Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
Sid Pollitt
#2
Charlie who? Is a view from the Belgravia skyline or a viewpoint from the clapham omnibus?
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#3
Hard to argue with any of his points there. This government has made a real mess, but then the previous one layed the groundwork and did more to shatter the idea of society. I would like to know Mr Elphicke's opinion of Mrs. T.
I think Mr Elphicke is spot on with all of these points and for what it's worth he seems like a good guy. I would however like to see something in there about taxing the rich more. I am also pleased he has not used his 'Monopoly' analogy anymore!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
DT1 - taxing the rich more just reduces the overall amount of tax revenues raised from the rich. There was the clearest possible demonstration of that when Mrs T reduced the highest rates of tax and increased the amounts of revenue raised from the top 10%.
I totally disagree with your reference to Mrs T, often misquoted out of context.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#5
Not misquoted and not out of context. Mrs T placed emphasis on the individual and not the group, exactly the reason rich people do all they can to avoid paying taxes. 'Sod you jack, I'm alright' was the mantra of the 80's. All the actions of Mrs T's reduction in higher rates of tax prove is extent that the people 'with' will go to not to pay in just because they are greedy!
Charlie Elphicke talks about the inequalities and 'poor' of this country. If you look at other countries with higher rates of tax, you will also see increased levels of social mobilty, higher level of child well being, better education and healthier 'societies'.
Just to use one example, I think the Tories recently went on about how we should reflect the educational approaches of Sweden and Denmark, because they are so good. Higher or lower taxes in these countries?...when will the penny drop?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
DT1 - you do not help the less well off by punishing the successful, or taxing them excessively. I look at the amount of tax I am paying this week, more than I have ever paid before and I begrudge it because too much of it is being wasted and I am not what you would call a particularly big earner (not very far into the 40p bracket). By raising the top rates of tax you just damage revenues, the IFS has shown how the 50p rate will reduce revenue not raise it. That rate was set as a politically motivated move and not to get more money in and is wrong, simply wrong. Its not greed its about incentives, rewards for enterprise and hard work and looking after your own family without expecting handouts from the State. Our whole economy depends on successful people taking risks damage the incentives and rewards for that and you will lose jobs and tax revenue.
Taxation is not the way to improve upwards mobility, far from it.
If we really want to help upward mobility then we must raise expectation in the classrooms. A Grammar school in every town, streaming in the classroom, tougher exams and an end to the all must have prizes culture that infects so much educational established thinking. Back to good old fashion competition in the classroom and outside. Too many people are look to provide excuses and labels for poor behaviour and poor performance, there should be no excuses, all should be held responsible for themselves.
Yes I am very much to the right of DC (and CE) in this!
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#7
Most of our continental neighbours that are quoted by the likes of DC etc as models for this or that have higher general income tax rates than we do, they also have much higher social taxes on employment (paid by employers).
Their education systems are generally regarded much more highly than ours is, partly due to greater funding and partly due to different social attitudes to education, How can they put more funding in? because on the whole they do not fund healthcare out of tax revenues to the same extent as the UK but rely on health insurance to pay the cost of treatment (funded generally by employers as part of the employees benefit package, most employees top this up so they get 100% cover), they also generally have much lower levels of defence spending per capita than we do, as with the exception of the French, they do not believe they are world players...
I agree with Barry that the way out of poverty is education and work, not benefits.
I also agree that we need to look beyond peoples "rights" and start to emphasise responsibilities and duties as the flip side of "rights".
However I disagree with Barry in so far as I believe that taxation should be progressive and based on ability to pay, balanced against the potential disincentive when it passes a certain point. There is a world of difference between a self employed individual/general partner/owner director earning a large income from success and an employee or director of a public company earning a similar income and I do believe there should be a different tax regime for the former to incentivise enterprise.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#8
Yes Ross, I agree that the way out of poverty is education and work, we certainly would not solve anything through benefits. Ironically it has been suggested by a number of sociologists that it is modernised countries that break with civil society towards individualism that creates passive reliance on the state. I find it's funny that the people who don't want to pay their taxes probably have more in common with those dependant on benefits than with those people in Mr Elphikes 3rd and 4th quintiles.
Barry, I'm not saying to tax the successful, just the rich. I would agree with you that huge amounts of taxes are wasted, however 'individuals' will always have differing views on the distribution of spending for the purposes of the collective. Ross just reiterates my point of higher taxes in other countries, providing proof. The IFS may well be able to 'show' a reduction in revenue through highly informed predictions, however I'm sure the people at the IFS are clever enough to 'show' anything they like. As Mark Twain said "There 3 types of liars..."
Expectations should be set in the classroom, unfortunately these must go hand in aspirations set at home. Grammar schools play no part in changing anything significant; compare the overall results of students from a town served by Comprehensives to that of a town served by a two tier system and you find there is no difference. Grammar schools do nothing to benefit children from poorer backgrounds, some that David Cameron is aware of, I personally only see the negative effects such a system has in a town like Dover (although I have no problems with the good job the grammar schools do). If you really want to do something that irons out the inequalities, then get rid of public schools. We cannot change the home a child is brought into, however we could give everyone the same educational start. No jobs for the boys, old clubs and funny handshakes. Allow people to be really responsible for themselves and not rely on privilege, but on their own merits. That will set up some competition not only in the classroom but in the work place too, with the top jobs not just going to ex-public school kids.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
You will not improve education by getting rid of some of the best schools, the private schools. Far better to expand the private sector and provide opportunities for more children to go private, vouchers, tax relief on school fees, making it easier for more private schools to open and so on.
Totally disagree with you about what Grammars achieve - In Dover there are probably too many Grammar places and that causes other problems but it is no coincidence that social mobility has decreased as a result of left wing policies, education policies in particular.
As far as the collective is concerned, we need much less of 'the collective' and need to see that people stand on their own two feet a lot more. One of the core problems in this country is too much 'collective' and we need to shrink the role of the State dramatically and expect it to provide and do a lot less. We will have a much healthier society if we do that. To me that is the core of the argument here and the need to tax a lot less.
Remember people earn their money and it is their money that the State takes off them in excessive taxation. People will, however much they earn, resent the amount of money taken from them in this way. It is also far too complicated and a lot of people pay too much tax and many on and who need benefits do not claim them due to complexity. It is a crazy system, the tax credits are a nightmare.
I really dont see how you can square your circle about taxing the rich and not the successful.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#10
When ever I read posts like the one by DT1 i want to kick the computer .How dare he /she generalize on children educated at Grammar and Public Schools .Two of my children went to the local Grammar schools both have succedded in life by sheer hard work and determination and plenty of encouragement from me and for part of the lives their Father .The youger son went to Dover College and because he worked hard was given an Assisted place something the Labour governmen did away with .He did not get it by right just hard work and ability and the place he obtained at the Grammar school went to another child .My grandchildren also have obtained places in the Grammar schools .
Just to point out my Public school educated son does not use funny hand shakes etc .What a poor perception you have DT1 One brrought on by envy .
Both sons are engineers and fly the flag for Brithish Industury. Travel to Dartford everyday and work abroad Installing the machines they design .
My daughter a high achiever a Director in the NHS Worked for the NHS since she left Education 22 years ago
They are all taxed to the hilt .
DT1 as you know I live in a modest house in River .No Foreign ho.lidays for me .I chose not to work full time after my husband died .I actually did cleaning for a few hours a week .To ensure I could help my children get a good start .
I sit on the bus and watch some of the younger generation of parents .Some completely ingore their children and the parents spend all the time on mobile phones .No communication with their children at all .
These children are deprived of attention all the social engineering in the world will not improve their lot until the parents take responsibility .
On another thread there is an excample of the behaviour residents of Dover have to put up with .Until such time as young people are brought into touch they will become ferral.
All young people where ever they are educated will try to bend the rules .The trick is to know when to reel them in .
listening to Ipods and texting is not the way to teach them .
End of sermon
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#11
I like using the term 'Public Schools' because it shows how far we have moved on. It exposes that we still have a way to go, disparately holding onto tradition, because something is not wrong does not make it right. Public schools set fees at different rates and can therefore do not just offer education but admittance into a financially based networking group. It is no surprise people in prominent positions in this country are generally sourced from one of a handful of schools. Is it that rich people are more intelligent? Intelligence is initially a genetic thing, however in terms of taught intelligences and passing exams etc (the nurture part) rich kids get it better because they can afford more. How on earth does perpetuating this aid social mobility, unless of course you don't?
Self determination, the American dream, the protestant work ethic (call this same idea what you will) are all fairly good at keeping people working but actually fail to tell the truth. The amount of work you put in is not proportion to what you achieve. The best descriptor of what a person will achieve in their life, in this country is what their parents earn/do, they simply follow suit. This isn't a forecast from a group like the IFS, but an observable and well documented fact. By placing a focus on Public schools, things go backwards not forwards.
The Grammar schools in Dover don't have enough children passing the entry test to fill enough places to sustain a Grammar school. A reason why a second selection test is in place to fill their quota, a percentage of the secondary entry year that is going up as the roll falls. You can disagree with what Grammars achieve compared to comprehensives, but once again this isn't speculation but well documented fact. Remember we are only one of 3 or 4 counties that still have this system, I think the rest are the Home Counties...funny that!
Sue, I make no comment, at a personal level, about the people coming out of the Grammar system and actually state no preference (I say there is no benefit, not anything negative), I don't remember writing anywhere that these people are bad, or that Grammar schools should be scrapped. If you learnt to read Sue you would see that I said they are doing a good job (post #8). I also have lots of friends that went to public schools, many of which just confirm my ideas. I have no need to kick things as I'm a grown up Sue, but you just read what you want. Please don't patronise us with your 'reeling in' comments. You should see me on the Bus with my children...I'm amazing... and we live in a terraced house in Tower Hamlets, Trumps. You'll be pleased to know I'm taking them to kearsney abbey this morning.
Social mobility does decrease due to left wing ideas, you are absolute right. It goes without saying that the closer you move towards an egalitarian structure the narrower the scope of mobility there is. I'm all for competition, a society of self determination and people standing on their own two feet but this simply doesn't have much weight when you look at the structure this supposed competition takes place within. I'd agree with most of your ideas Barry if we lived in a country where they could take place, progressive Conservatism is just a contradiction in terms. We all detest this culture of worshipping the likes of the Beckhams, wanting to be a footballer, model or pop star; but why do you think this happens? It happens because this is about the only way of negating the system that keeps people in their place. But then what is wrong with the Beckhams or Jordan and Peter, they're successful and rich and as a result their children deserve a better education than my children. In fact because they have more money, they are probably better, more intelligent people than you or I anyway.
How rich someone is can be a good gauge of their success, but being rich doesn't make you successful and being successful doesn't always make you rich.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#12
I will look out for you DT1.I would not dare to presume you are one of these texting all the time parents .By the way I dont live in the old peoles home near the Abbey just close by .
If I ever have to move across the road I will have to pay and no doubt my children .
I see where you are coming from regarding our Grammar schools .However the children who are accepted are still at a higher intelliegence rate.With the desire and the formal educuation they receive many will go on to higher ranking jobs .
I do read your postings DT1.In fact I have to read a lot in my councillor role .Im not as well educated as my children but they have learnt the ways of life from me .
Enjoy tour day ,at least the Abbey is free and DDC should always respect how wonderful it is .
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#13
Sorry hit the button too soon .Should read your day .By the way if you see me I m dressing down today .No hat
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
DT1 - the difference is that I want to improve the lot of people through better education and thier hard work without imposing any upper limit to their expectations and potential wealth. Improving the lot of the 'masses' cannot be done by holding back the achievers and screwing the wealthy. There is no need to 'narrow the gap' at all to help those worse off - that is just egalatarian claptrap.
By the way, I speak as someone who left school at age 15 and went to Astor (the first year out of Primary when the 11 plus was stopped back in 1966).
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#15
Blimey quite a lot there, its no surprize I go in general with Ross and DT1
We do need a society of people willing to work, somrething we don't have at the moment.
I'm sure we have all seen the same people day in day out never likely or wanting to work, not because they can';t but because its easier not to.
Iv made many postings on this before about the benefits system and how costly it is and how it needs a revamp, and we (any govt) should not be frightened to make those people who can work, to do so.
Thats not t say there are those out there who need a helping hand, that should continue but in a far more structured way, one that gives incentives more for people to work.
On tax's I understand where Barry's coming from, but those doing well financially are not always sadly the best people for the job
Look at some of these top people and some of the earnings, some camn even be with companies losing millions!!!!
We should reward people who do well, but im sure many will agree someone earning over £400,000 a year hadl;y needs to many rewards, but they get greedy and get big pensions, and pay off's should they ;leave.
Wages for all although would be complicated to do, needs addressing,
Some of these wages are obscene, and the gap in big earners/low earners is widening, can that be good for the country?
DT1 IS CORRECT you don't have to be rich to be successful, it depends what individuals views are on sucessful!
I'm, aware of many successful people in life, and enriched with experience , but they are far from rich.
anyway there my starter for 10
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
no wonder our susan has surrendered to her yobbish instincts, threatening to kick a computer.
NO HAT?????
without a hat standards cannot be maintained.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#17
You make me chuckle Howard .Today I have been clearing my gararge and a lot of rubbish had to be taken to the tip .I did not bother to change into a decent set of clothes .After I went to Homebase and yes I met a lot of people I know .They are not used to seeing me dressed down especially some of those DDC Officers .
Well the day started in a yobish fashion kicking my computer.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#18
hadnt noticed Sue lol
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
susan
try to remember the mantra "if you want to get ahead, get a hat".
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#20
or if you want a hat get a head.
