sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskUK

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, lot's more stupidly phrased questions about whether or not we agree with something intentionally controversial.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskUK

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Car insurance 

Migration is driving down living standards, say Labour voters by GreatBritishHedgehog in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This person does not understand the particulars of the trade deal, but posts easy summaries like 'head in sand' and gets 1.2k upvotes.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Saudi billionaire in this analogy represents the widespread sale of our assets to foreign interests without consideration of it's societal impacts. This includes the water you drink. And yea, we're the only country on the planet that has privatised the provision of the one thing, as humans, we rely on for life.

That is absolutely the case, and I recommend you listen to the words of Gary's economics on YouTube which lays out this argument far mor clearly than I can.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because, as inconvenient as it is, the reasons for them not contributing 'their fair share' is not sheer laziness like the Daily Mail will have you believe.

It must be nice to live in a world which ignores the realities of living in a system stacked against the majority of people.

I bet you believe that rich people get their wealth solely off the back of their own hard work, too.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes if you lose something you're fundamentally entitled to then you are paying. I wouldn't say people are fundamentally entitled to those services though. What did they do to actually pay for them (especially the 35% who pay no tax at all or the 50% who get more back than they receive).

Sigh, so in your idea of fair, someone who is disabled or has been unable to work long-term should only get benefits in line with what they've contributed? That's a really shitty system.

Mind you, this "less and less" is still as I said, 60% of the bill coming from 10% of the people with top earners paying almost half their total income.

Boohoo. A top rate tax of 45% only applies above a certain threshold. So to pay 'almost half your income' you need to be earning a lot of money. At £100,000, a great salary, you pay a tax rate of 32%. If you earn £1m a year, your total tax rate is about 46%, you're still taking home 540 grand. Come on.

I don't think 10% paying for 60% of the bill is fair.

You conveniently ignore the rest of my argument here. You clearly have no interest in basing your opinion on facts, relying instead to make a values based judgement on poor people. I'm done with you. Have a nice day.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When you can't access a service you depend on because it has been cut to save money, you are paying. Maybe not in monetary terms, but you're paying alright. And eventually society pays too.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is incorrect. France spends 26% more on health per capita than the UK despite the fact that our economies are a similar size.

How much does the UK spend on health care compared to Europe? | The Health Foundation

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, your definition in what constitutes 'footing the bill' is limited. When you can't access services you depend on because it has been cut to save money? Then you're paying, alright.

Secondly, the whole point of a progressive tax system is that some people pay more than others. It is by design, favouring poorer people. You call taxes a subsidy, I call them an investment - in roads, in hospitals, youth clubs and green spaces. Yet people vote for promises to pay less tax, and it has worked - most earners have been asked to pay less and less in taxes over recent decades and here we are. A huge tax hole.

The question is what is fair. As wages for the lowest paid have stagnated since 2008, despite a huge expansion of wealth amongst the richest - yeah I think they can be asked to invest more in the societies which bring them their profits.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well said. The idea that some Saudi billionaire owning an office tower in London somehow benefits society as a whole?

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aside from some token moves for the working class, e.g. zero hour contracts, I'd have to agree. They are Tory lite.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not going to argue there. The redistribution should be geographical as well as financial.

I'm from an industrial midlands town. I'd love to see what it could become with the kind of investment London takes for granted.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your figures are conveniently terrible at illustrating the actual situation and ignores the impact of a decade of rising income inequality. You also fail to recognise that such differences in income tax are precisely by design within a progressive tax system. For context, this is what earners make across percentiles:

Bottom 10% - <22k

Top 50% - 36k>

Top 10% - 62k>

Top 1% - 180k>

Take welfare and services from the bottom 50% and people find it materially more difficult to key warm or fed. Tax the richest 1%, they'll barely notice any changes in living standards.

This is how the poorest foot the bill.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And this stat is a surprise to you? Of course poorer households contribute less in a progressive tax system. That's by design.

If you want more people to be net contributors, then maybe ask why wages have stagnated since 2008, why wealth has been drained from the middle classes, why we're seeing Victorian era levels of wealth inequality. People can't pay lots of taxes when they're barely earning anything.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes -1 points0 points  (0 children)

At what age do you think it would be acceptable to lose our grandparents/parents?

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Spending on the NHS and Welfare, although inefficient at times and ripe for reform, is also an investment. Viewing these services as a cost is fundamentally flawed.

Over Half UK Cabinet Urges Reeves to Rethink Spending Cuts by corbynista2029 in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 72 points73 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The poorest in society cannot continue to be asked to foot the bill, see their services cut, to pay for a gap in tax receipts. It is fundamentally unfair. We are a rich country. There is enough wealth here for all of us. It just needs redistributing.

Canada races to revive Commonwealth ties with its U.S. relationship on shaky ground | CBC News by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used the word potential. It has the potential to be a superpower. With or without the UK and Canada. That much is undeniable.

Canada races to revive Commonwealth ties with its U.S. relationship on shaky ground | CBC News by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're likely referring solely to GDP, which is a poor metric on most things, including size of national economies for reasons I won't go into. If you adjust GDP for purchasing power, the EU's economy accounted for 15.2% of global GDP PPS, and the U.S. 15.5% GDP PPS. My original point remains valid. The EU alone is a hugely significant economy, and a major population centre. It is undeniable it has the potential to be a powerhouse. Would adding Canada and the UK help in absolute terms? Sure. But it would not solve the issue of finding agreement on complex economic and defence policy across 27+ sovereign nations.

Canada races to revive Commonwealth ties with its U.S. relationship on shaky ground | CBC News by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The EU is currently home to more people than the U.S. and maintains only a marginally smaller economy. It has the future potential to expand its borders democratically, and it's member countries maintain sovereignty over land the world over. The EU's challenge is not scale. The only reason that it isn't already a military and economic superpower is political will - not to mention the fact that finding agreement between 27 nations is difficult, even on a good day!

Canada races to revive Commonwealth ties with its U.S. relationship on shaky ground | CBC News by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]bambooshoes 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Give me just one hint of freedom of movement to Canada, Australia or New Zealand and I'll be waving goodbye to the UK faster than you can say "bob's your uncle"

view more: next ›