The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

People living in sheds. Has anyone heard of the right to the city movement?
In the states, esp New York people are reclaiming the city.

An interference in the free market... Didn't stop the banks taking government cash - that certainly is not a free market principle.

The NMW stops business paying peanuts in the name of the free market and exploiting people. Or should it be acceptable for people to earn £2 an hour and be told they should be grateful to have a job?

Chid benefit should just be abolished full stop. As should tax breaks for children. Families of all make up should be taxed the same. It is the flagrant lack of thought about if you can afford a child that leads to a child in poverty not the governments fault except in exceptional circumstances. With individual taxation rights and equality legislation the real reason for child benefit disappeared a long time ago

For over 30 years now the majority of marriages end in divorce so people should plan for those eventualities without their plan being benefits will see them right for ever instead of as a safety net.

Housing benefit is ripe for reform and seems to benefit landlords and buy to let speculators more than anyone. And in London the burghs should be able to send high cost clients to cheaper areas.

Thank you Custardo, I'm off to have read.

Yes marriage, another right wing triumph over sense, isn't that a Tory hobby horse. The best way to plan for a likely divorce is not to get married.

About to use a classic MNism klaxon

Oh do fuck off with your unsubstantiated rubbish. If you're going to make a claim at least back it up with a fact. Oh, wait, you can't.

You want those on housing benefits to be moved from the sheds they live in? Fine, prepare to clean the streets yourself. There's your Big Society for you. A return to pre-Victorian values.

Novack

Housing benefit is ripe for reform and seems to benefit landlords and buy to let speculators more than anyone. And in London the burghs should be able to send high cost clients to cheaper areas.

Anything to back that gem up? No? I'm shocked, nay, stunned, that you fail to give proof to what you say. 'Cos you've always done that. Oh, wait...

NovackNGood Mon 11-Jun-12 22:16:12

Once again with the swearing Nicholas. If you can't debate normally do you find that people see you as a bully in your daily life or is it just the bravery of a keyboard that leads you to swear at people?

If by debating normally you mean providing facts to back up what is being debated, then yes,I can debate. Provide facts, not prurient bullshit, then perhaps you'll be taken seriously. I've just looked through my posts on this thread and I've asked nine times for you to come up with one fact to back your 'argument' up. That you haven't proves my point. You are either unable, or you are being deliberately belligerent.

Are you accusing me of being a keyboard warrior? ROFLCOPTER!!!! :o:o:o

Back your rubbish up with a fact. I dare you.

Novak, you didn't delete yourself did you. It's ok though Mrs Darwin will come along soon and explain the secret to survival. Only those most intelligent survive, it's like a game of knock out politics, you have five minutes and counting to find some facts to back up your rabid assertions before rapid deletion occurs.

It seems Nicholas spend too much time on world of warcraft.

Thanks for the advice Mini but I was intelligent enough to be able to retire before I was 40.

I suspect a lot of mumsnetters would like abolition of housing benefit and much lower tax rates and then to make provision themselves for harder times and/or help their own families. Housing benefit has spiraled out of control.

There is nothing new about how mankind is here, our 2m + years of history and survival of the fittest with a dash of compassion as we are that mixture.

Yes, trickledown works.

Intuitively trickle down is a great idea. You give your highest income groups some more money, they decide to have a swimming pool built, the swimming pool companies can'y keep up with demand so take on new staff, unemployment falls, aggregate demand in the economy rises. However, it's only intuitive.

I'll try to keep this simple:

Economics uses a concept called marginal propensity to consume (MPC) - the proportion of any extra income is spent. Trickle down's effectiveness depends upon MPC being high in high income groups, it also depends upon MPC being constant over time.

Empirical evidence suggests that the richest groups in society actually have the lowest MPCs. MPC falls as you get richer. MPC is higher in middle and lower income groups. So, if the government's objective is to generate economic growth a more effective policy might be to cut taxes for middle and low earners. The 'young' have the highest MPC as changes in their consumption habits tend to track changes in income.

Remember as well that attitudes to spending will change over time so while cutting taxes for the rich might have been effective in 2004 it probably won't be in 2012 due to low levels of confidence. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is constant.

This is why the NMW has been so effective in raising consumption and aggregate demand it's BECAUSE it raises the income level of low earners. They go out and spend 100% of their net income (not necessarily a desirable outcome by the way) and that generates jobs.

As I said, I tried very hard to keep this as simple as possible. This is what I believe.

I have't found accessible MPC data by decile for the UK so I'm troubled that I can't back these statements up.

Families of all make up should be taxed the same

You do realise that this will be a regressive policy? Lower income groups, while paying the same in monetary terms as the rich, will be paying more as a proportion of their income.

This is why I'm so opposed to raising VAT, yes we all pay 20% tax to the government when we buy taxable goods. Because lower income groups spend most of their income on consumption they end up paying 20% of their income to the government while the rich, who may spend say 40% of their income end up paying a far smaller proportion of their income.

Personally, that strikes me as unfair. I'd be interested to see your views.

I suspect a lot of mumsnetters would like abolition of housing benefit and much lower tax rates and then to make provision themselves for harder times and/or help their own families.

I wouldn't want to speak for any other Mumsnetters. I have insulated myself and my family against harder times but I've been able to do that because our joint income is high enough to enjoy a reasonable standard of living without having to spend all our income.

Housing benefit has spiraled out of control.
I don't know much about housing benefit but surely it's only risen to reflect market determined rents? Are there really that many HB recipients to distort the market?

interesting paper www.resolutionfoundati on.org/media/media/downloads/Final_-_Inequality_debt_and_growth.pdf providing empirical evidence suggesting the financial crisis may have been caused by inequality.

It raises very many good points for debate. Might be worth starting a new thread?

I meant very interesting paper

Modern humans do not have 2 million years of history.

Well I do hope you enjoy your retirement Novak, many people face working until they drop because of a crisis they played no part in.

Thanks for the links Mamma, I am just reading the report from the resolution foundation.

"The sharp, although differentiated, increase in inequality observed in most developed countries over the last three decades has gone hand in hand with both the increasing importance of the financial sector and of course the explosion in earnings for many of those working in that sector; given the role of the sector in the crisis, it is at least plausible to hypothesise that there is a relationship between inequality, macroeconomic and financial developments, and growth and the crisis"

YY, Whilst workers wages were stagnating over the last 30 years, many large businesses saw their profit margins increase, many like G.E declined to invest in their core business which would have included work creation, instead they used these profits to set up shop in finance. The financification of all capital has been the major reason for the crisis. Whilst profits are increasingly concentrated in an ever smaller area of the economy, workers struggled to keep pace with inflation and companies like G.E prospered by offering loans.

I think it would make a great new thread, are you going to start a new thread?

It's your idea Mini, you go and run with it.

There have always been cycles. Indeed there are those who invest based on cycles. There is nothing special about this particular cycle. Hard times come and go. It is almost how things have always been. Even if we went back to pre hisotry we had famines, plagues of locusts, asteroids hitting the planet, great floods, ice ages. In some ways it's a very female thing, cycles, menstruation, good and bad times in cycles. It is nothing sinister. Mankind has always had to set aside food for when times are hard, gather in the harvest so they can eat over the winter. It's when nations and families do no such stocking up that they get into trouble or if they sit there saying I will not lift a finger, God, mother sunor the state etc etc will provide which is not wise.

That's the first time I've heard recessions compared to periods

I rather like it as an example. If I ever start teaching in a girls' school I'll definitely use it. Thank you Xenia.

NicholasTeakozy, I just wish I had time, I'm run off my feet, you know we workers are chained to the machines Mamma suggested it, I was just agreeing. Have you had time to read it?

So that's why once a month I feel like I am having a crisis!

No I haven't, purely because for some reason pdfs cause mu browser to crash. I wouldn't mind, but I have the latest updates installed and enabled. I'll have a look in a bit after I sign out of GMail.