Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Britain's New Bedroom "Tax" : starts in April

Recommended Posts

Even on a pragmatic level, the fundamental problem in our society is excessive concentration of wealth, stripping the very poor of the little they have is not going to do anything but exacerbate that.

 

You are missing the point here, Iggle.

Benefit-takers are being asked to give back entitlements they are not using. As I understand it, if they have a 4BR and are only using 3BR, then can move out of the 4BR into the 3BR property, and their tent will be fully covered.

 

What's wrong with that? Everyone is cutting back in the present economic environment. Why should benefit-takers be immune, especially when they are being asked to relinquish something they do not need.

 

Your argument is way too general, and does not answer my specific point. Using your "logic" no entitlement to poor people would ever get cut until wealthy people are squeezed of everything/ Do you really want to live in a society like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point here, Iggle.

Benefit-takers are being asked to give back entitlements they are not using. As I understand it, if they have a 4BR and are only using 3BR, then can move out of the 4BR into the 3BR property, and their tent will be fully covered.

 

What's wrong with that? Everyone is cutting back in the present economic environment. Why should benefit-takers be immune, especially when they are being asked to relinquish something they do not need.

 

Your argument is way too general, and does not answer my specific point. Using your "logic" no entitlement to poor people would ever get cut until wealthy people are squeezed of everything/ Do you really want to live in a society like that?

Well I certainly don't want to live in a society where there is an underclass who are given just enough to survive while a tiny few are ENTITLED to vast wealth.

 

Production processes are more efficient than ever. We as a society are richer than ever before, in terms of what we produce. This is all about distribution of that wealth, and I don't think we should be squeezing the poor more, just to make the middle accept being squeezed more so that the wealthy can cut themselves an even bigger slice of the pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

I am not sure what any of that meant. Perhaps it was late at night.

 

Let me try to be more clear:

Am I wrong, or have you often taken a position AGAINST government interference, and government subsidies?

...

 

there you would be wrong. the fundamental problem with gov't is its method of funding itself (see sig); not how it then spends said funds.

 

the solution is indeed to cut gov't interference, in this case specifically for the gov't to stop using violent threats to control people's whereabouts etc (a process often called 'land ownership' in newspeak)

 

...

If so, how is cutting back an Entitlement, when no longer needed, inconsistent with your oft-cited views here?

 

these entitlements reparations are needed until the people are set free from their somewhat elaborate cage. think rabbit on a much bigger scale.

 

why the f*** would you want to stop feeding the rabbit rather than just let it out the cage?

 

You are missing the point here, Iggle.

Benefit-takers are being asked to give back entitlements they are not using. As I understand it, if they have a 4BR and are only using 3BR, then can move out of the 4BR into the 3BR property, and their tent will be fully covered.

...

 

no, the taking happens at the gov't funding stage, and when access to the common fields, coal mines etc was violently taken from all but the very few.

 

how many bedrooms does the Queen have?

 

how about the 12th Duke of Marlborough?

 

Duke of Westminster?

 

...

What's wrong with that? Everyone is cutting back in the present economic environment. Why should benefit-takers be immune, especially when they are being asked to relinquish something they do not need.

...

 

I don't see much evidence of the oligarchs cutting back when looking at West End property prices, other tax havens, and don't see how this is relevant anyway - you are not required to do something just because someone else is doing it

 

...

Your argument is way too general, and does not answer my specific point. Using your "logic" no entitlement to poor people would ever get cut until wealthy people are squeezed of everything/ Do you really want to live in a society like that?

 

the solution is not to 'squeeze' the aristos, the solution is just to stop using the violence of the state to enforce 'their estates' (plus any other restrictions to natural resource access) then the reparations can end without cruelty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I certainly don't want to live in a society where there is an underclass who are given just enough to survive while a tiny few are ENTITLED to vast wealth.

 

Production processes are more efficient than ever. We as a society are richer than ever before, in terms of what we produce. This is all about distribution of that wealth, and I don't think we should be squeezing the poor more, just to make the middle accept being squeezed more so that the wealthy can cut themselves an even bigger slice of the pie.

I don't disagree with that.

 

So I think the thing that should be done here is a "share the pain" exercise. And asking the Benefits class to cut a benefot they are not using should be balanced by something on the other end of the income spectrum. Until now, it looks like the Middle Classes have taken the brunt of the pain, and I would agree if yous aid it should be more equally distributed.

 

If the Tories want to sell the program, I think talking like this, would do well to .... / oops -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that.

 

So I think the thing that should be done here is a "share the pain" exercise.

...

 

 

why share the pain when you can end the pain?

 

And asking the Benefits class ..

 

a class of people who have been created by the elites.

 

presumably when you say 'asking' you actually mean 'forcing'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why share the pain when you can end the pain?

 

a class of people who have been created by the elites.

presumably when you say 'asking' you actually mean 'forcing'?

 

You mean by soaking the Rich?

That doesn't work very well. It may catch the rich, or force them tom leave the country, but eventually that attitude hits the Middle Class (who have no place else to go) and levels the economy. Example: USSR, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.

 

Having said that, I might be persuaded to back a temporary wealth tax, to help narrow the growing gap between rich and poor. The problems is that these taxes, once enacted, have a way of becoming permanent. And that would be unacceptable to me. So there may be better ways of acheiving the desired effect. I could get creative, but I have no influence on anyone's decisions, except my own. So what's the point?

 

"Forcing"? No.

They have the option to move from 4BR to 3BR flats, and still have their rents fully covered. Choice on this is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean by soaking the Rich?

No. Just not actively wealth stripping everyone else and channeling it to the few would be fine. Is it through personal acumen and hard work that bankers have continued to trouser vast sums throughout this "crisis", or is it down to government shovelling money at them hand over fist?

 

I'm not really that bothered either way by whether people on benefits have 70 sq.feet of space beyond the minimum determined to be adequate for subsistence, although on balance I think people should have more than the barest subsistence even if they don't have a job. It's more the propogation of th idea that people with almost nothing are the ones stealing from me and should be made to suffer, tha rankles. When there are people who suck in vast, vast amounts of wealth while contributing nothing, simply because the current legal arrangements determine it to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

I think we need to find a better way to tax THIS GUY:

http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=17558

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if on cue...

 

http://www.zerohedge...d-decline-labor

 

I have long held that the greatest source of wealth inequality is political: those with great wealth have captured the for-sale machinery of governance, and "persuaded" the Central State to carve out quasi-monopolies and cartels that enable artificially high premiums. They also buy subsidies, exceptions and tax breaks for their income streams.

This is the result of a dominant Central State and an electoral process that lives and breathes cash and lobbying.

In other words, the primary source of wealth inequality is political corruption and an overly powerful centralized State that can grant monopolies and enforce cartels. For example, Attorney General Holder admits megabanks are ‘too big to jail’.

Setting aside the fact that the financial and political Elites are two sides of the same Aristocratic coin, we find an erosion of middle class jobs and wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Or more precisely....

 

 

“As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure.

 

These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact.

 

If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum.”

 

Tony Benn, after being in the halls of power and seeing how it actually worked.

 

And that was 40 years ago before they really started taking the piss <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean by soaking the Rich?

That doesn't work very well. It may catch the rich, or force them tom leave the country, but eventually that attitude hits the Middle Class (who have no place else to go) and levels the economy.

....

 

[facepalm]

 

the taxation system (and other gov't force) takes from the many and gives to the few.

 

to get more equality you don't tax the rich - you just need to get rid of the taxation system (and other gov't force)

 

Example: USSR, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.

 

yes, exactly. comapre Stalin's quality of life with some dudes in a gulag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubb, I've been looking thru your posts to try to find what is preventing your comprehension here. I think it is one or more of these three things:

 

1. a lack of understanding of what 'land ownership' actually is

 

:rolleyes: you can't own land.

 

"land ownership" is a politically corrrect term for

  • controlling other people's whereabouts using violence
  • controlling the whereabouts of other people's belongings using violence
  • controlling access to natural resources using violence

 

 

2. you are looking at this in terms of 'wealthy' vs 'poor' rather than as 'architects of state control mechanisms' vs 'victims of state control mechanisms'

 

3. your last post referencing the USSR in particular indicates that you are oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of wealth is in he hands of individuals who are wealthy because of the state, not inspite of it, and that that wealth has been taken from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRS,

You have your own way of looking at the world.

 

Do you really feel as un-free as you make say the world is?

 

I have lived in three countries, and moved myself and my capital around. The fact that I have freedom to do that, suggest the world is not quite the prison you make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRS,

You have your own way of looking at the world.

 

Do you really feel as un-free as you make say the world is?

 

I have lived in three countries, and moved myself and my capital around. The fact that I have freedom to do that, suggest the world is not quite the prison you make it out to be.

 

oh dear, there you go again:

 

whenever I post a fact you don’t like, you always say it is my ‘view’ :lol:

 

except this time instead of 'view' you've used 'your own way', 'feel' and 'make it out'

 

maybe one day you'll learn to debate the actual subject matter rather than posting personal crappisms.

 

falsely labelling the facts in my posts as opinion does not make them go away.

 

I made three relevant points in my last post, which you have just completely ignored, so there wan't even any point in you replying to me.

 

I have lived in three countries, and moved myself and my capital around. The fact that I have freedom to do that, suggest the world is not quite the prison you make it out to be.

 

I did not 'make the world out' to be a 'prison' (pathetic strawman argument there, Bubb). I merely posted a number of facts and logical arguments that accurately describe the situation (and which you have been woefully unable to disprove or argue against):

 

'the aformentioned book has found 70% of land is still owned by less than 1% of the population'

'better just accept that forcing people out of 70sqft rooms makes f*** all difference, when you could fit 186,685 such rooms on the 300 acre Normanby Hall estate alone. '

'there are over 60 million acres in Britain'

'the common fields in that area were inclosed in 1790'

'but it is not ‘their estates’, it is simply large areas from which the peasantry are repelled by state violence.'

'the solution is not to 'squeeze' the aristos, the solution is just to stop using the violence of the state to enforce 'their estates' (plus any other restrictions to natural resource access) then the reparations can end without cruelty.'

 

now how does you moving to HK falsify any of the above?

 

it doesn't, so stop posting gobsh1te!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRS,

 

I don't want to sound patronizing, but in a debate, it is often a good tactic (evincing honesty) to agree to your opponents strong issues.

 

+ I will not deny that a small number of people own a big part of the land in most countries.

 

But please tell me where and when this was not so?

If you make an effort to answer this, you may find that there is some sort of cyclical phenomenon at work. And the interesting questions for me are:

 

+ Where are we in the cycle?, and :

+ What happens next?

 

But to return to the specific point around which this Thread was started, I think it comes to you to admit and accept that waiting for the world to become perfect, or substantially more perfect, before reigning in excess entitlements is an irrational strategy, unless you are in favor of squeezing the middle class further, for some reason.

 

Instead, I think you would be more practical to admit this is a good idea, and suggest that Entitlements be reduced across thr board.

 

Always waiting for the other guy to cut first, is a formula for making no progress. Trading off one for another seems to work better, in my own experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you noticed - the threads has been hijacked ?

 

Perhaps that was the purpose all along.

 

I would have preferred that IRS start a thread on the big picture issue that interests him, rather then forcing my thread into treh direction that obsesses him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you noticed - the threads has been hijacked ?

 

Perhaps that was the purpose all along.

 

I would have preferred that IRS start a thread on the big picture issue that interests him, rather then forcing my thread into treh direction that obsesses him

It's a bit weird how you accept as truth that "elites" have access to alien tech, or "shadowy elites" control public figures through paedophile related blackmail, and all sorts of other wild conjecture; yet you cannot see elites controlling access to land even though it's entirely verifiable fact. Or if you do, you seem to be deliberately blind to the consequent effect on the disenfranchised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit weird how you accept as truth that "elites" have access to alien tech, or "shadowy elites" control public figures through paedophile related blackmail, and all sorts of other wild conjecture; yet you cannot see elites controlling access to land even though it's entirely verifiable fact. Or if you do, you seem to be deliberately blind to the consequent effect on the disenfranchised.

 

That's not accurate. Kindly stick to the facts, and also stick to the topic here.

 

I invite you to start a new thread on "elites controlling access to land", if that interests you.

Then, You can begin to compete with the enormous amounts of anecdotal and other evidence that has been presented on GEI (and mostly moved to the Fringe now) backing things like : the argument that UFO's are real, and there may be an Alien presence on Earth.

 

If you are willing to spend 1-2% of the time and effort in a new thread that I have spent looking at various topics (including many that you may not agree with), you may even convince some people, perhaps even me. I promise to look at the thread, and will most likely comment there.

 

Meantime, I politely ask you again, to HERE stick to the Topic of THIS thread, because I am bored with the level of distraction that has occurred already here, and I believe that others are too.

 

 

BTW, I am about to take my own advice:

===============================

I PLAN TO START one or two threads on political issues (bigger than the small change discussed here) that interest me. The mainly relate to the Big Loss of Liberty, and surrender of political power to Corporations (!) that we have seen in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meantime, I politely ask you again, to HERE stick to the Topic of THIS thread, because I am bored with the level of distraction that has occurred already here, and I believe that others are too.

I'm really not trying to be contentious, but what is the topic (if not government policy on the distribution of living space amongst the populace)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not accurate. Kindly stick to the facts, and also stick to the topic here.

 

I invite you to start a new thread on "elites controlling access to land", if that interests you.

Then, You can begin to compete with the enormous amounts of anecdotal and other evidence that has been presented on GEI (and mostly moved to the Fringe now) backing things like : the argument that UFO's are real, and there may be an Alien presence on Earth.

 

If you are willing to spend 1-2% of the time and effort in a new thread that I have spent looking at various topics (including many that you may not agree with), you may even convince some people, perhaps even me. I promise to look at the thread, and will most likely comment there.

 

Meantime, I politely ask you again, to HERE stick to the Topic of THIS thread, because I am bored with the level of distraction that has occurred already here, and I believe that others are too.

 

 

BTW, I am about to take my own advice:

===============================

I PLAN TO START one or two threads on political issues (bigger than the small change discussed here) that interest me. The mainly relate to the Big Loss of Liberty, and surrender of political power to Corporations (!) that we have seen in the USA.

DB

Not me.

Interesting discussion sometimes become distracted.

Forum moderation is akin to government regulation, it means well, but evidence might suggest it doesn't do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not trying to be contentious, but what is the topic (if not government policy on the distribution of living space amongst the populace)?

 

That's how you see it maybe, but not me.

For me, it is about the government finally having the balls to attack Entitlements and subsidies.

And I do think the key thing is to focus on the one's that might be genuine waste, and maybe also "unfair" or excess subsidies at the opposite end of the income spectrum.

 

I don't think it is smart for people to say, "you cannot touch 'my' end, until you cave in completely at 'your' end."

That's leads to the sort of wasteful and dangerous gridlock as you see in the UK.

 

I do think you have the material and energy to start an interesting new thread. It will help you hone your argument,

 

I will shortly give you an example of a new thread on a Political issue involving power of US corporations

 

(in edit, the link): GEI Supports the "Movement to Amend"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter in a newspaper :

 

If "we're all in this together", let us have a complete review of council tax, escalating bands of charges as the bedroom size increases.

 

Maybe some of us will have to sell up, and find somewhere smaller. Maybe some of the larger properties will have to be converted into flats, and help first-time buyers. The charges could make a contribution to social housing, enabling those currently being forced to move to remain in their homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I don't want to sound patronizing, but in a debate, it is often a good tactic (evincing honesty) to agree to your opponents strong issues.

 

speaking of honesty, it would be dishonest to pretend to agree with your opponent’s posts when you know them to be factually incorrect and/or logically retarded.

 

in a debate is it often a good tactic to try to find out the root cause of the disagreement . I did this in post #37.

 

unfortunately, my ‘opponent’ (LOL) has no interest in the root cause and would rather hurl strawmen at me, then ask me to stop posting on this thread :lol: , than to address any of the 3 points in said post.

 

+ I will not deny that a small number of people own a big part of the land in most countries.

 

But please tell me where and when this was not so?...

 

no person has ever owned any land. see post #37. thank you for further evidencing that you are not actually reading my posts before you reply to them.

 

But to return to the specific point around which this Thread was started, I think it comes to you to admit and accept that waiting for the world to become perfect, or substantially more perfect, before reigning in excess entitlements is an irrational strategy, unless you are in favor of squeezing the middle class further, for some reason.

 

I didn’t post that I was waiting for the world to become perfect, and for you to suggest that I did is just another strawman from you.

 

no squeezing required, the less squeezing the better. the statists just need to stop squeezing the peasants onto 0.00000001% of the land etc, then they won’t need reparations (or ‘entitlements’ as you call them like a gov't parrot) .

again, if you decide to stop feeding a rabbit that you have caged, you let it out the cage FIRST.

 

Instead, I think you would be more practical to admit this is a good idea, and suggest that Entitlements be reduced across thr board.

 

speaking of practical, have you heard of the 80-20 rule?

 

anyway, the issue really is not that the aristos should lose their state handouts before the doleys just because the aristos' handouts are bigger (tho there is obviously a case for that)- it is that the doleys can’t possibly make ends meet in a system designed to create x% unemployed resource-denied-peasants due to the monopoly advantages of the aristos, so the aristos’ state handouts need to go first.

 

Always waiting for the other guy to cut first, is a formula for making no progress. Trading off one for another seems to work better, in my own experience.

 

[facepalm] the aristos and doleys are not waiting for each other to cut. the aristos run the country and the doleys do not, therefore the aristos will make the decision and the decision will be that the doleys take the cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can I say ?

 

I have made my case.

Talking to you, is speaking to a brick

 

(Here's an argument you could have, should have, made: SHE should pay tax, rather than getting pay rises):

 

Queen gets a pay rise after receiving another £5million of taxpayer's money for ...

 

Daily Mail - ‎2 hours ago‎

The Queen has received a £5million rise in funds she receives from the taxpayer to carry out her official duties.

The Sovereign Grant, which covers the running costs of the Queen's Household, replaces the Civil List and is up 16 per cent on 2012

 

(I think the country can live without her doing her "official duties", and would live better with her paying a fair share of tax.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Why are Foreigners interfering in the UK's Housing Market - who is putting them up to it?)

 

Bedroom Tax victims going hungry and pushed to brink of suicide, warns United Nations ...

 

Mirror.co.uk

The hated Bedroom Tax is forcing people to go hungry and is pushing victims to the brink of suicide, a United Nations boss said today.

 

== ==

 

The "tough love" position on this would be to say:

Some (dependent) people need to learn how to manage their affairs better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×