General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

He doesn't understand percentages.

The whole audience, apart from his wife, seemed to gasp when he said he wasn't even in the top 50%. The bloke on the panel and Fiona Bruce just seemed to let that slide for some reason.

The BBC is terrified of offending anyone so we have this perverse obsession with impartiality and balance. Obviously, the BBC should offer each political viewpoint a fair amount of attention, publicity and scrutiny but any attempt at the last of these just elicits meaningless accusations of bias from people who feel that their idols have been tarnished. It's frankly pathetic and just serves to ineffectively pander to people who will just spew bile about the BBC anyway.

If one person says that it's drizzling and the other says that it's raining unicorns then it's the journalists job to look outside and determine the truth, not entertain liars, bull****ters and scammers. Worst thing is how small a tip of the iceberg is when you look at the tabloids here.

liamtech

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Oh dear, I did not watch QT last night as I have lost patience with it but this is extraordinary stuff from a member of the public. In fact, Bruce should have told the man to STFU and get his facts right. BBC release it on their twitter feed without any comment on the accuracy of the member of their audience

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514

I was watching it and i have to say it was rather shocking

Notice too that he never specifically stated he is earning 80,000 - just that he is in that bracket - and he thinks 50% earn that??

Its actually ironic but this guy may have done labour a massive service

If i was labour i would clarify it perfectly - YES - if you earn over 80,000 a year (93,047Euro Per anum) - then yea - we are GOING to tax you on your earnings over that amount

Deluded to take offense and idiotic to bring it up in the way he did

and BTW - the Mirror tracked him down

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-man-who-20935155

Is anyone seriously going to suggest this man has a point?

A Dub in Glasgo

I think it demonstrates the ignorant ranting that people do and also how selfish some people are. Even if this man earns £81k, he is on national TV ranting and pointing about how dare he pays another £1.92 per week to fund better services

A Dub in Glasgo

robinph wrote: »

The whole audience, apart from his wife, seemed to gasp when he said he wasn't even in the top 50%.

According to the Mirror, that was his Mum :pac:

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The BBC is terrified of offending anyone so we have this perverse obsession with impartiality and balance.

heaven forbid :rolleyes:

Impartiality and balance are often variable terms, depending on how impartiality and balance favours your own views. Fiona Bruce is not in a journalist role on Question Time, she is a moderator and should serve to promote the discussion, not take sides.

J Mysterio

Stop Moaning FFS wrote:

Sorry if it’s already been answered but I just read this. How exactly are the conservatives getting away with this?

Unbelievable.

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

heaven forbid :rolleyes:

Impartiality and balance are often variable terms, depending on how impartiality and balance favours your own views. Fiona Bruce is not in a journalist role on Question Time, she is a moderator and should serve to promote the discussion, not take sides.

In all honesty the whole exchange on QT last night reminded me of something and only this MINUTE did i remember exactly what it was;

Padraig Flynn - Late Late Show - discussing how difficult it was to have 3 house, many cars, and only earning 140,000Pounds a year gross

Tried to find it on you tube and the only version is very poor quality - but it came to mind none the less

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORNfD8e_sk

its not an exact parallel but it is related, where by someone who has what i consider a VERY decent income, complains that it is difficult to live on -

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think it demonstrates the ignorant ranting that people do and also how selfish some people are. Even if this man earns £81k, he is on national TV ranting and pointing about how dare he pays another £1.92 per week to fund better services

This is a winner for labour in my book. I can understand why one bank of high earners could feel aggrieved at being singled out, but fact is if you earn 100k a year, you'll be asked to pay roughly 200-300 a year extra. At least 90% of voters will have no sympathy with that. Half of uk workers earn less than 25k. Bet they'd love to be in a position where they could pay more tax.

johnnyskeleton

liamtech wrote: »

Is anyone seriously going to suggest this man has a point?

Being generous, maybe he meant that people earning over £80,000 weren't in the top 5% of wealthy, or even best off, individuals. From the Mirror article, he is quoted as saying:

You are not going after the billionaires, you're going after the employees because it's easy money and I have no choice because its PAYE, I have no choice.

The scenario being that you could have someone earning £80,000, getting £4,500 odd net each month, paying £2,000 rent and having to spend the rest on day to day living in London. This person is one of the top 5% of earners, but isn't necessarily living the best life around, and may only have modest savings.

By contrast, there could be someone with an annual income by income tax of £50,000 but they could have millions in land, shares etc.

To his mind, the mixing of the "we are going after billionaires" and "we will only increase tax on the top 5%" messages makes it seem like the person earning £80,000 is one of the shadowey elites, whereas in reality it is someone who earns a lot but possibly also works hard.

In essence, the top 5% of earners is not the same as the top 5% wealtiest or best off people in the country, and that maybe is his point.

J Mysterio

BBC deleted the video of Patel being Patel (nasty).

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1197452853784252416

Why would they do that? Did the FactCheckUk - sorry I mean the Tory press office - ask them to delete it?

BBC have also said they will not call liars liars. Why is that?

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1197811903894044672

A Dub in Glasgo

That is being very generous considering the Labour policy clearly stated if you earn more than £80k, you are in the top 5% of those paying tax. There is no excuse for the mans ignorance and it just showed him as a selfish ignorant ranter

johnnyskeleton

liamtech wrote: »

its not an exact parallel but it is related, where by someone who has what i consider a VERY decent income, complains that it is difficult to live on -

I suppose the differences are that P Flynn was being paid by the State for what is sometimes perceived (even though its not) to be an easy job.

But maybe this guy earns £80,000 having earned less than £20k p.a. throughout his 20s as a computer programmer, and currently works 60-80 hours a week.

I also don't think he's complaining that it is difficult to live on. He is complaining that he is already amongst the top 5% contributors to the State, paying more to fund services than 95% of people, with no better benefits from those services than anyone else. Why should he and people like him be singed out?

The message from Labour is that they are already keeping the ship afloat, and as a thankyou, Labour are going to ask them to pay even more.

Someone who works hard to get to where they are should, IMO, be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their earnings. As matters stand, the more he earns the more he pays as it is, so why make things even worse for him?

You also have to look at the situation of someone who doesn't earn that much, but someday wants to. If you are about to start into your career, and you can choose an easy job that doesn't pay that well, or a harder job that might pay better as you progress, knowing that once you reach the good spot you will be pilloried by society might make you think its a lot easier just to take the less well paid job and enjoy a better work life balance.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is being very generous considering the Labour policy clearly stated if you earn more than £80k, you are in the top 5% of those paying tax. There is no excuse for the mans ignorance and it just showed him as a selfish ignorant ranter

Maybe, but I think as with much else in British politics at the moment, it's not so much about the tax or figures as it is about more intangible matters. He feels that he is being unfairly targeted and lumped in with the hated elites and billionaires. He doesn't consider himself to be elite and being told that he is so is an unfair characterization, in his eyes.

Being seen as a bit of a Boxer from Animal Farm type character really doesn't help people's sense of connection to the community.

Zubeneschamali

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Someone who works hard to get to where they are should, IMO, be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their earnings.

A perfectly sound, Conservative position, which I expect you will find in the Tory manifesto if they ever get around to publishing one.

Nothing to do with yerman's rant on QT, however, where he claims Labour are lying because he will pay more tax despite not being in the top 5%.

He is just wrong - he will pay more tax because he IS in the top 5%.

johnnyskeleton

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A perfectly sound, Conservative position, which I expect you will find in the Tory manifesto if they ever get around to publishing one.

Nothing to do with yerman's rant on QT, however, where he claims Labour are lying because he will pay more tax despite not being in the top 5%.

He is just wrong - he will pay more tax because he IS in the top 5%.

It does indeed have something to do with his rant, because, one can infer, he is someone who feels culturally inclined towards the Labour party, seeing himself as being a working man, albeit now a well paid one. He hasn't yet come to terms with the sad fact that a certain invisible tipping point, people go from being a good guy to being a bad guy in Labour's eyes.

You haven't responded to the rest of my post, which explains, in some considerable detail, the particular difficulty, which is that Labour's message conflates top 5% of income earners with "top 5%" generally and lumping them in with Billionaries.

Labour under Corbyn have readopted the socialist doctrine of there being an us vs them, and this man clearly feels that Labour othering him, when he considers himself to be an ordinary person rather than an elite, is unfair.

I mean, Labour can grapple with this difficult issue, or they can keep attacking this guy who, up until recently, would probably have voted for them.

But in the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor problem for Labour, and they might get more votes pillorying this guy than they will trying to engage with him.

You also don't seem to have realised the context of my comments, namely that this is not comparable to a politician complaining that it is hard to live on €140k p.a. The complaint isn't that he will find it hard to live on, the complaint is that he is being targetted and lumped in with billionaires.

Zubeneschamali

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Labour under Corbyn have readopted the socialist doctrine of there being an us vs them

Readopting Socialist doctrine is the whole point of Corbynism.

And if the top 5% of earners like this guy faff off and vote Tory, that will not affect the numbers much (since most of the 5% are already there).

If Labour are just going to be another LibDem style Tory lite party, why would the 95% of earners who earn less than this guy vote for them?

A Dub in Glasgo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It does indeed have something to do with his rant, because, one can infer, he is someone who feels culturally inclined towards the Labour party, seeing himself as being a working man, albeit now a well paid one. He hasn't yet come to terms with the sad fact that a certain invisible tipping point, people go from being a good guy to being a bad guy in Labour's eyes.

You haven't responded to the rest of my post, which explains, in some considerable detail, the particular difficulty, which is that Labour's message conflates top 5% of income earners with "top 5%" generally and lumping them in with Billionaries.

Labour under Corbyn have readopted the socialist doctrine of there being an us vs them, and this man clearly feels that Labour othering him, when he considers himself to be an ordinary person rather than an elite, is unfair.

I mean, Labour can grapple with this difficult issue, or they can keep attacking this guy who, up until recently, would probably have voted for them.

But in the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor problem for Labour, and they might get more votes pillorying this guy than they will trying to engage with him.

You also don't seem to have realised the context of my comments, namely that this is not comparable to a politician complaining that it is hard to live on €140k p.a. The complaint isn't that he will find it hard to live on, the complaint is that he is being targetted and lumped in with billionaires.

The guy accused the LP on national TV of lying and thought 50% of folk in the UK earned more than him therefore the LP are lying. He failed to understand what he was talking about, he will have to explain why he done that. The LP guy on QT did attempt to engage with the man but he dismissed out of hand what the LP guy was saying which is when Bruce should hove stepped in and told him he was wrong in what he was saying and moved on

The full time median annual wage in the UK is about £29k

johnnyskeleton

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Readopting Socialist doctrine is the whole point of Corbynism.

And if the top 5% of earners like this guy faff off and vote Tory, that will not affect the numbers much (since most of the 5% are already there).

If Labour are just going to be another LibDem style Tory lite party, why would the 95% of earners who earn less than this guy vote for them?

Perhaps. This certainly would explain why Labour are losing support amongst their voter base. As regards the other 95%, they will look at how their higher earning pals were treated and think that its only a matter of time before they are next. Particularly when Corbyn runs out of billionaires, real or otherwise, to try to tax.

johnnyskeleton

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The guy accused the LP on national TV of lying and thought 50% of folk in the UK earned more than him therefore the LP are lying. He failed to understand what he was talking about, he will have to explain why he done that. The LP guy on QT did attempt to engage with the man but he dismissed out of hand what the LP guy was saying which is when Bruce should hove stepped in and told him he was wrong in what he was saying and moved on

I don't think he said that 50% of people in the UK earned more than £80,000. He said that he is not in the "top 5%" as described by Labour. He said "you are not going after the billionaires, you are going after the employees, because they are easy money" or words to that effect.

As I set out above, the "lie" that he levels against Labour is not that people earning £80,000 are not in the top 5% of earners, but that they are effectively in the same category as billionaires i.e. in the top 5% in society. Labour will say "we are going after the rich" but then increase tax based on income, rather than wealth. Someone earning £80,000 could have £80k worth of debt from their student and early life which they are paying off, so income alone is not a reflection of how well off someone is.

That's his point.

A Dub in Glasgo

SNIP. Please do not just paste tweets here.

A Dub in Glasgo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think he said that 50% of people in the UK earned more than £80,000

Actually he did, have a look at the video (approx 52s in) - 'I am not even in the top 50%'

The median wage in the UK is approx £29k

Bannasidhe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Someone who works hard to get to where they are should, IMO, be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their earnings. As matters stand, the more he earns the more he pays as it is, so why make things even worse for him?

You also have to look at the situation of someone who doesn't earn that much, but someday wants to. If you are about to start into your career, and you can choose an easy job that doesn't pay that well, or a harder job that might pay better as you progress, knowing that once you reach the good spot you will be pilloried by society might make you think its a lot easier just to take the less well paid job and enjoy a better work life balance.


.

Maybe it's me but this would seem to imply that badly paid jobs are 'easy', and the top percentile works 'harder' which is why they get paid more.

If that is what you are saying than I would seriously question the validity of that position.

johnnyskeleton

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Actually he did, have a look at the video (approx 52s in) - 'I am not even in the top 50%'

The median wage in the UK is approx £29k

Please read my post again. Top 50% of what? He doesnt say income earners

johnnyskeleton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Maybe it's me but this would seem to imply that badly paid jobs are 'easy', and the top percentile works 'harder' which is why they get paid more.

If that is what you are saying than I would seriously question the validity of that position.

Im not saying theyre easy. Nor am I saying that the top earners are the only people who work hard.

But what I am saying is that typically those on higher incomes are there because they spent more time in college, work longer hours or do a more stressful job.

If working in a bookshop paid the same as being a doctor, its hard to see how you can incentivise people to go through six years of college, hundred hour weeks in residency and the stress of knowing that a patient could die and you get blamed even when you dont make a mistake. Then theres the risk of actually making a mistake and having to live with that.

Sure, not all high paying jobs are like that and Im sure there are many examples of people getting parachuted into a well paying job due to family connections etc.But often high paying jobs that seem easy are only arrived at as a result of a lifetimes hard work.

A Dub in Glasgo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Please read my post again. Top 50% of what? He doesnt say income earners

You must be watching a different show. He is clearly talking about earners. At one stage he even claims 'I am not in the top 5% of earners' and then states 'I am not even in the top 50%'

Not sure why you want to excuse the man's ignorance

Bannasidhe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Im not saying theyre easy. Nor am I saying that the top earners are the only people who work hard.

But what I am saying is that typically those on higher incomes are there because they spent more time in college, work longer hours or do a more stressful job.

If working in a bookshop paid the same as being a doctor, its hard to see how you can incentivise people to go through six years of college, hundred hour weeks in residency and the stress of knowing that a patient could die and you get blamed even when you dont make a mistake. Then theres the risk of actually making a mistake and having to live with that.

Sure, not all high paying jobs are like that and Im sure there are many examples of people getting parachuted into a well paying job due to family connections etc.But often high paying jobs that seem easy are only arrived at as a result of a lifetimes hard work.

Bookshop worker or doctor are two extremes.
How about we go with Nurse (https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Nhs/salaries?job_category=mednurse) and hedge fund manager (https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/london-fund-manager-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM1035_KO7,19.htm) as a comparison?
Just as extreme but in the other direction.

It would appear the in the UK working hard and attending university are not the keys to success, in fact it seems the key to success is coming from wealth.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/24/privately-educated-elite-continues-to-take-top-jobs-finds-survey

How are ordinary people mean to be incentivised when the deck is stacked in favour of an elite who already have money?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bookshop worker or doctor are two extremes.
How about we go with Nurse (https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Nhs/salaries?job_category=mednurse) and hedge fund manager (https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/london-fund-manager-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM1035_KO7,19.htm) as a comparison?
Just as extreme but in the other direction.

It would appear the in the UK working hard and attending university are not the keys to success, in fact it seems the key to success is coming from wealth.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/24/privately-educated-elite-continues-to-take-top-jobs-finds-survey

How are ordinary people mean to be incentivised when the deck is stacked in favour of an elite who already have money?

So the answer is obviously to penalise the high earners to disincentive people going o college and getting a well paid job?

Joe_ Public

A worker earning £85k is going to be asked to pay an extra £5 per week in income tax. Maybe i am completely out of the loop these days but i cant fathom how that would disincentive any student in college against seeking a high paid job. I'm baffled really.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A worker earning £85k is going to be asked to pay an extra £5 per week in income tax. Maybe i am completely out of the loop these days but i cant fathom how that would disincentive any student in college against seeking a high paid job. I'm baffled really.

That's £260 or 0.3% of their wages. Outrageous.

A Dub in Glasgo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A worker earning £85k is going to be asked to pay an extra £5 per week in income tax. Maybe i am completely out of the loop these days but i cant fathom how that would disincentive any student in college against seeking a high paid job. I'm baffled really.

Especially when Labour have also committed to end the Graduate tax for new students (the Graduate tax was brought in by the Tories with the support of the Lib Dems)

johnnyskeleton

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A worker earning £85k is going to be asked to pay an extra £5 per week in income tax. Maybe i am completely out of the loop these days but i cant fathom how that would disincentive any student in college against seeking a high paid job. I'm baffled really.

Well I explained it above, but I can gladly explain it again.

You know the way people voted for Brexit not based on facts but on feelings? Well, thats an example of how emotional intangible issues are more important than fact based tangible issues for a large number of people.

If youre a socialist, you divide the world into good people i.e. you and me, and bad people i.e. evil elites who are out to fleece me. This is the narrative.

Growing up as a labour supporter, believing in merit and hard work and equal rights and all these things, some people can suddenly find themselves to have passed the invisible line where they are no longer people like me, they are the other.

This guy hasnt objected to the tax increases, which are as you say modest. He objects to being othered; he is used to being told by Labour that he is being oppressed, only now to realise that Labour see him as one of the oppressors.

Thats the problem