[Misc] Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

Ahem. That's trickle down economics, something that you said a moment ago is a myth invented by those who oppose it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

it absolutly is a myth, only brought up by people saying how bad it is.

The Trickle down theory is that people who are the lowest earners start to be better off. Is anyone better off in the last ten years? Rees-Mogg has increased his value by over 14million. etc.
I don't see any working class people better off, unless you know better.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Many on here genuinely think people at lower pay ranges should be earning a lot more. Obviously this would have to come from somewhere. Do you think it should come from higher earners earning less or paying more tax. Do you think corporation tax should be increased.

I stated earlier the railway companies made over £500 millions profit. That is coming from the public paying sky high fares. Surely the workers contributing to those profits should have some reward?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

 

[amexer]

Here, I'll disagree. Although the notion of tax cuts should be nipped in the bud, for the simple reason that we can't afford them, the key issue with taxation is that the burden should shift away from taxation of labour, and towards the taxation of assets and certain forms of consumption: conspicuous, anti-social, anti-environmental.
We need labour, it's what produces value, and it is also what's required to stop destroying and denigrating what provides value (ie our life-support machine). Go after assets. Amongst other things, go after the City of London, and all the tax havens and dodgy jurisdictions it facilitates. Introduce a land value tax. Increase inheritance tax Increase capital gains tax. Increase taxes on second (and third, and fourth, ...) properties. And so on

I've dispensed this advice on multiple occasions: read ch 17 of Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty.

Thanks One person has come up with how extra money should be raised. Interesting opinion. If down this route I think far more assets moved abroad and far less rented property available
I would still like to know where money is coming from as nobody has suggested a higher tax band for big earners or increase in corporation tax

 

[pb21]

It's hyperbole in the context you used it in. No argument was demolished. The nature of debating is one person has an opinion and another person has a different opinion. They get discussed and debated and you're welcome to champion whoever you thought won but to suggest someone was "demolished" is ridiculous and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Personally, I would prefer both sides debate like adults without trying to grandstand. That's best left for PMQs, this is the real world and impacts real people. People trying to travel, go to work, put money into the economy by enjoying days out, etc.



If that's your opinion, sure. Personally, I've not seen any interviews so far where anyone has been humiliated. Some people are making points I thoroughly disagree with, both in content and intention. But I wouldn't argue anyone has been humiliated for stating their opinion and justifying it. I'm welcome to review any video I haven't so far seen.

It sounds like you haven't seen the interviews with Lynch where the interviewer doesn't put their opinion or argument across, but rather attempts to character assassinate, directly or indirectly.

It is these instances, and there have been a few, where he has quite succinctly demoloshied (other adjectives, or is it verbs, I'm probably illiterate, are in the dictionary) the other person.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ahem. That's trickle down economics, something that you said a moment ago is a myth invented by those who oppose it.

its just basic economics, money circulates, from Alice to Bob to Eve, regardless if they earn 50k, 10k or 31.2k. some companies get involved along the way, employ people to make things, provide service, pay some executives and shareholders, who buy things and so on. the notion of trickle-down economics was about tax cuts, not stated as a formal economic theory and been re-appropriated in various meme like forms.

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

now thats getting into a lot more nuance. someone on lower income might spend greater proportion of income, assuming some level of saving which many dont, the mid and higher earner is still be spending more. Alice has 31k after tax and savings, Bob has 10k, Eve has 20k. who do you reckon spends the most money?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

It was coined by Will Rogers, in mockery, in the 1930s. Without any hint of irony, Reagan appropriated it as if it were a real phenomenon.

In a wider context, my initial awareness of the RMT strike came fully loaded with my prejudices against union leaders, an expectation there was no just cause, and a depressing sense that all Johnson needed to do was raise one eyebrow and express his condolences to the poor inconvenienced general public, and then usher in some new union laws, and another 3 million voters would flock to his plushly upholstered bosom, come next election time.

Instead, as [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION]'s post above, and many others attest, and my own research shows, this is a just cause, and the leadership is measured and informed. From a bloke called 'Mick', too. Who would have thought?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

its just basic economics, money circulates, from Alice to Bob to Eve, regardless if they earn 50k, 10k or 31.2k. some companies get involved along the way, employ people to make things, provide service, pay some executives and shareholders, who buy things and so on. the notion of trickle-down economics was about tax cuts, not stated as a formal economic theory and been re-appropriated in various meme like forms.

Yes, but we all understand what is meant by it, and many on the right still believe in it, whereas everone else things it doesn't work. It may be a meme but it isn't a 'myth' invoked only by those who 'oppose it'.

Let me keep this simple, since you don't appear to like long sentences. Do you support the idea of selective tax cuts for the rich as a means of making the poor better off?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

You.
I have no problem with high earners. Our society should be set up to make as many of them as possible.
Instead of making the super-rich, richer, at the expense of those with the least.

That's the whole point.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It sounds like you haven't seen the interviews with Lynch where the interviewer doesn't put their opinion or argument across, but rather attempts to character assassinate, directly or indirectly.

It is these instances, and there have been a few, where he has quite succinctly demoloshied (other adjectives, or is it verbs, I'm probably illiterate, are in the dictionary) the other person.

He does not seem to be the sort of bloke to put his opinions to the test by exploring the facts. Having had his arguments against the RMT exploded, he's still there, with his tiny spade, digging like a badger.

 

[Badger Boy]

Have a look at Piers Morgan and Mick Lynch.

If you want an adult discussion look at the Dan Walker interview which was very civilised.



You have your opinion, and I have mine. You think no argument was demolished, I disagree. Have a nice day.

We're certainly agreed on the difference between Piers Morgan and Dan Walker!

My opinion was and remains that the railway workers absolutely deserve a payrise and I think it's sad it's got to this point. Overall, I very much support the unions and have great respect for the role they play. It's a shame that strike action has been deemed required in this case and I hope it gets resolved soon.

Thank you, I hope you have a good day as well - I never mean for my posts to come across as argumentative. You are one of the few posters worth engaging in discussion.

 

[Durlston]

If you think you can do better you can do the night shift at Brighton station for £12.92 an hour.

Train Cleaner - Night Shift at Brighton Train Depot https://g.co/kgs/32fcSV

In terms of jobs, that has to be up there with jiz cleaner after a porn film has just been shot. The state of the toilets near the end of the day are as bad as the away end at Selhurst Park bogs.

 

[beorhthelm]

I stated earlier the railway companies made over £500 millions profit. That is coming from the public paying sky high fares. Surely the workers contributing to those profits should have some reward?

the £500m number is from Network Rail. the nationalised, publicly owned business, that gets its income from the operating companies. they pay out some 2% of revenue for what its worth. the sky high fares are from the high cost of maintainance and some new rolling stock.

 

[beorhthelm]

Let me keep this simple, since you don't appear to like long sentences. Do you support the idea of selective tax cuts for the rich as a means of making the poor better off?

no. sorry for the shortness.

i'm more in favour of flat taxes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks One person has come up with how extra money should be raised. Interesting opinion. If down this route I think far more assets moved abroad and far less rented property available
I would still like to know where money is coming from as nobody has suggested a higher tax band for big earners or increase in corporation tax

Although you and I might differ on the details or even the general thrust, I'm with you all the way that this will involve big and difficult decisions, and that some will lose out of it. At the moment, it's workers particularly public sector workers and the environment that's losing. You've pointed to some of the repercussions, although I'd add that many of the capital flight concerns you have would be obviated if other countries did it. Finally, the EU have decided to start aggressively clamping down on tax havens and MNC tax avoidance. Wonder why the Singapore-on-Thames lot were so keen on Brexit?

 

[Machiavelli]

no. sorry for the shortness.

i'm more in favour of flat taxes.

You've found a friend there then (although I suspect you know that), and you've made my point to HWT very effectively. Choices, choices. Necessity, necessity.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

the £500m number is from Network Rail. the nationalised, publicly owned business, that gets its income from the operating companies. they pay out some 2% of revenue for what its worth. the sky high fares are from the high cost of maintainance and some new rolling stock.

Network Rail is a non profit organisation. The companies making profits are GTR etc.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We're certainly agreed on the difference between Piers Morgan and Dan Walker!

My opinion was and remains that the railway workers absolutely deserve a payrise and I think it's sad it's got to this point. Overall, I very much support the unions and have great respect for the role they play. It's a shame that strike action has been deemed required in this case and I hope it gets resolved soon.

Thank you, I hope you have a good day as well - I never mean for my posts to come across as argumentative. You are one of the few posters worth engaging in discussion.

Thank you.

 

[rippleman]

It's hyperbole in the context you used it in. No argument was demolished. The nature of debating is one person has an opinion and another person has a different opinion. They get discussed and debated and you're welcome to champion whoever you thought won but to suggest someone was "demolished" is ridiculous and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Personally, I would prefer both sides debate like adults without trying to grandstand. That's best left for PMQs, this is the real world and impacts real people. People trying to travel, go to work, put money into the economy by enjoying days out, etc.



If that's your opinion, sure. Personally, I've not seen any interviews so far where anyone has been humiliated. Some people are making points I thoroughly disagree with, both in content and intention. But I wouldn't argue anyone has been humiliated for stating their opinion and justifying it. I'm welcome to review any video I haven't so far seen.

You need to seek out the Kay Burley interview then where she had to get Lynch to explain what a "picket" was and what it did. If Burley didn't feel humiliated after that she bloody well should have. He demolished her.