Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Owen Jones meets Nick Clegg | 'I warned David Cameron over failing Brexit strategy'" video.

  1. Scotland has much higher spending per head than in England. If they had the same budget per individual as south of the border, they would not be able to afford free higher education for all without making spending cuts to other services.  And yes, if England made higher education a bigger priority it would be affordable (depending on how bigger priority you made it). But again, that would either mean lower spending in other areas (which would have an adverse effect on those services targeted). Or higher taxation (which nobody likes).  
    4
  2. What exactly is so bad about being a tax haven?
    3
  3. scotty686 Awesome comment. And I should know.
    3
  4. Holy Shit! However will we survive outside our EU safe space?
    3
  5. All politicians can say what they like when they're not in power. Its when they have to make difficult choices and prioritize resources that the job gets difficult. That's because, on the whole, people want more and better services, but don't like having to pay for it. Tuition fee's were a good example of this. Ever more people wanted access to higher education. But they wanted someone else to pay for it.
    3
  6. UK spending on higher education was a lot less in the past. Because a lot less people went into higher education. So it was affordable. It was the Blair government who wanted 50% of school leavers to go into higher education. And again, it was a lot easier to promise this when in opposition. When in government, however, things are often very different. The money has to be found from somewhere. And whether or not you consider 50% of school leavers going into higher education a priority, really depends on your circumstances and point of view.  The present system of student loans is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable. Those who financially benefit from their expensive higher education are required to gradually pay back the cost of that education. While those who do not financially benefit, pay back nothing.
    3
  7. DeadFish37 The trouble is, having 50% of school leavers going into higher education can lead to, not wage inflation, but grade requirement inflation. In other words, employers who did not originally require their potential employees to have had a higher education, now do so. If you get my point. As for the loan system requiring more money to administer than it brings in, that very well may be the case. But then that would rather underline the argument that higher education does not necessarily lead to higher wages. In which case, what are we spending all this cash on higher education for?  
    3
  8. JDrakeify Tax havens tend to attract the wealthy who wish to avoid paying higher tax elsewhere. Higher taxation on the wealthy often brings in less money because of this. But if the UK can attract Europe's rich, and it can be proved to bring in more tax revenue because of this, then I'm all for it.
    2
  9. As for equality. I really couldn't care. Poverty is the real problem. I can live with the difference between £40,000 a year and £4.5 million.
    2
  10. JDrakeify Germany is able to have strong labour laws because it operates within a protectionist economy. The EU. Europe could not compete with the Chinese or other Asian countries in an open market. So it puts up trade barriers. Which the EU is threatening to do to the UK. So, in that instance, it would be beneficial to the UK to undercut EU corporation tax and regulation. Remember, the UK originally joined the common market. When there was no talk of a European parliament, single currency, open borders, European law, or ever closer union. These are all things that have come about, not thro economic reasons, but because of political reasons. The UK still wants to be part of that single market (as the polls show). The market it originally joined back in the 70's. It just doesn't want the political union. The proof that the EU is a political project, rather than an economic one, is that in order to punish the UK for leaving (and dissuade others from doing so), it is prepared to eject the UK from its single market. Something that will undoubtedly harm the EU economy itself. So, in this instance where the EU is prepared to harm us and itself simply for political reasons, we are within our rights to act solely within our own interests. In other words, you cannot preach international economic solidarity while you use economics as a political weapon.   And nobody said capitalism was supposed to be fair. But it is. It's far fairer than, for instance, the socialist economic model. Where power is in the hands of a political elite, rather than in the hands of the individual. Remember, large multinational corporations are simply successful small businesses. And in a free society people are free to buy their products or not. Just as people are free to work for them or not. Large multinational companies don't just spring out of nowhere. They are the result of decades or more of planning, investment, innovation, and risk taking. Most have outside investors. Shareholders, lenders, banks, and pension funds. All expecting their cut of the profits. Profits aren't simply hoarded away in a giant safe at the top of their corporate HQ. They have the future to be concerned about. Because if they get it wrong, its not just the top man that loses his job.  I know you already know this. But your argument seems to be ''now that you're a success, you're public property. And we get to decide how much of your own profit you can keep!" But in a free society, taxation cannot be about redistribution. After all, taxation is not redistribution. Taxation is about paying for the services that a first world society demands and needs. You can argue for redistribution. And say that you will use the tax system to do it. But that is not something that can be imposed on a free society without first getting its consent.       
    2
  11. In 20 years time the UK will be just like any other sovereign democracy. And people will have realised that the UK is just as capable of running itself as all the others. Who knows what the EU will be. But it sure as hell won't be the EU of today.  
    2
  12. Connor Ovington  You said ''...you have no idea on the strain when we're kicking out foregins left, right and center'' Then I asked you how many foreign doctors were being kicked out. You now say... none. But by the tone of your comment, it seemed very much like the Gestapo were rounding people up in cattle trucks?  As for the 'increase in hate crime', the reality is that the definition of a hate crime is now so wide that all it takes is for someone to believe a hate crime has been committed, for it to be investigated as a hate crime. For example, in a speech, Amber Rudd, the home secretary suggested tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas. The police then investigated the 'incident' as being a suspected hate crime. After the referendum, an anti-hate crime website (no doubt hoping to drum up some custom) polled the specific question ''Have you been a victim of hate crime since the EU referendum?'' It was enough for you to reply 'yes', for that to be reported by the news media as evidence of a rise in hate crime since the referendum. No police report filed. No investigation. No prosecution. Just a statistic. The news media made much of the murder of a Polish man. But where was the evidence that the murder was at all linked to the EU referendum? Channel 4 News led with a story of a heated road rage incident, where a guy shouted 'Fuck off back to where you come from!" That, apparently, was a hate crime. And somehow connected to the EU referendum. Now we know that anti-Semitism has been on the rise. And anti-Islamic hate crime also. But that is in line with the rest of Europe. In fact the area with the largest increase in anti-Islamic hate crime has been London (not long ago the BBC reported hate crime against Muslims had increased threefold within the capitol). And London, as we know, voted to remain within the EU. So, I guess that proves remain voters hate Muslims, yeah?
    2
  13. Oh, and as for the drop in the pound thing, the remain side pretty much prophesized the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse if we voted leave. We still voted leave.    
    2
  14. Then don't have kids until you can afford a bigger house.
    2
  15. Nick Clegg said the UK should have an 'In or Out' referendum. His party even wanted to table a House of Commons motion demanding a public vote on the question. The UK had that vote. And because Clegg's side lost, he is now attempting to make out he wanted nothing to do with a referendum .
    1
  16. +Brad Hinburg. I apologize. I actually meant to say £30,000 a year. The average national wage is around about £28,000. And that is not poverty. Nevertheless, it is not true that a tax haven is a place where progressive taxation is barely levied at all. You simply need to undercut taxation in other similar countries. Scotland's SNP had the same idea in cutting corporation tax in Scotland to attract more investment, for example. If, on the other hand, we are talking about attracting super rich individuals to the UK, then, as the Super rich do not tend to use public services such as the NHS, and the state schooling system etc, but still pay in to them, there would be no overall loss of tax income.  That is putting it extremely crudely, I admit. But there is a reason why high taxation on the wealthy doesn't always bring in as much money as lower taxation. And that is because the super wealthy are the most economically mobile in society. If Brussels were to play dirty over the UK's exit of the EU, then we would be under no obligation not to undercut the EU's taxation policy. If it worked, that is. My point is, that it sounds pretty retarded to simply stick to the redundant political dogma of 'tax the rich until the pips squeak'  if it brings in less cash.
    1
  17. JDrakeify On your last point I completely agree. The law should be applied equally and without favour. Or not at all. And we all know that your average taxpayer would be in no position to negotiate on such a thing. Plea bargaining is all very well, but not if it allows the wrongdoer to benefit from their wrongdoing. The question of tax is one of balance. And despite left wing propaganda, in the UK it is not the case that the 99% subsidise the top 1%. Far from it. If, on an individual case, we were to attract Europe's wealthy by cutting taxation on the top earners, then, depending on that tax cut, the taxman could be bringing in more than before. If it works.
    1
  18. Then you'll have to wait a few more years. The UK is still in the EU, and we're still having to pay them that £350 million.
    1
  19. Try putting in a few of these ➡ . . .
    1
  20. And so do I.
    1
  21. They lost the argument on poverty a long while ago. Now its been replaced by the word 'equality'. Apparently, the fact that their are people must richer than ourselves now equates to first world poverty.
    1
  22. +JDrakeify. Your argument makes no sense. Why would lowering corporation tax mean that you attract 'greedy' companies any more than you would attract non-'greedy' companies? You might just as well say that the less tax a company has to pay, the more it has to pay its employees. And if you want a successful economy, you really have to get away from the childish assumption that making a profit equates to 'greed'. Profit is a good thing. Its what drives innovation and progress.
    1
  23. JDrakeify Companies relocate because they believe it is advantageous for them to do so. Modern history is littered with big names that went extinct and are no longer around. Take a look at the UK car industry. We're talking business here. Not social services. It's not up to you or anyone else to tell a private company what it should or should not do. Well run and successful businesses bring jobs and create wealth. You seem to think they just sit around hoarding wealth for the sake of it! 
    1
  24. JDrakeify That very well may be the case. But it's their money. They earned it. If you start appropriating peoples property and wealth simply because they have more of it than most others, they will go elsewhere. And take their money with them. And yes, governments do set regulations that private companies have to follow. But more regulation and higher corporation tax will often drive business away. And that is the opposite of what we want.   I believe this thread is about the UK undercutting the EU in corporation tax? If so, then I'm all for that.
    1
  25. If, all of a sudden, there are no EU laws governing the UK (as many remainers have claimed). Then it should be a simple, quick, and easy process for the UK to leave the EU. Strangely, this is not what they keep telling us.
    1
  26. Nobody ever promised to spend £350 million on the NHS. Because it all depends who is in power. Imagine that! The UK being able to decide for itself where it spends its own money!
    1
  27. Access to the single market is simply a secondary issue. Yes, the single market is a good thing. But when weighed against the loss of sovereignty and democratic control over those who govern us and make our laws, the majority decided to vote leave. And as Space Ballzz has already pointed out, everybody on the remain side made it quite clear that a vote to leave meant that the UK would lose access to the single market. Space Ballzz's point totally destroys any argument based on any subsequent poll. AS THE UK VOTER WAS MADE VERY AWARE OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THE UK VOTED LEAVE. AND YET THEY STILL VOTED IN FAVOUR OF LEAVING.  
    1
  28. Connor Ovington I'm sure you consider support for the EU a good way to signal your superior virtue to everybody else. However, rather than making some cheap, vacuous, and ultimately pointless statement about world peace, harmony, and helping all mankind, I would much prefer to have a government that is democratically accountable to the people it governs. Besides which, Theresa May is indeed elected. Just as every other member of the House of Commons is elected.
    1
  29. The EU didn't invest £2.1 billion into direct farming subsides last year. We did. And it cost us twice as much. As for the single market, the UK's biggest single trading partner is the US. And we have no trade deal with them. Thanks to the self interest of other EU countries. So, if the UK can have survived all these years without a trade deal with our biggest trading partner, I'm pretty sure we can get along ok without one with the EU. The US is the UK's biggest single market. Despite the fact that the UK is a member of the EU's single market. And despite the fact that the US pays nothing. Zero. Nought. Into EU coffers to be so.  
    1
  30. As for dangerous foreign nationals coming into the UK. I see no reason why UK citizens should be put at risk. Or why they should be forced to spend huge amounts of cash keeping tabs on these guys. If they fear torture in their country of origin, the fact that they may have to go back there might just work as a deterrence to them planting bombs about the place. If not. Then tough shit.  
    1
  31. Zak H No, nobody promised to spend £350 million on the NHS. The leave campaign was made up of people from all parties and none. You seem not to be aware that it was a referendum. Not an election. In other words, THERE WAS NO MANIFESTO. Where any money saved from having to pay huge amounts of cash to Brussels every year went depends on who is in government. The point was, that being outside the EU means we can decide where to spend our own tax money.  Edgy concept, I know. But plenty of other countries do this. ''As for dangerous foreign nationals, that is yet another assumption. Of course there are threats but the current immigration crisis is largely fueled the refugee crisis. It is not just torture they fear, but death itself. I'd say a bit of human compassion is required in these situations instead of a 'tough shit' attitude'' We are talking of individuals who are a threat to the country. NOT refugees as a whole. If people were confident that the government could expel those who are plotting terrorist attacks, or who support terrorism, or who commit crimes while they are here, then it would go a long way in helping the cause of refugees. At present, once you step foot on UK soil, you are here for good, no matter what you do.  So yeah. If you come here and wish to support jihadism against us. Or commit any other crime (and I don't just mean shoplifting). Then tough shit if you get sent back! 
    1
  32. I see no reason why anyone should pay a fee to trade. The UK is an important market for the EU. It sells us more than we sell it. But if it insists on paying us for that privilege, who am I to argue?
    1
  33. ''Well I'm no jihadist supporter but sending terrorists back is unjust. A terrorist plotting an attack on the UK deserves UK punishment.'' Most certainly. And after a lengthy prison term, or even before if there is not enough evidence, they can fuck off out of it. ''...Sentencing is partly designed to deter. Deportation is unlikely to do so. What stops them from attempting it again elsewhere?'' Deportation will prevent them from carrying out crimes in the UK. The UK cannot be held responsible for other countries and their justice system. Neither should we be put at risk because of this. 
    1
  34. That is simply an argument never to deport anyone. Not an argument against deporting those who fear torture in their original country. If the reason they fear to return home is because of torture, then your argument that they escape justice holds no water.   Either way, we'd be better off without them.
    1
  35. ***** But remaining wasn't the safest option. The EU is going in only one direction. Ever Closer Union. The referendum was the last stop. All the promises of reform from within were meaningless. People have been saying that for the past 30 years. Cameron practically begged for some kind of concession. For anything he could take back home. But he was snubbed. The arrogance of the Brussels elite was all too obvious. While the EU was pissing about with Greece, the UK was heading for the exit. And what would have happened if the UK had voted to remain? The EU would have seen that as a green light for ever more centralisation. Those who advocated reform from within would have been completely ignored. Just as they always have been.  
    1
  36. Zak H If they don't specifically fear torture, then you needn't worry for their safety when they return home. If they do, then, once again, tough shit to them. I can live with that.
    1
  37. I see economic figures being revised up. Not down.
    1
  38. Jason Blacklock Tldr. Just saw a few references to 'Hitler' 'Eton' 'Thatcher' and 'Yorkshire mines'. Then moved on to Space Ballzz.
    1
  39. Luckily, we don't live in a socialist utopia full of gulag concentration camps, mass starvation, pogroms, arbitrary execution, Pravda, or any of those other things Jason Blacklock wanks off at night thinking about.
    1
  40. Connor Ovington And just how many EU doctors have been deported back to Europe?
    1
  41. I don't watch Fox News. I have never watched Fox news.
    1
  42. John Mulligan ='( 
    1
  43. keyser soze That may, or may not, be true. But I fail to see how that is at all relevant to John Mulligan moving to live in the EU. ...Perhaps it would help if you googled 'where the fuck is Europe'?
    1
  44. Why should people stay in large taxpayer-subsidised housing when they don't need the room? What about the majority who don't get given council houses but who's kids grow up and leave home? How do you think they survive with the loss of child allowance?
    1