It is very interesting that some people liken the Labour party to communists though. It shows the power the media has when the reality is Labour's corporation tax policy is to have it at a rate lower than many right wing governments, that its nationalisation policies of rail and utilities echo policies in Germany and other non left leaning countries and it's economic policies are clearly capitalistic and are backed by many eminent economists. The student fee position is similar to many no left leaning governments, even Thatcher didn't think to impliment fees for University. The policies and manifesto are clearly social democratic and nothing more.
The challenge is to pick out one policy and challenge us not to find a non left leaning government in Europe that has something similar or even more radical! You won't be able to do it. So how can Labour be likened to communist dictatorships? - It is laughable.
Indeed, comparing labour to communist dictatorships is laughable. However, Corbyn has repeatedly voiced his support and aspiration for Chavez's socialism in Venezuela. So much for being on the right side of history..
Are you saying it is laughable or not? If it is the latter, it isn't worth debating such a ridiculous notion with you. Though I could easily as Chavez had very positive policies in relation to the poor that deserved praise - not that everything did/does.
So you didn't take your hat off to a party (the Tory's) that convinced people to vote for them that had absolutely no reasons to do so? Maybe you can clarify who are these people that had no reason to vote for a party but did?
No doubt we'll be back onto pensions shortly
Well I tried to explain what I meant and why your point was incorrect, but some people don't really try to undertsand the point being made. People like you
Of course, as you subsequently explained your specific point related to Brexit and even Trump despite mentioning neither in your post that I replied to
Any thoughts yet who these people are who you stated had absolutely no reason to vote for the Tories but did?
@kentaddick point re the left wing of "I love democracy... as long as everyone votes the way I want them to" seems to still ring true to me regarding your good self. Even IF you got your point across clearly doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, even the fools that voted Tory but had absolutely no reason to do so nor does it mean you are correct just because it is your view.
the beauty of democracy and politics, everyone can form an opinion and vote as they see fit even if that opinion isn't the same as yours. There is no right or wrong vote despite what you may think or chose to write. Writing that there were people who voted a particular way and had absolutely no reason to do so makes it sound like you know better than them.......
They are the many people who are worse off under the Tories! There are millions of them - surely you dont want me to name them all individually do you? When you make a point on here, you can't write a novel including every aspect of that point - you can later clarify if somebody doesn't get what you meant, but like I said - that is a waste of time with you. I didn't mention Brexit and Trump but explained that I was thinking of them in my assessment. That should give you an idea what my position is. Or at least it would most people!
Make your mind up Muttley, so anyone who is currently worse off under the Tories the past 7 years (which I suspect is 99% of people) shouldn't have voted for them? Isn't that an accusation you made of me (even though I'd have been better off under Labour).
I am better off under the tories - it works both ways. I mean it isn't a difficult principle whatever leaning you have. That you don't understand it reflects more on you than anybody else. You yourself have said you would be better off under Labour!
It is very interesting that some people liken the Labour party to communists though. It shows the power the media has when the reality is Labour's corporation tax policy is to have it at a rate lower than many right wing governments, that its nationalisation policies of rail and utilities echo policies in Germany and other non left leaning countries and it's economic policies are clearly capitalistic and are backed by many eminent economists. The student fee position is similar to many no left leaning governments, even Thatcher didn't think to impliment fees for University. The policies and manifesto are clearly social democratic and nothing more.
The challenge is to pick out one policy and challenge us not to find a non left leaning government in Europe that has something similar or even more radical! You won't be able to do it. So how can Labour be likened to communist dictatorships? - It is laughable.
Indeed, comparing labour to communist dictatorships is laughable. However, Corbyn has repeatedly voiced his support and aspiration for Chavez's socialism in Venezuela. So much for being on the right side of history..
Are you saying it is laughable or not? If it is the latter, it isn't worth debating such a ridiculous notion with you. Though I could easily as Chavez had very positive policies in relation to the poor that deserved praise - not that everything did/does.
So like no one can get basic health provisions or even food? When Chavez died he left hundreds of millions in his personal bank account and the country on the brink of absolute ruin. If that's what Corbyn' aiming for, I don't want it.
And of course it's laughable to suggest the Labour Party is like a communist dictatorship. But socialist ideology followed through to its end creates communism.
you see - i said there was one policy that was praiseworthy, not all- I am not a supporter of communist dicators and neither is Jeremy Corbyn. Look, you and Rob just say what you like, you wear me out!
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Well maybe you are not one of the rich he is referring too. That the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is a point that most Tory MPS don't disagree with. That's it - say what you want, it seems like you like a bite - best we don't bother.
Seriously Rob and his missus are much better barometers than Institute of Economics figures!
I am better off under the tories - it works both ways. I mean it isn't a difficult principle whatever leaning you have. That you don't understand it reflects more on you than anybody else. You yourself have said you would be better off under Labour!
Your bonkers
So you berate someone who is worse off under Tory voting for them and then say you are better off under the Tories but ok for you to vote labour .......
You couldn't make it up. Bit of course it must be me not understanding.....
didn't berate - pointed out a fact. Look at thread title - the point was that more and more people are wising up which means teh Tories need to adapt - couldn't care about your part in that in all honesty!
You stated a number of people shouldn't have voted Tory, no actually millions, because they are worse off, yet it's ok for you to do what you said they shouldn't......
So if I'm not one of the Rich referred to then that's great, I look forward to being considerably better off in the future, you might need to tell Corbyn this amazing fact though as he'd put me and anyone earning over £80k in a different bucket.
What I meant was that they had no financial incentive to vote Tory - it is a free country and they can vote for who they choose - but of course, it is an issue for the Tory party when you lose those voters as they are doing. They may not be losing you or your wife, but nobody is really interested, they are more focussed on the many not the you!
When I go on another thread and comment on our decreasing crowds at the valley, please don't come on here and say that it can't be right because you and the wife still go!
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
What I meant was that they had no financial incentive to vote Tory - it is a free country and they can vote for who they choose - but of course, it is an issue for the Tory party when you lose those voters as they are doing. They may not be losing you or your wife, but nobody is really interested, they are more focussed on the many not the you!
When I go on another thread and comment on our decreasing crowds at the valley, please don't come on here and say that it can't be right because you and the wife still go!
You actually said in relation to the Tory's: " hats off to a party that convinces people to vote for them that have absolutely no reason to do so." You have since quantified that as no financial incentive.
Subsequently you have stated you had no financial incentive to vote labour (you stated you are better off under the Tories), but I've got a feeling that's how you voted
Therefore I assume you doff your cap to Labour also for convincing you to vote for them despite having absolutely no reason to do so (your term not mine and as above quantified as no financial incentive). Believe you also stated about the above/Tories it's like selling fridges to the eskimo's (which I assume is in the usual context i.e. you are saying the Eskimo's would be idiots to buy a fridge). How is your igloo with all those fridges you bought from Labour by the way?
By the way, my wife asked me to pass on to you that you are wrong, again, she didn't vote Conservative (I know, what a shocker).
In relation to your latest ramblings "but of course, it is an issue for the Tory party when you lose those voters as they are doing." who are these people they are losing or are they yet again a figment of your imagination?
In 2010 they got 10,726,614 votes which was 36.1% of the total vote. In 2015 they got 11,334,920 votes which was 36.9% of the total vote. In 2017 they got 13,669,883 votes which was 42.4% of the total vote.
So run by me where all these voters they are losing are? They got 2.33m more votes in 2017 than 2015 and probably more importantly a further 5%+ of the total vote.
As for another thread and decreasing crowds at the valley, i'm sure thats one thing, sadly, we'll agree on, however if I go and see a match that has in the region of 7,000 people in the ground don't be surprised if I do reply challenging your 'facts' that you heard only 250 people were there.
They are still losing voters from this group as well as having to deal with new voters. Again, I am making a comment about the title thread here - How do the Tories need to change. You see, nobody in the conservative party is relaxed about this, many are demanding that austerity is stopped, but you want people to believe that all is well. Like during the election, how schools are well funded. I'll let you get the last word in after this as I can't be bothered discussing with you any more - I find it tiresome.
They are still losing voters from this group as well as having to deal with new voters. Again, I am making a comment about the title thread here - How do the Tories need to change. You see, nobody in the conservative party is relaxed about this, many are demanding that austerity is stopped, but you want people to believe that all is well. Like during the election, how schools are well funded. I'll let you get the last word in after this as I can't be bothered discussing with you any more - I find it tiresome.
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Now come on RL - your moving into Kentaddick fantasy land here mate. Alowing for Guardi-exaggeration, there's no way these people are worse off by any criteria in the world.
They are still losing voters from this group as well as having to deal with new voters. Again, I am making a comment about the title thread here - How do the Tories need to change. You see, nobody in the conservative party is relaxed about this, many are demanding that austerity is stopped, but you want people to believe that all is well. Like during the election, how schools are well funded. I'll let you get the last word in after this as I can't be bothered discussing with you any more - I find it tiresome.
Point me to where i've said 'that all is well'?
If we are going to be pedantic, and I really wasn't going to mention this until now RL, you did cherry pick the bits of my response to you to respond back to...
The gist of some of your answers does give this impression at times.
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Now come on RL - your moving into Kentaddick fantasy land here mate. Alowing for Guardi-exaggeration, there's no way these people are worse off by any criteria in the world.
Depends on the definition of rich, if you are referring to the people in the link, the top 1,000 families then undoubtedly they have got richer (although some have dropped billions). This includes the biggest property owners in the country, including Mr Dyson.
If that is all we are referring to as rich I 100% agree, but although they clearly fit into that category I would suspect that most people don't only view them as 'rich' but people much much further down the chain. Didn't our chancellor in waiting refer to a 5 figure sum (in salary terms) as rich?
They are still losing voters from this group as well as having to deal with new voters. Again, I am making a comment about the title thread here - How do the Tories need to change. You see, nobody in the conservative party is relaxed about this, many are demanding that austerity is stopped, but you want people to believe that all is well. Like during the election, how schools are well funded. I'll let you get the last word in after this as I can't be bothered discussing with you any more - I find it tiresome.
Point me to where i've said 'that all is well'?
If we are going to be pedantic, and I really wasn't going to mention this until now RL, you did cherry pick the bits of my response to you to respond back to...
The gist of some of your answers does give this impression at times.
I believed I had answered all your points, if I missed one apology, let me know and I'll do my best to answer.
I wasn't trying to be pedantic but it's not the first time Muttley s response has been 'I'm not talking anymore' and suggesting I've said things I haven't. More than happy for him to prove me wrong and back up his accusations as to where I've said all is well or come to that, that schools are well funded. I think you'll find I've actually said the opposite.
It's all relative. To someone earning less than 20k, it is rich. To someone earning millions, it's pocket change.
Take your (not aimed you at directly @Rob7Lee ) salary and multiply it by 3 and a half. Someone out there is earning that amount. Is that person considered rich by you?
I mean what I mean and how I find. I didn't name anybody. For me it is nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, but picking out parts of a point and focussing on it with reams of nosnsense evidence. Picking holes in it almost surgically, when it is part of a comment made on a fan site reasonably quickly and not a thesis. Sometimes it is ok to try to understand the gist whether you agree with it or not!
It's all relative. To someone earning less than 20k, it is rich. To someone earning millions, it's pocket change.
Take your (not aimed you at directly @Rob7Lee ) salary and multiply it by 3 and a half. Someone out there is earning that amount. Is that person considered rich by you?
That's exactly my point, I'm being jumped for stating that I don't believe the majority of the 'rich' are better off. But it's relative to what and whom you define as rich. I'd agree with @Algarveaddick that if by rich we mean the top 1,000 families then the vast majority will have got richer dependent on where their assets are (see Algarve's link, there are people who's wealth has dropped by billions, if we have a property crash many others wealth will drop by millions/billions but those property owners will have seen their wealth since 2010 grow considerably).
If we are referring to people earning over £70k as rich (as per our chancellor in waiting and you saying someone earning £20k would say so) then I would say the vast majority of those and above haven't got richer and in fact the opposite as I've tried to detail over the past few pages. I wouldn't class someone on £70k as rich at all, especially in London. Many inner London primary school head teachers start on more than that, I wouldn't say they are rich, would you?
Defining rich (in a pure financial sense) is very difficult, I think everyone would agree someone who is worth billions is rich, someone who earns millions a year is also rich (IMHO) but where the line is drawn between rich and not rich is much harder to pin down and everyone will have a different view and you are probably right it partly depends on where you sit. There's also the income v wealth which are very different.
Would I consider someone earning 3.5x myself as rich, possibly, although if I take my boss, who probably does earn that variable I'd say no, he's always skint! If you asked my wife if she thought I was rich she'd probably say no, yet I earn 15 - 20 times her salary.
Some words of advice from somebody wiser than me for Algave and Cordoban and anybody else it applies to - I certainly should have heeded them earlier.
'Never argue with a pedant. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant'
Keep insulting Mutts rather than actually answer a point, found out where I said all is well yet? No, thought not, any luck on where I said schools are well funded?......
you see - i said there was one policy that was praiseworthy, not all- I am not a supporter of communist dicators and neither is Jeremy Corbyn. Look, you and Rob just say what you like, you wear me out!
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Now come on RL - your moving into Kentaddick fantasy land here mate. Alowing for Guardi-exaggeration, there's no way these people are worse off by any criteria in the world.
So believing millions were killed in the pogroms and in gulags in Russia and millions killed in the cultural revolution was something to be justifiably feared by your grandparents generation is living in a fantasy land. Ok mate..
Seriously all you have done is respond with facts with personal attacks and claiming I'm living in a fantasy land. Ridiculous.
Cordoban Addick said: » show previous quotes Where on the poor (0) - rich (10) scale do you think this would put a person?
I'd say 4/5. I'm sure though you'll say 9+ as 70k+ puts you (I think) in the top roughly 5% of earners?
You are on a wind up now, aren't you?
Lol, no! As I said, if you work on percentage of the population earning that figure OR ABOVE (assuming my 5% was right) you'd put them in 9.
Splitting everyone from someone on the minimum wage to someone earning £1bn+ a year and everyone in-between into 0-10 isn't a very wide band.
If I put the £1bn+ earner in 10, should I also put the £5m earner in the same band despite being only 0.5% of the £1bn? Or would they go in 9? Where would I then put the £1m earner? 8? or are they all in 10? Despite only having 20% of the £5m or 0.1% of the billion? then someone earning £500k, where would they go, still in 10? 9? 8?
As I say, if you purely work on % of the population you'd probably have everyone earning £50k or above in 10, but the gulf in that band would be huge. You may then end up with someone on £20k in 3, someone on £22k in 4 and someone on £25k in 5 and so on.
However trying to group people, I'd still put £70k somewhere in the middle. They aren't up there with the ones in the millions, but equally they aren't in the same band as those on £20k. Middle feels about right to me in pure wealth numbers rather than % of the population where it would sit more at 8/9.
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough.
I thought you start repaying the loan back when you start earning 17.5k+?
You're saying many students never earn that amount? Who goes to university to never earn more than 17k!!?
Comments
I fully get your position..... blinkered.
And of course it's laughable to suggest the Labour Party is like a communist dictatorship. But socialist ideology followed through to its end creates communism.
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Seriously Rob and his missus are much better barometers than Institute of Economics figures!
So you berate someone who is worse off under Tory voting for them and then say you are better off under the Tories but ok for you to vote labour .......
You couldn't make it up. Bit of course it must be me not understanding.....
So if I'm not one of the Rich referred to then that's great, I look forward to being considerably better off in the future, you might need to tell Corbyn this amazing fact though as he'd put me and anyone earning over £80k in a different bucket.
When I go on another thread and comment on our decreasing crowds at the valley, please don't come on here and say that it can't be right because you and the wife still go!
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Subsequently you have stated you had no financial incentive to vote labour (you stated you are better off under the Tories), but I've got a feeling that's how you voted
Therefore I assume you doff your cap to Labour also for convincing you to vote for them despite having absolutely no reason to do so (your term not mine and as above quantified as no financial incentive). Believe you also stated about the above/Tories it's like selling fridges to the eskimo's (which I assume is in the usual context i.e. you are saying the Eskimo's would be idiots to buy a fridge). How is your igloo with all those fridges you bought from Labour by the way?
By the way, my wife asked me to pass on to you that you are wrong, again, she didn't vote Conservative (I know, what a shocker).
In relation to your latest ramblings "but of course, it is an issue for the Tory party when you lose those voters as they are doing." who are these people they are losing or are they yet again a figment of your imagination?
In 2010 they got 10,726,614 votes which was 36.1% of the total vote.
In 2015 they got 11,334,920 votes which was 36.9% of the total vote.
In 2017 they got 13,669,883 votes which was 42.4% of the total vote.
So run by me where all these voters they are losing are? They got 2.33m more votes in 2017 than 2015 and probably more importantly a further 5%+ of the total vote.
As for another thread and decreasing crowds at the valley, i'm sure thats one thing, sadly, we'll agree on, however if I go and see a match that has in the region of 7,000 people in the ground don't be surprised if I do reply challenging your 'facts' that you heard only 250 people were there.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis
The gist of some of your answers does give this impression at times.
If that is all we are referring to as rich I 100% agree, but although they clearly fit into that category I would suspect that most people don't only view them as 'rich' but people much much further down the chain. Didn't our chancellor in waiting refer to a 5 figure sum (in salary terms) as rich?
I believed I had answered all your points, if I missed one apology, let me know and I'll do my best to answer.
I wasn't trying to be pedantic but it's not the first time Muttley s response has been 'I'm not talking anymore' and suggesting I've said things I haven't. More than happy for him to prove me wrong and back up his accusations as to where I've said all is well or come to that, that schools are well funded. I think you'll find I've actually said the opposite.
http://www.cityam.com/263173/does-earning-70000-make-you-rich-labours-john-mcdonnell
Take your (not aimed you at directly @Rob7Lee ) salary and multiply it by 3 and a half. Someone out there is earning that amount. Is that person considered rich by you?
'Never argue with a pedant. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant'
I don't agree with everything he says but at least he debates in a reasonable way and doesn't allow emotion to override his points.
If we are referring to people earning over £70k as rich (as per our chancellor in waiting and you saying someone earning £20k would say so) then I would say the vast majority of those and above haven't got richer and in fact the opposite as I've tried to detail over the past few pages. I wouldn't class someone on £70k as rich at all, especially in London. Many inner London primary school head teachers start on more than that, I wouldn't say they are rich, would you?
Defining rich (in a pure financial sense) is very difficult, I think everyone would agree someone who is worth billions is rich, someone who earns millions a year is also rich (IMHO) but where the line is drawn between rich and not rich is much harder to pin down and everyone will have a different view and you are probably right it partly depends on where you sit. There's also the income v wealth which are very different.
Would I consider someone earning 3.5x myself as rich, possibly, although if I take my boss, who probably does earn that variable I'd say no, he's always skint! If you asked my wife if she thought I was rich she'd probably say no, yet I earn 15 - 20 times her salary. I'd say 4/5. I'm sure though you'll say 9+ as 70k+ puts you (I think) in the top roughly 5% of earners? Keep insulting Mutts rather than actually answer a point, found out where I said all is well yet? No, thought not, any luck on where I said schools are well funded?......
Seriously all you have done is respond with facts with personal attacks and claiming I'm living in a fantasy land. Ridiculous.
» show previous quotes
Where on the poor (0) - rich (10) scale do you think this would put a person?
I'd say 4/5. I'm sure though you'll say 9+ as 70k+ puts you (I think) in the top roughly 5% of earners?
You are on a wind up now, aren't you?
Splitting everyone from someone on the minimum wage to someone earning £1bn+ a year and everyone in-between into 0-10 isn't a very wide band.
If I put the £1bn+ earner in 10, should I also put the £5m earner in the same band despite being only 0.5% of the £1bn? Or would they go in 9? Where would I then put the £1m earner? 8? or are they all in 10? Despite only having 20% of the £5m or 0.1% of the billion? then someone earning £500k, where would they go, still in 10? 9? 8?
As I say, if you purely work on % of the population you'd probably have everyone earning £50k or above in 10, but the gulf in that band would be huge. You may then end up with someone on £20k in 3, someone on £22k in 4 and someone on £25k in 5 and so on.
However trying to group people, I'd still put £70k somewhere in the middle. They aren't up there with the ones in the millions, but equally they aren't in the same band as those on £20k. Middle feels about right to me in pure wealth numbers rather than % of the population where it would sit more at 8/9.
You're saying many students never earn that amount? Who goes to university to never earn more than 17k!!?