Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corb Blimey!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    RC, Think of what would happen to Ireland if we left the EU. Now apply that to England, over a slightly longer time frame. Bad things happen to economically vulnerable people when the economy grows by less than 1%, no imagine what happens then your export industries disappears.

    As for leaving the customs union.... well we're about to learn to what happens when you have to apply customs inspections to a flow of 10-15,000 trucks a day.

    Now I can't stand Tony Blair, and I came across an article I wrote for a college magazine back in 1998 where I essentially accused Tony Blair of being a Tory, and got incredibly vexed about the Pledge to keep the Tory's spending plans for the first three years of his govt, when even the tories weren't going to do that. But it was always fairly obvious exactly what he was.

    There is something that I find a bit offputting about all of the rows and the rage surrounding the Iraq war. It kind of exposes the unreality of the British political bubble. Everyone is very angry about the iraq war, but it seems to ultimately miss the point that this is the UK we're talking about, and once a decade, the UK govt and military establishment embarks on a fairly major imperialist military adventure in support of the post empire status Quo. That's just what the UK govt does. Pretty much regardless of whether it is Tories or Labour that are in power.

    These Adventures are invariably badly thought through, and cause untold misery for whatever poor bastards are caught up in it. But a lot of the rage about the Iraq war seems to be rooted in the lack of awareness that the UK govt are by definition bastards, and this is what bastards do. Instead of tackling the root problems it focuses all the rage against individuals, and doesn't address the underlying problems. it also distracts from the important issues at hand, and gets in the way of solving future problems.
    Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 28-09-2018, 12:00.

    Comment


      "Middle class" is doing a lot of work re free school meals- only something like 13% get them- but the overall point is right.

      https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1044932872895967234

      Labour plans don't even have benefits back at 2015 level yet, let alone 2010 levels. How can this sort of choice be justified? At least Brown and all could look at an IFS-style chart.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
        "Middle class" is doing a lot of work re free school meals- only something like 13% get them- but the overall point is right.

        https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1044932872895967234

        Labour plans don't even have benefits back at 2015 level yet, let alone 2010 levels. How can this sort of choice be justified? At least Brown and all could look at an IFS-style chart.
        The "middle class subsidy" shite re any proposal a universal benefit is deliberate point-missing.

        If you think disability benefits, JSA etc should be higher, say that. But universal benefits a) aren't subsidies if they're funded by taxing people more and b) are good in and of themselves, for a number of reasons, not least because it's much harder to get rid of universal benefits than means tested ones. It's not either/or. Labour have been shit at reversing welfare cuts, but opposing the good policies rather than the failure to reverse bad ones is arse about face.
        Last edited by Bizarre Löw Triangle; 28-09-2018, 13:57.

        Comment


          Also what is middle class to this neoliberal elf? I'm probably around the top 15% of household income because my wife is an experienced full-time teacher, but that doesn't mean I could afford to pay 15 hours a week of childcare for 11 months out of the year, because I live in London and have student loan debt. I'm 33 years old in three weeks and exactly two people in my friend group*, who are all my age or thereabouts, have children. Two. The birthrate is falling through the floor because nobody feels they can afford to have kids. Making nursery free is probably as important as any other Corbynite pledge for ensuring the future prosperity of Britain, because otherwise Britain will be completely reliant on engendering brain drain from other countries to pay for anything. Well, we just voted to stop allowing EU people to come here, and the olds get incoherent with rage whenever they see someone with a headscarf on, so my advice to people is to start making it easier for young people to have children otherwise you are fucked. Liberalism is already dying of old age as it is, you'll just accelerate it with this strategy.


          * one of them is a Dane, married to a fellow Dane, and has been talking endlessly about moving back to Denmark to take advantage of Denmark's better welfare state.

          Comment


            It is right wing wedge politics, on a par with selling council houses. It's about reducing electoral support for redistribution measures, by limiting them to people below a certain income threshold, which means that everyone above that threshold views public provision of this good as a personal theft from them, and before you know it you have waves of vicious right wing tories focused aggressively on pulling up the ladder behind them.

            If you view the welfare system, and public provision not as charity, and with all the toxic moral shit that goes with that, and deal with such issues as a means to maximize human capital, then all of these things make a hell of a lot more sense. A lack of free state provided child care forces women out of the workforce at a key point in their careers, against their will, and it financially cripples families at a difficult time in their lifetime income cycle, and brutally suppresses the birthrate by putting children out of the financial reach of a great many people.

            Comment


              I support JSA, ESA and working tax credits being higher.

              universal benefits a) aren't subsidies if they're funded by taxing people more
              Government spending comes from taxing people. Means tested benefits come from taxing people too.

              are good in and of themselves, for a number of reasons, not least because it's much harder to get rid of universal benefits than means tested ones
              I used to think that, but I don't think that's borne out by recent events. The Tories (when they had a majority in 2015, not now) tried to go for means tested working tax credits. They got significant opposition from their own side and public opinion. They lost in the Lords, and had to reschedule the cuts for later in the Parliament, and they've been rolled over into this one. Labour in the 2017 manifesto accepted all but £2bn of the cuts. So, however easy or difficult means-tested tax credits are to reduce is academic- Labour is committed to reducing them. Wouldn't it be better if they weren't?

              And what universal benefit could replace working tax credits?

              opposing the good policies rather than the failure to reverse bad ones is arse about face.
              Whether they're good policies or not isn't important really- it's whether they're good priorities. I don't see how anybody can argue that the priorities are right here. I could say "the real problem is Labour isn't raising taxes to pay for higher benefits", but this is much easier said than done at the best of times, let alone post Brexit, and I haven't seen any evidence they're trying very hard. So I'll go with my interpretation here- it's a poor priority.

              You can certainly push "middle class subsidy" too far. But it isn't "shite" to look at the effects of spending, especially with big sums, in shit like we're currently in.

              Comment


                Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post

                There is something that I find a bit offputting about all of the rows and the rage surrounding the Iraq war. It kind of exposes the unreality of the British political bubble. Everyone is very angry about the iraq war, but it seems to ultimately miss the point that this is the UK we're talking about, and once a decade, the UK govt and military establishment embarks on a fairly major imperialist military adventure in support of the post empire status Quo. That's just what the UK govt does. Pretty much regardless of whether it is Tories or Labour that are in power.

                These Adventures are invariably badly thought through, and cause untold misery for whatever poor bastards are caught up in it. But a lot of the rage about the Iraq war seems to be rooted in the lack of awareness that the UK govt are by definition bastards, and this is what bastards do. Instead of tackling the root problems it focuses all the rage against individuals, and doesn't address the underlying problems. it also distracts from the important issues at hand, and gets in the way of solving future problems.
                Maybe, just this once, Corbyn and whoever follows him won't be starting post-imperial wars. Which'll be good. And very much worth voting for.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
                  It is right wing wedge politics, on a par with selling council houses. It's about reducing electoral support for redistribution measures, by limiting them to people below a certain income threshold, which means that everyone above that threshold views public provision of this good as a personal theft from them, and before you know it you have waves of vicious right wing tories focused aggressively on pulling up the ladder behind them.

                  If you view the welfare system, and public provision not as charity, and with all the toxic moral shit that goes with that, and deal with such issues as a means to maximize human capital, then all of these things make a hell of a lot more sense. A lack of free state provided child care forces women out of the workforce at a key point in their careers, against their will, and it financially cripples families at a difficult time in their lifetime income cycle, and brutally suppresses the birthrate by putting children out of the financial reach of a great many people.
                  Whoa.

                  I'm talking mainly here about working child tax credits, because they're the biggest amount of money. If I think they're important, the last thing I'm doing is crippling families with children. They did a lot to take away the poverty trap.

                  This is good use of government money for human capital, no?

                  Comment


                    It's only part of it. There's a massive difference between the way that Ireland does things in this respect and the UK. Ireland is every bit as much an extreme outlier as the UK, but in a different way. For instance, because about a fifth of our workforce works in the Multinational traded sector, our pre-tax and social welfare income distribution is extraordinary. Before taxes and redistribution, we have the income inequality of south Africa, but after tax and redistribution we have the income inequality of France or germany. Three quarters of what the Irish Govt spends its money on is salaries and income redistribution, which combined with our Govts 37.5% share of GNI (Our version of the more common GDP figure) means that there is a massive underprovision of services like housing, childcare and health, with a lot of negative consequences. It too is suboptimal, but it demonstrates that being an open, export driven economy can be combined with substantial redistribution of wealth. indeed it may even be highly beneficial.

                    But the point is that while there is a certain amount of work that can be done to push up people's wages through legislation, etc, the UK economy isn't really structured in a way to give the sort of pay rises that people would expect in a developed wealthy country, because most people work in relatively low productivity jobs providing services to other people in the UK, so there is scope for considerably more redistribution of income, combined with an improve provision of public services.

                    You could even justify a considerable shift to the left and increasing the size of the state, simply by dressing it up as dealing with market failures. Market failures in the provision of housing, childcare, or in terms of wages. There are a wide variety of ways in which people can justify progressive policies in the UK, but instead you have people picking on the issue that affects them directly right now, and setting them into opposition with each other, while the media dresses up public spending that isn't on old people as spine weakening charity to the feckless undeserving poor.

                    Comment


                      More poor priorities from Labour- though just restating the 2017 policy.

                      https://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adv...test_news_list

                      Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has committed to maintaining the triple lock on the state pension.

                      The triple lock policy means the state pension rises in line with whichever is highest from earnings, inflation or 2.5%.
                      As they say here, it's hard to estimate what the cost of this will be for obvious reasons, but the OBR think it's pretty substantial over time, and it's going to be incredibly difficult to modify. What sort of human capital argument is there for this?

                      In Labour's defence, they didn't come up with the policy, the Coalition did. But you can see how this stuff mounts up.

                      Comment


                        That's just a bribe for old voters. That is not sustainable in the long run, but old voters don't care about the long run.

                        Comment


                          Yeah, though the UK has been pretty re distributive, given its underlying problems, we don't need to be slapping ourselves on the back for redistributing. But where we are, we need to be defending it as a starting point. In terms of Labour's plans, it's slipping below the radar. I don't know, maybe I'm being unfair and they'll keeping powder dry for the budgets, or something.

                          As I say, working tax credits haven't been all that easy to get rid of for the Tories, even in "we're becoming like Greece" mode, or in that period where they had a majority.

                          Comment


                            no it isn't. Income inequality grew pretty steadily under new labour (aside from the post 2001 wobble/dot com crash) and that's when they were remotely trying to keep pace with these events. They have just tried to roll things back since 2010 and make things worse.

                            Comment




                              Not really a steady rise, but it should have come down, for sure. Miliband talked about that much more, but didn't back it up with policy. You've got to at least do what Brown did. Or what he sort of did- isn't that his 50p tax rise bringing inequality down as he leaves office?
                              Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 28-09-2018, 16:28.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                I support JSA, ESA and working tax credits being higher.
                                Government spending comes from taxing people. Means tested benefits come from taxing people too.
                                you can have both

                                I used to think that, but I don't think that's borne out by recent events. The Tories (when they had a majority in 2015, not now) tried to go for means tested working tax credits. They got significant opposition from their own side and public opinion. They lost in the Lords, and had to reschedule the cuts for later in the Parliament, and they've been rolled over into this one. Labour in the 2017 manifesto accepted all but £2bn of the cuts. So, however easy or difficult means-tested tax credits are to reduce is academic- Labour is committed to reducing them. Wouldn't it be better if they weren't?
                                yes

                                And what universal benefit could replace working tax credits?
                                I disagree with working tax credits primarily because they're a subsidy to employers to get away with paying people less than they need to live. That doesn't mean they should be scrapped but you could gradually phase them out by raising minimum wage to a level where it is actually enough to live on and universal child benefit.

                                Whether they're good policies or not isn't important really- it's whether they're good priorities. I don't see how anybody can argue that the priorities are right here. I could say "the real problem is Labour isn't raising taxes to pay for higher benefits", but this is much easier said than done at the best of times, let alone post Brexit, and I haven't seen any evidence they're trying very hard. So I'll go with my interpretation here- it's a poor priority.

                                You can certainly push "middle class subsidy" too far. But it isn't "shite" to look at the effects of spending, especially with big sums, in shit like we're currently in.
                                People don't just get childcare for the hell of it. There's not going to be more childcare happening because the state provides it and if there is, it's likely to be because of greater economic activity - from an economic perspective, it's cost neutral. If the economy shrinks and tax revenues fall you squeeze people more to pay for it, just as would happen if they paid for their own childcare. Except this time the burden falls on the wealthy not the people just outside the means tested boundary.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
                                  RC, Think of what would happen to Ireland if we left the EU. Now apply that to England, over a slightly longer time frame. Bad things happen to economically vulnerable people when the economy grows by less than 1%, no imagine what happens then your export industries disappears.

                                  As for leaving the customs union.... well we're about to learn to what happens when you have to apply customs inspections to a flow of 10-15,000 trucks a day.

                                  Now I can't stand Tony Blair, and I came across an article I wrote for a college magazine back in 1998 where I essentially accused Tony Blair of being a Tory, and got incredibly vexed about the Pledge to keep the Tory's spending plans for the first three years of his govt, when even the tories weren't going to do that. But it was always fairly obvious exactly what he was.

                                  There is something that I find a bit offputting about all of the rows and the rage surrounding the Iraq war. It kind of exposes the unreality of the British political bubble. Everyone is very angry about the iraq war, but it seems to ultimately miss the point that this is the UK we're talking about, and once a decade, the UK govt and military establishment embarks on a fairly major imperialist military adventure in support of the post empire status Quo. That's just what the UK govt does. Pretty much regardless of whether it is Tories or Labour that are in power.

                                  These Adventures are invariably badly thought through, and cause untold misery for whatever poor bastards are caught up in it. But a lot of the rage about the Iraq war seems to be rooted in the lack of awareness that the UK govt are by definition bastards, and this is what bastards do. Instead of tackling the root problems it focuses all the rage against individuals, and doesn't address the underlying problems. it also distracts from the important issues at hand, and gets in the way of solving future problems.
                                  Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                  Maybe, just this once, Corbyn and whoever follows him won't be starting post-imperial wars. Which'll be good. And very much worth voting for.

                                  Canada is much more of a follower than the UK when it comes to being a junior partner in Atlantist imperial military interventionism, yet back in 2001, Chretien stood up to Bush and stayed out. As well, the UK is not merely a follower, it was a lead player as far as preparing and executing the Syrian intervention, which resulted in the death of nearly a million Syrians and the complete destruction of that country:



                                  Dumas was a former Foreign Minister under Mitterrand.

                                  Corbyn's election will be a ground-breaking change as far as shutting down the destructive military interventionism in the Mideast.

                                  Comment


                                    I disagree with working tax credits primarily because they're a subsidy to employers to get away with paying people less than they need to live. That doesn't mean they should be scrapped but you could gradually phase them out by raising minimum wage to a level where it is actually enough to live on and universal child benefit.
                                    You can improve the minimum wage, bargaining power etc but- and I absolutely haven't done any sums of my own- but can you get to that point without either a prohibitively minimum wage or spending a spectacularly high amount on universal child benefit?

                                    I'm open to persuasion on whether that's possible.

                                    People don't just get childcare for the hell of it. There's not going to be more childcare happening because the state provides it and if there is, it's likely to be because of greater economic activity - from an economic perspective, it's cost neutral
                                    There's childcare and childcare. If we're meaning somebody looking after a child, then that doesn't increased. But if you're talking about demand for publicly provided childcare places, then of course it makes a difference whether or not the state is providing it for free.

                                    I'm sure childcare is better than cost neutral. So is lots of stuff. But again, it's priorities. What else can you do with the money, is it more productive?

                                    If the economy shrinks and tax revenues fall you squeeze people more to pay for it
                                    That's austerity, isn't it? Going to reduce demand. Better than cuts,but still austerity.

                                    More generally, I think universal benefits can easily get you tying up huge sums of money you can't easily afford. And when you do that, you'll get squeezes in other areas, and the poor get offered up for cuts with these anyway.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                      I'm talking mainly here about working child tax credits, because they're the biggest amount of money.
                                      Not to nitpick, but working tax credits and child tax credits are two different things. Presumably you either mean child tax credits, or generally tax credits paid to working families with children (who often receive both WTC and CTC.)

                                      The tax credits system is really badly designed and very expensive to administrate.
                                      Last edited by Fussbudget; 28-09-2018, 20:41.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                        There's childcare and childcare. If we're meaning somebody looking after a child, then that doesn't increased. But if you're talking about demand for publicly provided childcare places, then of course it makes a difference whether or not the state is providing it for free.

                                        I'm sure childcare is better than cost neutral. So is lots of stuff. But again, it's priorities. What else can you do with the money, is it more productive?

                                        That's austerity, isn't it? Going to reduce demand. Better than cuts,but still austerity.

                                        More generally, I think universal benefits can easily get you tying up huge sums of money you can't easily afford. And when you do that, you'll get squeezes in other areas, and the poor get offered up for cuts with these anyway.
                                        Averaged over the whole population it makes zero difference to everyone's collective wealth if the state taxes people to pay for universal childcare or if everyone who can afford it pays for childcare and the state taxes people less to only cover those who can't. Like there's a certain amount of labour that needs doing and it costs a certain amount assuming you value people's labour fairly.

                                        People are also going to be worse off if they have to pay for childcare themselves and the economy experiences a downturn. It's possible that people who can barely afford childcare but don't qualify for means tested childcare would be able to rely to a greater extent on ad hoc informal unpaid childcare from friends and relatives etc, but mandating ad hoc unpaid labour is no way to structure a society. And communal childcare is less labour intensive than ad hoc childcare.

                                        And funding stuff through taxation allows the burden to be spread fairly throughout society.
                                        Last edited by Bizarre Löw Triangle; 28-09-2018, 21:58.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                          You can improve the minimum wage, bargaining power etc but- and I absolutely haven't done any sums of my own- but can you get to that point without either a prohibitively minimum wage or spending a spectacularly high amount on universal child benefit?

                                          I'm open to persuasion on whether that's possible.
                                          Working tax credits are a shareholder subsidy. They allow bosses to pay starvation wages and the state covers people from actually starving. Meanwhile the bosses and the shareholders reap the profits that they've made from paying starvation wages.

                                          A minimum wage that people can actually survive on doesn't sound like an unreasonable demand imo.

                                          Comment


                                            would it be possible to fix it so it worked better? Or is it simply a difficult thing to administer?

                                            Comment


                                              And funding stuff through taxation allows the burden to be spread fairly throughout society.
                                              That's not in doubt. It's what level of taxation you can make work (politically, as well as economically, obviously) and what you do with it.

                                              I don't see why you couldn't, with childcare, have a sort of sliding scale in charges. So you'd be worse off with a recession (that's hard to avoid) but your childcare cost would come down. But this might be too bureaucratic, so maybe there's more of a case for universality with this than I thought.

                                              Like there's a certain amount of labour that needs doing
                                              I don't get you. There's not a certain amount of labour in an economy, it's got the name the "lump of labour fallacy". Or am I missing something?

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                                That's not in doubt. It's what level of taxation you can make work (politically, as well as economically, obviously) and what you do with it.

                                                I don't see why you couldn't, with childcare, have a sort of sliding scale in charges. So you'd be worse off with a recession (that's hard to avoid) but your childcare cost would come down. But this might be too bureaucratic, so maybe there's more of a case for universality with this than I thought.



                                                I don't get you. There's not a certain amount of labour in an economy, it's got the name the "lump of labour fallacy". Or am I missing something?
                                                But there is in terms of childcare. While in general, economic activity begets economic activity the amount of childcare that needs doing remains in strict proportion to the number of children (again, including the informal sector here as this is still labour).
                                                Last edited by Bizarre Löw Triangle; 28-09-2018, 22:12.

                                                Comment


                                                  A minimum wage that people can actually survive on doesn't sound like an unreasonable demand imo.
                                                  The test isn't whether a wage sounds reasonable, it's whether it's sustainable in the economy. If it isn't, you can have big problems with employment/

                                                  I think it's better to think in terms of an income that's reasonable. And the top up income can be paid from all taxpayers, rather than (as it will be in some cases) a low margin employer. Downturns are going to play havoc here.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View Post
                                                    But there is in terms of childcare. While in general, economic activity begets economic activity the amount of childcare that needs doing remains in strict proportion to the number of children (again, including the informal sector here as this is still labour).
                                                    Ah, sorry. I get you.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X