Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on the Latest from Sexminster: Social Mobility Failure

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited December 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on the Latest from Sexminster: Social Mobility Failure

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Vanilla will eat this post.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    Second....or eighth....or vanished.....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    edited December 3
    Second, like 1/60th of a minute.

    Darn. Third.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,340

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    Agree with that.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,776
    Is Milburn admitting that university expansion and sure start failed to create a more equal society? It is all too convenient for him to blame May and Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    The problem for social mobility is that for everyone who goes up someone must go down which is less frequently mentioned. Plus of course those with rich and educated parents who go to good schools are always going to be more likely to go to goid universities and get high paying and professional jobs thsn those who do not.

    Ensuring the average person has a job which can pay for their core needs and a bit more is where the government should really be focused.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,366
    edited December 3
    Ding dong.



    When will we get crossover for Yes in indyref II & Leave in EUref II?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    Ding dong.



    When will we get crossover for Yes in indyref II & Leave in EUref II?

    Survation's final 2014 Scottish referendum poll had it Yes 47% No 53% and its final EU referendum poll had it Remain 52% Leave 48%. So absolutely zero change from the pollster from either its final Scottish or EU referendum polls both of which overestimated Yes and Remain respectively
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,366
    HYUFD said:

    Ding dong.



    When will we get crossover for Yes in indyref II & Leave in EUref II?

    Survation's final 2014 Scottish referendum poll had it Yes 47% No 53% and its final EU referendum poll had it Remain 52% Leave 48%. So absolutely zero change from the pollster from either its final Scottish or EU referendum polls both of which overestimated Yes and Remain respectively
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
    Lol!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,390
    FPT

    Q. What's Damian Green's favourite breakfast cereal?

    A. Porn Flakes!

    (I thank you!)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,709
    edited December 3

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    As a working class kid from the North I dispute that.

    Hard work and dedication was all I needed.

    Plus I was from recent immigrant stock.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,451
    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    dixiedean said:

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
    I suppose the good fortune was being born in a country with a comprehensive education system at a time when university education was free and I was supported with a grant.

    It would have been a tougher ask in rural Afghanistan.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    As a working class kid from the North I dispute that.

    Hard work and dedication was all I needed.

    Plus I was from recent immigrant stock.
    No expectation from Asian parents, definitely not!

    Oh, and working class my arse!
  • Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642

    dixiedean said:

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
    I suppose the good fortune was being born in a country with a comprehensive education system at a time when university education was free and I was supported with a grant.

    It would have been a tougher ask in rural Afghanistan.
    That is kind of what I meant.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,390

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    As a working class kid from the North I dispute that.

    You are not working class, Toxic TSE!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    edited December 3

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
  • Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    Are you saying she May suck as an impersonator? :smile:
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494

    Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
    I imagine you were one of a small minority of 22 yr old homeowners.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    FPT

    Q. What's Damian Green's favourite breakfast cereal?

    A. Porn Flakes!

    (I thank you!)

    I've already replied with a musical joke that was waaaaayy better.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,451
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    Compared to?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    As a working class kid from the North I dispute that.

    Hard work and dedication was all I needed.

    Plus I was from recent immigrant stock.
    Total rubbish Mr Eagles.

    As TUD will tell you, Yorkshiremen are southerners.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    I thought she sounded more like Michael Howard!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    I thought she sounded more like Michael Howard!
    Surely not in vocals? Or did she refuse to answer an awkward question six times?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    Compared to?
    Compared to a hypothetical gifted May impersonator. Or if you mean "too pretty", compared to May.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,451

    Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
    Yes, you made it all by yourself, with nothing but hard work, dedication, and (tens of) thousands of pounds as a gift from your wealthy relatives... :)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    I thought she sounded more like Michael Howard!
    I think she was a bit all over the place.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
    I suppose the good fortune was being born in a country with a comprehensive education system at a time when university education was free and I was supported with a grant.

    It would have been a tougher ask in rural Afghanistan.
    That is kind of what I meant.
    Ah, OK, sorry - I thought you were more thinking of more specific things like being mates with the son of the boss of the local factory, that sort of thing.
  • viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
    Yes, you made it all by yourself, with nothing but hard work, dedication, and (tens of) thousands of pounds as a gift from your wealthy relatives... :)
    It's what working class Northerners do, we help our friends and families.

    Thanks to my hard work and dedication I paid off my mortgage within five years and repaid my parents/grandma, even though they didn't want it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,451
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    Compared to?
    Compared to a hypothetical gifted May impersonator. Or if you mean "too pretty", compared to May.
    I stand corrected.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    edited December 3

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
    Yes, you made it all by yourself, with nothing but hard work, dedication, and (tens of) thousands of pounds as a gift from your wealthy relatives... :)
    It's what working class Northerners do, we help our friends and families.

    Thanks to my hard work and dedication I paid off my mortgage within five years and repaid my parents/grandma, even though they didn't want it.
    Given the shocking revelation that you believe that Rugby League isn't proper rugby, I believe your membership of the society of working class northerners is under review.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Rising inheritance tax would just mean even fewer people could get a house (or else lead to earlier gifts to children and grandchildren) it would do nothing to help those currently unable to afford to buy a property. The only way to do that is to build more affordable housing and flats.

    Plus if you work in the City you should be able to buy a property within a decade of graduation, certainly if you buy outside central London.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    Quite right. The Conservatives should be telling people like me to know our place and ensure that those who are born into privilege get to enjoy their just rewards in life.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,423

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Welcome.
    I wish more Tories had second thoughts.

    " It's the same the whole world over,
    It's the poor that get the blame,
    It's the rich that get the pleasure,
    Ain't it all a bloody shame."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,340

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    I'm not sure many have historically had houses at 23, have they?

    Interestingly, outside of London, most of my mates have houses and have had since their late 20s. Largely without help from BOM&D, either.

    Edit: And welcome!
    I bought my first house at 22*

    *Thanks to my father being on the mortgage and the deposit from my Grandma.
    Yes, you made it all by yourself, with nothing but hard work, dedication, and (tens of) thousands of pounds as a gift from your wealthy relatives... :)
    It's what working class Northerners do, we help our friends and families.

    Thanks to my hard work and dedication I paid off my mortgage within five years and repaid my parents/grandma, even though they didn't want it.
    Your just like Donald Trump, aren't you? Wealthy in your own right but you had a helping hand to begin with.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
    I suppose the good fortune was being born in a country with a comprehensive education system at a time when university education was free and I was supported with a grant.

    It would have been a tougher ask in rural Afghanistan.
    That is kind of what I meant.
    Ah, OK, sorry - I thought you were more thinking of more specific things like being mates with the son of the boss of the local factory, that sort of thing.
    That doesn't harm either.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,340
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Doesn't Social Mobility mean getting on your bike and looking for work?

    In reality, I would be considered to be someone who has been socially mobile. Three things were responsible:

    Intelligence
    Hard work
    Parental expectation

    I would suggest that without all three it is very difficult for working class kids to achieve what is regarded as normal for their middle class contemporaries.

    A degree of good fortune never goes amiss either.
    I suppose the good fortune was being born in a country with a comprehensive education system at a time when university education was free and I was supported with a grant.

    It would have been a tougher ask in rural Afghanistan.
    That is kind of what I meant.
    I'm sorry, but when we're talking about social mobility, surely we're talking about mobility within those born in the UK?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    edited December 3
    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,253
    During campaign stops at the fast food restaurant the president would ask for two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fishes and a chocolate milkshake, according to a insider’s account of his presidential bid.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/03/trump-mcdonalds-binges-screaming-fits-book-lewandowski-bossie
  • tlg86 said:

    Your just like Donald Trump, aren't you? Wealthy in your own right but you had a helping hand to begin with.

    I was very lucky, I had finished university and got a job in London, I was planning to rent, my mother was like don't waste your money paying rent, we'll help you get on the property ladder.

    So thanks to them I bought a house in central London in 2000 and sold it in 2006.

    Near perfect timing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    tlg86 said:

    Your just like Donald Trump, aren't you? Wealthy in your own right but you had a helping hand to begin with.

    I was very lucky, I had finished university and got a job in London, I was planning to rent, my mother was like don't waste your money paying rent, we'll help you get on the property ladder.

    So thanks to them I bought a house in central London in 2000 and sold it in 2006.

    Near perfect timing.
    Was it a small loan of a million dollars? :smiley:
  • ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    I agree with you, it's all about ending the postcode lottery.

    I know my life would be much more different I had grown up in Darnall instead of Dore.

    Where you came from shouldn't be important, it's all about where you're going.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,423

    tlg86 said:

    Your just like Donald Trump, aren't you? Wealthy in your own right but you had a helping hand to begin with.

    I was very lucky, I had finished university and got a job in London, I was planning to rent, my mother was like don't waste your money paying rent, we'll help you get on the property ladder.

    So thanks to them I bought a house in central London in 2000 and sold it in 2006.

    Near perfect timing.
    We old fashioned Puritans are raised to get educated and stand on our own two feet.
    But, needs must in the family, we help each other
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544
    edited December 3

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is going to be reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    Corbyn Labour believes in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity which was a more Blairite concept.
  • Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    Remind us which party increased the IHT allowance in 2007?
  • ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Your just like Donald Trump, aren't you? Wealthy in your own right but you had a helping hand to begin with.

    I was very lucky, I had finished university and got a job in London, I was planning to rent, my mother was like don't waste your money paying rent, we'll help you get on the property ladder.

    So thanks to them I bought a house in central London in 2000 and sold it in 2006.

    Near perfect timing.
    Was it a small loan of a million dollars? :smiley:
    Hah I wish, this was before London property prices went through the roof.

    Another benefit I had was that I was the only grandchild.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is going to be reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    No, as inheritance tax is the most unpopular tax there is, rather more people support cutting inheritance tax than common ownership of the means of production. The biggest poll boost the Tories have had in the last decade and Osborne's finest hour was when he committed to raise the IHT threshold to £1 million.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theresa May finally gets some fame Stateside:

    The impersonator in question is Kate McKinnon, who is probably the best political impersonator left on SNL since Jason Sudekis's (Biden, Romney) and Tina Fey's (Palin) departure. This does mean omitting Alec Baldwin (Trump) and Melissa McCarthy (Spicer), but they're just slumming. Anybody who tells you that Tracey Ullmann does the best Merkel hasn't seen McKinnon's...although having said that I think Ullmann's better overall.
    Her May sucks. Far too pretty, and the voice is much closer to Thatcher.
    I thought she sounded more like Michael Howard!
    At times like Angela Merkel
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    Most Tories believe in meritocracy as much as anyone, but the question is whether it should be achieved via government intervention or trusting in individuals and families to make it happen.
  • During campaign stops at the fast food restaurant the president would ask for two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fishes and a chocolate milkshake, according to a insider’s account of his presidential bid.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/03/trump-mcdonalds-binges-screaming-fits-book-lewandowski-bossie

    So Impeachment and assassination aren't the biggest risks to Donald serving a full term?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    Corbyn Labour believes in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity which was a more Blairite concept.
    I don't think they even believe in equality of outcome, bluntly. Their manifesto was an object lesson in promoting the interests of those they liked and ignoring the rest or screwing them over. That's deliberately promoting inequality. Kind of like an extreme form of Thatcherism but with no end object.

    I am off to bed. Have a good week everyone.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    The bar to social mobility is that none of us are willing to see our children fail.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    The bar to social mobility is that none of us are willing to see our children fail.
    While some others do not want to see their children doing better than they did.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,979
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    The bar to social mobility is that none of us are willing to see our children fail.
    I disagree. One of the barriers is that too many parents bring their children up with no expectation of achievement. University? Not for the likes of us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    Corbyn Labour believes in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity which was a more Blairite concept.
    I don't think they even believe in equality of outcome, bluntly. Their manifesto was an object lesson in promoting the interests of those they liked and ignoring the rest or screwing them over. That's deliberately promoting inequality. Kind of like an extreme form of Thatcherism but with no end object.

    I am off to bed. Have a good week everyone.
    They support equality of outcome as long as that is outcome is a largely state owned, nationalised economy run by Corbynistas and a UK promoting a left wing agenda.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    AndyJS said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    There I disagree. The Tories are meant to favour meritocracy and capitalism. Both work best and indeed arguably can only work at all where rewards are proportionate to talent and effort. While 'social mobility' may be the wrong way of expressing it, a good Tory should favour the idea that anyone who has the ability can by their personal exertions rise to the top.

    That is more pertinent as in many ways Labour, certainly under Corbyn, is anti-meritocratic and believes in rewarding people who are well-connected or politically right-on, rather than talented - Corbyn himself being a classic example.
    Most Tories believe in meritocracy as much as anyone, but the question is whether it should be achieved via government intervention or trusting in individuals and families to make it happen.
    "...trusting in individuals or families to make it happen." Families almost never promote meritocracy, except by chance, they (we all) naturally tend to nepotism.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,544

    Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    Remind us which party increased the IHT allowance in 2007?
    The tory right bust the neolib consensus. It's gone. Your party has left you, tse.

    Commiserations.

    Come join those of us on the centre-left building Britain's new social democracy.

    It'll take time, but we'll get there.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,709
    edited December 3
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    Remind us which party increased the IHT allowance in 2007?
    The tory right bust the neolib consensus. It's gone. Your party has left you, tse.

    Commiserations.

    Come join those of us on the centre-left building Britain's new social democracy.

    It'll take time, but we'll get there.
    That’s an awful lot of words. The answer is of course Labour.


    There’s more chance of me joining the BNP than joining or voting for a Corbyn led Labour party
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    Remind us which party increased the IHT allowance in 2007?
    The tory right bust the neolib consensus. It's gone. Your party has left you, tse.

    Commiserations.

    Come join those of us on the centre-left building Britain's new social democracy.

    It'll take time, but we'll get there.
    I love the smell of hubris in the evening.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642
    edited December 3
    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    Re: Laffer

    "Laffer is currently an economic adviser to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who in 2012 zeroed out state tax liability for approximately 330,000 of the top wage earners in the state.[15] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure have been implemented because of the budget deficits."

    He is so discredited, it is amazing anyone still quotes him.

    The curve he described "The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes."

    It also describes nothing except that tax rates of 0% and 100% will generate no revenue. Anything in between more. Where the sweet spot is no-one knows.

    Quotes from wiki.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Excellent post.

    The tory clause iv is reversing this;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm

    Anyone disagree?
    Remind us which party increased the IHT allowance in 2007?
    The tory right bust the neolib consensus. It's gone. Your party has left you, tse.

    Commiserations.

    Come join those of us on the centre-left building Britain's new social democracy.

    It'll take time, but we'll get there.
    Even I don't think TSE should join Corbyn's Labour Party, at most he is an Orange Book LD.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    edited December 3
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elsewhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as, er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    You can find several different answers on wikipedia e.g.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But in any event they all seem to agree that the Scandanavian countries tax at a higher percentage than the UK and last time I looked they seem to function at least as well as we do.

    The Tories could have removed the defict very quickly in the years following 2010 by raising the % of GDP tax take to Scandanavian levels... but no, they pursued their neoliberal dogma, and ended up doubling the national debt.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847

    Social mobility in this country is a joke in urban centres in the south eg London where rising house prices and rents (people spending 30-45% income on rent) is exacerbated by the parents of the upper and middle classes providing financial assistance with rent or getting a deposit for a house (and passing on their own property in due course in a generation’s time or so).
    In my workplace (graduate scheme at listed company on stock exchange) those with rich parents have a mortgage within 2 years of starting (all with bank of mum and dad loans), thus being able to acquire an asset of rising value, while the minority without said parental wealth work just as hard but spend a ridiculous amount on rent, meaning they save a few hundred quid a month tops, living like monks. Having asked around, this is very common among many grad schemes in London across various industries - teaching, financial services, law, retail etc. Prospect of massive taxation on inherited assets is frightening but personally I see this as increasingly necessary (along with a decrease in income tax/increase in personal allowance) in order to prevent huge inequalities getting worse. Can’t speak as much for the regions save that jobs market tends to concentrate around London which is not necessarily a good thing.

    To buy a £250k flat, which is what a one bedroom flat in an unfashionable part of London costs, you would need to save up about £25k. If you save £300 per month, it would take you seven years, half that if there are two earners. It is possible, but difficult. You would also have to be earning quite well to stand a mortgage of £225k, so probably only possible if two people are on the mortgage.

    If it is too difficult for even the best placed people (those on graduate schemes), it is totally impossible for anyone less fortunate.

    But there is a simple solution if you want to buy somewhere: move out of London and the South East.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
    Indeed, what is the point of working hard and trying to get a promotion if more than half your income is taken in tax?

    What is the point of trying to get a job either if the welfare state is so generous it easily meets all your needs above and beyond basic necessities?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    The Tories could have removed the defict very quickly in the years following 2010 by raising the % of GDP tax take to Scandanavian levels... but no, they pursued their neoliberal dogma, and ended up doubling the national debt.
    Of course increasing taxation has no undue impact on economic output in Corbynism. No sir-eee!

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
    Isn't that what elections are for though?

    The vast majority would agree on those basic principles Rawls sets out.

    However, for the past 40 years we have, as a society, via the democratic process, chosen lower taxation where possible.

    For many it isn't working.

    If people vote for 50% taxes, then that is what we will have. If not, not.

    And quite right too!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    You can find several different answers on wikipedia e.g.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But in any event they all seem to agree that the Scandanavian countries tax at a higher percentage than the UK and last time I looked they seem to function at least as well as we do.

    The Tories could have removed the defict very quickly in the years following 2010 by raising the % of GDP tax take to Scandanavian levels... but no, they pursued their neoliberal dogma, and ended up doubling the national debt.
    The Scandinavian countries do OK economically, though Norway is helped by having a lot of oil but of the top 10 nations by gdp per capita, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Qatar, Iceland, USA, Denmark, Singapore and Australia, 6 have a lower national tax take as a percentage of GDP than the UK does and Iceland taxes the same as the UK.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If there's anyone out there who could convincingly plot a Laffer curve it might be worth considering. Failing that, it should probably be filed alongside 'trickle-down' and other neolib fables.
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
    1. You are confusing revenue with wealth - two very different things. Taking 50% of everyone's wealth is a nonsense and I am not advocating it (neither are Labour btw). But if you did it you'd have enough to pay off the national debt 3 times over - that is the whole accumulated national debt!

    2. See how the their high tax rates make Norway and Denmark such terrible places to live: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-denmark-un-world-happiness-report-us-money-a7639256.html
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    edited December 3

    AndyJS said:

    Why are the Conservatives fighting on Labour ground on the subject of social mobility? The idea that it's the government's job to encourage social engineering in order to create more equality is an entirely left-wing concept and not something the Tories should have got involved with under any circumstances. It's indicative of their surrender to their opponents' way of thinking that they've got sucked into this whole saga.

    Quite right. The Conservatives should be telling people like me to know our place and ensure that those who are born into privilege get to enjoy their just rewards in life.
    While until recently the Tories could take that attitude, with the social class divide at elections disappearing fast, it would put their recently acquired WWC vote at risk. We live in fluid times.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 756

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:



    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.

    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
    1. You are confusing revenue with wealth - two very different things. Taking 50% of everyone's wealth is a nonsense and I am not advocating it (neither are Labour btw). But if you did it you'd have enough to pay off the national debt 3 times over - that is the whole accumulated national debt!

    2. See how the their high tax rates make Norway and Denmark such terrible places to live: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-denmark-un-world-happiness-report-us-money-a7639256.html
    Inheritance tax, at 40%, is pretty damn close to taxing wealth at 50%. It just happens in a lump sum when you die. And a large percentage of people's estates will have been taxed in other ways (e.g. income tax, capital gains) throughout their lives on top of that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    .
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    You can find several different answers on wikipedia e.g.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But in any event they all seem to agree that the Scandanavian countries tax at a higher percentage than the UK and last time I looked they seem to function at least as well as we do.

    The Tories could have removed the defict very quickly in the years following 2010 by raising the % of GDP tax take to Scandanavian levels... but no, they pursued their neoliberal dogma, and ended up doubling the national debt.
    The Scandinavian countries do OK economically, though Norway is helped by having a lot of oil but of the top 10 nations by gdp per capita, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Qatar, Iceland, USA, Denmark, Singapore and Australia, 6 have a lower national tax take as a percentage of GDP than the UK does and Iceland taxes the same as the UK.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
    6/10? Depends on your source. It's only 5/10 - Ireland, Qatar, USA, Singapore and Australia (just) according to this list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But tbh 6/10 or 5/10 both say to me that having low tax rates is not really a significant factor in predicting economic performance.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,780
    edited December 3
    High marginal rates have discouraged so many Europeans from bringing kids into the world. Everyone says Sweden this, Denmark that. Swedes and Danes and Germans want the good life with stuff, not just social services, so they ration kids to zero or, sometimes, one. Then they moan when people from low-wage countries move to the country to do the work their non-children can't do. In this light, European welfare states are only viable for another generation or so, and the UK really dodged a bullet there if the alternative was to keep going in that direction, as seemed possible up to the shortages in the public finances in the 1960s.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847
    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:


    ction.
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    .
    Indeed, what is the point of working hard and trying to get a promotion if more than half your income is taken in tax?

    What is the point of trying to get a job either if the welfare state is so generous it easily meets all your needs above and beyond basic necessities?
    The basic problem is the injustice in the system in the first place.

    It isn't right that some people go to work and get paid £100,000 and can easily buy a house and build up assets, whilst others go to work and get paid £15,000, cannot ever buy a house and have no assets.

    What we see is that the people who are in the former category convince themselves that they deserve their wealth, when in fact they are just lucky, chose the right industry and have the right skill set.

    Everyone is just doing work at the end of the day. Everyone should have a basic right to housing, childcare, healthcare, coverage of basic living costs, holidays etc. The wage should be a reflection of the actual responsibility that you have and your performance at work.

    The end game is the rich have to choose between paying more tax and having a revolution where they lose all their assets.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,837
    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    Re: Laffer

    "Laffer is currently an economic adviser to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who in 2012 zeroed out state tax liability for approximately 330,000 of the top wage earners in the state.[15] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure have been implemented because of the budget deficits."

    He is so discredited, it is amazing anyone still quotes him.

    The curve he described "The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes."

    It also describes nothing except that tax rates of 0% and 100% will generate no revenue. Anything in between more. Where the sweet spot is no-one knows.

    Quotes from wiki.
    I was reading the other day that the actual theoretical turning point of the curve, maximal tax revenue, is at approximately 70% which made me laugh a lot.

    No idea of the provenance of that statement though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    .
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    At the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    You can find severalthe national debt.
    The Scandinavian countries do OK economically, though Norway is helped by having a lot of oil but of the top 10 nations by gdp per capita, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Qatar, Iceland, USA, Denmark, Singapore and Australia, 6 have a lower national tax take as a percentage of GDP than the UK does and Iceland taxes the same as the UK.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
    6/10? Depends on your source. It's only 5/10 - Ireland, Qatar, USA, Singapore and Australia (just) according to this list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But tbh 6/10 or 5/10 both say to me that having low tax rates is not really a significant factor in predicting economic performance.
    Even on that list Switzerland is essentially tied with the UK, 35% to 34.4%, so that is 6 nations in the top 10 at least tied with or with a lower tax take than the UK.

    Luxembourg is not much higher either at 36.5%.

    So a clear majority are closer to 35% or under in terms of tax take as a percentage of gdp than they are to 50%. Indeed the OECD average tax take of 34.8% is almost exactly the same as the UK rate of 34.4% and even the EU average of 35.7% is not much more than the current UK tax rate.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    EPG said:

    High marginal rates have discouraged so many Europeans from bringing kids into the world. Everyone says Sweden this, Denmark that. Swedes and Danes and Germans want the good life with stuff, not just social services, so they ration kids to zero or, sometimes, one. Then they moan when people from low-wage countries move to the country to do the work their non-children can't do. In this light, European welfare states are only viable for another generation or so, and the UK really dodged a bullet there if the alternative was to keep going in that direction, as seemed possible up to the shortages in the public finances in the 1960s.

    We seem to have a reasonably large number of immigrants here. I’d say we had more based on how many I see walking around. No doubt someone will have the official stats.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,837
    kyf_100 said:



    Inheritance tax, at 40%, is pretty damn close to taxing wealth at 50%. It just happens in a lump sum when you die. And a large percentage of people's estates will have been taxed in other ways (e.g. income tax, capital gains) throughout their lives on top of that.

    Are you really trying to push a double taxation narrative? Transactions are taxed all the time. As wages, as VAT on purchases, as corp tax on profits. It's a never ending cycle of taxation - why should inheritance be any different?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:
    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    I can't believe we've gotten this far into the discussion without Rawls' theory of justice rearing its ugly head.

    From a veil of ignorance, most people would choose equality before the law and some form of social security / safety net, with a degree of taxation as redistribution, but I'm willing to bet very few would set that amount at 50% of GDP, thus rendering it invalid from an implied social contract.

    Everyone will have a different answer to the question of "how much of a person's wealth is it fair to take off them (by force, if necessary) and give to someone else", but I suspect very few would agree to 50% or more.
    1. You are confusing revenue with wealth - two very different things. Taking 50% of everyone's wealth is a nonsense and I am not advocating it (neither are Labour btw). But if you did it you'd have enough to pay off the national debt 3 times over - that is the whole accumulated national debt!

    2. See how the their high tax rates make Norway and Denmark such terrible places to live: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-denmark-un-world-happiness-report-us-money-a7639256.html
    Inheritance tax, at 40%, is pretty damn close to taxing wealth at 50%. It just happens in a lump sum when you die. And a large percentage of people's estates will have been taxed in other ways (e.g. income tax, capital gains) throughout their lives on top of that.
    If only that were true. We'd have no national debt. But as you know most people's estates do not pay IHT when they die, due to the first £425k in most cases (£325k plus £100k Residence Nil Rate Band) being exempt and the ability to pass that exemption on to your spouse
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,642
    edited December 3
    EPG said:

    High marginal rates have discouraged so many Europeans from bringing kids into the world. Everyone says Sweden this, Denmark that. Swedes and Danes and Germans want the good life with stuff, not just social services, so they ration kids to zero or, sometimes, one. Then they moan when people from low-wage countries move to the country to do the work their non-children can't do. In this light, European welfare states are only viable for another generation or so, and the UK really dodged a bullet there if the alternative was to keep going in that direction, as seemed possible up to the shortages in the public finances in the 1960s.

    Do people really think like that? S Korea and Singapore are at the lowest fertility. Sweden is higher than the US and UK. Norway and Denmark similar.
    Argentina is the closest to a developed nation above the replacement rate.
    It would seem to me that it is far more cultural than purely economic.

    ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    EDIT: Sad face by accident.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    Alistair said:

    kyf_100 said:



    Inheritance tax, at 40%, is pretty damn close to taxing wealth at 50%. It just happens in a lump sum when you die. And a large percentage of people's estates will have been taxed in other ways (e.g. income tax, capital gains) throughout their lives on top of that.

    Are you really trying to push a double taxation narrative? Transactions are taxed all the time. As wages, as VAT on purchases, as corp tax on profits. It's a never ending cycle of taxation - why should inheritance be any different?
    Raising the inheritance tax rate would be good for accountants but not for the Treasury.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    nielh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:


    ction.
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    .
    Indeed, what is the point of working hard and trying to get a promotion if more than half your income is taken in tax?

    What is the point of trying to get a job either if the welfare state is so generous it easily meets all your needs above and beyond basic necessities?
    The basic problem is the injustice in the system in the first place.

    It isn't right that some people go to work and get paid £100,000 and can easily buy a house and build up assets, whilst others go to work and get paid £15,000, cannot ever buy a house and have no assets.

    What we see is that the people who are in the former category convince themselves that they deserve their wealth, when in fact they are just lucky, chose the right industry and have the right skill set.

    Everyone is just doing work at the end of the day. Everyone should have a basic right to housing, childcare, healthcare, coverage of basic living costs, holidays etc. The wage should be a reflection of the actual responsibility that you have and your performance at work.

    The end game is the rich have to choose between paying more tax and having a revolution where they lose all their assets.
    You earn more on average because you have more qualifications, or an exceptional talent in an area like sport, the arts, music or entrepreneurship. Plus 60% of the country still are home owners, I don't think anyone on a well below average salary like £15,000 expects to ever buy a house, though Thatcher at least helped some to do so with her right to buy for council homes.

    A basic right to housing, childcare, healthcare, a minimum wage for basic living costs etc is not the same as a right to home ownership or a foreign holiday every year, you get those by earning more.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    .
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:

    I happen to agree on the top rate of income tax (though evidence is in short supply). Do they say the same about a wealth tax?

    In any event, there's nothing to stop us raising the overall tax take closer to 50% GDP. Tories on here and elswhere will tell us that will trash the economy as it has in other countries that have tried it such as er, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (although strangely these countries seem to be managing their high-tax economic disaster pretty well last time I looked).
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    You can find severalthe national debt.
    The Scandinavian countries do OK economically, though Norway is helped by having a lot of oil but of the top 10 nations by gdp per capita, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Qatar, Iceland, USA, Denmark, Singapore and Australia, 6 have a lower national tax take as a percentage of GDP than the UK does and Iceland taxes the same as the UK.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
    6/10? Depends on your source. It's only 5/10 - Ireland, Qatar, USA, Singapore and Australia (just) according to this list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

    But tbh 6/10 or 5/10 both say to me that having low tax rates is not really a significant factor in predicting economic performance.
    Even on that list Switzerland is essentially tied with the UK, 35% to 34.4%, so that is 6 nations in the top 10 at least tied with or with a lower tax take than the UK.

    Luxembourg is not much higher either at 36.5%.

    So a clear majority are closer to 35% or under in terms of tax take as a percentage of gdp than they are to 50%. Indeed the OECD average tax take of 34.8% is almost exactly the same as the UK rate of 34.4% and even the EU average of 35.7% is not much more than the current UK tax rate.

    Yes, but my point is, we could afford to tax at closer to 50% GDP without trashing the economy, and wipe out the deficit straightaway!

    It's so obvious I can't see why the Tories didn't go for it!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    nielh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Good grief, all you Tory PBers really are spooked by the prospect of a proper Labour reform programme aren't you?

    :lol:

    Spooked? Hardly? We'll all be spending more time with our money in Singapore, Dubai, Geneva and so on. Corbynomics clearly does not care about the Laffer curve.
    If
    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066

    TL;DR their conclusion:


    ction.
    Norway has a tax rate as a percentage of GDP of 43%, Denmark 48% and Sweden 45%.

    Timor-Leste and Eritrea are the only nations with a tax take of more than 50% of GDP.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
    .
    Indeed, what is the point of working hard and trying to get a promotion if more than half your income is taken in tax?

    What is the point of trying to get a job either if the welfare state is so generous it easily meets all your needs above and beyond basic necessities?
    The basic problem is the injustice in the system in the first place.

    It isn't right that some people go to work and get paid £100,000 and can easily buy a house and build up assets, whilst others go to work and get paid £15,000, cannot ever buy a house and have no assets.

    What we see is that the people who are in the former category convince themselves that they deserve their wealth, when in fact they are just lucky, chose the right industry and have the right skill set.

    Everyone is just doing work at the end of the day. Everyone should have a basic right to housing, childcare, healthcare, coverage of basic living costs, holidays etc. The wage should be a reflection of the actual responsibility that you have and your performance at work.

    I’ve read some bollocks in my time on here but this is right up there.

    Nobody ever works hard or grafts or has talent or skills - and therefor high salaries are all luck ?

    Dearie me.
This discussion has been closed.