To say that Owen Jones's 'Agenda for Hope' is a bloody brilliant idea..?

[Scarletohello]

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-joness-agenda-for-hope-we-want-a-fairer-society--and-heres-how-we-can-achieve-it-9086440.html

The link will be active in the following post but essentially it is the proposals devised by many groups to create a fairer society for all...

Please read!

Oh joy. Another article comprising a list, each item of which requires clicking a new page and dodging a new set of adverts.

I ended up on Rimmel's home page so I'm none the wiser about what Owen Jones is proposing.

Ok, this is a random side but....

The general mumsnet consensus on division of labour and cash in a household is that 'fair' is that both partners have equal spare time and equal cash. Regardless of income or WOHP or SAHP.

On a macro scale why do some poster struggle with this in terms of tax?

As a £100k plus income earner I don't actually oppose the 50p threshold, although it is a bit galling, I see the country needs it more than I do.

I do wonder what our view is though on what is 'fair'. I think this needs to be clear before we look at how to achieve 'fairness' as I don't think it is a shared view at the moment.

To me fairness is true equality of opportunity. But on some level there should be reward for hard work and also for those who possesses sought after skills, we are still capitalists in a material world.

But equally there should be extra support for people who have extra disadvantages.

I don't believe in fecklessness as a natural state. I think people the media label as such have experienced the cards stacked heavily against their achievement from a very early age and have responded with a perfectly understandable 'fuck that then' approach.

I don't agree it's raising tax for higher earners, and it don't see how anyone can claim that raising tax for people who already pay a lot of tax and who already contribute to the economy can be in any way 'fairer'.

People keep talking about a living wage, but what does that actually mean?

Is a living wage enough to keep a single worker in a one bedroom home without needing top up benefits like tax credits, or is it enough for a single earner to support a family of four and pay their own rent without HB and child tax credits?

I very much agree with free childcare for those who are working though. If we had that there would be no reason for child tax credits.

A living wage is the amount an individual needs to be paid to cover the cost of living for themselves - it's about £7.45 an hour outside London based on a f/time wage. This is where Owen's theory falls down - if "Mary" were paid £7.45 an hour (which she's probably not far off, she would still need financial assistance from the state as she has children. If Mary has two or three children she'd need to be earning £20+ an hour to keep them all with no financial help from the state. Unskilled work is never going to earn that much.

But it has in the past Bruthastortoise

Willing to be corrected but I thought burserys were only available on certain courses?

But it has in the past Bruthastortoise

Yes. From 1960 - 1980, my father was an unskilled worker and earned easily enough to raise 3 children in comfort.
To pay rent on a decent 3 bed house in West London. All on a single wage. With absolutely no state help except Child benefit.

My nephew now does the same job as my dad did, lives in a damp 2 bed flat with 3 children and is just getting by. Over 50% of his income is from the state.

Owen Jones - the Little Lord Fauntleroy of Agitprop baloney.

The reintroduction of the 50% rate of taxation is the most cynical and pathetic electioneering by a party that has NO new ideas and is just a less hard headed version of the Tories. Its aim is to polarise society between rich and poor while punching up but not really being of any use to those who need tax breaks. The average punter hears "50% of £100k plus" and thinks that's £50k in the coffers because they don't take into account the way progressive taxation works at thresholds. Mostly because the average earner will not need to think about any tax threshold other than the basic allowance. The reality of taxing at 50%? The figure isn't that exciting - only an extra £1bn out of the appx. £153bn raised by income tax. This is worth a read:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17465733

And you really think that the extra will go to those who need it most? Like fuck it will.

How about little Owen and his friends discuss doing something really radical, like a much higher tax allowance - lets say £15-18k and then a flat rate of 30% across the board? You help families who really need it, and bring lower earners up to a living wage. I think the Norwegian model is along these lines, and with a lot of transparency about who pays what.

But much easier to peddle the myth that it's all the fault of high earners and that their fortunes will make it all better. The only agenda for hope is a radical rethink that won't come from a social historian with a slim grasp of socio economics in a well established global free market economy. (The same could be said of anybody in government or opposition.)

No-one on less than £20k a year should pay tax. That would be a start.

I like Owen Jones but find him quite naïve at times.

I agree with a lot of his points bar the 50p tax on earnings over £100k and the public ownership of transport networks.

The rail network was a disaster when it was state owned - inefficient, dirty, unreliable and totally at the mercy of the unions. That would happen again.

I think his attack on landlords is a bit much. Yes, there are many who do rip people off but landlords have mortgages to pay too. The banks are crippling the landlords so the landlord passes it to the tenant. It's a vicious circle.

The banks are crippling the landlords so the landlord passes it to the tenant.

Genuine question: how are the banks crippling the landlords when interest rates are so low?

Buy to let mortgage rates are not that low!

Most landlords I know are making an absolute killing on their properties - I'm talking about £1800 rents on £500 mortgages. I accept and think it's fair that they want to make a profit but I do think rents have got out of hand.

(I'm talking about London here)

I would agree Nancy because it is a high demand area and LLs can get away with charging an extortionate price.

I see. I have very little sympathy for landlords in a buy-to-let situation, I'm afraid.

Wait till he has children. His ideas will change.

He sounds like a spoilt rich kid who pities his imaginary subordinates called Mary. His idea of how "poor" people live is so patronising it's sickening.

I see. I have very little sympathy for landlords in a buy-to-let situation, I'm afraid.

Lets hope you never find yourself in that situation then.

OJ is a Militant Tendency baby. That's a thumbs down from me then.

OWEN JONE wrote an award winning booked called "CHAVS" worth a read.

OJ looks very young but he takes politics seriously. He wants our country to be FAIRER, ( I suppose most people would agree)

I see. I have very little sympathy for landlords in a buy-to-let situation, I'm afraid.

Lets hope you never find yourself in that situation then.

Yes, Janine, you'd better pray you don't wake up one morning to find the deeds of a house has fallen into your possession overnight. It's such a tragedy and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

There is a lot of bollocks being talked on here about how accessable university is to Mary's son.
Newsflash people: even in these days of dumbed down education, 50% of kids are just not bright enough to go to university. And for non academic kids there are no decently paid jobs or training opportunities. Poorly paid service jobs are the only options open to them, and even they are like gold dust.

...but one of the reasons low skilled jobs are so badly paid is because of mass immigration and the people, willing to work for less, who have kept wages down.

But you try and have that conversation with an extreme left leaning person like Jones and you'll get nowhere.

So what options would you like to see open to kids who aren't bright enough to pursue further education? I have genuinely never met anyone who was too stupid to pursue further education after 16 or 18 in one shape or another. I've met plenty who either don't have the motivation or the encouragement to.