Jeremy Corbyn.

Castello said:

This is where you are quite wrong. The whole raft of privatisations ranging from utilities, BT and railways to the Post Office and the NHS have been a direct transfer from the public sector where money is spent on services to the private sector where a profit motive is the bottom line. In the few examples where a profit wasnt made the private sector has walked away from their contracts breaking them, and leaving the tax payer to pick up the pieces.

Click to expand...

firstly you were talking about taxation, now you are talking about assets. secondly, those assets are not being transfered from poor to rich, but from state to private ownership. from an economics point of view, rather than political, there's clear differences between these notions. i know you dont recognise the difference of the distinction, which is half the problem with left/right debates, that the left will tell us white is aubergine as it suits their agenda to confuse the general public. as the state sector is funded majority by the higher earners (it is), really at best you could argue there is a transfer from the moderatly wealthy to other moderatly wealthy, from state ownership to social ownership via pensions. its funny because this is whats going on in the German and French "state ownership" earlier on, where the state assets are more openly acknowleged to be owned by public and private companies whose shareholders are pensions and insurers.

beorhthelm said:

firstly you were talking about taxation, now you are talking about assets. secondly, those assets are not being transfered from poor to rich, but from state to private ownership. from an economics point of view, rather than political, there's clear differences between these notions. i know you dont recognise the difference of the distinction, which is half the problem with left/right debates, that the left will tell us white is aubergine as it suits their agenda to confuse the general public. as the state sector is funded majority by the higher earners (it is), really at best you could argue there is a transfer from the moderatly wealthy to other moderatly wealthy, from state ownership to social ownership via pensions. its funny because this is whats going on in the German and French "state ownership" earlier on, where the state assets are more openly acknowleged to be owned by public and private companies whose shareholders are pensions and insurers.

Click to expand...

First of all I wasn't talking about taxation. I was talking about the transfer of resources. These resources are provided by tax payers, which is what I said. The funding of the NHS is overwhelmigly provided by taxation of some form. I accept that the post office and utilities were different kinds of privatisations. However with the transfer of service provision that is happening not just in the NHS but throughout local and central government, the funding of contracts is from taxation. I highlighted the NHS but the same points could be made about public sector housing, social care, education and so on.

You talk about a transfer from the moderately wealthy to the moderately wealthy. I dont know what your income is, but Im guessing it must be a great deal more than mine to define Virgin and Serco as moderately wealthy. Serco is a FTSE 250 company and operates in Continental Europe, the Middle East, the Asia Pacific region and North America, but the majority of its turnover comes from the UK. I don't think Richard Branson would call himself moderately wealthy and certainly I would struggle to call Virgin a moderately wealthy company. Conversely someone on 15k pa couldn't be called moderately wealthy. and yet its still their tax money that is being used to add to sercos and Virgins profits.

You may choose to muddy the waters by makes semantic arguments, but the reality is if we pay the same amount of tax and see it not being used to provide services, but instead being handed over to private companies that is a transfer of resources from poor to rich. Some are moderately large some are gigantic. Some give donations to the Tory party, a few fund the Labour party and some dont make political donations but employ lobbyists to get what they want through parliament. You may like this. I think it stinks and is corrupt.

However you put it or try to confuse the argument, the reality is this is what capitalism does. it takes from ordinary people and creates small pockets of extreme wealth. It doesn't change the essential argument I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy in your original point.

I have learned, however that it is pointless having this core argument with the right. We will not agree. You are entitled to your opinion and I believe you should express it. I'm just not going to waste time having it. Lets leave it at that.

beorhthelm said:

where you are quite wrong is the notion that there is any politcally directed transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Click to expand...

Castello said:

However you put it or try to confuse the argument, the reality is this is what capitalism does. it takes from ordinary people and creates small pockets of extreme wealth. It doesn't change the essential argument I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy in your original point.

Click to expand...

I think its hard to argue against the fact that capitalism makes rich people richer at the expense of the poor, through whatever means that may be. So whilst there maybe no direct political will to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, a political will that wants more 'capitalism' would result in just that IMO.

Castello said:

...the reality is if we pay the same amount of tax and see it not being used to provide services, but instead being handed over to private companies that is a transfer of resources from poor to rich.

Click to expand...

there the rub, provision of services. it's clear they arent always great under private mangment, but reality is its not always great under public managment. the transfer you insist on saying is from poor to rich isnt occuring in you examples, as the poor do not own the assets in the first place. they are owned by the state, therefore by everyone. transfer of an asset from one ownership to another is not redistribution, that is a matter where taxation to takes from the rich to the poor (it simply doesnt happn in reverse as by definition it cannot, otherwise they cant be poor if they have assets, wealth, substantial income etc).

pb21 said:

I think its hard to argue against the fact that capitalism makes rich people richer at the expense of the poor, through whatever means that may be. So whilst there maybe no direct political will to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, a political will that wants more 'capitalism' would result in just that IMO.

Click to expand...

capitialism is about the model of ownership and distribution, not who has it at the expense of others. capitalist nations can say they have uniformly improved the wealth and well being of everyone, even if some have gained more than others. often in many ways that not measured in typical economic metrics, so the benefits are not properly realised. there are no group in todays society that are worse off than they would have been a couple of generations ago. the argument of the left is that the improvements must be more equal, even though the effort and risks from endevours and enterprise are not born equally. the far left wont even let you carry out those extra efforts in case you are better off, holding everyone to a common norm. countries that tried this a generally worse off after a few generations (accepted the recognised general wellbeing of the people of Cuba is an interesting exception).

to go back to the ealier point of left/right views, the really interesting one is China, politically left wing with a penchant for central control and direction, yet with a firmly capitalist approach to how to deliver since the 80s. and the people are far better off than they were before then, after decades of poverty. the point im making here, and earlier, is that theres more to left/right than simply spending plans, theres the notion of control, directing the population or leaving them largly to their own devices.

Herr Tubthumper said:

Us two repeating the same arguments must be as utterly boring for you as it is for everyone else. Let's end it.

Click to expand...

i would just like to point out as one of the "everyone else" that i am not bored in the slightest.

i am quite enjoying Cunning dismantle your JCL approach to socialism...........now where did i put that popcorn?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...he-rich-and-the-gap-is-widening-10353954.html

The poorest families in the UK are losing more of their income in tax than any other income group, official statistics have revealed, putting pressure on the government not to risk exacerbating inequality by cutting tax credits in next week’s budget.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics today showed the poorest fifth of households paid 37.8 per cent of their income in taxes last year, while the richest fifth paid 34.8 per cent.

The gap between the two income groups widened compared to the previous year and comes at the same time as an increasing number of Conservatives are calling on George Osborne to cut the top rate of income tax as he makes his final touches to his first budget of the new parliament.


Frances O'Grady of the TUC said the figures demonstrated why changes are needed to the tax system Frances O'Grady of the TUC said the figures demonstrated why changes are needed to the tax system Labour said the figures demonstrated why the Chancellor must rule out a cut in tax credits, which prop up the incomes of the lowest paid workers, while the TUC said the figures proved the case for an overhaul of the UK’s tax system.

Although Britain’s progressive income tax system takes more from the rich than lower earners, regressive taxes such as VAT and council tax hit those on lower incomes the hardest.

It meant the richest fifth of the population paid £29,200 in direct and indirect taxes last year, while the poorest fifth paid £4,900.

Chris Leslie, Labour’s shadow Chancellor, told The Independent: “These figures underline the fact that many people on middle and lower-incomes are still struggling to pay the bills.

“Yet now George Osborne is planning to reduce tax credits for millions of working people.

“And, after months of ducking questions about a top rate tax cut, he must now rule out another giveaway for the very highest earners.”

Chris Leslie, the shadow Chancellor, called on George Osborne to rule out a cut to the top rate of income tax Chris Leslie, the shadow Chancellor, called on George Osborne to rule out a cut to the top rate of income tax However, in the five years since David Cameron became Prime Minister, the tax burden between rich and poor has narrowed. In the first year of the coalition the poorest fifth of households paid 38.2 per cent of their income to the taxman, with the richest fifth paid just 33.6 per cent.

The ONS figures also revealed that more than half of households received more from the state in welfare payments and pensions than they pay in tax last year – equivalent to 13.7 million families.

This represents a fall on the previous year but remains above the proportions seen before the economic downturn.

Adam Memon, head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies, said the figures demonstrated that the level of welfare dependency remained an “economically destructive phenomenon which tears at Britain’s social fabric”.

A report by the thinktank highlighted the “churn” in the benefits system, in which the average household paid £13, 402 in taxes but received £12,939 in cash benefits and benefits in kind.

Its analysis supports the case for reforming the £30bn tax credits system, which is widely expected to fall victim to a large proportion of the £12bn of welfare cuts in Mr Osborne’s budget. Adam Memon, head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies, said the figures demonstrated that the level of welfare dependency remained an “economically destructive phenomenon which tears at Britain’s social fabric”.

A report by the thinktank highlighted the “churn” in the benefits system, in which the average household paid £13, 402 in taxes but received £12,939 in cash benefits and benefits in kind.

Its analysis supports the case for reforming the £30bn tax credits system, which is widely expected to fall victim to a large proportion of the £12bn of welfare cuts in Mr Osborne’s budget.

Last week David Cameron called for an end to the “merry-go-round" of the low paid handing tax to the Treasury only to get it back in welfare payments.

The Chancellor faces a tough balancing act, with reports that up to 160 Tory MPs are mounting pressure on him to cut the top rate of income tax from 45p to 40p.

Cutting income tax for those earning more than £150,000 at the same time as slashing tax credits would leave Mr Osborne open to accusations of hypocrisy over his government’s claim to be ushering in a new “blue collar” Conservative message.

Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said: “There can be no argument for reducing taxes for the richest when they are already contributing a smaller share of their income than the poorest.

“The government should instead be looking at how the wealthiest can make a fairer contribution to improving the public finances.

“Without tax credits, the low-paid would be much worse off. It will be a disaster for millions of families if the government rushes ahead with plans for extreme cuts to support for people in work. They should focus instead on the investment needed to get productivity growing and wages rising.”

A Treasury spokesperson said: "Today’s figures show that income inequality remains below its pre-crisis level and our tax and benefits polices proving instrumental in helping those most in need.

"With over half a million more people in work and real household incomes rising by over four per cent since the March 2013 cut-off for these figures, it’s clear that the government’s long term plan is set to go on delivering a better economic future for working people.”

pastafarian said:

i would just like to point out as one of the "everyone else" that i am not bored in the slightest.

i am quite enjoying Cunning dismantle your JCL approach to socialism...........now where did i put that popcorn?

Click to expand...

Saying the same thing repeatedly is hardly "dismantling." I'd suggest it's more Aspergers.

Dandyman said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...he-rich-and-the-gap-is-widening-10353954.html

The poorest families in the UK are losing more of their income in tax than any other income group, official statistics have revealed, putting pressure on the government not to risk exacerbating inequality by cutting tax credits in next week’s budget.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics today showed the poorest fifth of households paid 37.8 per cent of their income in taxes last year, while the richest fifth paid 34.8 per cent.

The gap between the two income groups widened compared to the previous year and comes at the same time as an increasing number of Conservatives are calling on George Osborne to cut the top rate of income tax as he makes his final touches to his first budget of the new parliament.

Click to expand...

I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of Attila on this thread to tell us that JC is his choice, that Corbyn is actually very much like him, power to the people, Saint Pauli, yadda yadda yadda, followed by some illogical, irrevelevent left wing nonsense he's spunked up in honour of his chosen future messiah.

It's coming people, I tell you.....

cunning fergus said:

No, I do, on one side is socialism and on the other capitalism.

A socialised capitalism is still capitalism.....saying it's different is like putting cherries on a dog turd and saying it's not a dog turd......

Which brings me to people like you that gladly jumped on Tony Blairs neo liberal bandwagon in 93 which consigned the Labour Party's socialist ideology to the wilderness. You are so committed to Blairism you still define yourself by it.

Now Corbyn has arisen from the wilderness and got mainstream oxygen because the failure of neo liberalism you now want to jump on his socialist bandwagon.........like some shithead JCL.

That's why you are worse than Tories, people like you supported the ideology that almost killed socialism in the Labour Party and reduced committed socialists like Benn and Corbyn to eccentric cranks.

I don't care if it's boring or repetitive socialists have waited over 20 years to have a party leader with the balls to stand up to capitalists and its supporters (people like you Toynbee, Cooprr et al).

Click to expand...

Had an interesting chat with some Germans about state owned business last night. It was pointed out that my favourite beer over here is also state owned:

http://www.rothaus.de/en/about-rothaus/history/rothaus-today?alter=true

I reckon this could be a vote winner in the UK. What's not to like about socialism?

Worthingite said:

I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of Attila on this thread to tell us that JC is his choice, that Corbyn is actually very much like him, power to the people, Saint Pauli, yadda yadda yadda, followed by some illogical, irrevelevent left wing nonsense he's spunked up in honour of his chosen future messiah.

It's coming people, I tell you.....

Click to expand...

Keep up, there are 5 threads on this topic & Attila has had his say on them long ago, adding value....unlike yourself

I see that Tony Blair has weighed in yet again.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

I don't think he has any idea of how much large parts of the Labour Party loathe him!

jakarta said:

I see that Tony Blair has weighed in yet again.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

I don't think he has any idea of how much large parts of the Labour Party loathe him!

Click to expand...

Starting to get fed up with this. Instead of criticising Corbyn and his supporters why not put across a convincing, and positive, case as to the benefits of Burnham, Cooper etc?

jakarta said:

I see that Tony Blair has weighed in yet again.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

I don't think he has any idea of how much large parts of the Labour Party loathe him!

Click to expand...

Because people are going to listen to someone that took us to war on a pack of lies and who many consider a war criminal ( myself among them ). He and his like are getting really desperate now ...... come on Corbyn.

Herr Tubthumper said:

Starting to get fed up with this. Instead of criticising Corbyn and his supporters why not put across a convincing, and positive, case as to the benefits of Burnham, Cooper etc?

Click to expand...

thats because there aren't any
Blair shoud really keep his nose out
every time he speaks more move to the left
he is a watered down tory I'm afraid

glasfryn said:

thats because there aren't any
Blair shoud really keep his nose out
every time he speaks more move to the left
he is a watered down tory I'm afraid

Click to expand...

good for you true socialists i say.Finally all having the nerve to crawl out of the woodwork,jump on the bandwagon,dismiss Blairs New Labour vision as Tory lite(you still voted for them) and generally work yourselves into a frenzied wankfest pickle about a bloke that when he wins will guarantee a spot on the B team shadow opposition until at least 2025 where you achieve sod all. ......hey but at least you will have pride in the knowledge,even as massive losers you are finally sticking to your convictions........a bit like everyone else who votes for their favourite party really

pastafarian said:

good for you true socialists i say.Finally all having the nerve to crawl out of the woodwork,jump on the bandwagon,dismiss Blairs New Labour vision as Tory lite(you still voted for them) and generally work yourselves into a frenzied wankfest pickle about a bloke that when he wins will guarantee a spot on the B team shadow opposition until at least 2025 where you achieve sod all. ......hey but at least you will have pride in the knowledge,even as massive losers you are finally sticking to your convictions........a bit like everyone else who votes for their favourite party really

Click to expand...

That's harsh and unfair. I'd rather people voted for their convictions than the idiotic "my Grandfather voted for x, my father voted for x so I'll be voting for x" argument. Never understand this "I'll never vote x" - the one exception to that I'll make is the Lib Dems - after Bellotti, Baker and LDC it's quite understandable that an Albion supporter would never vote Lib Dem.

Addition - it would appear at the moment Labour think it's more important to win an election than be an effective opposition with opposing views from the governing party. All that will happen if Labour get Burnham et al is we as the electorate will not be properly represented.

Westdene Seagull said:

That's harsh and unfair. I'd rather people voted for their convictions than the idiotic "my Grandfather voted for x, my father voted for x so I'll be voting for x" argument. Never understand this "I'll never vote x" - the one exception to that I'll make is the Lib Dems - after Bellotti, Baker and LDC it's quite understandable that an Albion supporter would never vote Lib Dem.

Addition - it would appear at the moment Labour think it's more important to win an election than be an effective opposition with opposing views from the governing party. All that will happen if Labour get Burnham et al is we as the electorate will not be properly represented.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure where you get the "we " from - assume you mean YOU. Miliband tried to lurch to the left and look what happened. The left wing of the Labour party might feel that they are not properly represented, but that is a long way from saying the electorate is such, surely. The electorate have shown that the Corbyns of this world do not represent them.

Hastings gull said:

[/B]
Not quite sure where you get the "we " from - assume you mean YOU. Miliband tried to lurch to the left and look what happened. The left wing of the Labour party might feel that they are not properly represented, but that is a long way from saying the electorate is such, surely. The electorate have shown that the Corbyns of this world do not represent them.

Click to expand...

No, fair point. SOME of the electorate aren't represented with Labour being Tory Lite. This idea of Corbyn unelectable is utter rubbish - I'm pretty much right wing, voted UKIP last election - if Corbyn wins the leadership then, obviously policies depending, I'd seriously consider voting for him next election.

jakarta said:

I see that Tony Blair has weighed in yet again.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34100741

I don't think he has any idea of how much large parts of the Labour Party loathe him!

Click to expand...

Blair can see the car crash in slow emotion. Everything he says is 100% correct, the problem is his credability remains rock bottom