UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

{{ Its not just the waste its how it effects the job- Ive found myself sitting in a health and safety course, having been pulled off the floor to attend because its mandatory or the Care Commission harass the home till everyone's done it and they can tick their box, and its the same course I did last year, and the year before and every year before that for the last ten years, with maybe a line or two changed, a new idea thrown into the mix or an old one discarded- and that's supposed to justify it? And I'm sitting there, listening to this rubbish again from someone who has never done the actual job and is not only getting paid more than twice as much as me to tell me how to do it, but are taking me away from actually doing my job to tell me it!

And as someone whose working life has rarely earned above the 15k mark its very hard to feel that folk earning 50-80k need more money given to them to help them get by. They should try a year at the shitty end of the employment market and maybe find out what 'getting by' actually means when you're deciding if the weathers likely to be so cold you need heating that month or if you'd prefer to eat, not deciding between if you can only afford one Caribbean cruise or two this year.}}

Ok... but does any of that mean that someone being paid more should be taxed more for it? You are pulling out the middle class (which I disagree on your summary being representative of all middle class or even the majority), so do you think the wealthy should not be then?

so do you think the wealthy should not be then?- Lance

{{ No, not at all, I just dont think they have very much cause to complain if they are asked to pay a small amount more out of their pot of gold than people who dont have a pot to piss in. The wealthy can only exist in a capitalist society on the backs of workers, so its only fair when business and its higher tiers of paid employees profit immensely from workers that they pay a bit more back into society for the benefit of all of it, it is in my view merely redistributing some of the wealth the workers generated in the first place. }}

Lancebloke wrote: what I dont want to hear is bullshit about trickle down economics because that doesn't work.

Agreed. Speaking as a farmer,  "trickling down" looks nice in theory, but if your water source isn't making it all the way down to the fields where the water is needed the most, then you've got to up your game and to add some diversion dikes and maybe a pump or two to your irrigation system. And that's where tools like graduated income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes etc come in to play.  It's all about distribution tools!

We have people who are working 3 jobs and barely making ends meet. Do the people who are working less hours with full benefits really deserve all the extra money they make?

Yes, I get that they may have more responsibility and are making decisions that may affect more people. I believe the Japanese have a rule of thumb that the difference in pay between the lowest paid floor scrubber and the highest paid executive should only be a factor of 10. A factor of 10 is alot; in many companies it's more like a factor of 100. Shouldn't taxes be used to equilize things down at least to a factor of 10?

Capitalism is efficient, but it's not fair. Progressive taxation is a way to bring a bit more fairness. Not equality, just a little cushioning here and there where it's needed. Those making 6 figures and above are not suffering from having a bit more skimmed off the top. It's just a question of how much, and that will never have a perfect answer.

As I said at the beginning, I dont think the tax rate here should be changed anyway however I don't agree that by default people should be paying a higher rate of tax to benefit people on lower wages the same as I also dont agree with how some of our welfare state works. It penalises people that work hard in high pressure jobs in high cost of living places in one place while rewarding others who have much easier jobs and places where day to day costs are much more reasonable. It also does what Petty was saying but to me that is more down to poor management of econmics, that is something governments do better than anything!

It takes a lot of empathy to think while you are where you are because you work hard society should still take care of those less fortunate. It takes a lot of solidarity to think while you earn better because you work hard that you can also afford to share more to provide for basic welfare for all.

I am all for basic welfare for all (emergency services, help for people who cannot work etc) when it is done properly.

I am not for the incredibly unequal welfare state we have today in the UK which results in people paying for those that are either incompetent or unwilling in their contributions!

Lancebloke wrote:It penalises people that work hard in high pressure jobs in high cost of living places in one place while rewarding others who have much easier jobs and places where day to day costs are much more reasonable.

In that case you'd expect floods of people to quit their high pressure jobs with high penalties and move to the low cost areas with the easy jobs and high rewards, wouldn't you?
And if they're fleeing areas where we all need them, or not coming to other areas where we all need them, it would make sense to me to increase the rewards in those areas for the benefit of everybody.
Healthcare is one of those areas I'm really concerned about right now. We clearly don't have the rewards right yet.

Lancebloke wrote:I am all for basic welfare for all (emergency services, help for people who cannot work etc) when it is done properly.

I am not for the incredibly unequal welfare state we have today in the UK which results in people paying for those that are either incompetent or unwilling in their contributions!

With all due respect, that sounds straight out of the Daily Mail. They like to paint the unemployed as 'scroungers', and by incompetent do you mean educationally disadvantaged or deliberately thick? Grayling is incompetent but he gets a massive wage packet. The welfare state is under enough attacks by the Right-Wing and putting blame on the people who need it most because they are vulnerable is not a healthy way to run the country or 21st century society for that matter. maybe we should get away from issues of what society thinks as 'worthwhile jobs' we seem to equate the world of finance and high powered careers as worth more than the person who washes the high powered persons grandparents bums when they are senile. That is a hard job to do and it doesn't get the respect it deserves.

I thought I covered that in my first paragraph.

I support a welfare state that brings people a standard of living that they cannot achieve through no fault of their own. That includes but is not limited to disability, lack of opportunity (where it is evidenced people are looking for that opportunity), carers, the vulnerable and many others.

I dont support people who are genuinely cheating or playing the system. People who are baby machines and have extravagant houses in West London (and then go on TV saying it is their right). People who go on job seekers with no interest in working. And the rules that say things like Sky TV is a basic right and should be taken in to account when working out how they repay debts.

And my incompetent remark was to do with people who cannot seem to manage the countries finances that result in people paying taxes for no reason. NHS projects that cost millions and get scrapped. MOD procurement teams that sign contracts resulting in light bulbs that cost £200 each. People that employ others because they want to build a little empire and dont really need them.

There is soooooo much waste that could be put to far better use.

Hopefully that is clearer.... I don't read the Daily bloody Mail!!!

People tend to look at tax rates and say everyone should pay the same. What they mean is they want to pay less than they do because others pay less. In reality the higher rates are the correct flat tax rate, but because many industries pay such poor wages, if those people had to pay the flat rate they'd have a very had time. So they get a discount. You are not paying more, you are paying the flat rate.

My terminology may be off, but you should get what I mean.

{{ There are scroungers, there are those who dont want to work. But they are a tiny minority of the poor and working poor (most of the people claiming benefits in the UK are in work or form a family with a working member).
Most of the poor people or families I know have at least one person in full time employment. But its often low paid, or its zero hours contracts with no guarantees of work, or its seasonal work (as were a tourist area). There is very little choice for unqualified workers in the area - call centre, amazon warehouse, fish farm, care work, supermarkets, local council if your very lucky, and little to no chance of any meaningful progression in a career of any sort.
And the bulk of those who dont work at all I have ever known had genuine issues, mental health, little to no education, or some underlying health issue, alcoholism or drug dependency.
And in those cases the system for applying for benefits is deliberately obscure, over complicated and designed to increase the chances you will fill something in wrong, or other wise fail to qualify for benefits. And even if you do qualify for them there is a good chance they will find some reason to 'sanction' you- or stop your benefits all together for a period as you failed to perform some task, or attend some meeting they had arranged for you.
Or as in my own case because they cancelled a meeting, in my case I was fortunate my local job centre held up their hands and admitted it was their mistake, but even so it took nearly two months to restart my money, I had savings to tide me over, others are not so lucky or fortunate.

Also there is an assumption if someone is unemployed they are lazy and doing nothing, this is often not the case I have found and unemployed often do volunteer work, or are working on things they feel are important to themselves- maybe their music, or art, or starting a business, or educating themselves better, or some other dream or ideal they are striving to achieve that requires time.
And of course even those who are outright 'scroungers' what makes a poor person who claims benefit more a scrounger than an already rich Tory MP who claims a second home in London out of tax payers expense, uses tax payer money to purchase said house over their period in Parliament, then sell it when they leave and pocket the sale? You could even argue the poor do have a right to subsides television services, given MP's have a right to a subsidised bar in Parliament and all their meals in lavish restaurants where MP's often spend as much at the tax payers expense in a single meal as a poor person gets to live on in a month. Or the Lords who turn up to sit for an hour, have a free lunch and collect their 'attendance allowance ' of several hundred pounds of tax payer money just for turning up- and they are Lords!
Whose the real scroungers? Is it not just a case that those who have and set the rules and labels justify such things as 'necessary expenses' when it applies to themselves and condemn others who have nothing and do the same as 'benefit scroungers'? }}

{{ First round of Tory voting for their new leader, and our new PM has taken place, and Boris has come out the first round with a clear majority, getting more than double the votes than any other candidate.
However as a caveat to that previous contests for Tory leader show us that the person who comes out top the first round doesn't always make it to the last round- and Boris has the public debates to do yet and may well implode as he has a habit of doing and scupper his own chances.
Thse who polled below 17 votes- Anrea Ledsom, Mark Harper, and Esther McVey, were all eliminated. the rest go onto t he next round.
The top five were-

Boris Johnson 114
Jeremy Hunt 43
Michael Gove 37
Domminic Raab 27
Sajid Javid 23 }}

{{ After a bit of back and forth Boris has agreed to take part in the BBC debate following the 2nd vote, however he is not taking part in Sundays Channel 4 debate- citing concerns with the format. But far more likely as the clear front runner he can only screw things up by appearing before the 2nd vote, so is hiding till then.

Also thought this was a fair and balanced video- I like this channel. }}

Lancebloke wrote:

.... I don't read the Daily bloody Mail!!!

I know that

Best Pie video yet.

I'm afraid most of that flew over my head but would have been enjoyable if I was in the country and knew these people.

{{ The Tory leadership race took another step forward with the second round of voting.
Dominic Raab was who lost out this time, and he is out the race leaving five contenders.

Boris increased his total by 12 finishing on 126

Jeremy Hunt came a poor second with 46

Gove on 41

then many people dark horse in this race, the articulate Rory Stewart who has moved up a place with 37 votes, and just hanging in there in last place, scraping by with 3 votes over the threshold is Sajid Javid with 33.

However all may change as in an hour the BBC live debate takes place, the first with Boris taking part. }}

{{ Getting ready to watch the debate- anyone else watching? Its on BBC1 and BBC News 24 }}

{{ Its occasionally fallen into shouting at each other, and apart from that its dancing round all the major issues with buzzwords that mean nothing- three of them currently saying the N Ireland border can be solved by tech- except everyone knows no such tech exists anywhere in the world, if it was easy every border would be done that way!
The fact they cant even agree anything among themselves over how to solve it says everything.}}

{{ Well no clear winner I'd say, and no out and out loser either. More of a squabbling match than anything else with very little said of real substance, nothing of concrete steps to be taken, and solutions that were just buzz words and talking points.
There was little here to inspire, and even less to indicate the impasse in Parliament can be broken by any of them given they cant agree on most basic factors about Brexit among themselves let alone the entire House. }}

{{ As a side note all the questions were put by members of the public- 1 from N Ireland, everyone else was from the South of England, not one from Scotland (which didn't get a mention throughout), Wales or the North of England for some reason. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{
...then many people dark horse in this race, the articulate Rory Stewart who has moved up a place with 37 votes... }}

Is that the same Rory Stewart who wrote the book about trekking across Afghanistan years ago? I really enjoyed that book, both the story and the writing!

Hey, since politics seems to be devolving into reality TV anyway, what about settling this with a challenge course? You could helicopter all the candidates into the middle of Afghanistan with only a small backpack of survival gear, and the first one out alive gets to be the PM?

I can think of worse ways to choose a leader....

{{ Hi Dave- i was just wondering about you and where you'd got to, those fields wont unbung themselves you know, certainly not once Ive unbunged myself into them anyway.

And yes that is indeed the very same Rory Stewart, if you enjoyed that one he has another book to his credit,  Occupational Hazards or The Prince of the Marshes, from when he was a coalition official in Iraq for a year. I believe the one you've read must be The Places Inbetween.  

And yes I'd rather like to see Boris in particular make his way through Afghanistan! }}