Thursday, 4 February 2016

YOU HAVE TO HAND IT TO HIM...

This programme seems reasonable.


Looking at his proposals individually...

Why would you call a wage you can't live on a "living wage"? And why should the taxpayer subsidise employers who refuse to pay enough to live on? Corporate welfare, while they tear welfare away from the sick and the poor.

Why do big companies get away with not paying tax? So that government ministers can secure lucrative directorships after they get their seat in the Lords? If not ...why else?

Austerity takes money out of the system. Usually money that would have been spent, not stashed away in a Jersey bank account or a British Virgin Islands trust fund. It doesn't work. In any case it's only austerity for some. I don't see Charlie Windsor Saxe Coberg on the bus! His income has gone up, as has his mother's. 

Investing in infrastructure has many advantages. Firstly you are improving the infrastructure... (and heaven knows, it needs it). You're building new bridges, better roads, faster communications, 21st century railways (fuelled by electricity, not diesel), less congestion, better internet speeds... 

And then it provides jobs. These things don't just happen. People have to design them, build them, conveyance the contracts, sell the workers tea and bacon rolls... These people earn money; mostly they spend that money and create other jobs which in turn...well you know. And all the material has to come from somewhere, be shipped and transported. That's all work.

It's a joke that some parts of the UK the average wage does not cover the cost of renting a modest home. Why are we paying out benefits to landlords for excessive rents, sometimes from slum properties? More corporate welfare. But then, ask yourself how many MPs and Lords are landlords.

I'm not advocating taxing people who are making a modest but decent salary. Most of them, in Britain, have student debt and mortgage debt not to mention credit card debt already and struggle. 

But when people earn really high salaries I see no reason why, on that part of their salary that is over around 6 times the national wage, they should not pay 50% of it in tax. That won't make them poor. Their kids won't go without. In any case many will just give themselves another pay rise.

Some organisations can be run by private companies, but essentials should be owned by the people. Utter necessities must be under the control of the elected government, even if private companies have minority shares in them. 

Water, Electricity, Gas for starters. Then let's look at the Post Office, telecommunications, the railways. And there should be no private ownership of the health service or for the services of the Department of Work and Pensions. It's madness.

We're not endorsing the Labour Party here. At least we would NEVER endorse the the bunch of numpties they have in Scotland. But Corbyn's people have some good ideas for the 90% to take back the country from the 10%.

28 comments:

  1. Getting to sound like a programme for an Independent Scotland, throw in a "Citizens Salary" as well.
    The only problem I see is the mass of have nots south of the border coming north to a civilised country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm really interested by the notion of a "citizens' salary, QD. I know they are looking into it in Finland and in the Netherlands. But I imagine that it will be a very long time before the UK ever considers it.

      Scotland might though.

      As you say, inward immigration for a CS would undoubtedly bring on a wave of inward migration. It will be interesting to see how the Finns deal with that.

      Delete
    2. They are doing it in Canada as far as I remember, if not they certainly are talking about it. Now Mr McDonnell may be having good ideas, but seems his for Scotland are more of the same as we had before with Slab.

      Delete
    3. Oh yes, you're right there. I've no time for new Old Labour's views with regard to Scotland.

      I note that they abstained last night. How can you abstain on something as fundamentally important as the funding on Scotland and hope to be taken seriously as a party.

      What are they saying...

      We don't know?
      We don't care?

      It's easier to go to the bar and get legless and not bother?

      Whatever it is, it really is better to have a view.

      Delete
    4. I seem to recall reading the other day that Switzerland were either doing the "citizen's salary" thingy or are about to start it.

      The good thing about the "citizen's salary" is that EVERYONE living in the country over a certain age receives it, immaterial of other income. The most important thing though is there none of this living on benefits for life s***e.

      The other thing I believe this is good for is that it puts money back into the economy something Broon/Dalrling/Osborne clearly have no idea about with their Quatititative Easing s***e. Thier Q.E. only ensured bonkers bankers continued to receive their mega huge bonuses of which very little was returned to the economy. Hey why should we worry about a little thing like that though the "Big three" don't care about money returning to the economy so long as they get to plonk their fat earses on a bank's leather board room chairs ... right?

      Delete
    5. I was trying to think of the other European country that was considering this, and you're bang on it was Switzerland. Well done. Take the order of Munguin's Lunchtime (Third Class).

      So we have Finland, Netherlands, Canada and Switzerland. Four pretty sensible, well run countries. What's the betting, if it catches on, the UK will be one of the last to do it.

      Delete
    6. You have no idea how having the order of Munguin's Lunchtime (Third Class) makes me feel sir.

      I feel like I want to go shout it from the roof tops. There again maybe not our roof has a slope on it and I might fall off. LOL

      Delete
    7. LOL! In that case you should stand on the ground and shout it proudly.

      Delete
    8. Think you may have sound *ahem* sound advice there Tris. So if you'll excuse me I have some *cough* shouting to do ... from the ground! LOL

      Delete
    9. Make sure that Fluffy Muddle hears it Arbroath. He'll be well jealous!

      Delete
    10. Not only will the Viceroy of Scotland be able to hear me but so will the JUNIOR Viceroy of Scotland! LOL

      Delete
  2. All good stuff but will England's Daily Mail readers vote for it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a word, "NO".

      That's Corbyn's problem.

      He'll never sell that to the pursed lip brigade. The trouble is his Scottish branch, where it might go down well, don't seem to be much for it.

      And looking at the best that the Record could find from their vox pop yesterday (see Wings), no one seems to think that they will get the chance to put any of their ideas into operation.

      Lesson there. Whatever you do, don't stand on the same platform as the Tories in Scotland. Look what it did to the Liberals...then Labour. Ruth may think that it's all a lifetime away, but the memory of Thatcher lives on here in the children and grandchildren of the people whose lives were laid waste by her, and of course, Cameron is doing stuff she wouldn't have dared to do.

      Delete
  3. Labour have been churning out that kind list for decades, Lists, promises, vows even, we have heard all this before. Delivering, however is a different story.

    Labour have talked the talk far to often, could the people of Scotland ever dare risk putting these people in power again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I realise that it's only a wishlist, but at least it's a good wish list.

      No. I doubt Scotland will let them anywhere near the levers of power.

      Besides which, that's what a small part of London Labour stands for.

      The rest of London Labour stands for ATOS, Trident, Privatisation, War, Saudi Arms deals, and anything else the Tories dream up.

      Delete
  4. A good list, but then, they have promised so much and delivered so little; since just after WW2.
    They can keep promising the moon, as could SLab. For they both have no chance of being elected, anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. The only socialist government we ever had was just after the war. They brought in so much.

      But in the recent past they've just become Tories, delivering precious little for us, but plenty for the 10%.

      I don't want them elected here, but if they could get them,selves together, ditch the Tory element and become a Labour party I'd prefer them to the Tories.

      Mind you, I'd prefer Papa Doc Duvalier and the Tonton Macoute to the Tories.

      Delete
    2. "Mind you, I'd prefer Papa Doc Duvalier and the Tonton Macoute to the Tories."

      As Macart is wont to say, ooft.

      Delete
  5. I don't like the term "socialist". Nor "left / right wing". Let's get a new type of politics called "Common sense".

    For starters - invest in a wide range of economies. Infrastructure on its own is only good for the short term - you need to be able to sell manufactured goods, provide good service industries and yes, a financial sector, which like it or not, is needed.

    More than anything, public services need to be stopped being treated as a market economy. Yes, you need to monitor efficiency and productivity, but you don't need a management consultant to tell you how to do that. Try asking the workers first, they sometimes come up with better suggestions and without a five figure fee to pay either.

    Labour won't win the next GE. Not with Corbyn at the helm.


    zog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course what may seem to be common sense to one, may not to another p[erson. Left and right wing tend to indicate the kind of policies...

      I agree I don't like 'socialist', becasue it means different things to different people.

      I've always wondered why it was they thought that privately run public services would be better run than publicly run ones. It's the same folk that run them!

      I imagine that you're right about Corbyn. My London Labour mate says he has no chance. And of course his own party will do everything to stop him winning.

      He only has the fact that the Tories are tearing themselves apart over the EU to console himself with.

      And the more they assure themselves of success in the future, the more morally repulsive they become. Not many people would publicly advocate cutting money to cancer patients.

      Delete
  6. Living just outside Toronto i have not heard of a "citizens wage"
    There is a movement to try and increase the "minimum wage" to $15.00 per hr.

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting... Thanks for letting us know.

      Could it maybe be something that the central government is thinking about, Doug?

      That's not a generous minimum wage... A little more than the British one, but not a lot.

      Can one live on it, or is there government benefits to help?

      Delete
  7. I don't think the Federal Gov. has looked at this. Remember they have recently been installed. The Ontario gov. are looking at improving the situation as this article explains.

    http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/5940875-making-the-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage-in-ontario/

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Doug, for going to the bother of looking that out for us.

      :)

      Delete
  8. Hi Tris, have just come across this, you may be interested.

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/cash-for-life-guaranteed-annual-income-gaining-205504354.html?nhp=1

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done Doug. Thanks for passing that on.

      Very interesting.

      Delete