Support NeoGAF

[hodgy100]

People voted for austerity. They then wondered why public services were being decimated, they fell book line of sinker for the Tory/Right wing press line blaming immigration.

It wasn't because of devastating budget cuts to councils, social housing and other public services, no it was people who contribution was a net benefit to the country.

Of course not only did the public buy this bollocks by putting Cameron in with a majority in 2015, they then voted Brexit on the utter lie that it would mean more money for the NHS.

The public want a socialist platform but the media have told them that is such a bad idea they vote the opposite, then complain bitterly about losing the safety net Labour tried to repair from 1997 to 2010. I can't wait for the fallout post Brexit when the media start to run out of excuses. Well they'll blame the EU and people will buy it, vote Tory again and still wonder why their government doesn't give a toss about them.

My own father has repeatedly voted for a conservative government while he worked for the council as a leisure centre manager. local council budget got tightened and made his work a nightmare, he was having to cover multiple centres essentially doing the job of 2-3 people and he worked loads of overtime. it ended up in a mental breakdown and taking 3 months off of work to recover from stress related illness. He took up smoking again due to the stress after being a non-smoker for over a decade.

Hes now left the job and has had to go for a lower paid job to get something that is more stress free.

yet he will still vote conservative in 2020 because he is so adamant in his belief that publicly owned services = inefficient use of taxpayers money.

My Brother doesn't grasp the concept of why corporations should pay more tax, he states that people have a right to the money they earn and taxing someone more because they earn more is unfair. He doesn't grasp that businesses greatly benefit from publicly funded services such as healthcare and education as it provides businesses with a healthy and educated populace to make profit with so they should pay a larger share into the pot. He tried to refute my argument by saying "what if you had to spend 10% more tax" while ignoring that that would leave me with a smaller amount of money than a corporation that earns millions. it's not comparable.

These are some of the arguments the left has to overcome and it's bloody difficult. My personal earnings which are just under the uk average salary to entities that earn >100x more is completely incomparable. Me spending more tax would hit my standard of living, to them it's just less pocket change.

This combined with a massive disconnect between actions and results (with things such as the environment) makes these incredibly tough for the populace to grasp.

 

[His Majesty]

Do you know what populism is? Having the wealthy pay more taxes isn't just lip-services that politicians can use to get elected. It's an extremely common form of taxation used in just about every country in the world. I.e. progressive taxes. It's hard to take you seriously, when you're straight up calling progressive taxes populist

I'm going to quote travisbickle here.

Politics that are removed from policy, and reality, and appeal to anxieties of the populace.

Which is exactly what Hollande's new 75% supertax represented. It was meant as a gesture of good intentions, an empty package without any meaningful content. It won him the election. Afterwards it turned out that this new tax policy would only cause damage to the French economy. Hollande simply appealed to the masses and promised hollow, inefficient reforms against the elite. Basically the textbook definition of populism.

I'm sorry to tell you but progressivism is not free of populism.

 

[Xun]

It's hard to bypass a hostile media.

And given how much of the country is dog stupid enough to believe said media, only goes to show that you get the government you deserve.

Pretty much.

Corbyn is by no means perfect, but the media and the PLP have been against him from the moment he announced he was running for party leadership.

It has been a self-fulfilling prophecy to ensure he never gets into power.

 

[daviyoung]

People voted for austerity. They then wondered why public services were being decimated, they fell hook line of sinker for the Tory/Right wing press line blaming immigration.

It wasn't because of devastating budget cuts to councils, social housing and other public services, no it was people who contribution was a net benefit to the country.

Of course not only did the public buy this bollocks by putting Cameron in with a majority in 2015, they then voted Brexit on the utter lie that it would mean more money for the NHS.

The public want a socialist platform but the media have told them that is such a bad idea they vote the opposite, then complain bitterly about losing the safety net Labour tried to repair from 1997 to 2010. I can't wait for the fallout post Brexit when the media start to run out of excuses. Well they'll blame the EU and people will buy it, vote Tory again and still wonder why their government doesn't give a toss about them.

Your posts in this thread are spot on. The demonisation of the working class and the supporters of the working class has been a decades-long project. Thatcher laid the foundations of an apparent new middle class (working class with delusions of grandeur) by turning from production to services, a generation of middle managers who can afford, or at least borrow to afford, a nice car. Blair carried on this legacy, the new working class did not own land, they did not even own their own property (their bank did) but they were made to think they were above the lower classes because thanks to even more borrowing of money, kids were going to university. An unprecedented privilege their parents never had. The country thought it was richer than it was, and so it's citizens thought so too. And yet, the ones with capital stayed as the untouchable middle class while the working class turned to hate something else. First it was the chav in the mid-90s, now it's the immigrants.

 

[darkace]

Populist is what we are seeing in the US with Trump. Politics that are removed from policy, and reality, and appeal to anxieties of the populace.

So... Are you anxious about inequality?

What metric are you using? Source?

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html

The US has, by far, the most progressive tax system.

Do you know what populism is? Having the wealthy pay more taxes isn't just lip-services that politicians can use to get elected. It's an extremely common form of taxation used in just about every country in the world. I.e. progressive taxes. It's hard to take you seriously, when you're straight up calling progressive taxes populist

Wealth and income aren't the same thing. And the incidence of taxation is not as simple as who you level it on legislatively.

 

[hodgy100]

I'm going to quote travisbickle here.



Which is exactly what Hollande's new 75% supertax represented. It was meant as a gesture of good intentions, an empty package without any meaningful content. It won him the election. Afterwards it turned out that this new tax policy would only cause damage to the French economy. Hollande simply appealed to the masses and promised hollow, inefficient reforms against the elite. Basically the textbook definition of populism.

I'm sorry to tell you but progressivism is not free of populism.

there's a massive difference between that crazy 75% tax rate and maybe the UK adding an extra tax band for those that earn over £500k or even £1m that is perhaps %50-55 and maybe increasing corporation tax to 30% or closing some loopholes.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Pretty much.

Corbyn is by no means perfect, but the media and the PLP have been against him from the moment he announced he was running for party leadership.

It has been a self-fulfilling prophecy to ensure he never gets into power.

He's not just not perfect, he's absolutely dreadful.

 

[Hazzuh]

Your posts in this thread are spot on. The demonisation of the working class and the supporters of the working class has been a decades-long project. Thatcher laid the foundations of an apparent new middle class (working class with delusions of grandeur) by turning from production to services, a generation of middle managers who can afford, or at least borrow to afford, a nice car. Blair carried on this legacy, the new working class did not own land, they did not even own their own property (their bank did) but they were made to think they were above the lower classes because thanks to even more borrowing of money, kids were going to university. An unprecedented privilege their parents never had. The country thought it was richer than it was, and so it's citizens thought so too. And yet, the ones with capital stayed as the untouchable middle class while the working class turned to hate something else. First it was the chav in the mid-90s, now it's the immigrants.

The decline of manual labour jobs and move towards a service based economy were already happening before Thatcher became PM, so was the decline in working class consciousness. Eric Hobsbawn gave a lecture in 1978 titled "The forward march of Labour halted." in which he argues that this decline set in 25-30 years before. Thatcher is a consequence of the changes in the British economy as much as a cause.

 

[daviyoung]

Do you accept comrade and saviour Corbyn into your lives? Are you willing to forego all material possessions and embrace the warmth of the purest of Marxist revolutions?

"Do you pledge full allegiance to the cause, bothers and sisters?" asked Mr Corbyn. "No? Can't help you then I'm afraid. Come on now fellow comrades, let's just sit on our arses until the country is ready to accept us for the glowing globes of knowledge that we are and not expect us to do anything."

 

[freeofgreed]

I'm going to quote travisbickle here.



Which is exactly what Hollande's new 75% supertax represented. It was meant as a gesture of good intentions, an empty package without any meaningful content. It won him the election. Afterwards it turned out that this new tax policy would only cause damage to the French economy. Hollande simply appealed to the masses and promised hollow, inefficient reforms against the elite. Basically the textbook definition of populism.

I'm sorry to tell you but progressivism is not free of populism.

What you are talking about has nothing to do with what I am saying. There's nothing about a progressive tax that's inherintly populist. If can be used that way like what you describe. But that doesn't mean it's inherintly wrong. You can increase taxes on the wealthy without going full soclialist like Hollande.

So... Are you anxious about inequality?



http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html

The US has, by far, the most progressive tax system.



Wealth and income aren't the same thing. And the incidence of taxation is not as simple as who you level it on legislatively.

Yes and you have failed to mentioned why that's a bad thing. Did you even read what you posted?

In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.

So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.

If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.

The article you posted blatantly refutes you're own point. It's literally advocating increasing the tax rates.

Using Scandinavia as an example is misleading since, the article isn't saying they're better off because they tax the wealthy less. It's saying they're better off because they redistributed that wealth better.

 

[darkace]

there's a massive difference between that crazy 75% tax rate and maybe the UK adding an extra tax band for those that earn over £500k or even £1m that is perhaps %50-55 and maybe increasing corporation tax to 30% or closing some loopholes.

There isn't a single thing you could do that would be worse for the working classes than increasing the corporate tax rate.

Yes and you have failed ot mentioned why that's a abd thing. Did you even read what you posted?

Yes, and it's clear you didn't. Also progressive taxes are inefficient.

The article you posted blatantly refutes you're own point. It's literally advocating increasing the tax rates.

It's advocating increasing regressive taxes and increasing redistribution. That's not what Corbyn is advocating. You're not making the distinction between taxation and redistribution.

 

[travisbickle]

So... Are you anxious about inequality?

I don't believe the popularity of Trump or Brexit is due to anxieties about inequality. It's due to anxieties of unfairness: either people directly affected by stagnating wages, unavailable social housing, reduced public spending, or people told by the press this unfairness is due to immigration or Brussels, or China, or ISIS. Not inequality, but inequity. It's very much a right-wing issue.

 

[freeofgreed]

Yes, and it's clear you didn't. Also progressive taxes are inefficient.

Again, cite your sources because your article doesn't argue for it either way.

So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system

It's advocating increasing regressive taxes and increasing redistribution. That's not what Corbyn is advocating. You're not making the distinction between taxation and redistribution.

Corbyn absolutly does advocate increasing redistribution...

 

[Uzzy]

Hardly surprising. The media campaign against Corbyn began even before he was elected for the first time, and the Tories can steal Labour's 'unelectable, extreme left wing' ideas, present them as 'centrist' and win plaudits across the media.

It's not enough to just blame the media though. Corbyn's messaging will have to improve.

 

[darkace]

Again, cite your sources because your article doesn't argue for it either way.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01

Corbyn absolutly does advocate increasing redistribution...

Not through efficient taxation.

 

[ISOM]

I remember the same thing happening when they polled Obama's policies without naming Obama. Republicans then supported a lot of what he did. So to sum up, people are stupid.

 

[freeofgreed]

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01



Not through efficient taxation.

What differences does that make? Once taxes are collected why does the way it was collected (whether it be from regressive taxes or progressive tax rates) matter in how it gets distributed?

Also did you really just post a 77 page article? How about you cite the specific passage that support your claim.

Hell even just searching for information about progressive taxes brings up this

This means that the impact of the progressive individuals’ income
tax scales (or targeted transfer payments) cannot be examined in this model.

 

[Coriolanus]

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/working-paper-2015-01

Heh, this makes quite a bit of sense. Hard to hide real estate, given its physical nature.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

A lot of - most? - people support parties based on competence, identity and history rather than just policy, or you rate certain policy views more highly than others.

For example, you could support wealth distribution, but live in Scotland and support independence, so you're an SNP supporter.

The editorialized title of this topic is therefore unfortunate.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Really?

Absolutely. And I'm a card carrying member of the party. He is fucking up the party and he is fucking up the country by not providing a proper opposition. Anyone that believes otherwise is fucking dreaming, in my opinion. I don't expect others to agree.

 

[Goodlife]

Absolutely..

So he should die?

 

[Charles Brandon]

Him dying of his own accord would suit me just fine. I'm not saying he should be murdered.

 

[darkace]

What differences does that make? Once taxes are collected why does the way it was collected (whether it be from regressive taxes or progressive tax rates) matter in how it gets distributed?

Taxes have impacts beyond who they take it from dude. I can't believe I have to say this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_burden_of_taxation

There's a reason the UK has lowered taxes like income taxes and company taxes and raised VAT, and it's not because the government hates the poor.

Also did you really just post a 77 page article? How about you cite the specific passage that support you claim.

Page 53. I'd note it models a flat income tax and not a system like the UK has, and so markedly understates how distortionary it is.

Heh, this makes quite a bit of sense. Hard to hide real estate, given its physical nature.

Exactly. Any leftist worth his salt should be backing a land-value tax. It's the only efficient, progressive tax that will bring in revenue sufficient to fund the government. It also taxes wealth, rather than income, which is good.

explain rather than berate please.

Simply, it lowers wages over the long run as companies off-shore investment. It's a tax on workers as companies can't pay taxes, they're not human actors.

 

[hodgy100]

There isn't a single thing you could do that would be worse for the working classes than increasing the corporate tax rate.

explain rather than berate please.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

It's almost as if being trashed constantly by media and your own party, let alone a rival party, reduces your approval rating regardless of whether people actually agree with your policies or not.

Fascinating.

 

[JCX]

It's the same thing in America. People were polled on Obamacare provisions and loved them, but call it Obamacare and the numbers plunge. People are dumb.

 

[Charles Brandon]

explain rather than berate please.

increased costs = few jobs

also corporation tax is something that everyone obsesses about when in reality it's about 6% of the total tax revenue of the UK. You could probably make a good economic argument for getting rid of it all together.

 

[hodgy100]

increased costs = few jobs

also corporation tax is something that everyone obsesses about when in reality it's about 6% of the total tax revenue of the UK. You could probably make a good economic argument for getting rid of it all together.

so we tax assets and land value more then?

 

[Jezbollah]

Did he ever tell us how he would magic the money to nationalise the railways?

 

[Charles Brandon]

so we tax assets and land value more then?

Well, if we were to get rid of corporation tax (which would only be possible following an exit from the EU) then it would be done based on research that indicated that fall in corp tax revenue would be matched by a rise in employment and therefore income tax, NIC and other knock on effects.

I certainly wouldn't advocate a tax on asset values and land, such a policy would be electoral kryptonite.

 

[freeofgreed]

Taxes have impacts beyond who they take it from dude. I can't believe I have to say this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_burden_of_taxation

There's a reason the UK has lowered taxes like income taxes and company taxes and raised VAT, and it's not because the government hates the poor.


Page 53. I'd note it models a flat income tax and not a system like the UK has, and so markedly understates how distortionary it is.

My point wasn't about dead weight loss, it was more about how often the redistribution part gets criticized even when the collection method isn't brought up.

Any ways your article still doesn't necessarily say why a progressive income tax rate is inefficient since if i'm not mistaken, it doesn't even measure it. Though I do like the concept of a land value tax.

 

[travisbickle]

increased costs = few jobs

also corporation tax is something that everyone obsesses about when in reality it's about 6% of the total tax revenue of the UK. You could probably make a good economic argument for getting rid of it all together.

We give businesses piles of subsidies and public grants just so we can take in that paltry percentage of taxes. The public would be literally paying for the privilege to work if we didn't collect them.

 

[Charles Brandon]

We give businesses piles of subsidies and public grants just so we can take in that paltry percentage of taxes. The public would be literally paying for the privilege to work if we didn't collect them.

No, we give them those things to encourage investment in the UK and the provision of jobs

 

[D4Danger]

It's almost as if being trashed constantly by media and your own party, let alone a rival party, reduces your approval rating regardless of whether people actually agree with your policies or not.

Fascinating.

No way! If there's one thing we know for sure in this country it's that the man in the street can't be swayed with a big scary headline.

 

[QuantumZebra]

This seems a bit strange to me, blaming the media instead of the party itself. A good politician should be able to bring his message across.

As with most politics, it's more about how you bring it, then what you are saying. And from what I have seen of Corbyn, he just isn't good at that. Issue with a lot of left wing parties in Europe though compared to the right. They have a problem getting their message across and have a reputation of spending government money in useless ways they can't seem to break out of.

Obama is considered a good president by a majority in the U.S. (55%) but even those same people who like him will say things like "But he hasn't gotten anything done" or "I'm not sure about his policies".

The Media plays a huge role in informing people. If all they do is play sides and run tabloid BS then people stay uninformed and then you end up with things like Brexit or Trump.

 

[Nikodemos]

From the outside looking in, seems to me his biggest problem is that he's useless. He spends more time grandstanding about ideology and ineffectually posturing (and coming off as a wanker) rather than engaging directly in the trenches. His hard-left ideas about the 'evil' mainstream media, his more-or-less thinly veiled anti-Americanism and ideological crusading further cement his image of a man not in tune with the larger electorate.
Heck, he personally believes Brexit to be a good idea (though for reasons completely different form the Tories'). His party suffered in the pre-referendum campaign because of it.

Oh, and Blair was probably the best leader Labour had in the last 40 years. His statemanship went in the shitter from 2002 onwards, but his successes can't be understated.

 

[Morfeo]

My impression is that this is not a uniquely english issue. People are much more left-minded in questions of economics, labor regulation, redistribution and so on than the parties they actually vote for. Either because they prioritize other issues when voting, or because of the good job the media and the right-wing propaganda/think tanks do at misleading people.

 

[Calabi]

I think I read a while ago that the majority of people agree with the policies of the green party.

It's just how things work now, or always have, policies, knowledge, logic dont win arguments or garner support. Emotions and authority figures do.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"Decent healthcare" isn't a policy, it's a goal.

Go here:

http://www.labour.org.uk/

Find the policy page. Hint: You won't. Search the page for the word "policy" - you'll find one hit, a reference to a change in Conservative party policy. If you google "Labour health policy" (as an example), you find a link to labour.org.uk/manifesto which has a lovely photo of Ed's familiar grin, it being the 2015 manifesto (which Corbyn described as not being economically dissimilar enough from the Tories). The last Labour conference was incredibly light on policy, with the only significant strides there being fairly detail-lite suggestions from McDonnell. The party have previously sent out press releases to newspapers after the print deadline, meaning the only side having their opinion aired is everyone else. The reshuffles take literally days and days, so news of comings and goings is spread out (you'll notice how this tactic was adopted by the coup-plotters whose goal was to be as destructive as possible when they resigned because it sounds so bad strung out over days). Corbyn went to a CND rally in London in February almost exactly six months after the Labour Conference voted to make Trident renewal official Labour party policy. A year after that - last month - the shadow defence secretary again renewed that pledge to keep our nuclear weapons. Jeremy Corbyn is currently a Vice President of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Back in September, Labour proudly trumpeted that they were forming a Economic Advisory Committee which include superstars of the left like Danny Blanchflower and Thomas Piketty. These two both resigned 9 months later having had a single meeting which Piketty didn't attend. Upon leaving, both claimed that the Labour operation was a shambles. Literally none of the things in this paragraph have anything to do with the media, and they're all things that are controlled entirely by the Labour party.

But yeah. It's all just the media. The media are clouding the otherwise clear and detailed Labour party policies. You can tell from the opening sentence of the statement from MRC what their game is. Pull the other one.

 

[travisbickle]

No, we give them those things to encourage investment in the UK and the provision of jobs

The government subsidizes companies' current energy and transport costs, for example, so that they receive an increase in tax revenues at the end of the year, it's like a short-term loan. Just giving them handouts to be here and not collecting taxes is going to fuck the government up.

 

[Charles Brandon]

From the outside looking in, seems to me his biggest problem is that he's useless. He spends more time grandstanding about ideology and ineffectually posturing (and coming off as a wanker) rather than engaging directly in the trenches. His hard-left ideas about the 'evil' mainstream media, his more-or-less thinly veiled anti-Americanism and ideological crusading further cement his image of a man not in tune with the larger electorate.
Heck, he personally believes Brexit to be a good idea (though for reasons completely different form the Tories'). His party suffered in the pre-referendum campaign because of it.

Pretty much. It's not so much what he says but how he says it and what he does. Yes he has a fine portfolio of centre-left policies which broadly I don't have much truck with but he's also speaking to the SWP and allowing his shadow chancellor to wave around Mao's little red book, which is not so much dog-whistling but shouting at the top of your voice. He's clearly incompetent, lies about things that are easily disproved, is terrible at managing people and, at the very least, shows little interest in tackling the anti-antisemitism that pervades his support and that's being very charitable.

 

[Walshicus]

He's not just not perfect, he's absolutely dreadful.

Disagree. The style of politics he represents - of substance over style - is better than the scum we've endured over the last gods know how many decades.

 

[Charles Brandon]

The government subsidizes companies' current energy and transport costs, for example, so that they receive an increase in tax revenues at the end of the year. Just giving them handouts to be here and not collecting taxes is going to fuck the government up.

the argument is that the company taxes that are forgone are less than the increased taxes on income of employees and all the other knock-ons. It's very difficult to prove that argument one way or another but it is reasonable.

The worst thing about the government not being tough on corporates is that it sends the wrong message and that is an actual problem. It's peanuts in reality though

 

[Steve.1981]

There are decades of deference given to Tories as being "capable", "competent" and other variations. It's so deeply ingrained in people from the media coverage.

Exactly. The right-wing government/media machine is powerful in the UK. They've had that narrative running for so long now that it's just assumed as fact by millions of people. Look how much joy Cameron and Osborne had with the "we're cleaning up Labour's mess" line. So many people just bought that, without question.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Disagree. The style of politics he represents - of substance over style - is better than the scum we've endured over the last gods know how many decades.

incompetence =/ substance

 

[CyclopsRock]

Exactly. The right-wing government/media machine is powerful in the UK. They've had that narrative running for so long now that it's just assumed as fact by millions of people. Look how much joy Cameron and Osborne had with the "we're cleaning up Labour's mess" line. So many people just bought that, without question.

"Running for so long" ...? The Tories were out of power for 13 years. They only got back in 6 years ago and 5 of those years were in coalition with a bunch of spanners! Doesn't sound that powerful.

 

[jakonovski]

Isn't it obvious from this thread too? People who claim to be leftist get cold feet when faced with actual leftist policies. I would imagine that a significant portion of them in fact vote right wing. Brexit supporters haven't gone anywhere even if everyone claims up and down they didn't vote for it.

 

[Steve.1981]

"Running for so long" ...? The Tories were out of power for 13 years. They only got back in 6 years ago and 5 of those years were in coalition with a bunch of spanners! Doesn't sound that powerful.

Powerful as in, they have the ability to influence millions of people. As in, the widely accepted narrative that a Conservative government is the one you can trust to look after public finances.

 

[Charles Brandon]

A large number of Labour voters voted for brexit.

Brexit is a big problem for Labour.

 

[LordRaptor]

There isn't a single thing you could do that would be worse for the working classes than increasing the corporate tax rate.

Well this is just an outrageously outlandish and false statement to make in isolation.