Do you want to discuss boring politics? (92 Viewers)

Nick

Administrator
Which is why I'm disputing "average" family here. Very comfortable, family with no mortgage, family who eat very little, but "average"? No way.

Using your example of average being 30k, 2 x parents and the price I posted it's doable. There's also a high chance of a bursary on that wage too for further saving.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Yeah it's pretty much one of the wages gone for a single kid.

It also depends on how "average" is defined, how much is their mortgage, do they have car payments etc?
Average mortgage payment in the UK is about £680 a month (£8160 a year), average rent is about £980 a month (£11760 a year).
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Just looked, King Henrys for example is £15,900 per year. (without bursaries)

For one kid, it's do able for an example household income of £60k.

Obviously when you start talking about Eton and things like that it's silly money.
So, I presume your £60K example is net pay? If so, then the gross would be getting on for £90K pa. Hardly average.

Maybe it could be done, but you're making a lot of assumptions on average family outgoings.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Yeah it's pretty much one of the wages gone for a single kid.

It also depends on how "average" is defined, how much is their mortgage, do they have car payments etc?
Well a mortgage would be a start,no,my grandson passed, went to that one maddison went not a choice for my daughter and partner probably cos they have another one to cater for
.
 

Nick

Administrator
Average mortgage payment in the UK is about £680 a month (£8160 a year), average rent is about £980 a month (£11760 a year).

Using the 60k example, guessing it's take home of about £3.8k a month.

Mortgage is £680, School about £1325. Leaves about £1.8k for other bills / living.

With a bursary then the school cost would go down. A lower than average mortgage then again it goes down.

Like I said, not everybody who chooses it is "rich" or "from money". There are a lot of normal people who just graft and go without themselves.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Ah, so you're not big on democracy then. I'd say if you're old enough to die for your country, or work and pay tax to it, you're old enough to vote.

As for FPTP, I'd like to live in a country where every vote counts.

Just because your opinion is rigid, doesn't mean it's correct, of course. Similarly, being over-18, or even much, much, older, does not necessarily make one wise.
16 year olds can’t be sent to a “front line”, so aren’t old enough to die for their country.
13 year olds can work, and if they earn enough pay tax on it, Should they be able to vote?
Your rationale is rubbish,
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
1997-2010

Cant forget Labour crashing the economy and trying to blame everyone else for their failure, by not putting in controls on the economy.

And then the huge gaping whole in the UK finances that was formed by the complete failure to actually do anything about it.

The violent deaths of over 150,000 civilians in and around Iraq.

How can you possibly support this sack of shit, Shmmeee?

One could argue your faith in Labour is extreme as any religious fundamentalist.
 
Last edited:

duffer

Well-Known Member
A quick google search can answer this for you. You do know the UK was bailed out by the IMF in 1976 because we were on the verge of defaulting on our debts?

Let’s say we print more money, ok… that’ll lead to inflation, the BoE will then have to raise interest rates. From the ‘mini budget’, we found that a lot of mortgage payers can’t afford interest to go much higher than 7%. The BoE had to secure pensions by buying up government bonds to avoid that collapsing. To use the 70s as an example, inflation reached 25% and interest rates up to 17%. This would be Armageddon for the economy if we had a situation

Or, we increase taxes exponentially and watch all the highest taxpayers leave the country. Millionaires are already abandoning this country and that’s set to only get worse under a Labour government.

Just on the higher taxation thing, this is the usual Laffer curve argument, oft-used to justify gross inequality of income and wealth and argue against redistributive taxation.

Like most gross over-simplifications, it's basically false to claim that higher taxes will inevitably either lead to lower tax revenue or any significant flight of capital.

It's far, far more nuanced than that, but it doesn't stop the right wing myth peddling of course.

 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Cant forget Labour crashing the economy and trying to blame everyone else for their failure, by not putting in controls on the economy.

And then the huge gaping whole in the UK finances that was formed by the complete failure to actually do anything about it.

The violent deaths of over 150,000 civilians in and around Iraq.

How can you possibly support this sack of shit, Shmmeee?

One could argue your faith in Labour is as strong as any extreme fundamentalist.
They didn't crash the economy.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
16 year olds can’t be sent to a “front line”, so aren’t old enough to die for their country.
13 year olds can work, and if they earn enough pay tax on it, Should they be able to vote?
Your rationale is rubbish,

You sign at 16, you're in until you're 22, and "frontline" at first or not, you're committing to risk your life for your country at a point in the near future. Seems like we're happy to trust them to do that.

As for the 13 year old thing, no one is asking for them to get the vote, the amount of them earning enough to pay tax is miniscule, and of course under-16s are still in full time education.

What's your rationale for not giving them the vote? Are you scared they might vote the wrong way, or is it that some of them might have spots? Talk about rubbish...
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
There is a pattern throughout Labour's reign of terror.

Things fuck up --> no back up plan.

Or

Things fuck up --> lets abuse people's Rights more.

Both is applicable.
 

CCfC2023

Active Member
Just looked, King Henrys for example is £15,900 per year. (without bursaries)

For one kid, it's do able for an example household income of £60k.

Obviously when you start talking about Eton and things like that it's silly money.
The fees maybe £15.900 a year but that doesn't include uniform both summer and winter and sports kits and you are expected to take part in after school clubs and school trips and days out all come at a very high cost and payments for school dinner .
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Due to perceived regulatory failure of the banks during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the UK government decided to restructure financial regulation and abolish the FSA.

----

And there we have it in one sentence.

And if you click on the Financial Crisis link there in your post it takes you to a page with many thousands of words on the causes of the financial crash and there is not one mention of Labour!
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oh, yes, they did.
Snow White Christmas GIF by Selladoor


Bit early for Panto season, but what the hell... 😁
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Ah, so you're not big on democracy then. I'd say if you're old enough to die for your country, or work and pay tax to it, you're old enough to vote.

As for FPTP, I'd like to live in a country where every vote counts.

Just because your opinion is rigid, doesn't mean it's correct, of course. Similarly, being over-18, or even much, much, older, does not necessarily make one wise.

how many
Just on the higher taxation thing, this is the usual Laffer curve argument, oft-used to justify gross inequality of income and wealth and argue against redistributive taxation.

Like most gross over-simplifications, it's basically false to claim that higher taxes will inevitably either lead to lower tax revenue or any significant flight of capital.

It's far, far more nuanced than that, but it doesn't stop the right wing myth peddling of course.


I never mentioned the Laffer curve. Interestingly, when Osborne reduced corporation tax as chancellor, tax revenues went up, not down.

The data on high taxation is well established and our tax burden is the highest it’s been since WW2 and rising still. Meanwhile wages are stagnant and growth stagnating. This isn’t good for those on the left that would like to spend more on public services.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Looking at most platforms online, those who slag Starmer off the most tend to be to the left. They attack him more than the Tories do. Not the most exciting of politicians, but I don't want exciting. I don't want a narcassist like Johnson or a near billionaire like Sunak, I want someone sensible, yes, someone boring. Someone who'll govern without thinking of their own mates and their own pockets.

I think someone like Starmer is just what this country needs after 14 years of fuckwittery from the Tories.
A lot of those lefties probably feel let down by the fact they put their faith in Starmer around the Labour leadership and since being elected he’s basically told them to fuck off.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
US lenders caused the 2008 global crash.
Then the current PM made sure it effected the UK by lobbying for the RBS to takeover a distressed bank which bought down RBS. Still, he earned a few million out of it so every cloud…

The hard truth is Sunak did more to crash the UK economy than Labour did in 2008.

The criticism that should be levelled at Labour is what they did next but people are too distracted by the shiny shiny myth that Labour crashed the economy.
 

SomersetSB

Well-Known Member
No, but he'd have had a decent chance of winning the election overall given the shitshow of the Tories.

Put it another way, do you think Starmer would be winning if he was facing Boris in 2019?
Maybe yes, Corbyn is to left wing for middle England and the so called red wall, blue Labour
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
Then the current PM made sure it effected the UK by lobbying for the RBS to takeover a distressed bank which bought down RBS. Still, he earned a few million out of it so every cloud…

The hard truth is Sunak did more to crash the UK economy than Labour did in 2008.

The criticism that should be levelled at Labour is what they did next but people are too distracted by the shiny shiny myth that Labour crashed the economy.

If I can just come in here and just clear a few things up.

The cause of the global crash is not the concern here. Well, unless you had money in there, or had to bail out those who did.

Some would say more importantly, It's all about who had control of the UK economy and who did fuck all about it!

To give an analogy, it is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
 
Last edited:

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Average salary is 30k = 2k per month take home.

Average private school cost is apparently 21k = 1750 per month.

Off two average salaries that would take some doing for one kid and impossible for two. If anyone is doing that then fair fucks that really is making some huge sacrifices for your kids!
GOw48bEWQAA10kV.jpeg
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
You sign at 16, you're in until you're 22, and "frontline" at first or not, you're committing to risk your life for your country at a point in the near future. Seems like we're happy to trust them to do that.

As for the 13 year old thing, no one is asking for them to get the vote, the amount of them earning enough to pay tax is miniscule, and of course under-16s are still in full time education.

What's your rationale for not giving them the vote? Are you scared they might vote the wrong way, or is it that some of them might have spots? Talk about rubbish...

Think we’ve done 16 year old voting to death but the main point is you cant even enrole in the army foundation college without parental consent if you’re under 18. you can’t fight until you’re over 18.

Let’s be honest if 18 year olds were poling 50%+ in favour of Reform everyone would (understandably) be steering well clear of this. As with all things be careful what you wish for as the young uns have been supporting some of the potentially unsavoury populist parties in Europe

 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Might be doable for you, but I certainly couldn't afford £21K or £36K a year out of our family budget. I doubt many "average" families could. Great, if you can afford it as we all want the best possible start in life for our kids, but to say that's attainable for the average family, even if they are making sacrifices, is laughable. Seems our view on average is different.
And that's if you only have one child!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top