• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - Election 2015

Francesca R said:
This means there's probably undiscovered coal under most inner London boroughs, right?
Click to expand...

And none in Kent.

Maybe the coalfields helped determine the sites of the major centres of the Industrial Revolution, and it was the subsequent large populations of (for whant of a better phrase) the working class that tend to vote Labour?
 
jimbob said:
And none in Kent.

Maybe the coalfields helped determine the sites of the major centres of the Industrial Revolution, and it was the subsequent large populations of (for whant of a better phrase) the working class that tend to vote Labour?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing it's Maggie's fault.
 
Francesca R said:
This means there's probably undiscovered coal under most inner London boroughs, right?
Click to expand...


:D

Actually, those two maps probably provide a very good proof that a large proportion of the population are entrenched voters. Between 1910 and 1970, most of the working men in those areas would have been miners, and most would have voted Labour religiously. Their wives would very likely have voted Labour too. Their children would have grown up learning that Labour were the best party for their family, and most of their friends would have had Labour-voting parents too.

And those sorts of ingrained voting preferences can last way beyond the closure of the mines - as these maps seem to illustrate very well. There are still legions of people in those areas voting Labour because their parents and grandparents were staunch Labour supporters, and because voting Labour is still seen as "the right thing to do" in those areas.
 
Francesca R said:
Glad that's agreed. VAT is regressive WRT income at the bottom end.
Click to expand...


But even the IFS concedes that it's an improper distortion if people are spending money they don't have. Likewise, savings among wealthier people are probably going to convert to deferred expenditure at some point in the future, and that won't get captured in a raw "VAT vs income" analysis either.

If VAT is only regressive WRT income at the bottom end because people at that end are spending more than they earn (and that is indeed the case), then the problem is not with the structure of VAT. The problem is with people borrowing - and that's something that's beyond the scope of VAT analysis (and nothing whatsoever to do with VAT per se). That's exactly why some sort of sensible adjustment ought to be made to the raw data in order to see whether VAT really is progressive or regressive at an income level - and on a properly-adjusted basis, it's progressive.
 
LondonJohn said:
But even the IFS concedes that it's an improper distortion if people are spending money they don't have. Likewise, savings among wealthier people are probably going to convert to deferred expenditure at some point in the future, and that won't get captured in a raw "VAT vs income" analysis either.

If VAT is only regressive WRT income at the bottom end because people at that end are spending more than they earn (and that is indeed the case), then the problem is not with the structure of VAT. The problem is with people borrowing - and that's something that's beyond the scope of VAT analysis (and nothing whatsoever to do with VAT per se). That's exactly why some sort of sensible adjustment ought to be made to the raw data in order to see whether VAT really is progressive or regressive at an income level - and on a properly-adjusted basis, it's progressive.
Click to expand...


Do you think policy should respond to people or that people should conform to policy?
 
Lothian said:
Total tripe. Your arguement is: if the poor were not poor and had loads of money so that their expenditure was a similar proportion of their income as the rich then VAT would not be regressive.
The obvious failing is the fact that the poor are poor. There are only two things you can do wirh money spend it or save it. Those who save spend a lower proportion than those who don't. The poor tend not to save, many do borrow. That fact can not simply be ignored if we are talking about the real effect of VAT increases.

Edited to add, there are factors which mean VAT is not regressive but at its most basic level it is.
Click to expand...


Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all.

The only reason why VAT might be (erroneously) viewed as regressive (in relation to unadjusted income) is because very poor people tend to spend more than they earn, by borrowing money. That's nothing to do with VAT itself. If you want to have a discussion about why poorer people borrow to finance expenditure (and the problems that creates), that's fine, but it's not within the scope of a VAT discussion.

I'm hoping you're also aware that at a consumption level (and at an expenditure level), there is no doubt whatsoever that VAT is a progressive tax.
 
3point14 said:
Do you think policy should respond to people or that people should conform to policy?
Click to expand...


It should be a continuous feedback process.

Policy should be informed by the needs of the people, and the maximum perceived utility to the people. But then the people need to conform to that policy. If the policy is proving not to be of optimum utility (think "Poll Tax" as a nice easy example), then it needs to be modified - and the people then need to conform to the new policy.

People can demonstrate their opposition to any given policy, but they don't have the right to refuse to comply with it. That way, anarchy lies.
 
LondonJohn said:
It should be a continuous feedback process.

Policy should be informed by the needs of the people, and the maximum perceived utility to the people. But then the people need to conform to that policy. If the policy is proving not to be of optimum utility (think "Poll Tax" as a nice easy example), then it needs to be modified - and the people then need to conform to the new policy.

People can demonstrate their opposition to any given policy, but they don't have the right to refuse to comply with it. That way, anarchy lies.
Click to expand...



So, if the policy isn't working it's that you have the wrong people, not the wrong policy?
 
LondonJohn said:
But even the IFS concedes that it's an improper distortion if people are spending money they don't have. Likewise, savings among wealthier people are probably going to convert to deferred expenditure at some point in the future, and that won't get captured in a raw "VAT vs income" analysis either.
Click to expand...
Your response to VAT is regressive WRT income seems to be "It isn't with respect to consumption".

But it is with respect to income. And you said it wasn't. Give it up.

Anyway I am off down Angel tube with a pick-axe and a shovel.
 
LondonJohn said:
:D

Actually, those two maps probably provide a very good proof that a large proportion of the population are entrenched voters. Between 1910 and 1970, most of the working men in those areas would have been miners, and most would have voted Labour religiously. Their wives would very likely have voted Labour too. Their children would have grown up learning that Labour were the best party for their family, and most of their friends would have had Labour-voting parents too.

And those sorts of ingrained voting preferences can last way beyond the closure of the mines - as these maps seem to illustrate very well. There are still legions of people in those areas voting Labour because their parents and grandparents were staunch Labour supporters, and because voting Labour is still seen as "the right thing to do" in those areas.
Click to expand...

I was born in one of those areas (the Valleys, South Wales) and you are dead right in your analysis. I have relatives, by marriage who come from the NE coal fields and the same applies there. Labour in the 20, 30s and 40s - even into the 650s were much more left wing of course and were essentially Marxist.

Marxism seems to be a dirty word these days, but one wonders what Labour actually stands for other than a flaccid sort of 'fairness' - without a strong ideology in its foundations.
 
LondonJohn said:
Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all.

The only reason why VAT might be (erroneously) viewed as regressive (in relation to unadjusted income) is because very poor people tend to spend more than they earn, by borrowing money. That's nothing to do with VAT itself. If you want to have a discussion about why poorer people borrow to finance expenditure (and the problems that creates), that's fine, but it's not within the scope of a VAT discussion.
Click to expand...
Stop being silly and come back to the real world where the poor spend all their income and mord if they can borrow it. That is how the world is. Therefore VAT rises hit them harder.

Your fantasy world where everyone only spends their income and no one saves dies not exist..

I'm hoping you're also aware that at a consumption level (and at an expenditure level), there is no doubt whatsoever that VAT is a progressive tax.
Click to expand...
I am hoping you are aware that considering consumption and expenditure levels in isolation is pointless.
 
LondonJohn said:
:D

Actually, those two maps probably provide a very good proof that a large proportion of the population are entrenched voters. Between 1910 and 1970, most of the working men in those areas would have been miners, and most would have voted Labour religiously. Their wives would very likely have voted Labour too. Their children would have grown up learning that Labour were the best party for their family, and most of their friends would have had Labour-voting parents too.

And those sorts of ingrained voting preferences can last way beyond the closure of the mines - as these maps seem to illustrate very well. There are still legions of people in those areas voting Labour because their parents and grandparents were staunch Labour supporters, and because voting Labour is still seen as "the right thing to do" in those areas.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason to assume people in those areas are mindlessly voting Labour purely because their parents and grandparents did, rather than because their experiences (in what are generally still quite deprived areas) lead them to vote Labour as the party which they believe best represents their interests?

Using the same logic we would have to assume that wealthier areas consistently vote Tory rather than Labour because their parents and grandparents did, not because they believe the Tories best represent their interests.
 
Craig B said:
That result doesn't mean that it originated as a rising of the people, although a case can be made that it did. The population of Scotland, except Catholics and the city of Aberdeen, rebelled against an assertion of episcopacy and the imposition of a Prayer Book on the Church of Scotland by Charles I.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about how it originated? I said what it was.
 
Lothian said:
Perhaps as part of the £12m welfare savings the the Tories could give the rights to mine the prospective London coal seams to the unemployed in lieu of state benifits.

I would love to hear a Tory advocating 'Coal not Dole'
Click to expand...

x1,000 ;) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom