Has anybody heard of the Lucas critique? Part of it basically says that if you keep targetting something, people will take advantage of it. So for example from 1945 to the mid to late 1970s, the aim was to target full employement. And this was exploited by unions and employers and the result was inflation. And a point was reached when the inflation hurt sufficiently - mainly the creditor classes who bandied together under Regan and Thatcher to form a financial revolution - liberating finance and de-regulating banks and rules and integrated the world's economies, globalising labour so workers no longer had power to exploit.
This happened because interests were taking advantage for their own ends. I am very critical of the behaviour of the Unions in the 70s, when they acted for the best deal for their members rather than what was a fair deal. And people got fed up with it,and Thatcher took them on and they needed taking on. We have had many technological breakthroughs and massive amounts of money is being generated globally. The problem is, the Lucas critique is being demonstarted again. This time the exploiters are not the workers, but a very small number of influential people/corporations across the globe. So there has been a huge amount of growth with hardly anybody benefitting.
Thatcher made a famous comment in the commons many years ago. Basically she said that it is often better to have a little of a lot rather than a lot of a little. This actually worked as did full employement policies after the war. But the problem comes when the inevitabilty of the Lucas critique darkens the doorstep. People take advantage of it so a little of a lot is no longer better than a lot of a little. It is far worse. So if you moan about your conditions we will send your job to a country where people are more desperate than you - hence the world of people working in poverty and a tiny number getting richer and richer.
Take a walk down most high streets and they are depressing places. Many of the shops that haven't closed are linked to the poor society. Betting shops, pawn shops, cheap food etc... People are not liking their lives and that is where you get things like Brexit and Trump getting into power. They are feeling they have been bypassed by the establishment and there are enough of them to make a difference. It is similar to people being fed up with the Unions exploiting their power.
We have now created a world where we are able to dump 13 trillion dollars into the global economy and there is no inflation anywhere. Whe have created a world of creditors and debtors. And when you look at the election of Trump and indeed Brexit, you can point to immigration, but the real cause is economic. The world is moving away from the establishment, because people can't say, that will do, the gap between rich and poor is about right now - no you have to get richer and richer and squeeze and squeeze to achieve this, until you can't squeeze any more. But where there are democracies, you can't do this without a reaction. And because the people who have the power can't stop - they can't help themselves, they are rushing towards the cliff like lemmings.
That is why the Tories are in trouble. Things are not going to miraculously change. Look at the bonuses that banks that were bailed out by us are now giving themselves. How do the tories need to change to keep power? They need to find a Trump or somebody even worse. Somebody who can give people somebody to blame and talk to the increasing numbers of disaffected. Of course nobody should want that. But Corbyn is part of the same phenomenom as Trump wierdly. But the difference is, he understands what is happening and he has become the cure, because the world has moved towards him. Like Thatcher it is what is needed - not just Corbyn but others like him around the world. I would say they have the current answers so movement to the left is inevitable.
Of course the Lucas critique will almost certainly come into play again in the years to come. But I think many posters - maybe mature posters - as I am - who have paid off their mortgages, inherited money, have decent pensions, are shielded from what is going on. A young person who is working two jobs with no hope of buying a house! That is one thing that is going on for starters. Their best hope of having a better life is what they inherit from us. Things are broken and nobody who can supply the answers, those that control things, are willing to give up a bit to fix them. Corbyn is an inevitability, and there will be many Corbyns to come. It is the way things work!
And why do you think 'Wealth' inequality has increased? Would you be happier if for instance we had a housing market crash as the Wealth Inequality would then reduce and we'd all be much happier as the wealth divide shrinks? Or would you be happier if the stock market crashed to help shrink the divide?
In general 'money makes money' the only way you can rebalance the wealth divide is to take substantially the wealth from the richer in society and give it to the poorer. Maybe Corbyn should carry a bow and arrow if thats the case.
If you want to talk salaries/incomes i've given examples of how the tax changes as one example have reduced the earnings of the top earners and increased the earnings of lower end earners, but apparently thats just 'shuffling the deckchairs' by all means state it's not enough and more needs to be done (which I agree with) but don't simply believe the very 'headlines' you accused me of doing with Corbyn.
And despite the tax changes the actual incomes of the rich are increasing whilst everyone else's are decreasing in comparison to the cost of living. So it is 'shuffling the deckchairs' because if the tax changes don't actually have any meaningful benefit then it's not really worth defending them. For the vast majority of people in this country, the economy is failing them. So at some point something is going to have to change, whether that means increasing spending or raising tax revenues, whether that happens in 2, 5 or 10 years time, it is going to have to happen, and unless the Tories change the course from their dogmatic obsession with austerity then the longer we wait for the necessary changes to actually help our economy. So if the Tories can't do it then they should move aside and someone else should. Not necessarily Labour, just someone who isn't actively causing more harm.
I don't believe a stock market crash/housing market crash/run on the pound/mass unemployment is a necessary consequence and the evidence isn't there that is will happen should Labour win the next election. So arguing that we should keep the Tories installed on this flawed premise simply doesn't work.
Bear in mind national economies are extremely resilient and adapt well to expected macroeconomic changes as markets reach natural equilibrium. And Corbyn would have to get any fiscal policies through both houses including his own MPs who are a lot more centrist than him, as well as the committees and Whitehall. It certainly won't be a Daily Mail fantasy of a 90% tax rate, nationalizing all private companies and spending trillions more that some people are trying to paint.
Again, you are just throwing out headlines ‘the actual incomes of the rich are increasing’, are they? Has the actions I’ve mentioned above not decreased income both in real terms and otherwise for ‘the rich’ compared to say 7 years ago and conversely helped the lower earners?
Someone on 100-300k back in 2010 is highly likely (if they are in the same job) to have a lower take home pay than they did 7 years ago (before any inflation allowance). Conversely someone earning 10-100k in 2010 is likely to have a higher take home pay than 7 years ago. Quite right too and maybe it needs to go further, in my many posts around election time I suggested that 1p or 2p on all income tax bands and continue to increase the tax allowance to take anyone out of tax who earns the living wage or below (circa £18k).
There of course will be outliers to that, the hedge fund manager or some CEO's etc.
My wife is at the very bottom of the scale above working in the public sector and part time. Despite very few pay rises in the last 7 years (2 I think) her take home pay is up over 15% as in 2010 roughly half her income was taxed now none of it is.
Net Wealth of course is a very different matter, anyone who owned a house 10 years ago, particularly in London/South East will almost regardless of anything else have seen their net worth increase considerably, maybe even as much as 100%. Much like anyone invested in the disaster that is our stock market (whether directly or via a pension/ISA) will likely be up in excess of 30-40% over that time, some more.
Not sure how you go about redistributing some of that wealth other than re-taxing what has already been taxed (i.e. not only a tax on the gain as currently but a tax on the asset), we do that at death, maybe we need to do that in life also although I can't see that happening for a myriad of reasons.
Financially, we disagree entirely on what would happen to the markets in a Corbyn/Current Labour era/government, particularly in the short to medium term, only time will tell on that front (or hopefully not!), but personally I'll be liquidating the vast majority of any investments in property, stocks etc prior to that happening much like I did pre brexit vote. If you are to the contrary maybe load up if you are able to just before the next election and see how you fair......
I don't read the daily mail nor do I believe that they'll be a 90% tax rate, what I think will happen is once it is realised that the proposed changes do not raise anywhere near what they were expecting the taxation will need to increase further and across the board. I'd expect a 25% rate to replace the 20% one and maybe 45% replace the 40% one and so on.
In work I would expect unemployment to increase as whether we agree and/or like it or not business will look to maintain the status quo with regards ROI/ROE or to just stay solvent and I've given first hand example of that, if that ROI is squeezed by say taxation then the only option they will see is to decrease the expense base. I may not like that, I may not morally agree with that, but it will happen.
I would advise anybody to liquidise financial assets in the short term because the inevitable fix that is going to happen is going to have an effect. We just don't know if we are talking about a couple of years or five years or even a little longer. That is just financial advice, not a political point, a bit like getting into a lifeboat when the ship is sinking. I have to be honest and say that we have two paid for properies, one we live in, one we rent. We will probably sell the property we rent within a year or so. At the moment property prices in Barnet - where the property is are still rising, but I think a housing crash is inevitable and it will be led by increased supply. It is inevitable that this will happen and people on both the left and right undertsand it has to happen.
The issue is of course not with people earning a lot of money - it is with the people who are earning a ridiculous amount of money. If I was earning circa £200 to £300k, I would be very angry with the people earning a lot more than me as they are going to affect me with their inability to just be happy with a little bit less of an incredible amount instead of endlessly wanting more and more. Corbyn hasn't got a problem with people having big salaries, he has one himself. Labour made it clear in their manifesto that everybody earning £70k or less would not be worse off under them.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
So @Rob7Lee what it boils down to is that you are wealthy and want to keep the wealth whilst @Fiiish & @MuttleyCAFC want to see wealth distributed across a wider range of people.
On that basis you would never vote for a Corbyn led Labour party as they will tax high earners and redistribute the wealth.
On the same basis Fiiishy and Mutters would never vote for a May led Conservative party as they do not want to redistribute the wealth.
The problem is a lot of the wealth that is generated in this country and repaid back to shareholders and investors is built on the fact that a large proportion of our workers are on subsistence wages and forced to work below a living wage or otherwise be penalised by a brutal welfare system that has been censured several times by international monitors as being inhumane.
Fair enough that the wealthy want to hoard their wealth but the only reason why they are able to accumulate such vast amounts of wealth in the first place is thanks to keeping millions of people both in work and in poverty.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addick nice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
Thing is. It’s the utter greed and unfairness of the very few Fiiish talks about which is the driver for a change. In general people are conservative with a small c and look for stability and continuity but eventually a line gets crossed and people see the unfairness and lose patience with the status quo. There is now a whole generation that are excluded from the very thing that this country lauds which is being a stakeholder. No or little prospect of home ownership. Stagnation in wages no matter how much effort you put in and a fall in living standards year on year. Exactly where is the good news for the ordinary man ?
It’s ok for the older generation (me @ 61) who have their House, had their careers and are willing to accept the status quo but if you were one of those I mention I’d be itching to see a different approach and all the whinging of the elite that it wouldn’t work would mean jack sh1t to me. You only have to look at the referendum to see just how large and widespread the dissatisfaction is where people voted for change at any cost. Trump is the American version of the same and the meteoric rise of Macron shows just how someone Fresh offering something different can win support.
The Tories can’t change. Their power base is built on the haves. The time for the have nots is on the horizon and the young and ordinary working people are for the first time mobilised enough to have an impact.
To be honest, I try to make as much money as I can and do as well as I can within reason, but I can see where there is a point where this can become excessive. I think a political change is inevitable and would rather it be coming from the left than the right.
We see how the wage divide has grown between the highest eaners and the lowest and it begs the question why. I think the answer is because you can, but the unions could use their exessive powers in the 70s - because they didn't look beyond today and all the people they were peeing off. And that is exactly what is happening now, just a different system being exploited by a different group of people. It has become clear that if the system was going to check itself, it would have done after 2008, but it clearly can't so it is heading for that cliff.
Of course when you give the have nots power, a point will come - possibly in 20 years for arguments sake, when they abuse that power in the way they can. Then you have a reaction. The ideal would be to have a Conservative party that challenges the establishment for the good of capitalism, but they are funded by that establishment! They are helpless really.
Why you should be angry at the small, even tiny, numbers getting richer and richer is that they are the ones destroying capitalism with their greed. That is the capitalism that you and I benefit from. It isn't envy, it is the destruction of it they seem unable to stop.
Anybody who really looked at the Labour manifesto with an open mind would have to admit it wasn't a communist manifesto and followed sound economic principles. We should all want that to stem the reaction that could occur which nobody will like - look at history to see what can happen.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addicknice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
Why a cheap shot? I haven't judged your position and haven't promoted one view over the other, the words I have used are neutral and not sensationalist.
Why are they far from the truth? An awful lot of what you have said on this and on other posts has been about defending your wealth. I have not judged you on that but would be happy to do so if you wished.
The point I'm making is if your reasons against Labour are that the economy is going to go down the pan then you can equally level those points against the current Tories.
I don't think it's currently down the pan at all, but wherever it is/you think it is right now my point is it's going much further south under Labour for the reasons i've given. That'll effect in the main some of the poorest in society.
Exactly what was said by the Tories and the right wing press prior to Labour winning in 97. Also said about the introduction of the minimum wage too..... It just didn't happen.
They always say it, even though Blair was basically a Tory. He was more an evolution of Thatcher than anyone else, a small c conservative with a social conscience. I think it is reaching a point where it actually has lost a lot of its power through excessive use. The biggest mistake the establishment made was not allowing Milliband to win the general election and firing that accusation at him. His victory would have preserved the current system for much longer.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addicknice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
Why a cheap shot? I haven't judged your position and haven't promoted one view over the other, the words I have used are neutral and not sensationalist.
Why are they far from the truth? An awful lot of what you have said on this and on other posts has been about defending your wealth. I have not judged you on that but would be happy to do so if you wished.
A "cheap shot" as you had decided that my reason for not voting Labour was due to you believing it would adversely affect my wealth (which I'm sure is far less than you think) if they were elected, which is incorrect on both counts as to why I didn't vote Labour and why it wouldn't effect my wealth. Typical response TBH to anyone who didn't vote Red.
"what it boils down to is that you are wealthy and want to keep the wealth whilst @Fiiish & @MuttleyCAFC want to see wealth distributed across a wider range of people."
I would therefore say that you have judged me (incorrectly) but that's entirely your prerogative especially if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You'll see many posts from me on this thread, in the last few days and throughout the election threads that amongst other things I advocated an increase in taxation, just not what Labour proposed and additionally to take low earners out of tax altogether.
"Couldn't be further from the truth" as your statement as to why I voted as I did is wholly incorrect.
The point I'm making is if your reasons against Labour are that the economy is going to go down the pan then you can equally level those points against the current Tories.
I don't think it's currently down the pan at all, but wherever it is/you think it is right now my point is it's going much further south under Labour for the reasons i've given. That'll effect in the main some of the poorest in society.
Exactly what was said by the Tories and the right wing press prior to Labour winning in 97. Also said about the introduction of the minimum wage too..... It just didn't happen.
As I said earlier, all those who think the markets will be fine and dandy with Corbyn do feel free to put your money where your mouth is prior to the next election. Even @MuttleyCAFC who usually has the polar opposite view to me said "I would advise anybody to liquidise financial assets in the short term because the inevitable fix that is going to happen is going to have an effect."
Corbyn and his policies aren't the same as Labour in 1997 who were a version of Tory anyway.
I have a different view on Minimum wage which although may have helped some has also helped to drive salaries down to the lowest common denominator.
But the fix that is going to happen to the housing market is going to happen at some point - Corbyn or no Corbyn. Even Conservatives say we need to build a lot more houses. The problem is, when they do, house prices will fall.
My advice was a financial piece of advice only. Even if I am left out of pocket, if we have a society where our kids can afford to buy houses like we could, I will be more than happy. It should never have got to the point it is now, even though financially, I have clearly benefitted from it.
But the fix that is going to happen to the housing market is going to happen at some point - Corbyn or no Corbyn. Even Conservatives say we need to build a lot more houses. The problem is, when they do, house prices will fall.
My advice was a financial piece of advice only. Even if I am left out of pocket, if we have a society where our kids can afford to buy houses like we could, I will be more than happy. It should never have got to the point it is now, even though financially, I have clearly benefitted from it.
There isn't currently a shortage of housing stock in the UK, there's a shortage of affordable housing stock in some areas of the UK particularly London & SE but other areas too.
"1.The number of houses has grown significantly faster than the number of households in the UK over the past 25 years; 2.The cost of housing — distinct from the price of houses — has been falling relative to prices and earnings since at least 2005."
Building houses alone will not in my view have a major correction on prices. Combine that with rising unemployment and lack of confidence in the market, rent control etc and maybe we will then see it.
Agreed, @holyjo was suggesting there wouldn't be a reduction in markets, I think we both believe there will be.
It will be where it starts. The correction will ultimately happen because house prices are too high.
Hasn't worked so far, I can remember in 2008 the experts warning that the market was over inflated and needed a correction. Since then upwards of 70% further increase and plenty of property has been built around me in that time and has had no effect whatsoever on prices.
But likewise I hope they reduce and you are right, I'd be happy if mine was worth half it is now, but sadly it will be those who have got onto the ladder in more recent times who will suffer greatly. If it's a large correction that could go back some years.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addicknice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
Why a cheap shot? I haven't judged your position and haven't promoted one view over the other, the words I have used are neutral and not sensationalist.
Why are they far from the truth? An awful lot of what you have said on this and on other posts has been about defending your wealth. I have not judged you on that but would be happy to do so if you wished.
A "cheap shot" as you had decided that my reason for not voting Labour was due to you believing it would adversely affect my wealth (which I'm sure is far less than you think) if they were elected, which is incorrect on both counts as to why I didn't vote Labour and why it wouldn't effect my wealth. Typical response TBH to anyone who didn't vote Red.
"what it boils down to is that you are wealthy and want to keep the wealth whilst @Fiiish & @MuttleyCAFC want to see wealth distributed across a wider range of people."
I would therefore say that you have judged me (incorrectly) but that's entirely your prerogative especially if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You'll see many posts from me on this thread, in the last few days and throughout the election threads that amongst other things I advocated an increase in taxation, just not what Labour proposed and additionally to take low earners out of tax altogether.
"Couldn't be further from the truth" as your statement as to why I voted as I did is wholly incorrect.
The point I'm making is if your reasons against Labour are that the economy is going to go down the pan then you can equally level those points against the current Tories.
I don't think it's currently down the pan at all, but wherever it is/you think it is right now my point is it's going much further south under Labour for the reasons i've given. That'll effect in the main some of the poorest in society.
Exactly what was said by the Tories and the right wing press prior to Labour winning in 97. Also said about the introduction of the minimum wage too..... It just didn't happen.
As I said earlier, all those who think the markets will be fine and dandy with Corbyn do feel free to put your money where your mouth is prior to the next election. Even @MuttleyCAFC who usually has the polar opposite view to me said "I would advise anybody to liquidise financial assets in the short term because the inevitable fix that is going to happen is going to have an effect."
Corbyn and his policies aren't the same as Labour in 1997 who were a version of Tory anyway.
I have a different view on Minimum wage which although may have helped some has also helped to drive salaries down to the lowest common denominator.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addicknice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
Why a cheap shot? I haven't judged your position and haven't promoted one view over the other, the words I have used are neutral and not sensationalist.
Why are they far from the truth? An awful lot of what you have said on this and on other posts has been about defending your wealth. I have not judged you on that but would be happy to do so if you wished.
A "cheap shot" as you had decided that my reason for not voting Labour was due to you believing it would adversely affect my wealth (which I'm sure is far less than you think) if they were elected, which is incorrect on both counts as to why I didn't vote Labour and why it wouldn't effect my wealth. Typical response TBH to anyone who didn't vote Red.
"what it boils down to is that you are wealthy and want to keep the wealth whilst @Fiiish & @MuttleyCAFC want to see wealth distributed across a wider range of people."
I would therefore say that you have judged me (incorrectly) but that's entirely your prerogative especially if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You'll see many posts from me on this thread, in the last few days and throughout the election threads that amongst other things I advocated an increase in taxation, just not what Labour proposed and additionally to take low earners out of tax altogether.
"Couldn't be further from the truth" as your statement as to why I voted as I did is wholly incorrect.
The point I'm making is if your reasons against Labour are that the economy is going to go down the pan then you can equally level those points against the current Tories.
I don't think it's currently down the pan at all, but wherever it is/you think it is right now my point is it's going much further south under Labour for the reasons i've given. That'll effect in the main some of the poorest in society.
Exactly what was said by the Tories and the right wing press prior to Labour winning in 97. Also said about the introduction of the minimum wage too..... It just didn't happen.
As I said earlier, all those who think the markets will be fine and dandy with Corbyn do feel free to put your money where your mouth is prior to the next election. Even @MuttleyCAFC who usually has the polar opposite view to me said "I would advise anybody to liquidise financial assets in the short term because the inevitable fix that is going to happen is going to have an effect."
Corbyn and his policies aren't the same as Labour in 1997 who were a version of Tory anyway.
I have a different view on Minimum wage which although may have helped some has also helped to drive salaries down to the lowest common denominator.
It will be where it starts. The correction will ultimately happen because house prices are too high.
Hasn't worked so far, I can remember in 2008 the experts warning that the market was over inflated and needed a correction. Since then upwards of 70% further increase and plenty of property has been built around me in that time and has had no effect whatsoever on prices.
But likewise I hope they reduce and you are right, I'd be happy if mine was worth half it is now, but sadly it will be those who have got onto the ladder in more recent times who will suffer greatly. If it's a large correction that could go back some years.
I think we are bizarely, nearly saying teh same thing unless you don't believe a correction will ever happen. It is going to happen -it is overdue. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Yes, anybody buying at the top of the market is going to be stung when it does. I wish that wasn't the case, but I can't see a way round it. Presumably they purchased for somewhere to live rather than as an investment so they will still live in their houses, but it does pose potential problems if they want to upscale/move later.
It will be where it starts. The correction will ultimately happen because house prices are too high.
Hasn't worked so far, I can remember in 2008 the experts warning that the market was over inflated and needed a correction. Since then upwards of 70% further increase and plenty of property has been built around me in that time and has had no effect whatsoever on prices.
But likewise I hope they reduce and you are right, I'd be happy if mine was worth half it is now, but sadly it will be those who have got onto the ladder in more recent times who will suffer greatly. If it's a large correction that could go back some years.
I think we are bizarely, nearly saying teh same thing unless you don't believe a correction will ever happen. It is going to happen -it is overdue. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Yes, anybody buying at the top of the market is going to be stung when it does. I wish that wasn't the case, but I can't see a way round it. Presumably they purchased for somewhere to live rather than as an investment so they will still live in their houses, but it does pose potential problems if they want to upscale/move later.
Twice in one day!!
The issue last time as you indicate was where people needed to move, either for work or starting a family in say a 1 bed flat as well as unemployment and unable to keep up repayments etc etc.
I personally think as we stand today prices will stagnate at the moment so in real terms begin to drop a little bit I don’t see a massive correction without lots of outside influencing factors which may of course happen post brexit and the next election.
Last time it was the crash where a lot of people made a lot of money snapping up cheap property and lead to the BTL boom. If we have a large correction the serial property investors will pile in which won’t help.
I hope that over the next 5 years we see a 5-10% drop in values and add to that inflation meaning nearer 20% hopefully in real terms.
I do also think it's in part a southern thing as well as some other key areas/cities. If you bought a house in the West Midlands 15 years ago for £60k it's probably only just reached £90k now which has only just about kept up with inflation. A similar London house at £140k in 2003 is now nearer £350k only around £65k of that growth is inflation which would have took the value to £205k.
The key point is how wages at the bottom and the top go up in comparison with cost of living increases. The cost of living is generally regressive as it is generally fixed regardless of your income. If it costs a single parent who is on 13,000 an extra 500 a year to maintain their cost of living, that is a much greater impact than on someone on 150k who also has a partner working and is able to share costs, as well as rely on income from their investments.
To an extent I agree, but that's not what you were saying with your headline quotes!
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
Some of the lower earners have seen their take home pay increase. Those who were already earning below the tax threshold before it was increased won't have, and will have been hit proportionately harder by the increase in VAT and the cost of living increases too.
Last time it was the crash where a lot of people made a lot of money snapping up cheap property and lead to the BTL boom. If we have a large correction the serial property investors will pile in which won’t help.
TBH if there's a correction it will be council's and Housing Associations piling in, not BTL landlords. Now a lot of councils have finally ditched the Tory-New Lab private sector housing concensus (mainly through the economic reality of it costing a fortune in B&B and private sector leasing costs) they are buying properties again, often the same ones sold cheap under Right to Buy.
It's a quick win for all concerned, particularly in tower blocks where it's hard for sellers. And it also means that they get properties straight away rather than fighting Nimbys for a lengthy planning process. And it's cheaper to buy them than rent B&B rooms or lease them elsewhere.
So how long has she got? I read somewhere the other day that 48 letters need to be sent to the back bench committee, expressing no confidence, to force a leadership contest. Apparently 40 have already been sent.
Comments
Has anybody heard of the Lucas critique? Part of it basically says that if you keep targetting something, people will take advantage of it. So for example from 1945 to the mid to late 1970s, the aim was to target full employement. And this was exploited by unions and employers and the result was inflation. And a point was reached when the inflation hurt sufficiently - mainly the creditor classes who bandied together under Regan and Thatcher to form a financial revolution - liberating finance and de-regulating banks and rules and integrated the world's economies, globalising labour so workers no longer had power to exploit.
This happened because interests were taking advantage for their own ends. I am very critical of the behaviour of the Unions in the 70s, when they acted for the best deal for their members rather than what was a fair deal. And people got fed up with it,and Thatcher took them on and they needed taking on. We have had many technological breakthroughs and massive amounts of money is being generated globally. The problem is, the Lucas critique is being demonstarted again. This time the exploiters are not the workers, but a very small number of influential people/corporations across the globe. So there has been a huge amount of growth with hardly anybody benefitting.
Thatcher made a famous comment in the commons many years ago. Basically she said that it is often better to have a little of a lot rather than a lot of a little. This actually worked as did full employement policies after the war. But the problem comes when the inevitabilty of the Lucas critique darkens the doorstep. People take advantage of it so a little of a lot is no longer better than a lot of a little. It is far worse. So if you moan about your conditions we will send your job to a country where people are more desperate than you - hence the world of people working in poverty and a tiny number getting richer and richer.
Take a walk down most high streets and they are depressing places. Many of the shops that haven't closed are linked to the poor society. Betting shops, pawn shops, cheap food etc... People are not liking their lives and that is where you get things like Brexit and Trump getting into power. They are feeling they have been bypassed by the establishment and there are enough of them to make a difference. It is similar to people being fed up with the Unions exploiting their power.
We have now created a world where we are able to dump 13 trillion dollars into the global economy and there is no inflation anywhere. Whe have created a world of creditors and debtors. And when you look at the election of Trump and indeed Brexit, you can point to immigration, but the real cause is economic. The world is moving away from the establishment, because people can't say, that will do, the gap between rich and poor is about right now - no you have to get richer and richer and squeeze and squeeze to achieve this, until you can't squeeze any more. But where there are democracies, you can't do this without a reaction. And because the people who have the power can't stop - they can't help themselves, they are rushing towards the cliff like lemmings.
That is why the Tories are in trouble. Things are not going to miraculously change. Look at the bonuses that banks that were bailed out by us are now giving themselves. How do the tories need to change to keep power? They need to find a Trump or somebody even worse. Somebody who can give people somebody to blame and talk to the increasing numbers of disaffected. Of course nobody should want that. But Corbyn is part of the same phenomenom as Trump wierdly. But the difference is, he understands what is happening and he has become the cure, because the world has moved towards him. Like Thatcher it is what is needed - not just Corbyn but others like him around the world. I would say they have the current answers so movement to the left is inevitable.
Of course the Lucas critique will almost certainly come into play again in the years to come. But I think many posters - maybe mature posters - as I am - who have paid off their mortgages, inherited money, have decent pensions, are shielded from what is going on. A young person who is working two jobs with no hope of buying a house! That is one thing that is going on for starters. Their best hope of having a better life is what they inherit from us. Things are broken and nobody who can supply the answers, those that control things, are willing to give up a bit to fix them. Corbyn is an inevitability, and there will be many Corbyns to come. It is the way things work!
Again, you are just throwing out headlines ‘the actual incomes of the rich are increasing’, are they? Has the actions I’ve mentioned above not decreased income both in real terms and otherwise for ‘the rich’ compared to say 7 years ago and conversely helped the lower earners?
Someone on 100-300k back in 2010 is highly likely (if they are in the same job) to have a lower take home pay than they did 7 years ago (before any inflation allowance). Conversely someone earning 10-100k in 2010 is likely to have a higher take home pay than 7 years ago. Quite right too and maybe it needs to go further, in my many posts around election time I suggested that 1p or 2p on all income tax bands and continue to increase the tax allowance to take anyone out of tax who earns the living wage or below (circa £18k).
There of course will be outliers to that, the hedge fund manager or some CEO's etc.
My wife is at the very bottom of the scale above working in the public sector and part time. Despite very few pay rises in the last 7 years (2 I think) her take home pay is up over 15% as in 2010 roughly half her income was taxed now none of it is.
Net Wealth of course is a very different matter, anyone who owned a house 10 years ago, particularly in London/South East will almost regardless of anything else have seen their net worth increase considerably, maybe even as much as 100%. Much like anyone invested in the disaster that is our stock market (whether directly or via a pension/ISA) will likely be up in excess of 30-40% over that time, some more.
Not sure how you go about redistributing some of that wealth other than re-taxing what has already been taxed (i.e. not only a tax on the gain as currently but a tax on the asset), we do that at death, maybe we need to do that in life also although I can't see that happening for a myriad of reasons.
Financially, we disagree entirely on what would happen to the markets in a Corbyn/Current Labour era/government, particularly in the short to medium term, only time will tell on that front (or hopefully not!), but personally I'll be liquidating the vast majority of any investments in property, stocks etc prior to that happening much like I did pre brexit vote. If you are to the contrary maybe load up if you are able to just before the next election and see how you fair......
I don't read the daily mail nor do I believe that they'll be a 90% tax rate, what I think will happen is once it is realised that the proposed changes do not raise anywhere near what they were expecting the taxation will need to increase further and across the board. I'd expect a 25% rate to replace the 20% one and maybe 45% replace the 40% one and so on.
In work I would expect unemployment to increase as whether we agree and/or like it or not business will look to maintain the status quo with regards ROI/ROE or to just stay solvent and I've given first hand example of that, if that ROI is squeezed by say taxation then the only option they will see is to decrease the expense base. I may not like that, I may not morally agree with that, but it will happen.
The issue is of course not with people earning a lot of money - it is with the people who are earning a ridiculous amount of money. If I was earning circa £200 to £300k, I would be very angry with the people earning a lot more than me as they are going to affect me with their inability to just be happy with a little bit less of an incredible amount instead of endlessly wanting more and more. Corbyn hasn't got a problem with people having big salaries, he has one himself. Labour made it clear in their manifesto that everybody earning £70k or less would not be worse off under them.
On that basis you would never vote for a Corbyn led Labour party as they will tax high earners and redistribute the wealth.
On the same basis Fiiishy and Mutters would never vote for a May led Conservative party as they do not want to redistribute the wealth.
The rest is just noise.
Fair enough that the wealthy want to hoard their wealth but the only reason why they are able to accumulate such vast amounts of wealth in the first place is thanks to keeping millions of people both in work and in poverty.
In my view and maybe a broad statement but higher earners generally have seen their 'take home' pay decrease and lower earners have seen their 'take home' pay increase. But as I have said, I don't think that in general has increased at the lower end enough (which of course means the higher end would likely need to decrease more) and personally I would do more.
We've built this crazy and convoluted system over the last 20+ years where we've somehow let businesses off the hook of paying a decent wage and replaced it with the state 'topping up' peoples incomes, it's ludicrous and in itself is it's own massive industry but is going to be extremely difficult to unwind.
@MuttleyCAFC I'm not angry at people earning a lot more than me, why would I?
@Cordoban Addick nice try and a cheap shot but you couldn't be further from the truth. I would have personally been considerably better off financially (as would my wider immediate family) had Labour/Corbyn come into power and done what they said.
I'd calculated I'd be better off in the region of £16k per annum for the next 3 years and the 4th year £10k. Even if I worked for the next 15 years (and assuming taxation didn't increase again under corbyn) years 5-15 and additional tax wouldn't even get close to making that back.
It’s ok for the older generation (me @ 61) who have their House, had their careers and are willing to accept the status quo but if you were one of those I mention I’d be itching to see a different approach and all the whinging of the elite that it wouldn’t work would mean jack sh1t to me. You only have to look at the referendum to see just how large and widespread the dissatisfaction is where people voted for change at any cost. Trump is the American version of the same and the meteoric rise of Macron shows just how someone Fresh offering something different can win support.
The Tories can’t change. Their power base is built on the haves. The time for the have nots is on the horizon and the young and ordinary working people are for the first time mobilised enough to have an impact.
We see how the wage divide has grown between the highest eaners and the lowest and it begs the question why. I think the answer is because you can, but the unions could use their exessive powers in the 70s - because they didn't look beyond today and all the people they were peeing off. And that is exactly what is happening now, just a different system being exploited by a different group of people. It has become clear that if the system was going to check itself, it would have done after 2008, but it clearly can't so it is heading for that cliff.
Of course when you give the have nots power, a point will come - possibly in 20 years for arguments sake, when they abuse that power in the way they can. Then you have a reaction. The ideal would be to have a Conservative party that challenges the establishment for the good of capitalism, but they are funded by that establishment! They are helpless really.
Why you should be angry at the small, even tiny, numbers getting richer and richer is that they are the ones destroying capitalism with their greed. That is the capitalism that you and I benefit from. It isn't envy, it is the destruction of it they seem unable to stop.
Anybody who really looked at the Labour manifesto with an open mind would have to admit it wasn't a communist manifesto and followed sound economic principles. We should all want that to stem the reaction that could occur which nobody will like - look at history to see what can happen.
Why are they far from the truth? An awful lot of what you have said on this and on other posts has been about defending your wealth. I have not judged you on that but would be happy to do so if you wished.
"what it boils down to is that you are wealthy and want to keep the wealth whilst @Fiiish & @MuttleyCAFC want to see wealth distributed across a wider range of people."
I would therefore say that you have judged me (incorrectly) but that's entirely your prerogative especially if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You'll see many posts from me on this thread, in the last few days and throughout the election threads that amongst other things I advocated an increase in taxation, just not what Labour proposed and additionally to take low earners out of tax altogether.
"Couldn't be further from the truth" as your statement as to why I voted as I did is wholly incorrect. As I said earlier, all those who think the markets will be fine and dandy with Corbyn do feel free to put your money where your mouth is prior to the next election. Even @MuttleyCAFC who usually has the polar opposite view to me said "I would advise anybody to liquidise financial assets in the short term because the inevitable fix that is going to happen is going to have an effect."
Corbyn and his policies aren't the same as Labour in 1997 who were a version of Tory anyway.
I have a different view on Minimum wage which although may have helped some has also helped to drive salaries down to the lowest common denominator.
My advice was a financial piece of advice only. Even if I am left out of pocket, if we have a society where our kids can afford to buy houses like we could, I will be more than happy. It should never have got to the point it is now, even though financially, I have clearly benefitted from it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/adhocs/005374totalnumberofhouseholdsbyregionandcountryoftheuk1996to2015
or a good summary here: https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/londons-housing-non-shortage-a059593432b5
"1.The number of houses has grown significantly faster than the number of households in the UK over the past 25 years;
2.The cost of housing — distinct from the price of houses — has been falling relative to prices and earnings since at least 2005."
Building houses alone will not in my view have a major correction on prices. Combine that with rising unemployment and lack of confidence in the market, rent control etc and maybe we will then see it.
Agreed, @holyjo was suggesting there wouldn't be a reduction in markets, I think we both believe there will be.
But likewise I hope they reduce and you are right, I'd be happy if mine was worth half it is now, but sadly it will be those who have got onto the ladder in more recent times who will suffer greatly. If it's a large correction that could go back some years.
The issue last time as you indicate was where people needed to move, either for work or starting a family in say a 1 bed flat as well as unemployment and unable to keep up repayments etc etc.
I personally think as we stand today prices will stagnate at the moment so in real terms begin to drop a little bit I don’t see a massive correction without lots of outside influencing factors which may of course happen post brexit and the next election.
Last time it was the crash where a lot of people made a lot of money snapping up cheap property and lead to the BTL boom. If we have a large correction the serial property investors will pile in which won’t help.
I hope that over the next 5 years we see a 5-10% drop in values and add to that inflation meaning nearer 20% hopefully in real terms.
I do also think it's in part a southern thing as well as some other key areas/cities. If you bought a house in the West Midlands 15 years ago for £60k it's probably only just reached £90k now which has only just about kept up with inflation. A similar London house at £140k in 2003 is now nearer £350k only around £65k of that growth is inflation which would have took the value to £205k.
It's a quick win for all concerned, particularly in tower blocks where it's hard for sellers. And it also means that they get properties straight away rather than fighting Nimbys for a lengthy planning process. And it's cheaper to buy them than rent B&B rooms or lease them elsewhere.
So how long has she got? I read somewhere the other day that 48 letters need to be sent to the back bench committee, expressing no confidence, to force a leadership contest. Apparently 40 have already been sent.
The worst case scenario would be Boris elected, but I think even the 1922 tosspots wouldn’t put forward
They’re a mess
It’s amazing how such an outdated group of people have gotten so much traction again in that party