Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.

No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.

And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.

We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.

You can't simply wave a magic wand and rid the country of poverty, unfortunately.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.

No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.

And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.

We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.

You can't simply wave a magic wand and rid the country of poverty, unfortunately.

No, you have to work at it and it costs money. That's why it hasn't happened.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.

No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.

And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.

We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.

You can't simply wave a magic wand and rid the country of poverty, unfortunately.

No, you have to work at it and it costs money. That's why it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because it is unworkable. What is workable is a safety net through the means of a welfare state.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.

No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.

And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.

We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.

You can't simply wave a magic wand and rid the country of poverty, unfortunately.

No, you have to work at it and it costs money. That's why it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because it is unworkable. What is workable is a safety net through the means of a welfare state.

So we agree that we, as a species, are not clever enough to prevent poverty. I would argue that means we are not magnificent.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.

No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.

And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.

We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.

You can't simply wave a magic wand and rid the country of poverty, unfortunately.

No, you have to work at it and it costs money. That's why it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because it is unworkable. What is workable is a safety net through the means of a welfare state.

So we agree that we, as a species, are not clever enough to prevent poverty. I would argue that means we are not magnificent.

No we don't agree, Julius - we never have and we never will!

Humanity has made tremendous strides over the last two hundred years to lift hundreds of millions/billions of people out of absolute/extreme poverty, hence the tremendous increase in the standards of living in that time. We're talking about the relative poverty of the UK.

So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

Only the bit at the end, though I'd take out the word 'miracle' - "Truss and Kwarteng need a growth miracle, an adrenaline injection into the economy that turns things around in less than two years."

They do need that to be re-elected.

The rest of it is just mostly nonsense and emotional rhetoric. I don't see how returning to policies that were largely present through Thatcher/Major/Blair - e.g. top rate of tax/bankers' bonuses being unlimited - can be classed as extreme or making Thatcher look like a moderate. The economic policies of the 1980s did work. Trickle-down is an empty pejorative used by opponents of this policy since before the Second World War, not since the 80s. No one's pretending the limit on banker bonuses was the number one problem. Tax cuts/national insurance rises being halted by their very definition favour those earning more because they are paying more tax to begin with. We have had a windfall tax.

And on the article drones. Any other points you have strong agreement with?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Eradicating poverty is not a matter of cleverness.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Eradicating poverty is not a matter of cleverness.

OK. What are the reasons we haven't done it, given that we are clever enough to do it?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

Only the bit at the end, though I'd take out the word 'miracle' - "Truss and Kwarteng need a growth miracle, an adrenaline injection into the economy that turns things around in less than two years."

They do need that to be re-elected.

The rest of it is just mostly nonsense and emotional rhetoric. I don't see how returning to policies that were largely present through Thatcher/Major/Blair - e.g. top rate of tax/bankers' bonuses being unlimited - can be classed as extreme or making Thatcher look like a moderate. The economic policies of the 1980s did work. Trickle-down is an empty pejorative used by opponents of this policy since before the Second World War, not since the 80s. No one's pretending the limit on banker bonuses was the number one problem. Tax cuts/national insurance rises being halted by their very definition favour those earning more because they are paying more tax to begin with. We have had a windfall tax.

And on the article drones. Any other points you have strong agreement with?

Ah - you're not even taking the article seriously then - you just think it's waffle. I expected as much from someone who prefers to help the rich more than the poor and doesn't really care if trickle-down works or not, as long as those at the top benefit.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

Only the bit at the end, though I'd take out the word 'miracle' - "Truss and Kwarteng need a growth miracle, an adrenaline injection into the economy that turns things around in less than two years."

They do need that to be re-elected.

The rest of it is just mostly nonsense and emotional rhetoric. I don't see how returning to policies that were largely present through Thatcher/Major/Blair - e.g. top rate of tax/bankers' bonuses being unlimited - can be classed as extreme or making Thatcher look like a moderate. The economic policies of the 1980s did work. Trickle-down is an empty pejorative used by opponents of this policy since before the Second World War, not since the 80s. No one's pretending the limit on banker bonuses was the number one problem. Tax cuts/national insurance rises being halted by their very definition favour those earning more because they are paying more tax to begin with. We have had a windfall tax.

And on the article drones. Any other points you have strong agreement with?

Ah - you're not even taking the article seriously then - you just think it's waffle. I expected as much from someone who prefers to help the rich more than the poor and doesn't really care if trickle-down works or not, as long as those at the top benefit.

The second sentence is nonsense and you're better than these ad hominem attacks.

I have read the article and disagree with the majority of it. As said, if you want me to dispute a certain point or points, please bring them up specifically. I'm not going to write a 1,000 word essay in response to the entire thing to prove I've taken it seriously, but I will address specific points; in much the same way I'm not going to produce an article from the Telegraph and ask you to raise your disputes on each sentence.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Eradicating poverty is not a matter of cleverness.

OK. What are the reasons we haven't done it, given that we are clever enough to do it?

Because it isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and it's gone, or dealing with an illness like smallpox. There are a wide array of factors, the political, the environmental, the social.

What we can say is that huge improvement has been made over the last 200 years, both in the UK and globally. I appreciate you want perfection, and a complete eradication, but that's unlikely to be possible, in much the same that ending war/unemployment/disease/any other unpleasantness you wish to name is unlikely to be possible.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Eradicating poverty is not a matter of cleverness.

OK. What are the reasons we haven't done it, given that we are clever enough to do it?

Because it isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and it's gone, or dealing with an illness like smallpox. There are a wide array of factors, the political, the environmental, the social.

What we can say is that huge improvement has been made over the last 200 years, both in the UK and globally. I appreciate you want perfection, and a complete eradication, but that's unlikely to be possible, in much the same that ending war/unemployment/disease/any other unpleasantness you wish to name is unlikely to be possible.

All of which could be solved if we were clever enough, but we're not.

I would hope most people want perfection, as it's better than the alternative. But I also appreciate it's not anywhere near achievable. The fact that we cannot end poverty/war/unemployment/disease/any other unpleasantness, and never will be able to is exactly why I look at humanity and say - we're not that great.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

Only the bit at the end, though I'd take out the word 'miracle' - "Truss and Kwarteng need a growth miracle, an adrenaline injection into the economy that turns things around in less than two years."

They do need that to be re-elected.

The rest of it is just mostly nonsense and emotional rhetoric. I don't see how returning to policies that were largely present through Thatcher/Major/Blair - e.g. top rate of tax/bankers' bonuses being unlimited - can be classed as extreme or making Thatcher look like a moderate. The economic policies of the 1980s did work. Trickle-down is an empty pejorative used by opponents of this policy since before the Second World War, not since the 80s. No one's pretending the limit on banker bonuses was the number one problem. Tax cuts/national insurance rises being halted by their very definition favour those earning more because they are paying more tax to begin with. We have had a windfall tax.

And on the article drones. Any other points you have strong agreement with?

Ah - you're not even taking the article seriously then - you just think it's waffle. I expected as much from someone who prefers to help the rich more than the poor and doesn't really care if trickle-down works or not, as long as those at the top benefit.

The second sentence is nonsense and you're better than these ad hominem attacks.

I have read the article and disagree with the majority of it. As said, if you want me to dispute a certain point or points, please bring them up specifically. I'm not going to write a 1,000 word essay in response to the entire thing to prove I've taken it seriously, but I will address specific points; in much the same way I'm not going to produce an article from the Telegraph and ask you to raise your disputes on each sentence.

It's actually the honest opinion of you I've formed, based on your posts, but if you don't like me expressing it, I apologise.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But for some reason we haven't done it.

You're dreaming of Utopia again.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I'm saying we are not clever enough to prevent poverty. You disagreed - you think we are clever enough to prevent poverty. But the fact is that we haven't prevented poverty. Thus there must be another reason, not related to our cleverness. What is it?

Are you saying that? I thought your view was that we have enough money to make poverty disappear.

The two are linked. But in either case you've not addressed my point. Are we clever enough, as a species, enough to eradicate poverty world-wide?

Eradicating poverty is not a matter of cleverness.

OK. What are the reasons we haven't done it, given that we are clever enough to do it?

Because it isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and it's gone, or dealing with an illness like smallpox. There are a wide array of factors, the political, the environmental, the social.

What we can say is that huge improvement has been made over the last 200 years, both in the UK and globally. I appreciate you want perfection, and a complete eradication, but that's unlikely to be possible, in much the same that ending war/unemployment/disease/any other unpleasantness you wish to name is unlikely to be possible.

All of which could be solved if we were clever enough, but we're not.

I would hope most people want perfection, as it's better than the alternative. But I also appreciate it's not anywhere near achievable. The fact that we cannot end poverty/war/unemployment/disease/any other unpleasantness, and never will be able to is exactly why I look at humanity and say - we're not that great.

Fair. I disagree, but fair.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, I find it very hard to come up with any sound argument against this. Can you? Feel free to take each point in turn.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/liz-truss-and-kwasi-kwarteng-have-made-a-declaration-of-class-war/ar-AA12aBeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fe34bc0679db461297e47523f36f67bd

That's a sizable article. Kindly explain which specific points you find it hard to argue against.

Pretty much all of them. Can you find any points you agree with?

Only the bit at the end, though I'd take out the word 'miracle' - "Truss and Kwarteng need a growth miracle, an adrenaline injection into the economy that turns things around in less than two years."

They do need that to be re-elected.

The rest of it is just mostly nonsense and emotional rhetoric. I don't see how returning to policies that were largely present through Thatcher/Major/Blair - e.g. top rate of tax/bankers' bonuses being unlimited - can be classed as extreme or making Thatcher look like a moderate. The economic policies of the 1980s did work. Trickle-down is an empty pejorative used by opponents of this policy since before the Second World War, not since the 80s. No one's pretending the limit on banker bonuses was the number one problem. Tax cuts/national insurance rises being halted by their very definition favour those earning more because they are paying more tax to begin with. We have had a windfall tax.

And on the article drones. Any other points you have strong agreement with?

Ah - you're not even taking the article seriously then - you just think it's waffle. I expected as much from someone who prefers to help the rich more than the poor and doesn't really care if trickle-down works or not, as long as those at the top benefit.

The second sentence is nonsense and you're better than these ad hominem attacks.

I have read the article and disagree with the majority of it. As said, if you want me to dispute a certain point or points, please bring them up specifically. I'm not going to write a 1,000 word essay in response to the entire thing to prove I've taken it seriously, but I will address specific points; in much the same way I'm not going to produce an article from the Telegraph and ask you to raise your disputes on each sentence.

It's actually the honest opinion of you I've formed, based on your posts, but if you don't like me expressing it, I apologise.

It's not that I dislike you expressing it, it's just that you've approached this argument in an unfair manner. I've read this article in good faith, but it seems you just wanted to present it to use a 'Gotcha' moment when I, as you thought I would, disagree with its contents.

Liz Truss is planning to continue her tax-cutting spree in a new year Budget that will include further reductions in income tax, and discounts for savers and child benefit claimants.

Treasury officials are drawing up a list of “pinch points” that discourage people from earning more money by imposing high rates of tax on extra earnings, as part of a wholesale review of the tax system.

Up to 1.6 million savers could benefit from a review of the lifetime and annual allowances on pension pots, which currently can encourage employees to take early retirement to avoid the “tax trap”.

Workers who earn more than £100,000 would be given a full income tax personal allowance, under plans that amount to a tax break worth up to £5,000 a year to the highest earners.

And ministers are considering abolishing a charge for those who earn more than £50,000 and claim child benefit, over concerns it discourages households from earning more.

The changes are likely to come as part of a full Budget next year, following the conclusion of a tax review announced by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, in a statement on Friday that reduced taxes by more than any budget since 1972.

Red tape will also be slashed for small businesses, with only larger firms required to conform to regulations such as those requiring calorie counts on menus, and planning rules will be relaxed to speed up new housing developments. This week, the Government will also scrap a plan to stop supermarkets from selling unhealthy foods at checkouts and ministers are preparing to end a sugar tax on soft drinks.

The “taper rate” for Universal Credit claimants is under review and could fall by five points to 50 per cent – giving more to those who claim benefits but also work – while a charge for high earners who claim child benefit is also set to be scrapped.

Hop on the train, Maggie's Lizzie's driving. More fantastic news ahead as the Conservatives finally return after 32 years.

The Tories have unveiled measures that will help the rich much more than it will help the poor in the short-term. If we are very lucky (and most economic experts seem to think won't be) then in the medium/long term both the poor and rich will benefit, and most likely, the rich will again benefit more.

Given that you prefer this approach to one where the poor are helped more than the rich in the short term, and then if we're lucky the poor & rich would gain in the medium/long term, with the poor gaining relatively more - and also given that you don't care about the rich/poor divide getting bigger - I think it's safe to conclude where your loyalties lie.

My own moral compass is that we should look after the poor more than the rich and I struggle to find any moral standing in the reverse.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Tories have unveiled measures that will help the rich much more than it will help the poor in the short-term. If we are very lucky (and most economic experts seem to think won't be) then in the medium/long term both the poor and rich will benefit, and most likely, the rich will again benefit more.

Given that you prefer this approach to one where the poor are helped more than the rich in the short term, and then if we're lucky the poor & rich would gain in the medium/long term, with the poor gaining relatively more - and also given that you don't care about the rich/poor divide getting bigger - I think it's safe to conclude where your loyalties lie.

My own moral compass is that we should look after the poor more than the rich and I struggle to find any moral standing in the reverse.

To help the poorest you need economic growth. To get economic growth you need to set the conditions for it. These are the conditions being set.

Tax cuts benefit the richest more than the poorest, because the richest pay far more in tax than the poorest, so naturally the richest will see a bigger reduction.

Your ideas are well-intentioned, but a short-term handout to the poorest in society, in the manner you earlier described, is not a foundation for long-term economic growth, only for small relief and a sharp spike in inflation.

I agree that the poorest need to be looked after more than the rich, which is why we have a welfare state that supplies monetary assistance to those out of work, working P/T, with children, and/or on low incomes.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Tories have unveiled measures that will help the rich much more than it will help the poor in the short-term. If we are very lucky (and most economic experts seem to think won't be) then in the medium/long term both the poor and rich will benefit, and most likely, the rich will again benefit more.

Given that you prefer this approach to one where the poor are helped more than the rich in the short term, and then if we're lucky the poor & rich would gain in the medium/long term, with the poor gaining relatively more - and also given that you don't care about the rich/poor divide getting bigger - I think it's safe to conclude where your loyalties lie.

My own moral compass is that we should look after the poor more than the rich and I struggle to find any moral standing in the reverse.

To help the poorest you need economic growth. To get economic growth you need to set the conditions for it. These are the conditions being set.

Tax cuts benefit the richest more than the poorest, because the richest pay far more in tax than the poorest, so naturally the richest will see a bigger reduction.

Your ideas are well-intentioned, but a short-term handout to the poorest in society, in the manner you earlier described, is not a foundation for long-term economic growth, only for small relief and a sharp spike in inflation.

I agree that the poorest need to be looked after more than the rich, which is why we have a welfare state that supplies monetary assistance to those out of work, working P/T, with children, and/or on low incomes.

And you think taking measure that will increase interest rates/mortgage rates, increase inflation, increase government borrowing at increasing rates and not having tax cuts that benefit the poor most (the people who need the money spend/put back into the economy, rather than those who will keep it in the bank) is a sound and moral method for economic growth? Dream on.

Duty, I'm interested in knowing which writers or politicians have influenced your beliefs. Have you read anything by Joseph Stieglitz? You don't like Keynes but which society best demonstrates an alternative model?
I think that one of the tenets of it is, if there is stagnation, hire a man to dig a hole and then hire a man to fill the hole.
Print some money and get the cycle going. That seems to make sense.
The most notorious proponents of "the poor will always be with us", philosophy of the right ,The Chicago Boys actually were closely monitored by Thatcher's adviser Alan Walters.
These are guys that backed an illegitimate overthrow of an elected government in Chile.
Walters wrote a letter to The Times where he said that democracy's not as important as getting rid of a dangerous socialist government. Are there any other proponents that are a tad more human?

Do you know the really annoying thing? We’re all on the same team.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Tories have unveiled measures that will help the rich much more than it will help the poor in the short-term. If we are very lucky (and most economic experts seem to think won't be) then in the medium/long term both the poor and rich will benefit, and most likely, the rich will again benefit more.

Given that you prefer this approach to one where the poor are helped more than the rich in the short term, and then if we're lucky the poor & rich would gain in the medium/long term, with the poor gaining relatively more - and also given that you don't care about the rich/poor divide getting bigger - I think it's safe to conclude where your loyalties lie.

My own moral compass is that we should look after the poor more than the rich and I struggle to find any moral standing in the reverse.

To help the poorest you need economic growth. To get economic growth you need to set the conditions for it. These are the conditions being set.

Tax cuts benefit the richest more than the poorest, because the richest pay far more in tax than the poorest, so naturally the richest will see a bigger reduction.

Your ideas are well-intentioned, but a short-term handout to the poorest in society, in the manner you earlier described, is not a foundation for long-term economic growth, only for small relief and a sharp spike in inflation.

I agree that the poorest need to be looked after more than the rich, which is why we have a welfare state that supplies monetary assistance to those out of work, working P/T, with children, and/or on low incomes.

And you think taking measure that will increase interest rates/mortgage rates, increase inflation, increase government borrowing at increasing rates and not having tax cuts that benefit the poor most (the people who need the money spend/put back into the economy, rather than those who will keep it in the bank) is a sound and moral method for economic growth? Dream on.

I don't need to dream, fortunately. And again, tax cuts will benefit the richest more because they're the ones who pay vastly more tax in the first place. Your invention that they will just keep the money in the bank rather than spend it is just that.

Derek Smalls wrote:Duty, I'm interested in knowing which writers or politicians have influenced your beliefs. Have you read anything by Joseph Stieglitz? You don't like Keynes but which society best demonstrates an alternative model?
I think that one of the tenets of it is, if there is stagnation, hire a man to dig a hole and then hire a man to fill the hole.
Print some money and get the cycle going. That seems to make sense.
The most notorious proponents of "the poor will always be with us", philosophy of the right ,The Chicago Boys actually were closely monitored by Thatcher's adviser Alan Walters.
These are guys that backed an illegitimate overthrow of an elected government in Chile.
Walters wrote a letter to The Times where he said that democracy's not as important as getting rid of a dangerous socialist government. Are there any other proponents that are a tad more human?

Philosophers - Plato, Aurelius, Locke, Stuart-Mill, Hobbes, Nietzsche.
Politicians - In terms of British ones, probably Gladstone, Powell (or Enoch if we must), Joseph, Thatcher, but I've also admired Foot, Benn, Lloyd-George, Palmerston and Paine.
Economists - Primarily Smith, Friedman, Hayek, Sowell.

I don't believe I have read anything by Stieglitz. It's not that I dislike Keynes as such, it's that his ideas had become stagnant and couldn't answer the problems of the 70s.

Congratulations to the Labour Party who managed to get through the awful tyranny of the national anthem, at their conference, without booing or turning into Celtic Football Club.

It seems that the tax cuts have got Labour into a bit of a spin. Starmer supports the cut in the basic rate, but the leader-in-waiting, Burnham, doesn't.

What a surprise. Liz Truss's Chief of Staff is being paid by his own lobbying firm. I wonder where they get their money from, eh? Shame we can't find out; the company has ceased trading operations while miraculously still paying Mark Fullbrook.

It, rather predictably, stinks to high heaven.

Also, those hallowed markets are still spooked by the, er, uncertainty. The Pound is now down to US$1.03.

Those markets really don't like uncertainty. Absolutely nothing to do with them predicting the coming train wreck.

The markets are down to three factors - war in Ukraine, uncertainty over the tax cuts, strength of the dollar.

It's not just the Pound, the Euro is down to a twenty-year low v the dollar, and the Yen is down to a twenty-four year low.

What uncertainty? The Tory budget is guaranteed to succeed - Duty said so. I don't know why the markets aren't listening to him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:What uncertainty? The Tory budget is guaranteed to succeed - Duty said so. I don't know why the markets aren't listening to him.

Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Remaining EU laws are to be torn up by the end of next year as part of the Chancellor's bid to reduce unnecessary costs for British businesses and unleash growth.

Kwasi Kwarteng said the bonfire of red tape would lead to “a simpler system” that was easier for firms to navigate, as he also unveiled a bonanza of tax cuts to boost the flagging economy.

He said government departments have been ordered to review all retained EU regulations by December 2023, by which point they will be “automatically” axed unless they are amended or replaced.

According to official data, the UK has retained 2,417 pieces of EU law since leaving the bloc.

Only 182 of these laws have been amended, 196 have been appealed and 33 have been replaced.

Good. A proper break with the EU. This is the exact stuff Johnson should have been doing.

Which laws are you looking forward to them getting rid of?

The ones that impose regulation on financial services and GDPR should be reformed, at the very least, for a start.

Which specific financial regulations are you referring to as being dispensable and how do you think they are currently inhibiting multi-billion pound organisations in making more money?  Also interested to see what part of GDPR you don't like.  

As someone who legally represents a number of financial services organisations, I can't wait for the answers to these questions.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

Everything is relevant to the point, the economy is affected by a multitude of factors, you can't mention the mini budget without mentioning the war in Ukraine.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

The immediate reaction on Friday was due to what Kwarteng announced, yes. The further decline when markets opened today, that Prawn mentioned with it going down to $1.03, is down to a multitude of factors, including the tax cut, but also Ukraine and the strength of the dollar.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

The immediate reaction on Friday was due to what Kwarteng announced, yes. The further decline when markets opened today, that Prawn mentioned with it going down to $1.03, is down to a multitude of factors, including the tax cut, but also Ukraine and the strength of the dollar.

If you say so

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

The immediate reaction on Friday was due to what Kwarteng announced, yes. The further decline when markets opened today, that Prawn mentioned with it going down to $1.03, is down to a multitude of factors, including the tax cut, but also Ukraine and the strength of the dollar.

And, just possibly, Kwarteng opening his irresponsible gob to trail yet more cuts as soon as he got his breath back from Friday's giveaway.

A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Must just have been coincidence it plummeted right after Kwarteng announced his plan.

Well...markets react instantly to events. They don't wait until tomorrow or the week after.

So you accept Kwartengs announcement caused an immediate drop to an already weakened pound.

Yes, I've already stated this.

Well mentioning the war in Ukraine and the other markets being down and the strength of the dollar seems irrelevant to the point Prawn was making.

The immediate reaction on Friday was due to what Kwarteng announced, yes. The further decline when markets opened today, that Prawn mentioned with it going down to $1.03, is down to a multitude of factors, including the tax cut, but also Ukraine and the strength of the dollar.

And, just possibly, Kwarteng opening his irresponsible gob to trail yet more cuts as soon as he got his breath back from Friday's giveaway.

Quite possibly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:A former Conservative minister has accused Truss and her Treasury ministers of “playing A-level economics with people’s lives”. I think he meant to say "Duty-level".

Well at least Duty understands you can't engineer economic growth through handouts, which is something some on here struggle to grasp.