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

[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10







Barnet Seagull

Luxury Player
Jul 14, 2003
5,983
Falmer, soon...
UBI is why a broader tax scope is required. If you tax the entire economy, you're taxing financial institutions and speculators more heavily as they move vast sums around. What you also will see is more long term ism in the markets and lower volatility, both of which are fundamentally good for the economy. You also see additional costs associated with increased processing, so simpler becomes cheaper. Anyway, back to the football.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,524
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I'm a big fan of universal basic income for one simple reason. The choice to work. Basic income is just that. Just enough to provide basics but enough to empower individuals. Boss a dick? Leave. Job not rewarding? Leave.
Not paid enough for the work? Employers will have to pay more. Want to work locally, you can.

It will provoke further automation and innovation and build community.

Couple it with an automated payment transaction tax and its easily affordable.

Introduce APT first, slowly and start winding down all other taxes, then start to build up UBI.

For the employer, less tax, no business rates, no NI. The real challenge will be attracting and retaining labour. They will need to be much more flexible and pay what the market demands.

You will also see a thriving gig economy.

The really significant risk is business competitiveness globally but this is the same as now.

If you view tax as a way to remove money from the economy and stabilise currency (which fundamentally it is) small tweaks to APT can fund UBI and control inflation, thus maintaining competitiveness but also supporting public services.

The challenge is that both these changes impact those who seek and want to maintain power and therefore, government and media will never endorse it. Generation Y may be the first to start to shift us in that direction. We've been fed a narrative that we are work-shy which isn't the case for 99%. For the 1% is that laziness or a systemic lack of opportunity?

All in all, both in place get us closer to a fairer world where there is equality of opportunity
Agree with almost everything, but not on the idea of winding down all other taxes. We need to find a way in this country of taxing wealth (as in accumulated wealth, not income) to try and equalise society.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,682
The Fatherland
UBI is itself a state intervention. There may well be lots of benefits to it as have been well described on this thread, but I don't see that situation as one that particularly justifies it.
In your response you said you viewed the hypothetical scenario as “show me someone with real problems”. Judging people like this is exactly what UBI doesn’t do.
 






Barnet Seagull

Luxury Player
Jul 14, 2003
5,983
Falmer, soon...
Agree with almost everything, but not on the idea of winding down all other taxes. We need to find a way in this country of taxing wealth (as in accumulated wealth, not income) to try and equalise socsociety
I'm with you. APT does this over time but it's a long game. I've considered this a lot. Wealth does get taxed as part of any transaction as it moves around e.g. interest, capital gains, inheritance etc. But the whole point of APT is that it is a neutral and not punitive tax to individuals. It doesn't have the scope to hit accrued personal wealth which is a limitation for those who want full equity but this could take place preceding full implementation if desired.

Philosophically, if APT is set at a level which provides an acceptable UBI and decent public services, it matters a lot less. The incentive to gain and keep individual wealth needs to remain.

Put simply, if UBI is £16k a year, for most people that won't be enough money to pay for anything more than the very basics. You will need to provide your labour and top it up. If taxes are small and linear, the link between work and money is stronger, I.e. what you earn, you keep. There is less resentment and arguably more incentive to work. Being able to grow wealth and keep it I think is a good thing.
 


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,493
Labour still have some way to go rooting out the antisemites. Great progress has been made, but recent events haven’t been a good look.

First real error so far from Starmer in my view with his initial comments and inaction - not that it changes my voting intentions, before the usual mob swoop in. Labour or bust.

Labour have to be hardline over antisemitism. This needs to go away once and for all.
 


Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
23,661
Brighton
Labour still have some way to go rooting out the antisemites. Great progress has been made, but recent events haven’t been a good look.

First real error so far from Starmer in my view with his initial comments and inaction - not that it changes my voting intentions, before the usual mob swoop in. Labour or bust.

Labour have to be hardline over antisemitism. This needs to go away once and for all.
Does that mean kicking out party members/candidates for criticism of the Israeli government as well as being antisemitic?

It seems that the first comment by the clown of Rochdale was an absurd slur relating to the astonishingly unpopular Israeli government but he then backed it up with something more serious.
 




jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,493
Does that mean kicking out party members/candidates for criticism of the Israeli government as well as being antisemitic?

It seems that the first comment by the clown of Rochdale was an absurd slur relating to the astonishingly unpopular Israeli government but he then backed it up with something more serious.
No it doesn’t mean that. It means not using antisemitic slurs at all - it’s really very simple.

It doesn’t matter how fair and objective an opinion is if it comes from a place of racial or religious intolerance and is preceded by open hate.

They’ve done well getting lots of the antisemites out since Corbyn, but they need to be absolutely zero tolerance. Starmer fumbled it at first, and it can’t happen again.
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,524
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Good that these individuals have been stood down, and shows the party are taking this seriously IMHO
 




Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,896
No it doesn’t mean that. It means not using antisemitic slurs at all - it’s really very simple.

It doesn’t matter how fair and objective an opinion is if it comes from a place of racial or religious intolerance and is preceded by open hate.

They’ve done well getting lots of the antisemites out since Corbyn, but they need to be absolutely zero tolerance. Starmer fumbled it at first, and it can’t happen again.
I'm not sure the words 'fair and objective' can go hand in hand with racial or religious intolerance.

But you have accidentally given a summary of the problem. Folk with fair and objective opinions are being accused of racial or religious intolerance and open hate.

I've seen a few reports of the reasons why Labour have expelled people. And they have often been expelled for no good reason. They dared attack the Israeli government's foreign policy.

Thousands of kids are dead. And folk desperately try to silence concerns with claims of anti-semitism ( a strange phrase given that Arabs are semitic) in folk hostile to these actions.

This is becoming like when a black person says they have been criticised because of their race, or a gay person because of their sexuality or a white person because they are 'white working class'. No, you are just wrong. That was why.

Fair and objective opinions should be reasoned with, regardless of where they come from, real or, often in the current situation, contrived as a buffer.
 




Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
25,496
Worthing
Labour are shitting themselves over Rochdale now…… really?
 








A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,524
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Labour are shitting themselves over Rochdale now…… really?
I don’t really see why they need to TBH, this will be a bit of a weird vote now (Galloway probably wins) but come election time it’s likely with a proper candidate (and the vetting process will be in overdrive) then Labour would be red hot favourites to take it back.

What this does show is the Daily Mail, having sat on this until he couldn’t be replaced on the ballot, are bricking it about the election and will deploy every dirty trick in the book.
 


borat

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
653
No it doesn’t mean that. It means not using antisemitic slurs at all - it’s really very simple.

It doesn’t matter how fair and objective an opinion is if it comes from a place of racial or religious intolerance and is preceded by open hate.

They’ve done well getting lots of the antisemites out since Corbyn, but they need to be absolutely zero tolerance. Starmer fumbled it at first, and it can’t happen again.



These idiots are Undoing the good work SKS has done in rooting out the some of the scum bags in his party

Cants see the issue with what Graham Jones said.

Allowing UK citizens to go and fight for a genocidal army that upholds Apartheid state shouldn't be lawful.
 




Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
622
It seems that some of the Labour staffers working for Sir Keir have made complaints to their Union about the handling of the internal investigation into the leak to The Guardian of the u turn on £28b
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here