Labour Party politics

[CPFCSaturn]

So those who have worked hard all their lives and managed their money properly have to pay for all the layabouts and jobless migrants and illegals, even if it means selling their houses.

'What a total t***'.

That's what I would say about a younger person who held that view.

For someone to think this is a reasonable summary of the policy and decisions around it, they would have to be so incredibly thick that you'd barely believe they can type.

 

[Badger11]

For someone to think this is a reasonable summary of the policy and decisions around it, they would have to be so incredibly thick that you'd barely believe they can type.

I took the liberty of rephrasing it

So those who have worked hard all their lives and managed their money properly have to pay for all the long term unemployed, NEETS and hardworking people who unfortunately have not paid enough tax in their life for whatever reason , even if it means selling their houses.🙂

 

[Teddy Eagle]

That's not a societal benefit - lots of peoples parents don't own anything.

And more broadly, that doesn't offset the enormous tax expenditure - imagine what we could do for all of the next generation if we weren't paying out enormous welfare bills to the richest demographic in society.

It's quite telling that you keep swerving my questions on this - if you believe this is logical policy, surely you can engage with my questions and challenges to it to prove the point.

If they don't own anything how will they be involved in this scheme?
I'm not trying to swerve anything and If you're talking solely about people who are wealthy apart from owning a house I would be more sympathetic it's just that, to me, this seems like a punitive measure against those who bought a property before it was worth anywhere near what it is now.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I took the liberty of rephrasing it

So those who have worked hard all their lives and managed their money properly have to pay for all the long term unemployed, NEETS and hardworking people who unfortunately have not paid enough tax in their life for whatever reason , even if it means selling their houses.🙂

Every single working person who pays tax is 'working hard and paying for the long term unemployed etc.'

A really successful working person pays even more for the long term unemployed etc.

That's literally how our tax and welfare system is structured, yes.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

If they don't own anything how will they be involved in this scheme?
I'm not trying to swerve anything and If you're talking solely about people who are wealthy apart from owning a house I would be more sympathetic it's just that, to me, this seems like a punitive measure against those who bought a property before it was worth anywhere near what it is now.

My point was it's not a societal benefit if only some people benefit.

You don't justify unfair policies because some people might own a house somewhere down the line - that's not a justification.

Why is this punitive? As you acknowledge, these people have watched an asset they bought for relatively cheap explode in value, through no work of their own, and now they might have to sell it for a huge profit to free up some cash - is that really punitive?

 

[chris123]

My point was it's not a societal benefit if only some people benefit.

You don't justify unfair policies because some people might own a house somewhere down the line - that's not a justification.

Why is this punitive? As you acknowledge, these people have watched an asset they bought for relatively cheap explode in value, through no work of their own, and now they might have to sell it for a huge profit to free up some cash - is that really punitive?

Lots of negetive equity 30 years ago, maybe a bit longer. We haven't had a property crash in a while, but I remember tne one in the early 90's.

 

[Badger11]

Every single working person who pays tax is 'working hard and paying for the long term unemployed etc.'

A really successful working person pays even more for the long term unemployed etc.

That's literally how our tax and welfare system is structured, yes.

The problem is that successive governments have broken the link between what you pay in and what you get out. This happened from the 1970's onwards.

I prefer to focus on the broken system rather than blaming the undeserving or migrants.

National Insurance is a prime example, more and more exceptions have been added so that the government pays the stamp even though that person is not paying tax. There are a whole raft of exceptions from the unemployed, sick, maternity leave, etc. Add to that people are starting work later in life 14 in my dad's case, these days 21, that also has an impact.

In short the number of people that actually contribute is being squeezed by those that don't. Dress it up anyway you like the current system is bearing down on a smaller and smaller group of taxpaying individuals.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

My point was it's not a societal benefit if only some people benefit.

You don't justify unfair policies because some people might own a house somewhere down the line - that's not a justification.

Why is this punitive? As you acknowledge, these people have watched an asset they bought for relatively cheap explode in value, through no work of their own, and now they might have to sell it for a huge profit to free up some cash - is that really punitive?

It's penalising those who've worked and saved to be able to buy a house. What else can be included? Anyone who can afford private medical care shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The problem is that successive governments have broken the link between what you pay in and what you get out. This happened from the 1970's onwards.

I prefer to focus on the broken system rather than blaming the undeserving or migrants.

National Insurance is a prime example, more and more exceptions have been added so that the government pays the stamp even though that person is not paying tax. There are a whole raft of exceptions from the unemployed, sick, maternity leave, etc. Add to that people are starting work later in life 14 in my dad's case, these days 21, that also has an impact.

In short the number of people that actually contribute is being squeezed by those that don't. Dress it up anyway you like the current system is bearing down on a smaller and smaller group of taxpaying individuals.

Yes, I agree - but surely ensuring we're not paying out unnecessary benefits to people who don't need them would be a step in the right direction - I'm sure you'd all agree with that sentence when it comes to working-age people, so I don't understand why it wouldn't apply to pensioners.

It's our single biggest welfare expense, which is only going one way with an ageing population and absurd triple-lock - the dynamic you highlight is worsened by the state pension.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It's penalising those who've worked and saved to be able to buy a house. What else can be included? Anyone who can afford private medical care shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS?

By which logic, I'm being penalised for having a decent job and not being entitled to any benefits. Should we therefore make benefits unanimous for working people..? Otherwise we're just penalising hard workers, right? That's not a logic we apply anywhere else.

I'd like to be penalised with selling an asset and realising an enormous appreciation that I did nothing to achieve. Sounds quite pleasant.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

By which logic, I'm being penalised for having a decent job and not being entitled to any benefits. Should we therefore make benefits unanimous for working people..? Otherwise we're just penalising hard workers, right?

I'd like to be penalised with selling an asset and realising an enormous appreciation that I did nothing to achieve. Sounds quite pleasant.

Nothing except often going without other things while paying for it for 25 years with no other expectation than that you'd own your house at the end of it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Nothing except often going without other things while paying for it for 25 years with no other expectation than that you'd own your house at the end of it.

Should benefits be unanimous for working people, so as not to penalise hard workers?

They very clearly do own their house at the end of it, but once you can no longer afford the house or the lifestyle, you might have to sell it. The horror!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Should benefits be unanimous for working people, so as not to penalise hard workers?

They very clearly do own their house at the end of it, but once you can no longer afford the house or the lifestyle, you might have to sell it. The horror!

I would say so but by your logic anyone earning over a certain amount should have saved enough to pay their own way.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I would say so but by your logic anyone earning over a certain amount should have saved enough to pay their own way.

I'm staggered you're an advocate of a universal cash allowance - now that's actual socialism.

I don't think it's accurate to describe this as 'my' logic, it's the basis of our entire welfare system - we only expect the state to step in when people can't get by on their own. We don't just hand money to everyone.

Unless they're pensioners obviously. Then apparently it should just be given to them whether they need it or not.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

And while the pearl clutching over our richest demographic continues, this is the reality for the generations behind them: 'Painful' years ahead, think tanks warn, as living standards set to fall

I guess they just don't work hard enough.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I'm staggered you're an advocate of a universal cash allowance - now that's actual socialism.

I don't think it's accurate to describe this as 'my' logic, it's the basis of our entire welfare system - we only expect the state to step in when people can't get by on their own. We don't just hand money to everyone.

Unless their pensioners obviously. Then apparently it should just be given to them whether they need it or not.

Sure. All pensioners are nothing but a drain on society. Drown them at birth.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Sure. All pensioners are nothing but a drain on society. Drown them at birth.

I just didn't have you down as a socialist. Free money for all.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

For someone to think this is a reasonable summary of the policy and decisions around it, they would have to be so incredibly thick that you'd barely believe they can type.

There is a fundamental issue here about rewarding success and responsibility. There is also the matter of having a welfare state that funds the idle and feckless to the point where taxation and borrowing are nearly in meltdown.

Socialist policy, or lack of it, has always and will always end in disaster.

I would suggest that a definition of thick is to keep voting for an ideology that always fails.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

There is a fundamental issue here about rewarding success and responsibility. There is also the matter of having a welfare state that funds the idle and feckless to the point where taxation and borrowing are nearly in meltdown.

Socialist policy, or lack of it, has always and will always end in disaster.

I would suggest that a definition of thick is to keep voting for an ideology that always fails.

So why don't we reward high-earning working age people with some cash benefits as well..?

The socialist policy is the current unconditional handouts to pensioners.

Is that why you're going again with Farage, after Brexit went so well 🤣

 

[steeleye20]

Sure. All pensioners are nothing but a drain on society. Drown them at birth.

How would they get to be pensioners if they were drowned at birth?

Need AI for this one......

😎