+ Post New Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 93 of 93
General Chat Thread, Life under the Tories: don't say you weren't warned in General; Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster The problem is that many union workers may not want their money to go to the ...
  1. #91

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    The problem is that many union workers may not want their money to go to the Labour party. The presumption that the union has the right to their money to do with as it wishes is the problem here. That presumption is wrong.
    The trade union movement were responsible for setting up the Labour Party, it's natural that the unions will choose to support Labour. If union members don't want their money to go to Labour they can opt out... which is more than shareholders can do when companies choose to donate money to the Tories.

    If you join a Union, you accept their rules. If you don't like the rules you can do one of two things: 1) leave or 2) become 'active' in the Union & try and change the rules. Union members are collectively responsible for their Unions rules & if enough people vote they can change them.
    Last edited by broc; 29th March 2012 at 08:04 PM.

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by broc View Post
    The trade union movement were responsible for setting up the Labour Party, it's natural that the unions will choose to support Labour.
    Is it? I don't get a sense of that from traditional Labour voters. If that were the case we'd see the Labour party's coffers positively groaning with money, but here they are, £20 million in debt.

    If union members don't want their money to go to Labour they can opt out... which is more than shareholders can do when companies choose to donate money to the Tories.
    A false analogy. Firstly, and most importantly, shareholders buy shares to make a profit. There's no political ideology there, just business. Secondly, of course shareholders can opt out. There's no coercion. Nobody makes them buy shares. Nobody presumes consent as the unions do.

    If you join a Union, you accept their rules. If you don't like the rules you can do one of two things: 1) leave or 2) become 'active' in the Union & try and change the rules. Union members are collectively responsible for their Unions rules & if enough people vote they can change them.
    Why are you so opposed to having people opt out by default rather than opt in? I'm opposed to an assumed opt-in because I want people to be free to spend their money how they choose. So why don't you think they should be free to do so? You can see from the link you quoted how few people choose to opt out. Is it really likely that every teacher shares the ideology of their union and wishes them to give money to the Labour party?

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    170
    Thank Post
    8
    Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
    Rep Power
    37
    I think people talk about a squeezed middle, and that certainly is true. When has it been any other way really ?

    But I think a couple of big changes in recent years need to be offset against the raising of taxes, low interest rates are really low which in theory benefits debtors rather than rich savers. Obviously low rates aren't good for those relying on traditionally savings based retirements, but lower rates benefit our democracy as a whole rather than paying higher rates on savings which aren't put to work.

    The other is low general price inflation. Obviously you don't feel wealthier if your persistently getting pay freezes, but in general it's a fairly benign environment as far rates and inflation....so with that side of the equation pretty much taken care of, it's up to someone to come into power who can slay another couple of dragons. No.1 top down tax cuts aren't democratically justifiable and where's the evidence they work better than say a payroll holiday for basic rate taxpayers.

    The second is that we don't need to cut spending faster so as to pay off debts. Paying off non existent debts, the equivalent of taking money out of the economy and burning it, is not as useful as putting money in peoples pockets.
    If they feel they must cut spending then they need to cut taxes equally aggressively to offset the fiscal drag. But obviously a democratic tax cut, not just a corp tax cut or an aggressive cut for top 1 percent of earners. At the minute it's one step forward two steps back....raising personal tax threshold is a good start but then the fuel escalator and public sector pay freezes continues to bite. Or how about the tax drag that is the tuition fees increase. And on and on. This whole notion of giving with one hand and taxing from another is really counter productive.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. Who says you need to shutdown the network?
    By russdev in forum Windows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th May 2010, 02:44 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25th April 2007, 01:56 PM
  3. Java released under the GPL
    By CyberNerd in forum IT News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th November 2006, 09:50 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •