Brexit and the Consequences

[timsk]

Hi Tom,

1. Where is the evidence that a strong and growing economy is so due to a falling or even stable population?

Pass. Never said it was!

2. UK governments have had decades to produce efficient public services and have failed to do so. Why could we expect a radical difference now?

Okay, by way of illustration, imagine you're a magician and can half the demand on public services with a single 'abracadabra'. How would that effect hospitals and patient care? How would it affect class sizes and teacher to pupil ratios?

3. Taxation needs to be increased so that public spending can be increased - IF this leads to a stronger and growing economy. Contrary to what db says, taxing the rich will not be enough - though some of them have income and assets multiple times those of the poorest members of society, there just aren't enough rich people in the UK to deliver the additional tax revenue we need.

I didn't specify taxing the rich. But, clearly, to build more schools and hospitals and to upgrade our transport infrastructure will require money - and taxation is the most obvious way to raise it. If there are other ways - then I'm all ears.

In any case, on moral grounds, I don't see it as the prerogative of government to re-distribute wealth on an arbitrary basis. Surely the job of government is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, not equality of wealth.

I have no argument with this per se - but it's not really relevant to my fundamental point which is that demand (ever larger numbers of people) far outstrips supply (public services). If we can reduce the demand - that will help. If we can increase the supply - that's even better.
Tim.

 

[counter_violent]

Increase taxes on the wealthy, same as I've been suggesting all along.

The answer to everything is soak the rich. It's already been tried and they all shut up shop, moved away and elected to do nothing. If the risk reward ratio becomes too far out of wack...people do nothing. It's that simple.

Corbyn made headway in the UK by promising undeliverable policies, all paid for by the magic money tree. Voted for by stupid people. Round and round we go. Getting nowhere fast. Meanwhile, the debt clock keeps on ticking.

 

[Atilla]

Some sensible and some not so sensible stuff but at least these are the right points we should be talking about.

1. Where is the evidence that a strong and growing economy is so due to a falling or even stable population?

2. UK governments have had decades to produce efficient public services and have failed to do so. Why could we expect a radical difference now?

3. Taxation needs to be increased so that public spending can be increased - IF this leads to a stronger and growing economy. Contrary to what db says, taxing the rich will not be enough - though some of them have income and assets multiple times those of the poorest members of society, there just aren't enough rich people in the UK to deliver the additional tax revenue we need.

In any case, on moral grounds, I don't see it as the prerogative of government to re-distribute wealth on an arbitrary basis. Surely the job of government is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, not equality of wealth.

If top level management set their own wages behind closed doors along with fund managers and they also set the workers wages how is that fair?

CV is able to produce some stat stating the difference in earnings and tax paid and prescribe we need to raise wages without identifying how. False diagnosis imo.

What he is getting at is the top brass numeration must be curtailed and some of that lolly more evenly spread to where it is used to reward input and not greed.

We've had this argument before. System is well and trully skewered in favour of the the tosh tit heads.

I say this based on my sincere experience and observation through out my career.

 

[dbphoenix]

dbp,
My proposals were equally specific and the order I put them in was hardly the point!

I get the uneasy feeling you're challenging my posts for reasons other than what I actually write - and that's a shame. I hope I'm wrong, but given that we are near enough in agreement regarding taxation, it's a possibility I have to consider.

Tim.

Reducing population growth by looking toward the Australian points system and implementing practical measures with regard to trucking and the NHS are specific to some extent, but increasing revenue does not belong in third place as without it every other measure will come up short, a finger in the dike as it were.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy has become a third rail. But watching societies falter, decline, and eventually collapse does not justify maintaining the status quo.

 

[tomorton]

Tomo

Can you give some examples of what public services are woefully inefficient. I see them as being fit for purpose at the very least. That's not to say they haven't fallen back a bit in the last few years 'nor that there is not room for improvement (there always is) but they are not chronically bad in my experience.

The usual suspects -
road maintenance (I think you raised this one)
benefits system
public transport
tax enforcement
business rates/council tax system
social care for the elderly
NHS psychiatric care
border control
NHS dentistry
police political correctness
the post office
the courts system
urban planning

All of these bump along at the just-about-managing-to-avoid-a-public-inquiry target level. No doubt others could add more specific areas of concern. Of course, some sectors were just so calamitous they were privatised or handed on to arms-length delivery bodies long ago. But that was just a scam, parallel to moving money to a numbered Swiss bank account to evade tax liability.

 

[dbphoenix]

The answer to everything is soak the rich. It's already been tried and they all shut up shop, moved away and elected to do nothing. If the risk reward ratio becomes too far out of wack...people do nothing. It's that simple.

Corbyn made headway in the UK by promising undeliverable policies, all paid for by the magic money tree. Voted for by stupid people. Round and round we go. Getting nowhere fast. Meanwhile, the debt clock keeps on ticking.

It isn't a matter of soaking the rich but rather turning off the spigot. The rich have spent the last forty years devoting themselves to funneling everything toward themselves via reductions in taxes and regulations and increasing favored status wherever possible (such as through non-monetary compensation), leaving the poor and the middle class holding the bag. The debt increases when there isn't enough money to pay the bills. Which is why the rich prefer that the poor, sick, and elderly simply disappear and that "services" be drastically reduced or even eliminated. All of this is happening in real time for those who are willing to pay attention.

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,

Pass. Never said it was!


Okay, by way of illustration, imagine you're a magician and can half the demand on public services with a single 'abracadabra'. How would that effect hospitals and patient care? How would it affect class sizes and teacher to pupil ratios?


I didn't specify taxing the rich. But, clearly, to build more schools and hospitals and to upgrade our transport infrastructure will require money - and taxation is the most obvious way to raise it. If there are other ways - then I'm all ears.


I have no argument with this per se - but it's not really relevant to my fundamental point which is that demand (ever larger numbers of people) far outstrips supply (public services). If we can reduce the demand - that will help. If we can increase the supply - that's even better.
Tim.

Cheers Tim.

The quality of public service delivery cannot be improved by reducing demand, it will always lag. If we had only half the number of school pupils we would instantly fire a bunch of teachers and close a load of schools. The remaining pupils would very likely end up in over-size classes.

Increased taxation is gong to be necessary, just to stand still. The allocation of additional revenue does have the potential to improve public services, but it hasn't worked in the NHS so is not a guaranteed cure.

 

[hhiusa]

Is this a true anecdote about England. Watching a TV show, a wealthy man is visited by his wife at his work. They have recently emigrated from England to the US. The wife complains on and on about how horrible New York is.

"And anyway", she says, "it is not London, it is not even England."

"That's for sure". Says the Husband. "I have been here for 10 months [at work] and nobody has even asked me where I went to school."

Are people really that concerned with those things? That classist?

 

[counter_violent]

Is this a true anecdote about England. Watching a TV show, a wealthy man is visited by his wife at his work. They have recently emigrated from England to the US. The wife complains on and on about how horrible New York is.

"And anyway", she says, "it is not London, it is not even England."

"That's for sure". Says the Husband. "I have been here for 10 months [at work] and nobody has even asked me where I went to school."

Are people really that concerned with those things? That classist?

H, I have to ask. Have you ever been out of the USA?

 

[hhiusa]

H, I have to ask. Have you ever been out of the USA?

Yes. Do you speak any foreign languages CV?

 

[counter_violent]

Yes. Do you speak any foreign languages CV?

Yes, I dabble with merican and conversational Aussie.

 

[hhiusa]

Yes, I dabble with merican and conversational Aussie.

no you dabble in politician because you avoid answering the question.

So it sounds like the TV anecdote was right. No wonder so many here are left leaning. if you're part of a have-not class you want the government to give you things.

 

[Atilla]

You see CV, voting Conservative doesn't make you one of them nor earning six figure sums.

You really should know your station in life and when to get off.

Here matey I've made space for you next to me. Come down here off your pedestal and let's have a pint.


:cheers:

 

[counter_violent]

no you dabble in politician because you avoid answering the question.

So it sounds like the TV anecdote was right. No wonder so many here are left leaning. if you're part of a have-not class you want the government to give you things.

When you answer my questions, then I will answer yours.

btw, I've just met the VP of AP today. (deliberate name drop)
http://www.airproducts.co.uk/Company/about-us/corporate_leadership/corning-f-painter.aspx

 

[hhiusa]

When you answer my questions, then I will answer yours.

btw, I've just met the VP of AP today. (deliberate name drop)
http://www.airproducts.co.uk/Company/about-us/corporate_leadership/corning-f-painter.aspx

And what questions would those be?

H, I have to ask. Have you ever been out of the USA?

Yes ...

Are people really that concerned with those things? That classist?

?

So, you don't speak any foreign languages?

 

[seekingTruth16]

Is this a true anecdote about England. Watching a TV show, a wealthy man is visited by his wife at his work. They have recently emigrated from England to the US. The wife complains on and on about how horrible New York is.

"And anyway", she says, "it is not London, it is not even England."

"That's for sure". Says the Husband. "I have been here for 10 months [at work] and nobody has even asked me where I went to school."

Are people really that concerned with those things? That classist?

No, not really. I haven't been asked where I went to school in years. Some people occasionally ask about university, but that's not really about class.

 

[tomorton]

Is this a true anecdote about England. Watching a TV show, a wealthy man is visited by his wife at his work. They have recently emigrated from England to the US. The wife complains on and on about how horrible New York is.

"And anyway", she says, "it is not London, it is not even England."

"That's for sure". Says the Husband. "I have been here for 10 months [at work] and nobody has even asked me where I went to school."

Are people really that concerned with those things? That classist?

Surely you're not going to say that the US is class-free? Or not classist?

 

[hhiusa]

Surely you're not going to say that the US is class-free? Or not classist?

No. But on a scale on 1 - 10, England scores about 8~9. The US scores lower. Universities are about class.

Here USC or Chapman or Pepperdine are private universities. Private universities cost $30-60K/year, so what they are really asking is how you could afford that?

The US is classist about money. We don't care if you went to community college as long as you have money. It is my understanding that British people rely more on upon titles and high-end universities to get good-paying jobs. I mean you have barristers and solicitors and solicitors look down on barristers.

To be sure there is a class system in the US, it is not nearly as defined as the caste system in the UK.

As further proof of the caste system in England is the behavior here. British people look down on American English and even if the accent here was objectively the worst, the very idea that this is voiced so frequently speaks to status-driven nature of the culture. I mean who cares if you don't have an education. Many extremely wealthy entrepreneurs only have a high school education. Couple that with the fact that the US and Australia are the most entrepreneurial nations. The UK scores 9th on the GEDI. Lower entrepreneurship means you are less likely to move up from your station in life.

It is especially ironic considering it is not the hill to die on. Being the most plutocratic, wealthy, and powerful seems much more important.

But as CV once said, "The British enjoy taking the **** at everything."

 

[cantagril]

The US is classist about money. We don't care if you went to community college as long as you have money. It is my understanding that British people rely more on upon titles and high-end universities to get good-paying jobs.

Titles: help get tables in restaurants, impress certain people from countries without a monarchy, useful to get in the door for certain jobs but without any guarantee. Qualifications much more important for work.

I mean you have barristers and solicitors and solicitors look down on barristers.

Vice versa. Often Barristers make far less.... but generally have more social standing and get to wear a dress. Look up the expression "take silk"

To be sure there is a class system in the US, it is not nearly as defined as the caste system in the UK.

From the other side of the Atlantic. UK cultural context is the old world of Europe (just!) and though there are great differences there are similar ideas still alive and kicking across the continent.

As further proof of the caste system in England is the behavior here. British people look down on American English and even if the accent here was objectively the worst, the very idea that this is voiced so frequently speaks to status-driven nature of the culture.

Maybe there's some element of that some times... but the Germans are equally disparaging about Swiss-German, the French about Belgian, Canadian and Swiss French, the Portuguese about Brazilian, the Spanish about Latin American etc etc etc ad infinitum. So for the most part nothing to do with "caste" as you put it.


I mean who cares if you don't have an education. Many extremely wealthy entrepreneurs only have a high school education. Couple that with the fact that the US and Australia are the most entrepreneurial nations. The UK scores 9th on the GEDI. Lower entrepreneurship means you are less likely to move up from your station in life.

It is especially ironic considering it is not the hill to die on. Being the most plutocratic, wealthy, and powerful seems much more important.

If you believe money is the most important thing for you then it's the most important thing and that is how your views and opinions are framed.

But as CV once said, "The British enjoy taking the **** at everything."

....and are very good at self-deprecation as well because of an acute awareness of inherent irony and absurdity. A quality which is often lacking in some other cultures.

Whilst you do make some valid points as an external observer, present day British culture is far less binary than you appear to think it is. Society has changed out of all recognition since WW2 and continues to do so. It may well astonish you but we stopped the pogroms a long while back, abandoned slavery without a civil war decades before the US, gave women the right to vote in 1918 (1920 in the States) and UK police don't tend to shoot quite so many people of colour....but who knows, they might catch up there too.

 

[Jason101]

So this thread has moved on from isolationism from the rest of Europe to the rest of the world. Bloody foreigners, hey.