Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***



beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,313
highflyer said:
There is plenty of evidence that inequality in itself is problematic. Cause and correlation are contested of course, but the link between a more equal society and many other positive indicators (including GDP growth if that floats your boat) is strong.
Click to expand...

is there evidence? is any objective or subjectively extracted? or are we simply told this is bad and accept it on face value? if a person has an average income, does it really matter to them, their life and opportunities that someone else has an income 5 times or 100 times that? it seems to me a very much first world problem, for centuries the problems facing the population were survival and real abject poverty. today in the west the problem is whether you can afford a certain lifestyle.


highflyer said:
Inequality is not just a problem of those at the bottom. The accummulation of ever greater wealth at the top creates an inequality of power than undermines democracy. We see that with manipulation of the media (printed in UK, TV in US). With the ability to influence politics etc. It is telling, for instance, that current rates of tax are lower on income derived from wealth (unearned) than on Labour. And attempts to change that are inevitably shouted down in the media (inheritance tax as an example - a deeply regressive tax that is seen as politically toxic to increase)
Click to expand...

you do not need to be wealthy to start media, share news and information, so we should look more closely at other reasons to identify why there is a particular slant to media. taxes on income from wealth may be lower, have you accounted for risk? you do not acquire much income from assets without some risk of loss. we want to encourage investment, people always forget this when worrying about accumulation of wealth. remove wealth and you remove investment, as seen in every state thats tried it, so everyone is equally poor.
 




E

exKT17

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2016
337
Argyll & Bute
Gwylan said:
We should go back to 1976 - that when the UK was at its happiest, it's been downhill since then.
Click to expand...

I was 14 or 15 in 1976 and it felt like a bag of shit, far worse when I graduated from Sussex in 1982, I have absolutely no idea how I got now to be comfortably poor but happy. Decades of very hard work may have helped.

But Corbyn, if, God forbid elected will ruin everything with his la-la dreamland policies, free marshmallows for everyone and grind down on the moneymakers.God help us.
 


Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,519
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I won't argue about the gap. If you say so then fine. But like I said, its what I earn that I care about, not what someone else earns.

BUT, OK, here is the thing. Contentment, especially in the young, is a bad thing. My son has always been far too contentd. We need to feel motivated when we are young, and actually seek out greivance to spur us on. I did! It is the human condition and part of why we keep making things better. It is what sets us apart from the other animals (who live to reproduce, only, in the main, and ar largely happy to wallow in thir own shit - just visit some pigs if you are unconvinced). If being aggrieved about a wealth gap spurs people on, then good. I haven't thought this one properly through yet, so please don't deconstruct it :lolol::thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Pigs are not a good analogy. They are unable to sweat so they wallow in mud to cool themselves down. They actually defecate in a separate area to keep themselves clean.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-joy-of-pigs-smart-clean-and-lean/2126/
 


E

exKT17

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2016
337
Argyll & Bute
Thunder Bolt said:
Pigs are not a good analogy. They are unable to sweat so they wallow in mud to cool themselves down. They actually defecate in a separate area to keep themselves clean.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-joy-of-pigs-smart-clean-and-lean/2126/
Click to expand...

Agree that, why do we blame animals for the conditions we keep them in!? I even like rats, we blame them for adapting to our shitness. But that's all right cos under Jezza all the badness in our world will evanesce...
 


B

BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,357
highflyer said:
I won't deconstruct that one in detail, as I have no idea what I think. As a fellow grumpy old man, I also find myself resenting the sense of entitlement in the younger generation. Though i also understand that there are pressures and worries now that we never had to contend with.

But I'll have a go at a few responses to your general rant(s).

There is plenty of evidence that inequality in itself is problematic. Cause and correlation are contested of course, but the link between a more equal society and many other positive indicators (including GDP growth if that floats your boat) is strong.

It is not just about where we are now- it is the trends and where we are going, without some kind of policy intervention. Inequality in wealth is becoming more important than income inequality, as returns on wealth now outstrips returns on Labour (eg working, no matter how hard, will never help you catch up with someone that inherited wealth). We live in an increasingly 'rentier' economy where more and more income is returns on wealth than return on labour. And wealth inequality is growing and will continue to grow to grow without substantial intervention

Assuming you do accept that climate change is real, as well as other environmental concerns, there are big questions raised about how long we can continue growing our economy, versus more emphasis on redistribution.

Poverty, well-being, happiness. Call it what you will, but there is more to it than the simple income lines. What makes us feel happy is far more than our income, so inseurity in work, in housing and other factors in our economy are as important to many as pure poverty measures.

Inequality is not just a problem of those at the bottom. The accummulation of ever greater wealth at the top creates an inequality of power than undermines democracy. We see that with manipulation of the media (printed in UK, TV in US). With the ability to influence politics etc. It is telling, for instance, that current rates of tax are lower on income derived from wealth (unearned) than on Labour. And attempts to change that are inevitably shouted down in the media (inheritance tax as an example - a deeply regressive tax that is seen as politically toxic to increase)

I have some personal experience of how the wealthy protect themselves by exerting influence pover policy makers and it has convinced me that the concentration of wealth creates a genuine challenge to democracy, and will not end well if not challenged.I know many will say 'it has ever been thus' but I am not sure that is entirely true. The extremes we are seeing in terms of personal wealth and size and dominance of corporations the globalised nature of wealth and new technology all increase risks.

Any real challenge to the status quo is going to meet with massive resistance. As we have seen. First they will fight. Then will try and co-opt (witness the massive increase in corporate stalls at the Labour conference this year) and then someone will win...

You'd be a fool to think that the type of changes being proposed by Labour - and the type of movement and tactics that will be required to actually make that change happen - does not bring huge risks. It does, and could go very wrong. No doubt. But my view is that the alternative - allowing things to continue - may be riskier.

This is all in addition to other factors, such as the collapse in the global multuilateral system and the rise of the far right across the world, which also makes me think that a genuinely progressive government in the UK will be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Good morning grumpy old man. I am 70, but not too grumpy I hope.
I haven't got the time to reply in detail to your thoughtful post as I have to go and see my father , a truly, mega grumpy old man of 101!
The only point I would like to make is that the really wealthy/ and or those 'at the top' make up a very small percentage of the population and that by taxing them to buggery wouldn't really do a lot for inequality in real terms, even assuming the progressive Government that you would like to see would spend the extra dosh wisely.To make a real difference you are going to have to start taxing more a lot further down the food chain. This is where, for most people, it becomes more contentious and personal. If you clobber the aspirational, hard working, responsible middle income strivers, you are going to piss off an awful lot of people who, to coin a phrase, 'just want to do my best for myself and my family'. Mr Progressive Chancellor, do this at your peril.
Not all is lost, there are surely enough clever people of all political shades in this country, who could put forward a series of practical thoughts and philosophies to improve the lot of everyone, without the need to destroy ambition and aspiration amongst a whole swathe of the population, which in my humble opinion is what a Corbyn/McDonnell would do. And I haven't even touched on defence of the realm, terrorist sympathising and all the other nutty ideas that have come to light!
Off to see old mega grumpy man now.................I am very grateful he isn't running the country!:lolol::lolol:
 
Last edited:




G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,341
Uffern
beorhthelm said:
is there evidence? is any objective or subjectively extracted? or are we simply told this is bad and accept it on face value? if a person has an average income, does it really matter to them, their life and opportunities that someone else has an income 5 times or 100 times that?
Click to expand...

You're looking purely in terms of income and not of expenditure. If a person has an average income, it matters very much when the rent increases substantially.

There was a report last year, that was a bit of an eye-opener. "The generation currently aged 18-36 are typically spending over a third of their post-tax income on rent or about 12% on mortgages, compared with 5%-10% of income spent by their grandparents in the 1960s and 1970s. " If that increase in pay is swallowed up a much bigger increase in housing costs then it makes a big difference (and before anyone mentions socialist propaganda, this is from research instigated by former Tory minister, David Willetts).

But housing's not the only increase: the cost of power, water and public transport have all risen well above the rate of inflation (and the price of entertainment has risen much more - look at the cost of going to the Albion compared to the 70s. And a pint would be £1.50).

So, no, the inequality in itself doesn't matter but when the averagely-paid struggle to make ends meet, it matters very much.
 


Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,804
Hove
exKT17 said:
I was 14 or 15 in 1976 and it felt like a bag of shit, far worse when I graduated from Sussex in 1982, I have absolutely no idea how I got now to be comfortably poor but happy. Decades of very hard work may have helped.

But Corbyn, if, God forbid elected will ruin everything with his la-la dreamland policies, free marshmallows for everyone and grind down on the moneymakers.God help us.
Click to expand...

Project Fear alive and kicking.
 






beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,313
Gwylan said:
You're looking purely in terms of income and not of expenditure. If a person has an average income, it matters very much when the rent increases substantially.
Click to expand...

i am, because that is all inequity of income or wealth can measure. i recognise the problems you ae note and agree they need to be addressed, but they are not caused by or be rectified by narrowing the income or wealth gaps. rents wont reduce if the pay gap ratio reduces from 100x to 50x or whatever.
 








Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,804
Hove
Chicken Run said:
It means you’re blinkered, do I need to explain what that means?
Click to expand...

You need to explain how you came to that conclusion, I've made one post on this thread about the rhetoric matching that of Project Fear. And you're calling me blinkered? :lolol:
 








P

portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
17,617
portslade
Moshe Gariani said:
All FULLY COSTED as was the popular 2017 manifesto.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/
Click to expand...

Which wasn't at all and was trillions short on what was needed according to the BBC last night. Make the most of your money while you still have it. Those tax rises needed are going to hurt everyone. Same old Labour great at spending money they don't have
 


Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,804
Hove
portslade seagull said:
Which wasn't at all and was trillions short on what was needed according to the BBC last night. Make the most of your money while you still have it. Those tax rises needed are going to hurt everyone. Same old Labour great at spending money they don't have
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that was the banks. :thumbsup:
 










S

sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,742
portslade seagull said:
Which wasn't at all and was trillions short on what was needed according to the BBC last night. Make the most of your money while you still have it. Those tax rises needed are going to hurt everyone. Same old Labour great at spending money they don't have
Click to expand...

Interestingly I read a couple of days ago that the Conservatives have outborrowed Labour relatively speaking in their terms in Government over the last 60 years...
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here