Forum menu
oldnpastit - Member
C'mon Jamby, dusting off that old nominal-value spending graph? There's been quite a bit of inflation in the UK over the years, did you forget?
He will keep getting out the same graphs that he thinks supports his ideas.
Spending and outcomes are not aligned, spending increases are not keeping up with needs, ageing populations mean an increase in the costs above the rate of pay ins. It's almost as if poor Jamby has never seen the back of a health care system and believes whatever the Tory party tell him.
There's been quite a bit of inflation in the UK over the years, did you forget?
You raise a good point. Inflation in health costs is running at 4% (ageing population and more expensive treatment). So an increase of 20%+ every 5 year Parliament. No political party is addressing that challenge. Also Defence costs are rising faster than nominal inflation but spending there has been approximately flat since 1980's
Labour being stuck in the 1970's believe "the NHS" is solid election winning ground for them. Now it may be if they where remotely credible elsewhere, but they are not.
Binners and I agree on this point that Labour are 20% behind in the polls without being attaked by Tories. Its going to be brutal, in some respects I feel sorry for Corbyn he is going to be crushed and totally humiliated.
Some MPs will be voting for a GE partly so Labour can ne heavily defeated and a new leader elected
The conservatives might be brutal towards Jezza, Labour definitely will:
[url= http://https://order-order.com/2017/04/18/woodcock-cant-endorse-corbyn-still-time-stand/ ]https://order-order.com/2017/04/18/woodcock-cant-endorse-corbyn-still-time-stand/[/url]
The trick for the conservatives will be deciding on how much of a kicking they give him - enough to destroy him without making him look too much like a (terrorist loving ) victim.
enough to destroy him without making him look too much like a (terrorist loving ) victim.
terrorist lover is a strange one really, some very genuine comments after Martin Mcguinness died, you don't make peace with your friends. Without dialogue there would have been no peace and somebody has to take that chance. History will judge
Without dialogue there would have been no peace and somebody has to take that chance.
It wasn't dialog though, was it, it was enthusiastically supporting the act of terrorism:
[i]It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.[/i]
And if he thinks bombs and bullets have brought Britain to the negotiating table once, does he think the the act of Khalid Masood might also bring Britain to the negotiating table?
That one quote would have finished any other Uk politician. These guys have been saying (and doing) mental things for decades when they were backbenchers and nobody was watching - we're going to hear them all played back during this election.
That one quote would have finished any other Uk politician.
Yet of course it's just fine for Maggie to be best buddies with and a great supporter of mass-murdering dictators like Pinochet - who've killed many orders of magnitude more people than the IRA ever have, for a much less justifiable cause.
Or for Liam Fox to toady up to 'I throw people out of helicopters' Duterte, or for Teresa May to toady up to one of the worst governments in the world who are currently using our weapons to commit war crimes.
The double standards and hypocrisy of our press and tory politicians is absolutely breathtaking.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html[/url]
And that is before you get to states like Iran that terrorise their own people and who Jezza is happy to get paid by their propaganda machine.
And his friends in Hamas - in this video dragging their victims bodies through the streets:
And that is before you get to states like Iran that terrorise their own people and who Jezza is happy to get paid by their propaganda machine.And his friends in Hamas - in this video dragging their victims bodies through the streets:
Typical and entirely unsurprising that you've completely ignored the fact that the Tory party's greatest hero is a great friend and passionate defender of a vicious mass-murderer, and that the government is currently toadying up to some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
Can you explain why that's apparently perfectly fine please? Didn't think so.
BBC 6'oclock news. "That idiot Corbyn" ... from an (ex)Labour voter in Tory target seat of Bolton.
What might be interesting is if the election campaign allows people to actually see beyond the jamba-esque smears and consider what might be their best interest. There was a lot about how Brexit was a protest against being forgotten by the endless Tory drive to enrich the already rich. That was obviously misguided since Brexit will put them even more comprehensively under the thumb, but what if those people actually voted to change something that will make a difference?
but what if those people actually voted to change something that will make a difference?
Like increasing minimum wage, taxing the rich (over £75K), spending more money on NHS and elderly care. A lot of people would be better off and happier under a non tory government but that is not what the papers are telling them is it.
Corbyn could do much better if he played the man not the ball/ had a decent campaign manager.
Interviewer: So what are your views on how the Brexit negotiations should be handled?
JC: This issue and others should be discussed in a public debate, the voters want it.
I: You bum the IRA
JC: I want to use this interview to demand a public debate. The people of this country want a live TV debate, like in America.
etc
taxing the rich (over £75K)
Now we know Corbyn considers himself as rich.
JC: This issue and others should be discussed in a public debate, the voters want it.I: You bum the IRA
JC: I want to use this interview to demand a public debate. The people of this country want a live TV debate, like in America.
Yes, saying the same words in a different order regardless of the question is definitely the way to go.
Now we know Corbyn considers himself as rich.
Yes. And?
I consider myself rich too. That doesn't mean I want to sh1t on poorer people.
A lot of people would be better off and happier under a non tory government
If there was a low risk way to improve things that simply required borrowing half a trillion, wouldn't all previous UK Governments and all current European governments have done it? There are a lot of votes in 'making things better'.
If it was simple it would already have happened, n'est pas?
Taxing the rich?
If there was a low risk way to improve things that simply required borrowing half a trillion, wouldn't all previous UK Governments and all current European governments have done it? There are a lot of votes in 'making things better'.If it was simple it would already have happened, n'est pas?
Depends if you want to really, ideology plays a very big part in all of this and you have to decide who's life you are trying to make better.
You can't blame people [b]and[/b] help them.
Someone needs to be punished.
That's what people like to see.
Conveniently, we have an underclass, a feral, barely human sector of society we can take our petty hatred out on.
And they don't feel pain like middle class people do.
beyond the jamba-esque smears
Jeremy Corbyn "has created a safe space for anti-Semites in the Labour Party". House of Commons Home Affairs Commitee.
This plus numerous other [b]quotes[/b] from the man himself
Nobody is smearing Corbyn they are just pointing out who he really is, a deeply misguided individual who has willingly allowed his position as an MP to be manipulated by racists, homophobes, holocaust deniers and outright terrorists.
CFH nasty Tories eh ?
Meanwhile, the government’s policy of gradually raising the point at which people start paying income tax meant that the share of the adult population paying it fell to 56.2 percent from 65.7 percent.
Corbyn has scored a massive own goal with this "tax the rich" line as he is immediately reinforcing the idea of Labour as tax and spend and aimed squarely at the Middle Class. People are not daft, rich = £75k pa today becoming £60k then £50k ....
CFH nasty Tories eh ?
Well if you want a carefully chosen quote from that article here's mine.
[b]The shift is partly the result of long-term trends. In 1978-79, the richest 1 percent paid 11 percent of total income-tax receipts. Since then, growing inequality has meant that [u]the larger tax burden on the richest reflects their rising incomes[/u].[/b]
Put simply, they've got more income so they're paying a bit more tax.
you have to decide who's life you are trying to make better
Surely they have to try to make life better for the majority of voters or nobody votes for them.
In general terms the labour party takes longer to consider the font on the bog roll packet that what a true blue like you think jambalaya.
Taxing the rich?
Aren't enough of 'em and they're mobile. To raise revenue you have to tax the people in the middle.
Surely they have to try to make life better for the majority of voters or nobody votes for them.
You would think that wouldn't you. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.
Stay calm, let's see what Corbyn has to say. You cannot argue that some of the issues over tax are not true. Highlighting the activities of some companies and there owners will get a sympathetic hearing from many.
You would think that wouldn't you.
Yes, because it's self evidently true.
Aren't enough of 'em and they're mobile. To raise revenue you have to tax the people in the middle
Fine with me. Happy to pay more tax if the money is going to NHS, elderly care, lower earners etc,.
I am lucky to earn a fair amount of money, a lot of people are not so lucky.
It's not though is it? You need to sway a small number of swing voters of most times and bribe a small number of constituencies. That is what the numbers back up.
Yes, because it's self evidently true
You keep telling yourself that.
You need to sway a small number of swing voters of most times and bribe a small number of constituencies.
Not sure that's as true in this election as previously. Corbyn has the problem of needing to simultaneously please his left-leaning core, his UKIP-tempted core, whatever bit of the even-lefter core in Scotland that remains, then parts of middle England he needs to win marginals there.
Putting it frankly, the disaster in Scotland for Labour means that the party has to be all things to all people to stand a chance of getting anywhere near power, even as part of a coalition.
Blair had it easy - his solid base of Scottish and Welsh support and no competition for the vote in the industrial North of England meant that he was free to compete on the middle ground in the rest of England.
Yes I was meaning historically, Labour needs to abandon Scotland, the tories will not make ground there with their current policies. Dealing with Brexit is the biggest issue at the front but there are many other deep ones out there.
Putting it frankly, the disaster in Scotland for Labour
Exactly. You simply cannot lose 50 seats and still win. The only way Labour will have a chance is with a SNP/Labour coalition.
Labour needs to relaunch as a separate, proper competitor to the SNP in Scotland. It is bizarre that Scotland's left is so unrepresented either in its own Parliament or Westminster.
The only way Labour will have a chance is with a SNP/Labour coalition.
Which cannot work at present as the concept of SNP power-sharing is utterly toxic south of the border.
There's no need for a coalition with the SNP. He knows they'll not support a Tory Govt. so he only needs their support.
obody is smearing Corbyn they are just pointing out who he really is, a deeply misguided individual who has willingly allowed his position as an MP to be manipulated by racists, homophobes,
There you go again. As I said - if people see beyond this nonsense maybe they'll see where their interests actually lie.
Brace yourselves!
The great man is about to speak!
I'm living in hope that he can be slightly better than useless, as the prospect of the Maybot in power for another 5 years, with a thumping great majority, pursuing the hardest Brexit imaginable, and tearing everything up in the process, is just too depressing for words.
I'm not confident 😥
From @pixelatedboat on Twitter:
Corbyn means well but he's a bit shit. That's why I'm going to vote for some rich ****s who want me to die.
Come on Binners show a bit of faith, look at his track record.
The trouble with the tax the rich, the poor are taking all the heat argument is it's run out of steam, you can't keep flogging a dead horse. I'm sure there's still redistribution of wealth to be done but it's moving deck chairs on the titanic. Reality check for Mr McDonnell from the BBC.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222 ]BBC Link[/url]
But then I don't suppose those wedded to an ingrained ideology have any time for annoying realities. Bit like Mr Corbyn's belief the election result is not a foregone conclusion......
you can't keep flogging a dead horse. I'm sure there's still redistribution of wealth to be done but it's moving deck chairs on the titanic
What do you mean?
I mean there's clear injustices within our current system, people earning millions when other's are struggling to survive, does that chief executive really add that much value to an organisation, or is that footballer worth more in a week than many people are in their lifetime, etc. etc.
However even if you taxed these people at 100% of their income it wouldn't be enough to pay for the Utopian left wing dream world Corbyn wants. Incrementally increasing taxes on the rich isn't dealing with the under lying issues, bit like the NHS, record funding but it still can't cope because expectation and demand is increasing faster than we can fund it.
However even if you taxed these people at 100% of their income it wouldn't be enough to pay for the Utopian left wing dream world Corbyn wants.
Of course. But remember, 'tax the rich' doesn't necessarily mean whack personal income tax up. There are lots of ways to raise taxes.
Don't oversimplify just to denigrate.
So what does it mean then, the point I was making was even if you redistribute 100% of rich peoples income (by what ever means) it's not going to give everyone a sustainable lifestyle they've come to expect.
"even if you redistribute 100% of rich peoples income (by what ever means)"
This. Id be interested in what cunning mechanism Molgrips had in mind to take *more* than everything these guys earn.
Well, there's always the old favourite one-off tax on the value of your house
My issue with Corbyn is although I agree with a lot of his policies I just don't see how they are funded. As said above, you can only tax the rich to a certain amount (without just declaring the UK a communist state or something...) and with our economy as it is the only choice left is going to be borrowing and that's just not sustainable.
"Well, there's always the old favourite one-off tax on the value of your house"
How can they pay house tax if 100pc of their income is being taxed, by whatever means.
"Well, there's always the old favourite one-off tax on the value of your house"How can they pay house tax if 100pc of their income is being taxed, by whatever means.
I know, I should have added the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags...
"I know, I should have added the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags..."
Soz!
This. Id be interested in what cunning mechanism Molgrips had in mind to take *more* than everything these guys earn.
Gordon Bennet.
I'm not saying take more than 100%. I'm saying take money by other means than income tax. Was my post that hard to understand or are you just dense?
So what does it mean then, the point I was making was even if you redistribute 100% of rich peoples income (by what ever means) it's not going to give everyone a sustainable lifestyle they've come to expect.
I don't understand this.
What does 'give everyone a sustainable lifestyle' mean? I don't want to pay everyone's wages from taxing rich people's wages...?
I'm not saying take more than 100%.
You did.
Someone said that even taxing at 100pc wouldn't generate enough revenue and you responded with "But remember, 'tax the rich' doesn't necessarily mean whack personal income tax up. There are lots of ways to raise taxes.".
I can't see how you can read that any other way than people on this thread seem to have read it.
Seems you didn't mean it, but you *did* write it.
I can't see how you can read that any other way than people on this thread seem to have read it.
Seriously?
If I meant it that way I'd have said 'there are [b]additional[/b] ways to tax..'
I meant that there are lots of ways to tax that we already use, besides income tax - so you can increase taxation without having to raise income tax to punitive levels.
I'd have thought it obvious that 100% income tax would be highly damaging and suicidal for a government, so I took it for granted that this would be recognised as a ridiculous and reductio ad absurdum.
I meant that there are lots of ways to tax that we already use, besides income tax - so you can increase taxation without having to raise income tax to punitive levels.
Yes, but not beyond 100pc.
And the point you were responding to was that even if you could raise tax on the rich to 100pc it wouldn't be enough.
So even if you use additional ways to tax the risk, you still can't take more than 100pc. Whatever mechanism you use, it still won't be enough.
Your original point was that it doesn't matter than 100pc wouldn't be enough because you can just tax the rich in different ways. Then you said that couldn't possibly have been your point. Then you just repeated the same point in response to the same point in different words.
OOB your missing the point I think (or at least trying to)
Taxation is a complex tool you can tax income, spending, spending on luxury items - how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k? Increase stanp duty over £1m, increase Employer NI for people on over 100k, limit ta exemptions on pensions over a threshold or remove allowances or limit tax deductions.
And the point you were responding to was that even if you could raise tax on the rich to 100pc it wouldn't be enough.
FFS.
So even if you use additional ways to tax the risk, you still can't take more than 100pc.
You can raise more money by taxing other things than you could by taxing the rich 100%.
[img] 
[/img]
EDIT thanks mike for helping out!
Taxation is a complex tool you can tax income, spending, spending on luxury items - how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k?
If someone has cash to pay for a car and the tax on a car they aren't (weren't) being taxed at 100pc!
You can raise more money by taxing other things than you could by taxing the rich 100%.
Yes you can raise money by taxing people who aren't rich. But the point you were disputing was that if you tax only the rich it still wouldn't be enough.
If someone has cash to pay for a car and the tax on a car they aren't (weren't) being taxed at 100pc!
Taxation on luxury goods INSTEAD OF 100% INCOME TAX! Good grief. No-one suggested 100% income tax, no-one's advocating it, no-one thinks you can tax people at 100%, this is obviously absolutely ridiculous. Are you on a windup or something?
Whatever I said, I'm sorry, I was wrong, can we stop this now and talk about taxation strategies?
[img] 
[/img]
😐
Yes, tax on goods is the way to go. No way to avoid it and only hits those who clearly have enough money to buy the goods.
If we don't have enough money to fully fund NHS/elderly care/education etc,. then so be it but we should at least be trying to get to that point.
how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k? Increase stanp duty over £1m, increase Employer NI for people on over 100k, limit ta exemptions on pensions over a threshold or remove allowances or limit tax deductions.
Yes you can but people will change behaviour and there are always unintended consequences. So for instance people might buy less expensive cars, or the car dealer might sell you a car at £99k, then offer certain upgrades if you take it back a week later and pay separately, bingo a £115k car, but no extra tax. predicting the extra tax take is very hard.
Earlier..."We're not the party of a cosy elite"
Now...."My son is being parachuted in to a safe seat"
No-one suggested 100% income tax, no-one's advocating it, no-one thinks you can tax people at 100%,
Income tax has nothing to do with stumpyjon's point. He didn't mention the mechanism by which you would achieve this 100pc tax - in fact he specifically said by 'whatever means'. The 100pc could be achieved by a wealthy person daylight tax - it makes no odds to his point which everyone else in the thread understood.
Ok fair enough, you got me.
I didn't think it was even worthy of discussion that the government might take everything a person owns and every bit of money they might make. Bit of a bizarre thing to be arguing about isn't it?
Point remains though that wealth redistribution does happen by a variety of means, some of which can be targeted to rich people; and that the amount of money taken can be increased or decreased. More tax revenue means more wealth can be redistributed.
I didn't think it was even worthy of discussion that the government might take everything a person owns and every bit of money they might make.
It sets the upper limit.
If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work.
stumpyjon's was a simple point, everyone else understood it.
It sets the upper limit.If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work.
A whole page of pedantry. Well done!
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
A whole page of pedantry
Pedantry? It completely refutes the whole idea.
Earlier..."We're not the party of a cosy elite"
Now...."My son is being parachuted in to a safe seat"
I never know how to view these things. Being the leader's son shouldn't get you a safe seat. ...but it shouldn't prevent you from getting a safe seat either. Given the likely poor standard of candidates I'm willing to believe JC's son could have got the gig on merit. Not sure others will see it that way though.
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
Nil, I would think. And most people probably wouldn't grasp the idea anyway - not in 7 weeks.
"Nil, I would think."
Has a lot of advantages.
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
I'm afraid Corbyn's list of 'ideas' has been in a state of arrested development since the late 70's
I'm afraid Corbyn's list of 'ideas' has been in a state of arrested development since the late 70's
Trump got in with pretty much the same ideas: "Spend, spend, spend.".
I hope Jeremy's brother has delivered his special election day weather forecast to Labour. Probably 'polar vortex snowpocalypse', so they'll have to work extra hard to get their vote out. 🙂
Pedantry? It completely refutes the whole idea.
Sorry, still not with you. What's the idea being refuted?
If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work [b]on its own[/b].
FTFY
Theresa May on the today programme yesterday was painful, the standard few minutes of dodging questions and saying nothing of substance. Dawn Butler on PM just now was excruciating, for the same reasons. 7 weeks of this!
OOB you understood my point exactly, molgrips you clearly don't. What I said was taxing the rich more was sideshow and wouldn't give you the money required to create the sort of state team Corbyn seems to want. It's an easy election slogan, bash the rich, bash the bankers, bash anyone who isn't us. If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
There is only a finite amount of rich peoples money you can take away up to the extreme of taking all of it. Doesn't matter how you do it, taxing luxury goods would actually bring in less money than 100% income tax.
The irony of improving the lives of all is you'll never reach the utopia of every one being happy, as they get more they'll expect more, that was the point I was making about sustainability, you're shooting for a moving target you'll never get there and people on the whole will never be happy. That doesn't mean we give up and there are still inequalities to resolved but it's more about doing that within the constraints of the current income not constantly increasing the tax take.
We can't keep building a society where and an ever decreasing proportion of people are paying more and more to keep the state running, it's not sustainable.
If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
Mmm no. No squeezing. Just people paying their fair share.
stumpyjon - Member
It's an easy election slogan, bash the rich, bash the bankers, bash anyone who isn't us. If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
Well, it seems to be working for the Tories - except it's the poor they are encouraging everyone else to blame.