) would actually go down in order to take advantage of a larger market. For example, if the UK had a larger potential market for a new console or whatever then it could be launched at a lower price and still make better returns.
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread
by Hime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:18 pm

Where does the extra money come from? I find it hard to believe we could be taxed the same and have massive subsidies. What is the ideal 'level' for lack of a better word of the UBI, as in are we talking a basic living wage or enough to have a decent amount of disposable income?
Image

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests