UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[Pogue Mahone]

Well lets put it into perspective. Say you earn £25000 and the rate went up to by 5% would you really miss £60 a month? Now some people may be on the fence as for low earners £60 is a lot of money.

But lets say you earned £200k a year you takehome would be £9,715 a month and if this was lowered to £9,507 do you really think would this make a difference?

Well 200 quid is three times as much money to lose as 60 quid, so that definitely leaves a bigger hole in the monthly budget.

Obviously, the tipping point will depend on the individual. It's also not necessarily about the people already earning big money, as they may well take it on the chin. It's the up and coming talents who risk being driven out of the country. They're more mobile and will go where they feel they are most likely to earn the most money. To bring things back to my doctor example, the really big problem in Ireland has not been hospital consultants upping sticks but the best and brightest of the trainees heading abroad, many of whom will never come back. Losing large numbers of young people who the state has already invested a lot of money in their education can have severe long-lasting effects on an economy.

 

[Mockney]

Nobody needs more than one home and making property a less desirable investment would drop prices and reduce the cost of living for everyone. Win win.

Nobody needs an exorbitant salary either tbf. Especially when it's most likely the product of a society where the proportionality of pay is out of whack. Where those at the bottom need to undercut each other, those at the top can charge whatever they want, and money automatically makes more money.

It's a hard problem to fix admittedly, cos those in the top eschelons (like your "very wealthy" consultants) usually do think they're worth 100x the average, because someone was willing to pay it. It's an ingrained capitalist mindet. Ideally even the very rich would feel a responsibility towards society.

 

[Arruda]

Nobody needs an exorbitant salary either tbf. Especially when it's most likely the product of a society where the proportionality of pay is out of whack. Where those at the bottom need to undercut each other, those at the top can charge whatever they want, and money automatically makes more money.

It's a hard problem to fix admittedly, cos those in the top eschelons usually do think they're worth 100x the average, because someone was willing to pay it. It's an ingrained capitalist mindet. Ideally even the very rich would feel a responsibility towards society.

Nice way of putting it. Loved the undercutting part, important perspective that leads us to the birth of syndicalism.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Nobody needs an exorbitant salary either tbf. Especially when it's most likely the product of a society where the proportionality of pay is out of whack. Where those at the bottom need to undercut each other, those at the top can charge whatever they want, and money automatically makes more money.

It's a hard problem to fix admittedly, cos those in the top eschelons usually do think they're worth 100x the average, because someone was willing to pay it. It's an ingrained capitalist mindet. Ideally even the very rich would feel a responsibility towards society.

See my point would be that the very rich don't get rich because they're on a big salary. It's the investments that they make with that salary (and/or inheritance) that moves them from comfortably off to seriously wealthy. Isn't that the whole thing Thomas Piketty is on about? It's capital gains that is doing the most to widen the wealth gap, not salaries.

For me, progressive taxation would be better off targetting money earned through investment rather than ramping up PAYE. Intuitively, aggressive taxation at source seems harsher than clamping down on the ability to use that money to earn even more money. Although, again, I'm a rank amateur at all of this so have no idea if that economic sense. I also don't know whether or not I'm now arguing against my previous point about driving people out of the country. Ramping up capital gains tax might do that too?

 

[LitterBug]

Well 200 quid is three times as much money to lose as 60 quid, so that definitely leaves a bigger hole in the monthly budget.

Obviously, the tipping point will depend on the individual. It's also not necessarily about the people already earning big money, as they may well take it on the chin. It's the up and coming talents who risk being driven out of the country. They're more mobile and will go where they feel they are most likely to earn the most money. To bring things back to my doctor example, the really big problem in Ireland has not been hospital consultants upping sticks but the best and brightest of the trainees heading abroad, many of whom will never come back. Losing large numbers of young people who the state has already invested a lot of money in their education can have severe long-lasting effects on an economy.

Well putting things into perspective, £200 is just over 3.5 times more than £60 but £9.7k per month is over 6 times more than £1.6k. Most things will cost the same, groceries, fuel, broadband, TV subs etc so really £200 will be hardly noticeable for someone earning that kind of money. Just look back at the 5% VAT increase, it hit the poor much much harder than it did the rich. Truth be told a 5% rise on the base rate wouldn't affect me personally that much, so that's why I think that it would hardly make a dent in the finances of people earning 10-15 times what I do, be they young, middle-aged or old.

 

[Arruda]

See my point would be that the very rich don't get rich because they're on a big salary. It's the investments that they make with that salary that moves them from comfortably off to seriously wealthy. Isn't that the whole thing Thomas Piketty is on about? It's capital gains that is doing the most to widen the wealth gap, not salaries.

For me, progressive taxation would be better off targetting money earned through investment rather than ramping up PAYE. Intuitively, aggressive taxation at source seems harsher than clamping down on the ability to use that money to earn even more money. Although, again, I'm a rank amateur at all of this so have no idea if that economic sense. I also don't know whether or not I'm now arguing against my previous point about driving people out of the country. Ramping up capital gains tax might do that too?

It's so intuitive that you don't even need Thomas Piketty. Wealthy lend money to the least wealthy and profit from it. How could it end in any way other than a widening gap unless the money could be better invested by the poor than by the rich? Which may happen every now and then, but certainly would never be the norm.

You know physiology, positive feedback cycles lead to imbalance of any system.

 

[Mockney]

See my point would be that the very rich don't get rich because they're on a big salary. It's the investments that they make with that salary that moves them from comfortably off to seriously wealthy. Isn't that the whole thing Thomas Piketty is on about? It's capital gains that is doing the most to widen the wealth gap, not salaries.

True, that's the "money makes more money" part of it. Which is still a facet of an unfair system that, ideally, those seriously wealthy would understand enough to not go all Ayn Rand on us.

For me, progressive taxation would be better off targetting money earned through investment rather than ramping up PAYE. Intuitively aggressive taxation at source seems harsher than clamping down on the ability to use that money to earn even more money. Although, again, I'm a rank amateur at all of this so have no idea if that economic sense.

It seems like it'd be far easier to avoid. People would just invest abroad, for example, whilst still living here. Also, wouldn't clamping down at source make it harder to flippantly invest in the first place? (I'm no economist either fwiw. I'm about AS level Business Studies level, and even then I was kicked out of the class for doodling.)

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well putting things into perspective, £200 is just over 3.5 times more than £60 but £9.7k per month is over 6 times more than £1.6k. Most things will cost the same, groceries, fuel, broadband, TV subs etc so really £200 will be hardly noticeable for someone earning that kind of money. Just look back at the 5% VAT increase, it hit the poor much much harder than it did the rich. Truth be told a 5% rise on the base rate wouldn't affect me personally that much, so that's why I think that it would hardly make a dent in the finances of people earning 10-15 times what I do, be they young, middle-aged or old.

Like I said, it's all relative and will depend on the individual. It's quite possible that someone on that salary will be on a budget that sees it all used up each month, with a chunk going on pensions and investments. Or sending their kids to crazy expensive schools. Whatever, it's a false premise that money means less to people earning above a certain salary. 200 quid is 200 quid and, in my experience, it's often the wealthier people that are the biggest bean counters. That's part of the reason why they go so wealthy in the first place!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It seems like it'd be far easier to avoid. People would just invest abroad, for example, whilst still living here. Also, wouldn't clamping down at source make it harder to flippantly invest in the first place? (I'm no economist either fwiw. I'm about AS level Business Studies level, and even then I was kicked out of the class for doodling.)

If my theory works, that's a good thing. Property seems to be the investment of choice for an awful lot of rich people. If UK/Irish housing stock became a less desirable investment then property/rental prices would drop and everyone would benefit.

This is all just pub bullshit by the way (a phrase a friend of mine invented for trying to sound knowledgeable over a pint about something you know very little about)

 

[Mockney]

Like I said, it's all relative and will depend on the individual. It's quite possible that someone on that salary will be on a budget that sees it all used up each month, with a chunk going on pensions and investments. Or sending their kids to crazy expensive schools. Whatever, it's a false premise that money means less to people earning above a certain salary. 200 quid is 200 quid and, in my experience, it's often the wealthier people that are the biggest bean counters. That's part of the reason why they go so wealthy in the first place!

This is all definitely true, but part of the idea is to stop them being able to chuck stuff on pensions, investments and crazy expensive schools so easily, whilst those below them haven't got anywhere near the opportunity. No one wants to stop rich people getting rich (I don't think) the best should always be paid more than the average. But when they're paid so much more, and the automatic benefits of it lead to an even greater increase of wealth, it unbalances the playing field. It's like a cheat code.

If my theory works, that's a good thing. Property seems to be the investment of choice for an awful lot of rich people. If UK/Irish housing stock became a less desirable investment then property/rental prices would drop and everyone would benefit.

This is all just pub bullshit by the way (a phrase a friend of mine invented for trying to sound knowledgeable over a pint about something you know very little about)

It sounds theoretically possible. Again, from my largely doodle rich knowledge of economics. But it still wouldn't stop the wealthy acquiring more wealth, more easily, and thus perpetuating the systemic cycle of privilage. If anything we'd just end up like the Arab Shieks or Russian oligarchs of another country, fecking over their property market for our flippant holiday homes.

 

[Arruda]

Theoretically, even if you were to start a system from scratch, with utopic conditions like everyone having the same starting wealth to invest, no corruption, no law-breakers, etc... It can't work. It's stupid.

Someone will always, due to being better or luckier, get ahead. There may be merit in going ahead the first time, but after a certain point, being ahead is an unfair advantage in itself that is bound to self-perpetuate. Take the example of a big supermarket chain moving to a small town that only has medium-sized companies in that sector. They undercut prices for a couple of years, because they can sustain the local losses. After driving some competitors out of business, they can raise their prices slowly and they're set. This happened in virtually every town in Portugal that I know, and I presume, everywhere around the world.

Ayn Rand was a simplistic cnut.

 

[peterstorey]

The long-term trend has to be towards global equalisation of wealth so standards of living will decline in the west, this is already happening in the states where blue-collar wages are less in real terms that in the mid-80s (while the very rich get richer).

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Theoretically, even if you were to start a system from scratch, with utopic conditions like everyone having the same starting wealth to invest, no corruption, no law-breakers, etc... It can't work. It's stupid.

Someone will always, due to being better or luckier, get ahead. There may be merit in going ahead the first time, but after a certain point, being ahead is an unfair advantage in itself that is bound to self-perpetuate. Take the example of a big supermarket chain moving to a small town that only has medium-sized companies in that sector. They undercut prices for a couple of years, because they can sustain the local losses. After driving some competitors out of business, they can raise their prices slowly and they're set. This happened in virtually every town in Portugal that I know, and I presume, everywhere around the world.

Ayn Rand was a simplistic cnut.

You could argue that's entirely natural. Evolution in action.

 

[LitterBug]

Like I said, it's all relative and will depend on the individual. It's quite possible that someone on that salary will be on a budget that sees it all used up each month, with a chunk going on pensions and investments. Or sending their kids to crazy expensive schools. Whatever, it's a false premise that money means less to people earning above a certain salary. 200 quid is 200 quid and, in my experience, it's often the wealthier people that are the biggest bean counters. That's part of the reason why they go so wealthy in the first place!

Well they can invest less in personal wealth and pay more tax which can be invested for the benefit of the society that surrounds them so those less fortunate can get a better education, health service etc.

 

[Arruda]

You could argue that's entirely natural. Evolution in action.

Of course. And that's what Libertarians want, isn't it? A purely natural system.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Anyone see this: http://nyti.ms/1FHRX1K

Nutter?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Of course. And that's what Libertarians want, isn't it? A purely natural system.

Which brings us back to your point about physiology. Fecking with a natural equilibrium rarely ends well. Even with the best of intentions.

 

[Mockney]

Anyone see this: http://nyti.ms/1FHRX1K

Nutter?

He's a good nutter if so. But probably still a nutter.

Which brings us back to your point about physiology. Fecking with a natural equilibrium rarely ends well. Even with the best of intentions.

Our system isn't really natural though. It's engineered at the top as well as the bottom. Nature is far more meritocratic, and rarely relies on pre-existing privilages, beyond the physical.

 

[Arruda]

Anyone see this: http://nyti.ms/1FHRX1K

Nutter?

I saw that the other day. There does seem to be some lunacy in it. I think it's unlikely to work very well in the long run, surely that will impact the company's prospects if their competitors aren't doing the same. It's all fine when he's taking it out of his own pocket, but when profits are invested in salaries instead of more capital it's bound to stunt the company's growth, as I don't believe increased productivity and happiness will make up for that shortcoming. You can't just pay twice to your phone clerk than your competitors are doing.

It would be great if everyone done the same, but alone I don't think it will go very far.

There's this pearl in the text though

Under a financial overhaul passed by Congress in 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission was supposed to require all publicly held companies to disclose the ratio of C.E.O. pay to the median pay of all other employees, but it has so far failed to put it in effect. Corporate executives have vigorously opposed the idea, complaining it would be cumbersome and costly to implement.

Erm, couldn't someone with basic accounting knowledge and 4th grade math skills do that in 10 minutes?

 

[CircusMonkey]

Anyone see this: http://nyti.ms/1FHRX1K

Nutter?

If only more people realised that you can 'have enough', instead of trying to accumulate excessive amounts of material shit.
Whenever I have worked for an employer who has been fair and paid well, the atmosphere and productivity has always been a lot better, not to mention the reduction in people having 'sick' days.

 

[Arruda]

Which brings us back to your point about physiology. Fecking with a natural equilibrium rarely ends well. Even with the best of intentions.

I'd say medical science has completely negated that point during the last two centuries? We haven't done that badly at messing up with physiology with the best of intentions, care, and knowledge. Would you say pharmacology science as a whole had a negative impact on humanity, for example? Perhaps in a huge time frame and outside perspective that may prove to be the point (messing up with evolution being our doom), but as a human in my life-span I can't think that way.

The fact we've done it wrong before (communism) doesn't mean there aren't other, better thought, more patient approaches that won't fear trial and error and reinventing themselves that may have a better result for the majority of people.

 

[Mockney]

Whenever people use the "natural" analogy they always plump for aggressive examples like lions or sharks. It's never penguins. Or one the many species with a sense of community. We could use ants to claim a feudal monarchy is natural if we wanted.....probably.

 

[Jippy]

Erm, couldn't someone with basic accounting knowledge and 4th grade math skills do that in 10 minutes?

It's obviously do-able, but if a company has 60,000 employees across 23 countries all under different tax regimes, it'd be a faff. Not sure what it ultimately achieves anyway. Doubt it is going to significantly bring to bear pressure on executive remuneration tbh.

If my theory works, that's a good thing. Property seems to be the investment of choice for an awful lot of rich people. If UK/Irish housing stock became a less desirable investment then property/rental prices would drop and everyone would benefit.

This is all just pub bullshit by the way (a phrase a friend of mine invented for trying to sound knowledgeable over a pint about something you know very little about)

Not everyone. You'd send many thousands of 'normal, working folk' deep into negative equity, particularly when interest rates eventually start rising. You'd guarantee many retire in penury though.

Like I said, it's all relative and will depend on the individual. It's quite possible that someone on that salary will be on a budget that sees it all used up each month, with a chunk going on pensions and investments. Or sending their kids to crazy expensive schools. Whatever, it's a false premise that money means less to people earning above a certain salary. 200 quid is 200 quid and, in my experience, it's often the wealthier people that are the biggest bean counters. That's part of the reason why they go so wealthy in the first place!

Definitely. My wife's boss is a multi-millionaire and her job is as an analyst on the team that runs his (self-made) money. He is as cheap as you get, printing on both sides of the paper, going beserk if someone leaves the kitchen light on and taking the staff to the cheapest restaurant, especially since they are near Bond Street, for the Christmas party etc...serious tight wad.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Not everyone. You'd send many thousands of 'normal, working folk' deep into negative equity, particularly when interest rates eventually start rising. You'd guarantee many retire in penury though.

Yeah, fair point. That's the problem with pub bullshit. Seems superficially sensible but falls apart under scrutiny.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Whenever people use the "natural" analogy they always plump for aggressive examples like lions or sharks. It's never penguins. Or one the many species with a sense of community. We could use ants to claim a feudal monarchy is natural if we wanted.....probably.

I was going with the survival of the fittest analogy, where an animal happens to be better adapted to its environment so - over time - eliminates competing species. Whether they're aggressive or not is neither here nor there. They just need to be efficient at reproducing. Which does, to be fair, rule penguins out. The only animal on the planet stupid enough to try and rear kids dozens of miles away from the nearest food source.

But yeah, it's a silly analogy. Human society and culture is not natural. It's the very definition of "man made". The only question is whether or not it's possible to engineer a better society than the one we're living in now. I don't know the answer. I'd like to think so but the older I get, the more weary I get about the scale of the project. I just can't work up enough energy to care about the greater good any more.

 

[Jippy]

I was going with the survival of the fittest analogy, where an animal happens to be better adapted to its environment so - over time - eliminates competing species. Whether they're aggressive or not is neither here nor there. They just need to be efficient at reproducing. Which does, to be fair, rule penguins out. The only animal on the planet stupid enough to try and rear kids dozens of miles away from the nearest food source.

But yeah, it's a silly analogy. Human society and culture is not natural. It's the very definition of "man made". The only question is whether or not it's possible to engineer a better society than the one we're living in now. I don't know the answer. I'd like to think so but the older I get, the more weary I get about the scale of the project. I just can't work up enough energy to care about the greater good any more.

Ditto. Sadly the idealism of my youth ebbed away and I drifted over to the right, accepting my lot and trying to make the best of it. The complexity and scale of the project, not to mention the embedded self-interest opposing it, is enough to grind most people down.
Not sure if some are almost calling for a French Revolution-style event, but it would be pretty cataclysmic to force massive societal change and I highly doubt any Utopia achieved would last for any more than the short-term, given lots of humans are cnuts.

 

[Mockney]

So basically, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? You cnuts.

 

[JohnLocke]

If my theory works, that's a good thing. Property seems to be the investment of choice for an awful lot of rich people. If UK/Irish housing stock became a less desirable investment then property/rental prices would drop and everyone would benefit.

This is all just pub bullshit by the way (a phrase a friend of mine invented for trying to sound knowledgeable over a pint about something you know very little about)

David Harvey has some interesting things to say about use and exchange values in housing and if we could eradicate / lower the exchange value then it would lead to better affordable housing for all. Worth a read / watch if you're interested

 

[Jippy]

So basically, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? You cnuts.

Creating Utopia is a pipe dream, realistically. I don't have the energy to lead some rabble of anarchists and am certain they'd have loads of policy ideas I don't agree with. I might be a cnut, but I'm broadly a happy enough one with my missus and I in our nice flat, a cat and decent holidays.

 

[LitterBug]

Creating Utopia is a pipe dream, realistically. I don't have the energy to lead some rabble of anarchists and am certain they'd have loads of policy ideas I don't agree with. I might be a cnut, but I'm broadly a happy enough one with my missus and I in our nice flat, a cat and decent holidays.

That's all fine and dandy until the bloke down the street mugs you because he needs cash to feed his family, or when you get burgled, or when you get stabbed by a gang of teens just because they didn't like the way you looked at them.

 

[Jippy]

That's all fine and dandy until the bloke down the street mugs you because he needs cash to feed his family, or when you get burgled, or when you get stabbed by a gang of teens just because they didn't like the way you looked at them.

It's not Les Miserables- you know that I'm statistically more likely to be burgled or mugged by someone feeding an addiction. What do you want me to do? Give away all my possessions and roam the land, preaching about equality while wearing a hessian sack?

 

[Mockney]

What does "having the energy to lead a revolt" have to do with anything? Is that genuinely the natural extension of being a little more liberal and a little less self interested? It's the slippery slope argument gone bonkers. All you'd have to do is support the initiatives of others, or at the very least not actively oppose them by voting in Conservatives...not form your own personal militia of Russell Brands.

 

[Jippy]

What does "having the energy to lead a revolt" have to do with anything? Is that genuinely the natural extension of being a little more liberal and a little less self interested? It's the slippery slope argument gone bonkers. All you'd have to do is support the initiatives of others, or not actively oppose them by voting in Conservatives...not form a personal militia or Russell Brands.

Yeah, I'm getting drawn into this thread of extremes.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That's all fine and dandy until the bloke down the street mugs you because he needs cash to feed his family, or when you get burgled, or when you get stabbed by a gang of teens just because they didn't like the way you looked at them.

All of that is considerably less likely now than it was hundreds of years ago, before capitalism allegedly destroyed society.

 

[Mockney]

Both of you will be first on the block when the revolution comes. I hope Russell gives you a pithy eulogy.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

With in excess of 7 billion people confined to one planet, as well as climatic changes and the associated pressure on resources, any strides toward absolute equality are going t encounter some pretty barriers. Advances in technology may provide an escape from such but we're not there yet.

 

[Arruda]

Creating Utopia is a pipe dream, realistically. I don't have the energy to lead some rabble of anarchists and am certain they'd have loads of policy ideas I don't agree with. I might be a cnut, but I'm broadly a happy enough one with my missus and I in our nice flat, a cat and decent holidays.

That's why your idealism ebbed off. You're comfortable. I am too, but have been better. I certainly didn't reach the point where I'd want a French-revolution style of change, who wants a cataclysm when you've got everything you need? I'd welcome non-violent changes, even if their success isn't guaranteed. Because what we're witnessing is a load of bollocks, and I'd rather the unknown than the known bad.

In as little as 10 years my outlook has completely changed. When you live in a country like mine, see 90% of the people you know getting worse off, some in really tragic situations, you force yourself into questioning the system. When you learn that in spite of that there are more rich people in your country than before the crisis, when you read that luxury goods like super-cars and property are on the rise and went unscathed by the crisis, when you read that capital owners got richer and salaries got a massive trump, you'll not only question it but feel some rage. When you're mature enough to realize that the politicians running things are no smarter than you and many are a lot more vile, you feel despair. And this rage and despair will grow the worse off you are. And if this keeps on going, enough people will one day be in a worse-enough situation and in a big enough number, to desire a revolution. We might all be dead by then, but if we see a flailing system shouldn't we want it to change before the worse happens? This is the opposite of desiring cataclysm.

And then there's this feeling I have that the problems we face are the same everywhere. The scale and speed with which they're building up is different, but we all seem to be heading in the same direction, hence why I discuss it in a global perspective instead of a local one.

Some of us are well-off enough to be able to be lazy and never go beyond pub bullshit in message boards, I'm certainly closer to you or Pogue in that matter than I am to make a call-to-arms. I wouldn't call this posture "leaning right" though. Just leaning lazy, and understandably so. Leaning right is helping perpetuate the system either because you benefit from it or because you're too ignorant to realize you're being ripped off.

And I'm using "right" here in very broad terms, because what they call the main left-wing political party here is certainly part of that establishment I'm beginning to hate, and certainly the same applies in most of Europe.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What does "having the energy to lead a revolt" have to do with anything? Is that genuinely the natural extension of being a little more liberal and a little less self interested? It's the slippery slope argument gone bonkers. All you'd have to do is support the initiatives of others, or at the very least not actively oppose them by voting in Conservatives...not form your own personal militia of Russell Brands.

For me, its not about the energy to lead a revolt it's feeling apathetic about the possibility of a realistic improvement to the status quo. Powerful people want more power (which invariably also means more wealth) and people will always be fundamentally self-interested. I just don't see society ever evolving to a point where these two basic principles no longer apply but if that doesn't happen there will always be a wealth gap. At one point I thought we could change the world but that was when I was a lot younger and more naive.

EDIT: not implying anyone who thinks differently is naive. Some of you know much more about this stuff than I do. Just saying that I was younger and more naive when my politics were more radical than they are now.

 

[peterstorey]

All of that is considerably less likely now than it was hundreds of years ago, before capitalism allegedly destroyed society.

Yeah because capitalism funds a policeforce and prisons to keep capital safe.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah because capitalism funds a policeforce and prisons to keep capital safe.

Which is the sort of society I want to live in. My kids too.

A society where they're (relatively) safe from crime, that is.