United States of Europe by 2025

[SirGalahad]

Firstly, no, I don't think wealth should be redistributed, but you obviously do. There are a lot of greedy people earning more than they deserve, and that should be tackled, but why shouldn't those who work hard be entitled to what they earn. But if people don't have any incentive to better themselves, then they wouldn't bother working harder, and they wouldn't earn more, and they wouldn't pay more tax in the process. The top 1% of the wealthiest people pay 27% of the tax take, so wealth is being taken from the rich, and redistributed to the poor - it's just not that obvious, nor in the way some would like.

Mandleson and Blair (you do know who they are) are both multi millionaires, Corbyn, Alistair Campbell and a lot in the Labour government are so well off, that whilst they are socialists, and well off enough to enjoy much nicer lifestyle than most of the people they profess to represent, and well off enough to enjoy more than the odd bottle of champagne.

If everyone were allowed to work a 4 day week, then more people would need to be taken on part time, but the wages bill would rise, and prices would have to rise accordingly - Oh yeah, then people would want a pay rise, and the company would eventually go out of business. Oh dear, now they are on benefits, and getting less than when they worked a 5 day week. Oh wait, lets take the money from the rich and redistribute it. Good idea, then when all the moneys been redistributed, and there's no rich people buying things, and say Harrods goes out of business, they stop buying goods from abroad, so people in China lose their jobs, and the staff who worked in Harrods don't go to the nearby coffee shops, so they shut down, or some of them get laid off, and they can't buy as much from tescos, so Aldis prospers at Tescos expense, and so the system goes into a recession that it never recovers from.

Those who scream for wealth distribution, often what it taken from someones else, but not themselves. Interesting how Lilly Allan and Benedict Cumberbatch harangued everyone for not taking in more refugees, but then decided that they weren't actually able to take any in themselves, but they really really wanted to.

Society should support those in need, but allow those who want to work to better themselves. Social mobility should be encouraged, but the Grammar schools got shut down, and social mobility stopped, and this alone shows that great levelling ideas, often work against those that they are supposed to help.

Trickle down theory has been debunked. It's toast but you are free to repeat its arguments - it's another fallacy like the broken window fallacy - (If I smash this window it will create work for a glazer who then will spend the money in the shop etc..)

I can't believe people still hold onto ideas that have been dismantled.

Again I don't understand what you mean by wealth redistribution as you seem to confuse income and wealth and then segue into taxes.

How do you determine someone is greedy and earning more than they deserve? Who calculates this?

Again you can't take one tax in isolation - we don't just pay a single tax - here is a simple guide - https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-wealthiest-pay-tax/

So people who are rich and educated cannot represent people who are not rich and educated. So MP should be representative of their public? Then who is Mr Average?

As to the 4 day week. Look at these tables for the hours worked and worker productivity and gdp per person.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV

Doggit I think you have simplified the economics system down too much and any conclusions you draw like above are really not warranted.

 

[Doggit]

I wish you hadn't told me about that Transam. I've found them, and looked at some of the jokes that he's posted, and I've now got a very worried feeling about things. I'm not sure whether needing to post political rants in the joke forum, shows desperation, or a lack of perspective.

 

[Doggit]

Doggit I think you have simplified the economics system down too much and any conclusions you draw like above are really not warranted

Of course I've simplified things down Kankerot; not everyone's working at your level. And whilst the trickle down effect has been debunked, I don't think it's completely dead, as that's exactly what happens in a recession. Someone loses their job, they can't buy the new TV etc etc etc. I have a bad habit of not always believing what someone tells me, until I've had a long hard think about it. There are too many people, newspapers and organisations that have an agenda to push, rather than the truth to tell.

Again you can't take one tax in isolation - we don't just pay a single tax

I know that; and where do you think I got the initial figures from. Same site by the way - so how come you quote it, and that's okay, but I quote from it, and you challenge me.

How do you determine someone is greedy and earning more than they deserve? Who calculates this

And if you can't work this one out, then maybe you're not as smart as I think you are. Let's see, the latest debate about vice chancellors doing nothing to enhance their universities, yet getting their pay set by other other people on the remuneration committee who also want their back scratched. Most health executives who chase statistics, cover high death rates, get paid way over what they are worth, and then get massive payoffs when they get found out and fired.

Again I don't understand what you mean by wealth redistribution as you seem to confuse income and wealth and then segue into taxes.

I don't. It's the likes of Owen Jones et all who think that other peoples wealth should be handed down to the supposed poor so that we'll have a more egalitarian society. I pointed out that wealth does get redistributed through the tax system, but those socialist that advocate the normal method of wealth distribution have knack of ignoring that, simply because it doesn't suit their ideology.

As to the 4 day week. Look at these tables for the hours worked and worker productivity and gdp per person

It has been argued, that because we work longer hours than most other countries, our productivity rate decreases because we've got more time to do things. But that's not the same as someone only being at work for 4 days rather than 5, and then needing someone else to be employed to replace the lost day.

So people who are rich and educated cannot represent people who are not rich and educated

There's no question that this is a contradiction, but it's interesting that the the shadow chancellor decided that the rich should pay more tax, but managed to determine that those earning more than MPs were the rich ones. Convenient cut off point or what. We need MPs who are well educated to run the country (and we don't have many at the minute), but I feel they need to be honest in their motives, not hypocritical in their actions.

 

[SirGalahad]

but I quote from it, and you challenge me.

No I didn't challenge the veracity. I simply pointed out that you need to look at the big picture. I used the same source as you its easier to digest rather than huge tables etc

vice chancellors doing nothing to enhance their universities,

These people are benefiting from a systemic problem where the Government decided that market forces would improve Universities. Just look at the US universities and rising costs and student debt which stands at $1.5 trillion - yes trillion. Also all other debts can be written down but not not student debt - so even if you declare bankruptcy in the US, your student debt is still payable.

Most health executives who chase statistics, cover high death rates, get paid way over what they are worth

We have a system of health by targets. These execs are forced to meet targets that become meaningless.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...kerslake-resigns-underfunding-health-services

You don't mention Bankers as undeserving are they? You seem to focus on the public sector are being undeserving.

wealth should be handed down to the supposed poor so that we'll have a more egalitarian society.

Who are the supposed poor? Implies there are no poor people. Foodbank usage would suggest otherwise. The only policies that will benefit everyone are the ones that reduce inequality and raise incomes of the middle class and poor. You are arguing for Reagonomics - his tax cuts for the rich tripled the US debt and then he had to raise taxes again.

socialist that advocate the normal method of wealth distribution

Are you saying OJ is arguing for taking wealth directly from the rich? I never seen him argue that - if he has please point it out. His arguments centre around a fairer tax system where there are no loopholes for the rich and corporations.

But that's not the same as someone only being at work for 4 days rather than 5, and then needing someone else to be employed to replace the lost day.

You think in binary terms. Workers can work in different patterns, shifts etc. One simple example is Hunt idiotic idea to have elective operations on the weekend. It is a waste of time and resources. It seems that supermarkets being open 7 days a week becomes the standard that we should all meet.

rich should pay more tax, but managed to determine that those earning more than MPs were the rich ones.

I take it you are on the rich ones then. Good on you.

 

[Doggit]

I take it you are on the rich ones then. Good on you.

You see Kanrkerot, this is where you and I get in to disagreements. No matter what I say, you seem to have an argumentative viewpoint, even when one doesn't exist. I'm afraid you do seem to challenge everything I say, even though I suspect that we actually think alike; you just want to seem to put the same ideas over in a different manner, so you come back with a different angle, and you look for things in my comments, that just aren't there.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to most of the assumptions you've made about my comments, except to say that I'm actually on about £26K a year, so no, I'm not one of the "rich" in this country, but I'd love to know how you're thinking process managed to jump to that conclusion.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

u said I was disabled u said I was retarded so I agreed with you
So u hate disabled people as well then

It is utterly disgusting when someone claims to be disabled if they are not.
When they try to blame someone else for their reprehensible behaviour they are beneath contempt.

It is often said that transam is a numbskull who publishes nonsense.

I am mentally retarded which I have told u or posted about on several occasions
I see that you consider it to perfectly acceptable to make fun or insult some one who has recognised disability with such comments as
Dummy .Half wit ,numb skull to name but 3 of your regular insults . I presume you have this type of prejudice against all disabled persons ??

**** end is utterly reprehensible, a liar, a bigot, and an Islamophobe. He blames others for his despicable behaviour, and he accuses others of being a liar and a bigot.

wannabe / way R bee I think he hates me as well

I have never met you, but judging by your deceit, unwarranted and untrue accusations, and hate-filled comments, you are a thoroughly nasty individual.
I guess you were brought up that way. Or something happened to you along life's path that twisted your mind into its current perverted state.
“No one is born hating another person ......"
Nelson Mandela.

 

[Notch7]

Hey Transom, I dont think Wannabe ^ likes you

I cant say for sure why, its not like anything has been mentioned

 

[SirGalahad]

You see Kanrkerot, this is where you and I get in to disagreements. No matter what I say, you seem to have an argumentative viewpoint, even when one doesn't exist. I'm afraid you do seem to challenge everything I say, even though I suspect that we actually think alike; you just want to seem to put the same ideas over in a different manner, so you come back with a different angle, and you look for things in my comments, that just aren't there.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to most of the assumptions you've made about my comments, except to say that I'm actually on about £26K a year, so no, I'm not one of the "rich" in this country, but I'd love to know how you're thinking process managed to jump to that conclusion.

Dogg what assumptions have I made - other than I thought you were rich - which has no concern for me other than I can then better understand where you are coming from. I would expect a multi millionaire to argue for lower taxes on the rich and super rich - why not its in his best interests but then I would find it hard to reconcile someone on £26k unless they own a large amount of assets to argue the case for the rich because of some debunked trickle down theory.

I am just trying to get a better understanding of how you formed your opinion.

 

[Doggit]

But I never argued for anything, and you just jumped in with 2 big feet making all sorts of assumptions about what I meant. So they gave tax cuts to the rich, and then found they went bankrupt. They were either following some left of field thinking (not left wing), paying back some political promises, or hadn't thought through the consequences of their actions, so hence my comment, bankruptcy was the result of unintended consequences, and that's how most politicians work. They never properly think through what they are going to do, and it's nearly always based on daft ideology, and ineptitude on their part.

I didn't argue for lower taxes, so how did you mange to read that from a simple observation on my part. And that seems to be the issue with you Kankerot; you seem to read something, and just react straight away. You obviously look at the world in a completely different way, certainly to me, and I think to a lot of others on here as well.

It was just a throwaway comment, and look where you went with it.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

But I never argued for anything,...

It was just a throwaway comment, and look where you went with it.

Talk about backpedaling!He must have caught it from notch.

 

[SirGalahad]

It was just a throwaway comment,

No it wasn't. If you argued for it more than once, a throw away comment is something you do quickly and in passing. My focus and concern is good economic policy so that's where I will put my points across.

wealth should be redistributed

wealth is being taken from the rich

wealth distribution

Social mobility should be encouraged, but the Grammar schools got shut down, and social mobility stopped

Are you saying Grammar Schools caused social mobility to stop or are you saying it's a symptom of social mobility slowing down?

 

[Doggit]

You really are beyond the pale Kankerot. I'm beginning tho think you know a bot of big words, yet understand very little of the world.

If you can't even read what I've written, and actually interpret it properly, then it's time to ignore you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Social mobility should be encouraged, but the Grammar schools got shut down, and social mobility stopped

Are you saying Grammar Schools caused social mobility to stop or are you saying it's a symptom of social mobility slowing down?

That would seem to be a classic Wannabe/Himmyesque inability to understand a very clearly written sentence.

 

[Doggit]

And that I think, would be putting it mildly.

 

[SirGalahad]

You really are beyond the pale Kankerot. I'm beginning tho think you know a bot of big words, yet understand very little of the world.

If you can't even read what I've written, and actually interpret it properly, then it's time to ignore you.

Dogg you seem to be quite loose with the way you use terms and then retract by saying it was a throw away statement. I am simply trying to pry out your argument.

Well what makes you say I don't understand the world?