The UK benefits system

[Shambles]

^ Standard response to political disagreements you can't answer is to cry conspiracy theory. It's a sure sign of being somewhat clueless. Conspiracy theory or not those are widely-held opinions and beliefs - and not just by the tinfoil crew. To dismiss all with such meaningless namecalling suggests somebody has no answer and is probably not quite as bright as they think they are or would at least be able to give a reasoned refutation.

Hrmm..
I'm not sure I agree..
I do think that the current system is fucked - every citizen should have free and equal access to the essentials ( housing/food/education/medical care ).
But - I don't think that just living and breathing makes you as valuable to the corpus as any other member..

I wouldn't feel comfortable nor able to make those kind of value judgements. I could never know enough about a person to say they are more or less valuable as a human being than somebody else I know equally little about.

 

[furrball]

I didn't say "as a human" - I agree, there is no way to measure that without personal experience..
I was referring to a societal value - it being society that has the task of providing.

(I'm not shitstirring - I'm genuinely interested in competing *reasoned* viewpoints )

 

[sexNcandy]

Along with name calling in place of debate it seems...


i'm no economist (I did say it was waffle), but i think i understand what i've read about it (books/writers following my own biases of course).

So tell me how i'm wrong, as i'm sure i am (i want to learn (that's not sarcasm))

Sorry mate but it's not debate when you are posting such senseless conspiracy theories.

I didn't call you any names by the way. I'm tired of discussing economics, i've done it in 4 pages already with no result, the people who don't understand it can't get the points and cling on to their beliefs. They are entitled to that, but anyone who is versed on the matter can understand why things can't work this way.

You are very very far from being any kind of economist indeed. Your post is too black and white, you don't contemplate the complexities present in real life.

I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin, you are not saying anything with any sense to begin with. Unemployment isn't desired by anyone, and it doesn't affect the economy the way you seem to think it does. There are large parts of your post which are utterly meaningless.

You say > "I think maybe the elite just have an awareness that wealth can only exist relative to poverty"

And that's just so baffling on so many levels. You don't even know what wealth is. You are confusing inequality with poverty, with wealth and with relative wealth.

Inequality is the disparity of wages and wealth between people. Wealth is the capital already accumulated. You can be wealthier than someone, even thought both of you are wealthy by other countries standards.

Poverty isn't a relative concept. It's absolute. It's a definition. There is a poverty line and those below it are poor. You could have a country where no one is below the poverty line, where everyone is in fact well beyond it, and there would still be relative wealth, because some would have much more than others still, even thought no one was poor. So there could be plenty of inequality and no poverty at all.

 

[sexNcandy]

^ Standard response to political disagreements you can't answer is to cry conspiracy theory. It's a sure sign of being somewhat clueless. Conspiracy theory or not those are widely-held opinions and beliefs - and not just by the tinfoil crew. To dismiss all with such meaningless namecalling suggests somebody has no answer and is probably not quite as bright as they think they are or would at least be able to give a reasoned refutation.

Felt a bit sorry for you reading this. You are a great person, I can tell, with a big heart. But your own ignorance escapes you. I honestly don't believe you should be allowed to vote. They should make people take a basic test of basic economic concepts to judge whether or not they know what the fuck is going on.

 

[Vurtual]

OK that's a bit better, thanks. I take your point about relative inequality - but i think the point remains if you think about the power that wealth gives (which is what i meant i think): if everyone was roughly equally wealthy, would anyone be more powerful than anyone else in as much as relative wealth corresponds to power? Wouldn't people with the same wealth theoretically have some equality in power/representation (eg be able to afford the same (or no) lobbyists, or own or not the same media organs) - or do you think this type of oligarchic power doesn't exist?

 

[sexNcandy]

OK that's a bit better, thanks. I take your point about relative poverty and inequality - but i think the point remains if you think about the power that wealth gives (which is what i meant i think): if everyone was roughly equally wealthy, would anyone be more powerful than anyone else in as much as relative wealth corresponds to power? Wouldn't people with the same wealth theoretically have some equality in power/representation (eg be able to afford the same (or no) lobbyists, or own or not the same media organs) - or do you think this type of oligarchic power doesn't exist?

I certainly think oligarchies and monopolies exist. Wealth gives power, but it depends on how it is used. Some people would still have more influence than others due to their position in society. Someone who has a 100bn dollar media empire would still be much more powerful than someone with a 100bn dollar chipper empire.

But we will never have anything close to equality in our societies. No one is worried about that, no one who is rich or wealthy. They aren't trying to put anyone down, and they don't need poverty in itself.

They do need inequality, because capitalism can't function without it. People won't strive to get ahead in life and build big successful businesses if there is no incentive, if everyone will remain equal. Inequality is healthy to capitalism, it's almost its oxygen. To have motivation to increase their own wealth (and relative power of purchase and influence to anyone elses) people need to be able to have different levels of wealth. You could criticize that, I personally don't have a problem with it.

 

[Shambles]

I didn't say "as a human" - I agree, there is no way to measure that without personal experience..
I was referring to a societal value - it being society that has the task of providing.

(I'm not shitstirring - I'm genuinely interested in competing *reasoned* viewpoints )

Same question - who decides and on what criteria?

Felt a bit sorry for you reading this. You are a great person, I can tell, with a big heart. But your own ignorance escapes you. I honestly don't believe you should be allowed to vote. They should make people take a basic test of basic economic concepts to judge whether or not they know what the fuck is going on.

Y'know I'm not so sure I am such a nice guy actually. That seems a polite but somewhat patronising way that people who hold certain beliefs are spoken to by people who hold differing beliefs. I don't say the things I say or believe the things I believe cos I am nice - I may or may not be nice, rather depends on my mood as with most other people, probably more nice than nasty on the whole admittedly but don't really see how niceness is even relevant here. I say and believe the things I do because those are the conclusions - tentative conclusions always open to change naturally - I have come to through life and observation. Much the same as yourself I'd presume. Or at least hope.

No I don't know a damn thing about economics in the academic sense. Cos it's a pseudoscience at best. Deeply harmful obsession at worst. I also don't see how this is especially relevant.

You'll be pleased to know I don't vote. Not cos I can't - and certainly not because I shouldn't be allowed to (seriously? I couldn't disagree with you more but however close to being one of those loony lefty elitist types (of which we are utterly drowning in surely) I am not the one suggesting totalitarianist policy on those with whom I disagree. I don't vote cos they're all scum and none come close to approaching what I believe. That may change - there's even signs of that maybe happening some time - but for now there is nobody on offer who is worthy of my vote.

Inequality is healthy to capitalism, it's almost its oxygen. To have motivation to increase their own wealth (and relative power of purchase and influence to anyone elses) people need to be able to have different levels of wealth. You could criticize that, I personally don't have a problem with it.

Nor do I - within reason - but this is not within reason, hasn't been in forever, and is going the wrong way.

 

[Vurtual]

I certainly think oligarchies and monopolies exist. Wealth gives power, but it depends on how it is used. Some people would still have more influence than others due to their position in society. Someone who has a 100bn dollar media empire would still be much more powerful than someone with a 100bn dollar chipper empire.

But we will never have anything close to equality in our societies. No one is worried about that, no one who is rich or wealthy. They aren't trying to put anyone down, and they don't need poverty in itself.

They do need inequality, because capitalism can't function without it. People won't strive to get ahead in life and build big successful businesses if there is no incentive, if everyone will remain equal. Inequality is healthy to capitalism, it's almost its oxygen. To have motivation to increase their own wealth (and relative power of purchase and influence to anyone elses) people need to be able to have different levels of wealth. You could criticize that, I personally don't have a problem with it.

I agree to some extent with that analysis of inequality in today's reality - which is sort of how piketty describes it, though his analysis suggests the need to stop the trend of its increase (which i agree with - do you?). When i was talking about 'the elite' i mean it in a sort of marxist class-based way rather than individual evil plutocrats plotting the growth of their class domination while stroking a white cat (though i'm sure some would like to play up to this role).

Individuals are individual - averaged out over a class of people defined by their relationship to ownership, you can see a pattern which i think is quite obvious: people tend towards actions (and politics) that advantage their current position; so capitalists naturally want to keep their stuff and tweak the legislature to make sure it stays that way; while poor people (media brainwashing notwithstanding) would like some of the rich people's stuff (which they did mostly make after all). Both positions are ultimately as self interested as the other, but democracy should trump economics in the end i think.

Again this is probably all bollocks. Could you name drop some books that you think would set me straight?

 

[ponch]

Abolish income tax and raise VAT to 40 or 50%. Impossible to avoid unless you don't buy anything ever again.

 

[Vurtual]

^VAT is a totally regressive flat tax (why thatcher loved it) - the rich would pay the same rate as the poor (and a tiny fraction of their actual income/wealth).

I think france has/had variable vat (like higher rates on 'luxury' models or whatever - heard thaat years ago so probably changed/wrong)

 

[Shambles]

^VAT is a totally regressive flat tax (why thatcher loved it) - the rich would pay the same rate as the poor (and a tiny fraction of their actual income/wealth).

I don't know owt 'bout economic theory but that's just plain obvious.

 

[ponch]

People on low incomes would be entitled to tax rebates.

 

[sexNcandy]

Same question - who decides and on what criteria?



Y'know I'm not so sure I am such a nice guy actually. That seems a polite but somewhat patronising way that people who hold certain beliefs are spoken to by people who hold differing beliefs. I don't say the things I say or believe the things I believe cos I am nice - I may or may not be nice, rather depends on my mood as with most other people, probably more nice than nasty on the whole admittedly but don't really see how niceness is even relevant here. I say and believe the things I do because those are the conclusions - tentative conclusions always open to change naturally - I have come to through life and observation. Much the same as yourself I'd presume. Or at least hope.

No I don't know a damn thing about economics in the academic sense. Cos it's a pseudoscience at best. Deeply harmful obsession at worst. I also don't see how this is especially relevant.

You'll be pleased to know I don't vote. Not cos I can't - and certainly not because I shouldn't be allowed to (seriously? I couldn't disagree with you more but however close to being one of those loony lefty elitist types (of which we are utterly drowning in surely) I am not the one suggesting totalitarianist policy on those with whom I disagree. I don't vote cos they're all scum and none come close to approaching what I believe. That may change - there's even signs of that maybe happening some time - but for now there is nobody on offer who is worthy of my vote.



Nor do I - within reason - but this is not within reason, hasn't been in forever, and is going the wrong way.

I didn't mean to be polite or patronizing. I empathize with you and your intentions, I genuinely think you come off as a person with a good heart. I just think that your beliefs would be harmful if put in practice and in the long run would be very harmful to society and the countries economy. However I would also like to see a society with less poverty and where wealth was better distributed.

You don't see how understanding economics is specially relevant because you don't understand economics. I never suggested totalitarianism, and I actually wouldn't defend anything like this in practice because it would be distorted by politicians. But I actually think it could help a bit to make people answer a multiple choice questionnaire with some basic stuff. All the answers could be in a simple, 2 page document that would be available to everyone months before. So only the votes of those who took the time to read - super basic stuff - and answered correctly - extremely easy questions - would be counted. It's just an idea, I don't see how its totalitarian.

 

[Vurtual]

@Ponch - Getting better - how's about abolish income taxes and tax only wealth/property?

 

[RLP]

How about no?

 

[Vurtual]

Shall we vote?

 

[ColtDan]

These debates are partly why i like this place... said the same before in other debatey threads... interesting stuff

 

[sexNcandy]

I agree to some extent with that analysis of inequality in today's reality - which is sort of how piketty describes it, though his analysis suggests the need to stop the trend of its increase (which i agree with - do you?). When i was talking about 'the elite' i mean it in a sort of marxist class-based way rather than individual evil plutocrats plotting the growth of their class domination while stroking a white cat (though i'm sure some would like to play up to this role).

Individuals are individual - averaged out over a class of people defined by their relationship to ownership, you can see a pattern which i think is quite obvious: people tend towards actions (and politics) that advantage their current position; so capitalists naturally want to keep their stuff and tweak the legislature to make sure it stays that way; while poor people (media brainwashing notwithstanding) would like some of the rich people's stuff (which they did mostly make after all). Both positions are ultimately as self interested as the other, but democracy should trump economics in the end i think.

Again this is probably all bollocks. Could you name drop some books that you think would set me straight?

Your attitude is great, I apologize for being an asshole before. I disagreed with you but I was just rude about it, so im sorry.

Nice to see someone here has heard of piketty. I too think the world would be better off in the long run if return on capital stopped increasing over product.

I honestly know very little about developmental economics, although I've had great teachers who taught me some valuable stuff. I would recommend pikettys book - thought I haven't read it myself, its too long, it comes highly recommended.

I did read the review by bob solow :

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed

Also could recommend developmental economics by debraj ray

http://www.amazon.com/Development-Economics-Debraj-Ray/dp/0691017069

 

[RLP]

Shall we vote?

By all means, but if the vote swings "yes" then people like myself who've built up serious assets through careful financial planning will simply bugger off as you'd be no better than a common thief.

You may all rejoice initially at the big bad bullish bogey men buggering off to Borneo, but after a few months with no entrepreneurs to give you the chance of employment and no self-drive to do it yourself, you'll soon renege on the tax-the-golden-goose policies that Liberal lefty looney quack toads bring up at every goddamn opportunity.

 

[Shambles]

People on low incomes would be entitled to tax rebates.

They already are. Your suggestion simply exempts rich people from paying more than the cost of the occasional sandwich in terms of tax. Other baubles and essentials are available. But won't come close to covering income tax.

I didn't mean to be polite or patronizing. I empathize with you and your intentions, I genuinely think you come off as a person with a good heart. I just think that your beliefs would be harmful if put in practice and in the long run would be very harmful to society and the countries economy. However I would also like to see a society with less poverty and where wealth was better distributed.

You don't see how understanding economics is specially relevant because you don't understand economics. I never suggested totalitarianism, and I actually wouldn't defend anything like this in practice because it would be distorted by politicians. But I actually think it could help a bit to make people answer a multiple choice questionnaire with some basic stuff. All the answers could be in a simple, 2 page document that would be available to everyone months before. So only the votes of those who took the time to read - super basic stuff - and answered correctly - extremely easy questions - would be counted. It's just an idea, I don't see how its totalitarian.

I suspect you probably don't see how that is patronising either. Are you really saying that only people with specialist knowledge of economic theory - and can pass an exam on it - should be allowed to vote?

And you also appear to be saying that economics as practised since such a thing was invented and then got a little too big for its boots somehow hasn't been horrendously harmful to society. Tell that to the people chained to their workstation - in actual chains - to keep prices down. Tell it to people jumping off rooftops and not even being allowed that escape cos Apple put up nets to catch them it happens so frequently. Tell it to everybody shat on to fund a corrupt system. Economics helps people who have degrees in economics. Or those whose parents did somewhere down the line. The rest of us pay for it all through exploitation, oppression and suppression. And being constantly told that if we just keep holding out it really will be different this time. This public bailout will be the last. We've made those mistakes so often we'd be fools to do it all over again. And again. And again. We would stay rich though so there is that to at least sweeten the pill. We'll even buy some mosquito nets and shit. Makes all the difference.

The whole thing is bullshit. We have the same stuff in the world and the same ways of utilising that stuff whatever stupid and shortsighted economic policy is in play. We can choose to make use of them any way we please. When little pieces of paper count for all there's something very wrong with it all. Incentive would be a bonus. Not crap. Actual incentive. Reasons to want to contribute cos you feel the benefit and can see it around you. That's not economics but it is human nature. What I think of as humanity anyway.