Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

That IDS was delighted with the verdict he's breaching children's rights just shows what a sick fuck he is!

The UN convention on children’s rights isn’t part of UK law. The European Convention on Human Rights is part of UK law, and the benefit cap was found not to breach that, so not to be unfair, or more precisely “unjustifiably discriminatory” under the ECHR.

I didn't say the rghts are part of UK law. I said IDS is a sick fuck and a liar.

Remember this ?

"...actually the court said precisely that the benefit cap is legal and fair."

Youve' sensibly now given up on that absurd and stupid claim

So now we can agree IDS lied through his teeth

Here's Iain Duncan Smith's 100 Biggest Failures from a little while back .. shows the financial and HUMAN cost of this vile BEAST

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/t ... uncan.html

[pogo]

Again, it’s legal because that’s what the court decides, matters of law. They actually decide it in that they are the court of final appeal – there is nowhere else to go after they have made their judgement. They can overturn government laws but they did not in this case.

And the appeal it was on a matter of fairness. Or more precisely the appeal was on the grounds that it “has an unjustifiably discriminatory impact on women”. The appeal was rejected so on those grounds, so legally the law is not unfair / discriminatory. There are many other measures of fairness, as it is a largely subjective concept. But on the particular issue before them the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

[gravy]

Housing policy doesn’t need to help those with homes. It’s those without homes, or stuck renting when they would rather buy, who need help. Even those who own a house suffer because excessive regional price variations stop them moving for family or work, or because high prices drive up prices where they live.

Sometimes in the recent past politicians have looked at rising house prices as a sign of success, of their economic policies. There was some truth in that as prices follow the economic cycle, but as recent history showed house prices now are largely immune to downturns, due to pent up demand far exceeding even the effect of the downturn. As a simple mismatch of supply and demand the obvious thing to do is fix the supply problem.

Lol, yeah. Like the mortgage market 10 years ago. What could possibly go wrong!

To be fair I'm not saying more houses shouldn't be built or that there shouldn't be regulatory relaxation on planning. The point I'm making this is complex system where changes can have far reaching and unexpected results.

The absolute worst thing to do would be to do that by taking the brakes regulatory brakes off and letting the market sort it out.

[pogo]

The mortgage market is much saner today: better regulated and with banks far smarter than they were a decade ago. And of course the banks and building societies who made the worst mistakes then are no longer around to repeat them, having been closed down (Northern Rock) or taken over (Cheshire BS, Barnsley BS).

I'm not saying the adjustment would be painless, but it will be far better than a decade ago, when there were all these dodgy institutions around, when 100%, 105% mortgages were the rage, and when high interest rates made it much more expensive if it went wrong. It’s actually the best time to do it too, when the economy is growing. Far better than prices falling, or a crash, when the economy is collapsing.

That’s what they had in the US and the combination of economic contraction and falling prices left many more people with mortgages they could not service. The good thing there is that most US mortgage debt is non-recourse, so buyers could just hand in the keys and walk away. But this just shifted the problem to the banks, and so made the banking crisis much more extensive than here where it was focussed on just a few badly run institutions.

[(o)(o)]

..the appeal it was on a matter of fairness. Or more precisely the appeal was on the grounds that it “has an unjustifiably discriminatory impact on women”. ”. ...

You've changed your tune earlier you made a contradictory sweeping statement :

actually the court said precisely that the benefit cap is legal and fair

LOL they said no such thing. Even your own link confirms the judge stressing that;s a political matter.

IDS lied. Don't make the mistake of thinking therr's a debate going on here.

[(o)(o)]

LOL check this volatile interview!



I'd love to see IDS scores on Hares checklist.

From the comments I see lots of people agree he gives off the imprssion of being a superficial glib psychopath.

Possibly a lizard.

[pogo]

You are either being deliberately dense or just don’t get it. The supreme court determined the law is not discriminatory to women. But another way to say that is that it is not unfair to women. I.e. it is fair.

The problem is “fair” has many different meanings. Someone might say it is fair everyone not in work receives generous benefits (so benefit cuts are unfair). Someone else might say it’s fair workers keep most of the money they earn (so high taxes are unfair). Not only are these different but they are opposite and may be in conflict. It might not be possible to be “fair” to both high earners and benefit recipients.

So the worst thing that IDS was in using “fair” is he was being vague and imprecise. But that’s true of all politicians who use it, especially when they build it into their platform, talking about “a fairer society” or similar nonsense. It’s essentially meaningless, or even worse can be a cover for almost anything. Want e.g. a return to 1970s union laws ? Just say you stand for “a fair deal for workers”. After all, who can argue with fairness ?

[merman]

You are either being deliberately dense or just don’t get it. The supreme court determined the law is not discriminatory to women. But another way to say that is that it is not unfair to women. I.e. it is fair.

The problem is “fair” has many different meanings. Someone might say it is fair everyone not in work receives generous benefits (so benefit cuts are unfair). Someone else might say it’s fair workers keep most of the money they earn (so high taxes are unfair). Not only are these different but they are opposite and may be in conflict. It might not be possible to be “fair” to both high earners and benefit recipients.

So the worst thing that IDS was in using “fair” is he was being vague and imprecise. But that’s true of all politicians who use it, especially when they build it into their platform, talking about “a fairer society” or similar nonsense. It’s essentially meaningless, or even worse can be a cover for almost anything. Want e.g. a return to 1970s union laws ? Just say you stand for “a fair deal for workers”. After all, who can argue with fairness ?

The tax and benefit changes in this last Parliament have hit women harder. That is NOT FAIR.

Rich people got a tax cut, both from scrapping the higher rate of tax and raising the threshold. Low-paid families are £1,100 a year worse off due to the tax and benefit changes. That is NOT FAIR.

The Conservatives are claiming people will be £3000 worse off under Labour's spending plans based on flawed evidence - the IFS have completely refuted the allegation, but the Tories continue to repeat it. That is NOT FAIR.

[Governmentyard]

LOL check this volatile interview!



I'd love to see IDS scores on Hares checklist.

From the comments I see lots of people agree he gives off the imprssion of being a superficial glib psychopath.

Possibly a lizard.

I'm reading 'Honourable Friends' by Caroline Lucas presently, she doesn't hold back when it comes to this character, pretty forensic on his lies. It's £4 on Kindle and peels a few more layers off the onion than that documentary series on the BBC recently. It's a pretty depressing read all in all, but it's one I'd recommend. Obviously if you don't agree with her broad stance on matters political it might grate somewhat but as a solitary figure in spite of belonging to a largish party, she's well set to take shots at the fundamental problems. If you can read a decent Guardian article without bursting into flames, get it.

[(o)(o)]

I'm reading 'Honourable Friends' by Caroline Lucas presently, she doesn't hold back when it comes to this character, pretty forensic on his lies. It's £4 on Kindle and peels a few more layers off the onion than that documentary series on the BBC recently. It's a pretty depressing read all in all, but it's one I'd recommend. Obviously if you don't agree with her broad stance on matters political it might grate somewhat but as a solitary figure in spite of belonging to a largish party, she's well set to take shots at the fundamental problems. If you can read a decent Guardian article without bursting into flames, get it.

Thanks I'll definitely check that out! Seems to have a lot of strong reviews.

Sound depressing but also fascinating...

Another recommended read :



http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099541726/r ... o_pC_S_ttl

Again check out some of the feedback..

[precious_pony]

100% inheritance tax or gtfo.

[pogo]

I think the structure of inheritance tax is fine: it could 50% instead of 40%, but you want to leave something for the heirs otherwise there will be a much stronger incentive to not pay it: artificially limit the size of the estate, by simply giving away or liquidating any assets. It might be a boon for charities but 100% would raise less for the government than the current 40%.

The threshold though could be much lower. As it is only a small fraction of estates pay it and that does not seem right. You have to be pretty rich to pay it, and as it’s levied only on the estate over £325,000 you have to be very rich to pay a lot. Even an estate worth £500,000 is liable for only £70,000 tax.

The problem is it’s an irrationally unpopular tax; far more people dislike it than have to pay it, and expanding it so even more estates were covered would be politically suicide. Every government since WW II has raised it, none has been willing to change it from being a tax primarily of the rich.

[precious_pony]

I think the structure of inheritance tax is fine: it could 50% instead of 40%, but you want to leave something for the heirs otherwise there will be a much stronger incentive to not pay it: artificially limit the size of the estate, by simply giving away or liquidating any assets. It might be a boon for charities but 100% would raise less for the government than the current 40%.

The threshold though could be much lower. As it is only a small fraction of estates pay it and that does not seem right. You have to be pretty rich to pay it, and as it’s levied only on the estate over £325,000 you have to be very rich to pay a lot. Even an estate worth £500,000 is liable for only £70,000 tax.

The problem is it’s an irrationally unpopular tax; far more people dislike it than have to pay it, and expanding it so even more estates were covered would be politically suicide. Every government since WW II has raised it, none has been willing to change it from being a tax primarily of the rich.

The reason we hate inheritance tax is that we view it as an unfair advantage that a lot of people look forward to directing to their own children. If I have 100 grand home, and my children are struggling, then once I die, it gives them a leg up.

The problem is that we have it ass backwards. We need an unfair advantage in response to an unfair society. Houses are expensive because there is a trickle of supply. Children can't afford new places because there is high demand and low supply. Children might be guilty to dream of inheriting one day, but chances are, by the time they do inherit, they are 40 something or 50 something and it doesn't really help so much anyway.

So, take it all, and treat all young people as ward's of the state. Gift them 30% equity in properties at the age of 25. Give the children of the deceased first refusal at taking a 70% mortgage if they want to retain their parent's old place. Protect the very young from being destitute if their parent's die when they are so young, leave those properties unallocated until their children are at working age and can decide if they want the property for themselves.

My view is that inheritance benefits are regressive. They help the rich to accumulate vast wealth across generations, and they help the poor to criticise vilify the rich by implying they didn't work for their wealth. In a culture without inheritance, all rich people must by default be self-made.

You don't have orphans or children of loser parents with no stake at all in society. They will have equity in something. And it could support free further education, for those that are academic. Those that are not academic could take a job that suits their skills without worry that they might not be able to afford a home. They will be able to afford a home.

All pie in the sky really, but I strongly believe that 100% inheritance tax is a tax for a progressive society. It is reallocation of wealth on a grand-scale, from the dead to the living, fairly, without prejudice. Over the course of 20 to 30 years, you would see a much fairer society emerge.

[pogo]

As you write, pie in sky. Not only is it politically impossible but any too extractive system will just encourage avoidance by the simple process of giving stuff away.

We need to have something in place. One takeaway from Piketty’s “Capital in the 21st Century” is that it in our current system those with enough wealth naturally get richer. Once they reach a certain level of wealth, so they can live comfortably off a small portion of the income/interest they earn on their wealth/investments, they can invest the rest and keep getting richer. That was the system once. Those with wealth became richer and richer, using their wealth to buy advantage and influence, until they owned or controlled everything - the feudal lords of medieval times, who evolved into the landed gentry. It still is the system today in some countries; Russia where oligarchs have stolen the wealth and power of the country, under the supervision of the head crook Putin.

I think we are much closer to where we should be than those two extremes, it just needs a lower threshold so more than a few percent are affected. At the same time continue to focus on avoidance and especially evasion, so money can’t be spirited away out of reach of the taxman.

[pogo]

So Non Doms? Labour plan to eliminate the rules that allow them to pay less tax. Unfortunately that will actually raise less. Who says? Ed Balls, earlier this year.

And he’s right. Raising always brings in less than expected as the people being taxed change behaviour. And there’s probably no group more likely to change behaviour than non-domiciled tax payers. They are if not foreigners people with strong foreign ties who can easily leave, losing us the tax they do pay as well as their many other contributions to the economy which are also taxable.

But Labour are going ahead anyway, saying it will raise “hundreds of millions”. Is that £200m? £800m? More? They can’t say as they know any target will be wrong, it will raise nothing, just lose money. I.e. it’s big con to win the election.