Jeremy Corbyn

[chipdawg]

Ah a differing economists view there's a surprise, a bit like does god exist IMO.

 

Oh very much so; it's not that difficult to find completely contrasting opinions from perfectly credible academics on almost any subject

However, Krugman makes a great point early on in that if you look around the globe now- even at nations badly affected by economic down turns and previously cutting their public expenditure- the only nations still engaging in austerity are those upon whom it's been imposed and the UK

As ever, it'd be good to hear opposing views from equally credible sources if you have them?

[...]

Actually, conventional economic wisdom says the opposite is true TFR- which makes Osborne's hard-on for a surplus all the more strange

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/

That's a very simple (perhaps overly simplified) explanation in Forbes (obviously using the US as the example, but the point stands) but explains the basic accountancy principal

If you have more time on your hands, read this fascinating rebuttal of austerity by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

1) It's UNCLE TFR, actually

2) How, FFS, is spending more than your income economic sense, over a sustained period?

 

UNCLE TFR

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'd agree that a lot of voters were also duped by New Labour. 

But not on the extent of the current government where millions of poorer members of society voted Tory with the assumption that things would get better for them.  That was always codswallop.

The fact that Tories are still coming out with soundbites like, "the family for working people" whilst enforcing the tax credit cuts etc is beyond parody.

oh the rose tinted spectacles, duping millions of voters into believing that they were voting for a 'labour' government and ending up with a version of the tories, duping the country and the world about their sexed up evidence over their ill advised/illegal invasion of Iraq and didn't a million more families fall below the poverty line, they even admitted after their 2010 election defeat that they let down their core voter the working man.

[IAmNick]

What amazes me is the current argument about running a budget surplus.

The amount of people that actually think this is a 'bad' idea!!!

It's no difference to your own household:-

If you spend more than you earn over the years, you WILL go bankrupt.

Labour only get away with this because every 10 years or so, they know they will be in opposition, and some other poor sods have to balance the books.

It's easy to spend, spend, spend (just look at my Mrs), but it takes determination and sense to save for a rainy day.

"Simples" or what?

 

Uncle TFR

Actually the economics of a country is NOTHING like running your house, you couldn't be more wrong, which is a huge problem because most people don't understand that.

So not so "simple" really, sorry.

[marshy]

Actually the economics of a country is NOTHING like running your house, you couldn't be more wrong, which is a huge problem because most people don't understand that.

So not so "simple" really, sorry.

You must have told that to the Socialist Papandreou dynasty in Greece which systematically bankrupted the country. Still the Greeks had the answer, 'let's vote in the even further left Syriza bunch to finish the job.'

[IAmNick]

 

^ Oops quote the wrong person

I didn't say anything about Greece, austerity, or the left, I simply said a countries economics and budget cannot be compared to your houses as they are fundamentally different?

[marshy]

Looks to me that thousands, or possibly millions of Tory voters are starting to realise they were 'duped' in the election. Surprise surprise!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tearful-woman-confronts-tory-minister-over-tax-cuts-during-question-time-a6696286.html

When will people learn.

 

Leaving aside the introduction of the 'living wage' and raising of the personal allowance, strangely enough I don't recall this woman ever asking me if it would be ok for her to keep on reproducing and asking me for financial assistance.

Secondly I have to ask whether or not the father of her four children is providing for them or whether or not she is simply relying on cash from myself and other taxpayers.

Finally if this country is so bad how come there are millions of immigrants happy to work here and many more trying to get in.

[marshy]

^ Oops quote the wrong person

I didn't say anything about Greece, austerity, or the left, I simply said a countries economics and budget cannot be compared to your houses as they are fundamentally different?

Yes an opinion much beloved of economics lecturers trying to mystify their subject.

[IAmNick]

Leaving aside the introduction of the 'living wage' and raising of the personal allowance, strangely enough I don't recall this woman ever asking me if it would be ok for her to keep on reproducing and asking me for financial assistance.

What point are you even trying to make here, she never asked you if should could reproduce? What?

 

Secondly I have to ask whether or not the father of her four children is providing for them or whether or not she is simply relying on cash from myself and other taxpayers. 

Again, what has it got to do with anything what the father of her children is providing for them?

Finally if this country is so bad how come there are millions of immigrants happy to work here and many more trying to get in.

Because it's better than where they came from, most likely. Again I don't understand what immigrants wanting to come here has to do with that lady? But wherever you can shoehorn it in I guess...

 

Yes an opinion much beloved of economics lecturers trying to mystify their subject.

Trying to mystify their subject? Give me a break that's such a lazy response, there's no mystery and there are many great articles on the subject you can read to learn about it if you wanted to. Here are some basic differences though as I understand it:

- A country can print money to stimulate the economy if needed, you can't.

- A country can change the rate of inflation to suit it, you can't.

- A country has ways it can reliably raise money if needed (through taxation for example), a household doesn't.

- Your assets have a limited lifespan, that is, your house and belongings are tied to you. A countries are tied to no one person and will exist indefinitely leading me on to my next point

- A country can issue incredibly safe bonds, bank deposits and cash, which people will then purchase to create money "out of nothing", you can't do this as you are not a safe lender compared to a country. It can be for individuals, or to large financial institutions (quantative easing, for example) to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately I suspect your IOUs are not particularly desirable to people in comparison.

- Britain has been in debt for mostly hundreds of years now, not just the last few years and we've had many good/bad periods in that time regardless. A household cannot exist in huge debt for it's entire time as its creditors come calling.

- Almost every country in the world in fact runs a deficit, and it's reasonably widely regarded that a deficit is actually HEALTHY for a country to run, as it gives individuals and institutions something to borrow against.

If you want to explain how they are similar, I am all ears.

Seconding "The Austerity Delusion" as a fantastic read by the way, even if you don't agree with all of it.

[...]

Actually the economics of a country is NOTHING like running your house, you couldn't be more wrong, which is a huge problem because most people don't understand that.

So not so "simple" really, sorry.

You are wrong.

Running an economy is like running my house - just bigger, and with a lot of people not helping, but still expecting to live in it.

Uncle TFR

[wayne allisons tongues]

As I said before, I don't vote for anyone think the system is rubbish.

Can someone tell me when the tax credit came in. What happened before the system was introduced and why it was introduced.

Just interested for my parents never had government hand outs and got by ok. Has introducing the system created a society that relies on it and is that good or bad.

[chipdawg]

Leaving aside the introduction of the 'living wage' and raising of the personal allowance, strangely enough I don't recall this woman ever asking me if it would be ok for her to keep on reproducing and asking me for financial assistance.

Secondly I have to ask whether or not the father of her four children is providing for them or whether or not she is simply relying on cash from myself and other taxpayers.

Finally if this country is so bad how come there are millions of immigrants happy to work here and many more trying to get in.

How is your defacto argument of 'why should I have to pay for this persons benefits' any different to Corbyn's much derided opt out of defence spending? I don't agree with either stance, but the underlying principal is the same

That would be the 'living wage' which in 2019 is going to be less than what the calculated living wage is now in 2015? I welcome them raising it, I just object to the use of the term 'living wage' when many, many people can't live on it

There is no actual cogent argument here to support your ideas, just complaining, though obviously they are all ideas that you are entitled to. Perhaps an article in defence of austerity to support what you're saying? Or one arguing for the dismantling of the welfare state? 

[marshy]

How is your defacto argument of 'why should I have to pay for this persons benefits' any different to Corbyn's much derided opt out of defence spending? I don't agree with either stance, but the underlying principal is the same

That would be the 'living wage' which in 2019 is going to be less than what the calculated living wage is now in 2015? I welcome them raising it, I just object to the use of the term 'living wage' when many, many people can't live on it

There is no actual cogent argument here to support your ideas, just complaining, though obviously they are all ideas that you are entitled to. Perhaps an article in defence of austerity to support what you're saying? Or one arguing for the dismantling of the welfare state? 

The Tories, not that I vote for them, did make it perfectly clear that the welfare bill would have to be cut. How big do you actually think the welfare bill should be? Let's have a figure and a cogent argument to support the percentage of state expenditure you choose. The woman on QT had four kids. How many more would you be happy to pay for rather than the father paying a satisfactory contribution? Choose a number and provide a cogent argument to support the figure you choose. 

I have never 'derided' Corbyn's stance on defence by the way. What I would ridicule is his U-turn on the question of EU membership. 

[marshy]

What point are you even trying to make here, she never asked you if should could reproduce? What?

 

Again, what has it got to do with anything what the father of her children is providing for them?

Because it's better than where they came from, most likely. Again I don't understand what immigrants wanting to come here has to do with that lady? But wherever you can shoehorn it in I guess...

 

 

Trying to mystify their subject? Give me a break that's such a lazy response, there's no mystery and there are many great articles on the subject you can read to learn about it if you wanted to. Here are some basic differences though as I understand it:

- A country can print money to stimulate the economy if needed, you can't.

A)- A country can change the rate of inflation to suit it, you can't.

- A country has ways it can reliably raise money if needed (through taxation for example), a household doesn't.

B)- Your assets have a limited lifespan, that is, your house and belongings are tied to you. A countries are tied to no one person and will exist indefinitely leading me on to my next point

- A country can issue incredibly safe bonds, bank deposits and cash, which people will then purchase to create money "out of nothing", you can't do this as you are not a safe lender compared to a country. It can be for individuals, or to large financial institutions (quantative easing, for example) to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately I suspect your IOUs are not particularly desirable to people in comparison.

C)- Britain has been in debt for mostly hundreds of years now, not just the last few years and we've had many good/bad periods in that time regardless. A household cannot exist in huge debt for it's entire time as its creditors come calling.

- Almost every country in the world in fact runs a deficit, and it's reasonably widely regarded that a deficit is actually HEALTHY for a country to run, as it gives individuals and institutions something to borrow against.

If you want to explain how they are similar, I am all ears.

Seconding "The Austerity Delusion" as a fantastic read by the way, even if you don't agree with all of it.

'Lazy response' eh? Probably because, like most of the posters on here I don't have time to sit down and write an essay on the topic. Off on hols later today so a hurried response. Your multi-quotes suggest that you haven't really grasped the points I intended to make, obviously not very well.

Of course the state is different to an individual, household, or family. That is stating the obvious, but you used the expression 'fundamentally different' and I would suggest that whether a state, on the macro level, or an individual or household, on the micro level, the same fundamental economic forces, or 'laws' apply. For instance a state can print money, more of it becomes available therefore its price, in this case the interest rate, ceteris paribus, falls. The fundamental law of supply and demand. The problem with economics of course is that all other things are not, can not, be held constant so other things cloud the issue. On the micro level as interest rates drop then other things equal businesses and individuals save less and borrow more to invest. Subject to the same fundamental principle. 

A). above. Dubious

B). Hoping I can pass some of assets on when I'm gone, if the state leaves any.

C) The debt a country takes on is I believe more important than you assume and manifests itself in a financial crisis from time to time. Moreover the massive amounts we have to spend to service that debt could conceivably be spent upon better things in the present.

 

[chipdawg]

The Tories, not that I vote for them, did make it perfectly clear that the welfare bill would have to be cut. How big do you actually think the welfare bill should be? Let's have a figure and a cogent argument to support the percentage of state expenditure you choose. The woman on QT had four kids. How many more would you be happy to pay for rather than the father paying a satisfactory contribution? Choose a number and provide a cogent argument to support the figure you choose. 

I have never 'derided' Corbyn's stance on defence by the way. What I would ridicule is his U-turn on the question of EU membership. 

David Cameron said he would not be changing Child Tax Credits in the leaders debates before the election. After the election, one of the first things his party did was change them. So yes, I agree that they made no bones about reducing the welfare bill, but they hid- even lied about- how they were going to do it

I don't think there should be a figure on the size of the welfare budget. There should be a debate on exactly how we want the welfare state to look in future Britain, what it should cover, what it should not. Then the state should pay for it. The value of the welfare state shouldn't be judged on whether it comes in under budget or not, it should be whether it fulfills the role society wants for it. If that includes cuts to what is provided, so be it. But it shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of austerity

You and I still have no idea about this woman's situation other than she is a working mum with 4 kids and is worried she won't make ends meet with benefit cuts. The father may pay his dues, he may not. Perhaps she used to work for Goldman Sachs earning a wedge and lost her job? I don't know. What we do know is that she has a job that doesn't pay enough to get by and that is the issue for me

[marshy]

David Cameron said he would not be changing Child Tax Credits in the leaders debates before the election. After the election, one of the first things his party did was change them. So yes, I agree that they made no bones about reducing the welfare bill, but they hid- even lied about- how they were going to do it

I don't think there should be a figure on the size of the welfare budget. There should be a debate on exactly how we want the welfare state to look in future Britain, what it should cover, what it should not. Then the state should pay for it. The value of the welfare state shouldn't be judged on whether it comes in under budget or not, it should be whether it fulfills the role society wants for it. If that includes cuts to what is provided, so be it. But it shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of austerity

You and I still have no idea about this woman's situation other than she is a working mum with 4 kids and is worried she won't make ends meet with benefit cuts. The father may pay his dues, he may not. Perhaps she used to work for Goldman Sachs earning a wedge and lost her job? I don't know. What we do know is that she has a job that doesn't pay enough to get by and that is the issue for me

You know that for a fact do you. She could be an actor, or a typical QT left-wing plant.

[chipdawg]

You know that for a fact do you. She could be an actor, or a typical QT left-wing plant.

CONSPIRACY! Let's assume she is: are you arguing that there is no one in this country who works full tile but can't make ends meet? 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

David Cameron said he would not be changing Child Tax Credits in the leaders debates before the election. After the election, one of the first things his party did was change them. So yes, I agree that they made no bones about reducing the welfare bill, but they hid- even lied about- how they were going to do it

I don't think there should be a figure on the size of the welfare budget. There should be a debate on exactly how we want the welfare state to look in future Britain, what it should cover, what it should not. Then the state should pay for it. The value of the welfare state shouldn't be judged on whether it comes in under budget or not, it should be whether it fulfills the role society wants for it. If that includes cuts to what is provided, so be it. But it shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of austerity

You and I still have no idea about this woman's situation other than she is a working mum with 4 kids and is worried she won't make ends meet with benefit cuts. The father may pay his dues, he may not. Perhaps she used to work for Goldman Sachs earning a wedge and lost her job? I don't know. What we do know is that she has a job that doesn't pay enough to get by and that is the issue for me

Apparently she is a working mum with 4 kids who runs a nail bar from home at a loss (which is bizarre) it would still be interesting to know if the father/fathers do contribute, but apparently that doesn't matter.

[marshy]

David Cameron said he would not be changing Child Tax Credits in the leaders debates before the election. After the election, one of the first things his party did was change them. So yes, I agree that they made no bones about reducing the welfare bill, but they hid- even lied about- how they were going to do it

I don't think there should be a figure on the size of the welfare budget. There should be a debate on exactly how we want the welfare state to look in future Britain, what it should cover, what it should not. Then the state should pay for it. The value of the welfare state shouldn't be judged on whether it comes in under budget or not, it should be whether it fulfills the role society wants for it. If that includes cuts to what is provided, so be it. But it shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of austerity

You and I still have no idea about this woman's situation other than she is a working mum with 4 kids and is worried she won't make ends meet with benefit cuts. The father may pay his dues, he may not. Perhaps she used to work for Goldman Sachs earning a wedge and lost her job? I don't know. What we do know is that she has a job that doesn't pay enough to get by and that is the issue for me

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Could be a vote winner..or maybe not.

[chipdawg]

Apparently she is a working mum with 4 kids who runs a nail bar from home at a loss (which is bizarre) it would still be interesting to know if the father/fathers do contribute, but apparently that doesn't matter.

Well to a certain extent it doesn't as payment of child support by absentee fathers is mandatory so if child support is not being paid it's a legal issue and seperate to her qualification for benefits. However, this article in the Telegraph indicates there is one father from whom she seperated four years ago and that he pays 'maintenance'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935413/Ex-Tory-voter-breaks-down-on-Question-Time-over-tax-credit-cuts.html

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well to a certain extent it doesn't as payment of child support by absentee fathers is mandatory so if child support is not being paid it's a legal issue and seperate to her qualification for benefits. However, this article in the Telegraph indicates there is one father from whom she seperated four years ago and that he pays 'maintenance'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935413/Ex-Tory-voter-breaks-down-on-Question-Time-over-tax-credit-cuts.html

i'm not talking about benefits, i'm talking about her total income and maintenance is part of her total income, it cannot be ignored and is not mentioned in her £400 per week.

The best thing that can be done for this woman is to send her on a course to show her how run a business from home at a profit, running a business from home with such low overheads at a loss is bizarre or for the purposes of the tax man.

[IAmNick]

'Lazy response' eh? Probably because, like most of the posters on here I don't have time to sit down and write an essay on the topic. Off on hols later today so a hurried response. Your multi-quotes suggest that you haven't really grasped the points I intended to make, obviously not very well.

[snip]

The same economic forces don't apply to a state as do to an individual, because a state controls its own currency, like Britain, as I said. That's why what happened in Greece (who do not control their own currency) could not happen here in the same way. Calling changing the interest rate/printing money "dubious" is weird as that is the number 1 way every country controls their currency and how much money they have. Printing money, changing the interest rate (to indirectly affect borrowing/saving/investment) and selling government bonds is not theory, or anything strange, but it is a fundamental reason why you can't look at a country budget sheet and use the logic we have for our homes to try and make sense of it - it's counter intuitive maybe but that's how it is. Many economists go so far as to say it's important for a country to be in debt, but I don't know enough about that to say.

As I said before, I don't vote for anyone think the system is rubbish.

Can someone tell me when the tax credit came in. What happened before the system was introduced and why it was introduced.

Just interested for my parents never had government hand outs and got by ok. Has introducing the system created a society that relies on it and is that good or bad.

They came in around 2000 I believe.

To say they never had government "hand outs" is strange (I guess it's what you define as a "hand out" compared to a legit bit of help), but for over 60 years there have been things like the NHS, national insurance, national assistance, family allowances, education for all for free, council houses, the state pension, and many more. I'm not saying your parents relied on them specifically, but these types of things have been around for a long time now - and are something a lot of people in this country feel extremely proud about having compared to most of the world.

Tax credits are basically just a way of helping out people who have kids and are in work but on low income, that's it. They are means tested so people don't rely on them.

[IAmNick]

Some of you are like a self parody at times. There is a real person who speaks up about being hit with the cuts to tax credits. One response on here finishes with a completely unrelated dig at immigrants. One saying it's probably a left wing plant/actor. One saying her business could be a swindle for tax reasons. Are you for real? Why can you not just accept that it's f*cking over a lot of people, and this is one of them, and they feel duped?

She's a British individual with kids, attempting to run her own small business - surely this is just the kind of person many of you would prefer to be in this country and doing well, but when she appears there's nothing but distrust and disdain for her.

[Portland Bill]

You know that for a fact do you. She could be an actor, or a typical QT left-wing plant.

She's a woman who thought voting Tory would look after number one, and didn't care what the Tory policies would do to anyone else.

But know she finds out they aren't actually interested in looking out for her and she can't see the irony.

Selfish,selfish,selfish.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Some of you are like a self parody at times. There is a real person who speaks up about being hit with the cuts to tax credits. One response on here finishes with a completely unrelated dig at immigrants. One saying it's probably a left wing plant/actor. One saying her business could be a swindle for tax reasons. Are you for real? Why can you not just accept that it's f*cking over a lot of people, and this is one of them, and they feel duped?

She's a British individual with kids, attempting to run her own small business - surely this is just the kind of person many of you would prefer to be in this country and doing well, but when she appears there's nothing but distrust and disdain for her.

 

She's a woman who thought voting Tory would look after number one, and didn't care what the Tory policies would do to anyone else.

But know she finds out they aren't actually interested in looking out for her and she can't see the irony.

Selfish,selfish,selfish.

And who it now turns out, will not be subject of the said cuts.

Because of the ******* 'banksters' a lot of people have been hit by cuts, Mrs Bung for instance has had her old age pension deferred for 5 years, because she missed out by 6 weeks from getting it on time and having had a pension forecast the pittance she will receive when she is eligible is going to barely more than the spending money that asylum seekers get after accommodation and 3 square meals a day and she spent her working life in the piss poor paid but noble profession of caring for old people, a job she loved but is under appreciated and under funded and the last time she traveled in a stretch limo was at my daughters wedding 15 years ago and we paid for that, how's that for parody?

PS:- My tears are for the disabled who this government and especially the vile gutless IDS supported by the vile French company brought in as hatchet men on his behalf bullied because they were an easy target.

[...]

I watched QT, and like many people was moved by this lady and her passionate appeal.

I then watched the next days news, and lost 90% of my sympathy.

 

There should be a benefits safety net: if you don't believe this you are not human.

BUT.

The benefits system should not be a lifestyle choice. 

Also, it is immoral to EXPECT / demand other people pay towards your upkeep / lifestyle.

If I choose to have four kids, I know they will need food, clothes, housing, etc, etc, etc. I know it will cost a lot of money. Who should pay for this? Me? You? The State? The NHS?

It sounds horrible, but if all of the fathers of the four kids are dead, she deserves every penny from the state. Every last penny - and more.

If she has put herself in a disadvantaged position, then that is her choice.

 

Have as many kids as you want - just don't expect others to pay for them. We already pay for their education, health, as this is a shared system. Until people understand that society expects them to take responsibility for their own choices, we will always have this problem.

Personally, I would rather spend this money on treating cancer victims than funding peoples big families. The cancer patients don't have the choice.

 

Uncle TFR

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I watched QT, and like many people was moved by this lady and her passionate appeal.

I then watched the next days news, and lost 90% of my sympathy.

 

There should be a benefits safety net: if you don't believe this you are not human.

BUT.

The benefits system should not be a lifestyle choice. 

Also, it is immoral to EXPECT / demand other people pay towards your upkeep / lifestyle.

If I choose to have four kids, I know they will need food, clothes, housing, etc, etc, etc. I know it will cost a lot of money. Who should pay for this? Me? You? The State? The NHS?

It sounds horrible, but if all of the fathers of the four kids are dead, she deserves every penny from the state. Every last penny - and more.

If she has put herself in a disadvantaged position, then that is her choice.

 

Have as many kids as you want - just don't expect others to pay for them. We already pay for their education, health, as this is a shared system. Until people understand that society expects them to take responsibility for their own choices, we will always have this problem.

Personally, I would rather spend this money on treating cancer victims than funding peoples big families. The cancer patients don't have the choice.

 

Uncle TFR

it looks as though this lady may have shit in her own proverbial nest over this, it would appear she maybe wrong on all counts, she is probably not in line for cuts for several reasons and I suspect that the tax man might be looking into her non profit making business, so sorry liberals you might need to look for another poster gal.

 

 

[...]

I agree with EMB - and I have the T-shirt to prove it.

 

Uncle TFR

[Red-Robbo]

You know that for a fact do you. She could be an actor, or a typical QT left-wing plant.

A left-wing plant?

You do realise that Question Time - produced by Mentorn,  not the BBC incidentally - monitors audience political affiliation very carefully in a bid to try to balance things. 

Wish they'd done the pre-election (non) debates. You wouldn't have had the Labour leader facing an audience of Tory plants in Leeds, who had lied to the.production team that they were apolitical.

That's not a myth incidentally. It's established fact.

[screech]

A left-wing plant?

You do realise that Question Time - produced by Mentorn,  not the BBC incidentally - monitors audience political affiliation very carefully in a bid to try to balance things. 

Wish they'd done the pre-election (non) debates. You wouldn't have had the Labour leader facing an audience of Tory plants in Leeds, who had lied to the.production team that they were apolitical.

That's not a myth incidentally. It's established fact.

 

Are you forgetting the plant the BBC had that hijacked the UKIP candidate, you know the Labour regional policy co ordinator girl who said they were disgusting. Turns out she tweeted in advance "Don’t miss out on Question Time tonight, you’ll see me rip into the disgusting UKIP woman!". Amazing foresight.

It's TV entertainment, of course they plant the audience.