Jeremy Corbyn

And why shouldn't the tax burden fall on the rich?

The society on which they rely to generate their wealth should demand appropriate redistribution for the benefit of society as a whole.

And why shouldn't the tax burden fall on the rich?

This explains it...

The "old" who understand living withing their means.

That's quite easy when your means are greater than everyone else's.

Oh FFS will everyone please stop berating labour, a self-confessed Marxist chancellor is precisely what the UK economy needs. And to think labour are branded 'loonies'.. where the hell did that stem from, gawd almighty. Stay strong comrades, we shall overcome.

borthets

is that a British Covfefe?

[quote=jambalaya ]The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"

I suppose if it actually proved anything regarding that it might be useful - it doesn't in fact even show which part of society is paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes! Of course the big issue here is the definition of "fair" regarding the amount of tax paid by those who are doing very well out of a society which is supported by taxes.

BTW can I just check - have I turned into a socialist whilst I wasn't looking?

edit: actually I've realised the one thing it does show is that far too many people have far too low an income

enfht - Go on - mention the IRA - you know you want to!

The "old"

The "old" who had final salary pensions, secure jobs, early retirement, council houses, free education, affordable starter homes

Don't forget [img] [/img]

Secure jobs and free education I don't think so. Huge unemployment through the 60's, 70's & 80's. As for free education only for the 'lucky' 10%.

If you take the rose tinted glasses off, you'll realise the oldies didn't have it all great.

The society on which they rely to generate their wealth should demand appropriate redistribution for the benefit of society as a whole.

So lets discuss Mark Zuckerberg, how should his wealth be redistributed and to which society given Facebook's global nature ? How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth, Facebook is free to use ?

How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth

Good point, well made - obviously he invented his own internet for Facebook to run on.

How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth

Stop being so ridiculous Jamba. You know full what the state has done to enable Zuckerberg to get rich. Or are you now suggesting that part of your free-market utopia should be the destruction of intellectual property rights and the rule of law? Never had you down as an anarcho-capitalist.

Do.you really need that answering?

How about an allocation in proportion to the income generated in each country via income streams such as ad revenue or sales of games?

How does it benefit from Society? Let's say FB was created where there were zero users, would it make any money? Where do users come from? That's right.

Without the masses, wealth is not created.

May sticking to the original election lines, but it's amazing how the power of them has changed. i.e. "Choice is clear, me or Corbyn" just doesn't seem to be a good proposition any more.

Q: The latest poll gives you a lead of just three points. Why has the 24-point lead that you had evaporated?

May says there is only one poll that matters, the one next week. The choice people have is, how do they see the future. Do they want her or Corbyn?

Borrow to spend beyond means?
Or
Borrow to spend regardless?
Or
Borrow to spend to let future generations burden with debts?
Or
Borrow to spend without thinking of repayment?
Or
Borrow to spend on something without ability to repay?
Or
Borrow to spend to celebrate?
Or
Borrow to spend for partying?
Or
Borrow to spend within means?

Which one? 😆

Where is me money tree?
I want me money tree ...

Tax the rich to cover increased spend and pay back huge debt exacerbated by Tory policies?

Baby boomers had it so tough.

[img] [/img]

dont forget the gilt edged pensions they failed to contribute enough to to cover ,as they were living much much longer than expected, and they passed the bill to others to get a worse pension than them for more input.

No generation has benefited as much as the baby boomers and i bet many are not only wealthier [ assets richer] than those working I bet they are cash/income richer as well.

They then gave us the gift of Brexit as the cherry on top

Gawd BLESS EM

So.. if McDonnell says he is a Marxist, does everyone think that he will roll out Marxist policies as soon as he is Chancellor?

Or do we maybe think that he realises that's not what everyone wants?

[quote=jambalaya ]The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country.

Not that many killed in the Falklands. Not that many over 90s voting.

Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state

In what time frame?

Twaddle.

(I can find one article relating to the US economy about that.)

Interesting read....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/super-rich-evade-on-average-nearly-third-of-their-due-tax

Tax evasion? Guardian?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

And a non subscription link just in case,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#1799aa825969

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Tax evasion? Guardian?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/ <

And a non subscription link just in case,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#1799aa825969
br />

So the guardian is actually loving their own tax arrangement ... ya ... grab them money lovely jubbly ... 😆

I am going to enjoy reading them articles ... 😆

Edit: In case the link does not work this is [url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/ ]the same link.[/url]

Quite apart from food banks, poverty and decline of public services which can in some respects can be attributed to large scale tax evasion, the thing that worries me about tax havens is the whole shady shell company money laundering for criminals, arms dealers and terrorists aspect...

Her Majesty's Government is surprisingly tolerant considering all the shady goings on...

@jet the problem is when campaigners talk about "The Rich" its .. Dyson, Branson, Duke of Westminster. When Labour have to target "The Rich" for taxes its £80k pa. Folk like Zuckerberg legally avoid billions in tax and they don't need tax havens to do it

How do you know jamby what is the proof of this assertion?
When "the rich" get discussed on here there is a large range of opinions on what it means and very little consensus. What facts did you base that conclusion on ?

@ Flashy what is your view on tax evasion by the super rich ?

For once could you actually express an opinion?

[quote=jambalaya ]@jet the problem is when campaigners talk about "The Rich" its .. Dyson, Branson, Duke of Westminster. When Labour have to target "The Rich" for taxes its £80k pa.

You write that as if it's unjust targetting all those poor folk on £80k+

So someone on this forum has been referencing the insufferable hypocritical (as described by Tim Worstall) guardian newspaper at every chance ... I wonder who that would be ... hmmmm ... 😆

@aracer well those on £80k are already paying 40% tax, 2% NI above the cap and their employers are paying 12.8% NI - so thats a 54.8% tax take

Also this "little bit more" is quite hysterical as a "little bit more" isn't whats required. Labour need a lot more tax revenue. So they are going to have to tax "the rich" a lot more. Lets be very clear the super rich will not be impacted as they have the most flexibility in where / how they work and manage their assets.

I've changed my mind about Jeremy Corbyn, having seen more of him on TV and a number of print interviews. I don't think he could break the country any more than a Theresa May, so good luck to him. Postal vote for Labour cast.

Still can't abide Diane Abbott though.

@aracer well those on £80k are already paying 40% tax, 2% NI above the cap and their employers are paying 12.8% NI - so thats a 54.8% tax take

By your methodology people earning over 80k also earn 112.8% of their gross salary, so after tax they would still have 58% of their earnings (and that's not including allowances).

@aracer well those on £80k are already paying 40% tax

As usual, jambollocks.

[img] [/img]

Why limit it to "tax evasion by the super rich" only? Why not address it as

Legal management of tax payments - OK
Illegal management of tax payments - Not OK
Pontificating about others legally managing their tax as a bad thing when doing it yourself - Hypocrisy. Not OK.

If the legal avoidance is palatable to you is another thing entirely, but as long as it's legal, it's legal. Just as people would find legal ways around any Corbyn led tax hikes. I know people who have had a monthly curtain allowance to get around tax in the past. Farcical.

I CBA working it out, but the actual % of their income they pay in tax is also way less than that, that's just the marginal rate (extra kudos for including the employer NI though 🙄 ) - and somehow despite all that tax they still manage to be better off than those 60% of people "not contributing".

Labour's "rich" tax is actually just a south east tax - someone on £80k in London would have similar disposable income after living costs as someone on £40-50k in most of the rest of the country. Of course they know this plays very well to voters outside of London who are typically not on £80k but it shows the simplistic and divisive nature of their policies.

Edit: the "rich" are people earning £70k not £80k - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/1https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour9/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

Londoners must be a bit dim then, as labour appears to have a 17% lead in the capital

A) Might do something to address the inequity of wealth distribution in this country then, good
B) Funny how Labour are miles ahead of the Tories in London in opinion polls then isn't it?

What about another £10 off disabled people?

The thing is, for the disenfranchised, whether the budget balances or not is irrelevant.
They want to stick the boot in.
That's why we are living through a revolution.
Expect it to remain uncertain for the next ten to fifteen years.

[quote=just5minutes ]Labour's "rich" tax is actually just a south east tax

Ah - because it doesn't apply outside the M25?

I'm not sure how the high living costs in London are Labour's fault, and earnings of £80k still make you far better off than most people even there.

As usual, jambollocks.

I am talking about their marginal rate. You would have realised that had you put as much effort into thinking about my post rather than producing pointless tables.

@MSP what matters is total tax generated on the employment and in this discussions marginal rates.

Ah - because it doesn't apply outside the M25?

Most of the South East is outside the M25.

One of those cut and paste jobbies:

Say Jeremy Corbyn had been the Home Secretary for six years, during which time he slashed some 20,000 police jobs taking us back to 1970s levels of per capita policing.

Let's say he also slashed the UK Border Agency budget so that over a million people per month were coming and going through UK airports without being properly checked.

Let's say by virtue of an extremely self-serving EU referendum non-campaign he managed to get into 10 Downing Street, where he kept up his agenda of cutting the UK security services and border agency.

Then there's a home-grown terrorist attack by a known Islamist fanatic in a city where Corbyn had cut the police budget by £157 million.

Let's say Jeremy Corbyn "lost" files on an internal pedophile ring.

Let's say he wanted to take the homes from the elderly.

Let's say he cut 30% of your disabled benefit.

Let's say he signed an arms deal with the (ISIS-funding) Saudis worth millions.

Let's say he wanted to take away your child's free school meal.

Let's say he forced NHS staff to use food banks.

Let's say he made so many cuts to the NHS that people are suffering waiting for ambulances and A&E doctors.

Let's say he went against doctors, nurses, teachers, fire fighters, the armed forces...

Let's say he took away funding for University for upcoming doctors and nurses.

Let's say after all these cuts there's still a deficit and he'd missed every target he'd set himself for reducing it.

What would you have to say about Jeremy Corbyn under these circumstances?

And why are they not saying those things about Theresa May and the Tories right now?

Makes you think...

I am talking about their marginal rate.

When you said they pay 40% tax you meant they don't pay 40% tax - got it.

And apologies for the 'pointless tables' - I know you're not a fan of facts.

Yes they do pay 42% tax and ni, that's their marginal rate. No one talks about blended rates of tax, certainly no one on STW. When during the election has any party discussed the blended rate of tax ?

EDIT: i wrote that before reading the above but you never claimed their rates was 42% its quoted below what you originally said.

I am talking about their marginal rate.

thats a 54.8% tax take

I think most people realised your figures were poor hence the need for a "pointless table" or as the rest of us term it some facts that counter your "opinion".

Here you go @Grum, a topical piece from the Telegraph today talking about the 60% rate tax trap - marginal rate of course

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/number-high-earners-caught-60pc-tax-trap-set-double/

jambalaya - Member

The "old" those of wisdom who have helped create the wealthy and free country we all now live in. The "old" who soent most of their lives without credit cards, car loans or easy mortgage finance. The "old" who understand living withing their means. The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country.

😆

still not the % figure you quoted and its about those who earn 100k-123k so not about the earning amount you discussed either
But it is evidence of something.

[quote=Junkyard ]But it is evidence of something.

evidence that the DT agrees with jamba?

No one talks about blended rates of tax, certainly no one on STW.

People with brains do. If you're stupid enough to harp on about the top rate of tax in a way that implies you think it applies to all your income rather than just the bit over the threshold, then you're probably not intelligent enough to be in a job with a salary that high. Or you're a footballer.

The fabled magic money tree?

@MSP what matters is [b]total tax[/b] generated on the employment and in this discussions [b]marginal rates[/b].

How to contradict yourself within a short sentence.

@aracer well those on £80k are already paying 40% tax, 2% NI above the cap and their employers are paying 12.8% NI - so thats a 54.8% tax take

That's hilarious. 😀

You have added up 3 different percentages to get the final percentage?

Are you sure you actually earn the money you imply you do?

Can I get a job at your place?

Yes they do pay 42% tax and ni, that's their marginal rate. No one talks about blended rates of tax, certainly no one on STW. When during the election has any party discussed the blended rate of tax ?

Now I have never heard of "blended rates of tax" so I asked the interweb.

It appears that the reason no-one talks about it, is that it's not really a thing. There are blended interest rates but not tax rates. #peakjamba

^I must admit I thought that was pretty daft but I've just been reading back a few pages and saw this gem

How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth, Facebook is free to use ?

@gobuchal fair enough, lets see your calculation and then we can compare it mine and decide upon the relevance of any difference

lets see your calculation

OK. It's quite simple.

First of all I will define "effective tax rate" as the percentage of the salary that is paid to the Government by the employee. The employers contribution are not are relevant for the discussion of "effective tax rate".

From grum's "pointless table":

Gross Salary: £80,000
Tax + NI: £25,820

Effective tax rate: (25,820/80000) x 100 = 32.275%

So basically 33%.

Happy?

[b]jambalaya[/b] - [u]votes Tory[/u]

Effective tax rate: (25,820/80000) x 100 = 32.275%

Brill - never trust the Tories with the economy. Especially their taxation numbers.

Corbyn's Corp tax increase is a master stroke.

Some people pay a lot of tax and are happy to pay more as they realise the following
- they are paid too much in perspective of what others are paid
- they see the need for more money for health, care and education
- it is the fairest way to pay for things

All others have entitlement issues...

So basically 33%.

Happy?

You have to be trolling here jamby as you must know both how to calculate tax rate [ what % of your pay goes on tax - its hardly a difficult concept) and have the skill with numbers to do the maths.

No one with any sense or comprehension is EVER going to add the employers contribution to an individual personal tax % calculations for reasons so obvious chewkw could explain it to you

What everyone has said is indisputable and only a troll would deny it
Lets see what you say next ..I go for a change of the subject or some strange pantomime villain claim

Corbyn's Corp tax increase is a master stroke.

Ahem:

- Corporation Tax receipts in the last full year were a record £56Bn - with the rate now standing at 19%. So reducing the rate brings in more money.
- The last time Corp Tax was 26% (the Labour pledged level) the rate raised £39Bn in tax - and that's from 2011
- Labour claim raising Corp Tax back to 26% will bring in another £19B over and above the record receipts last year - so £75Bn in total and double what the rate brought in during 2011

The most likely outcome is that at best Labour will see a reduction of Corp Tax receipts back to £39Bn, leaving them with a new £36B spending gap (equivalent to 13p on basic personal taxation).

At which point they will likely determine that having defined "Rich" as people earning >£150K in 2010, and >£70K in 2017, it will be defined in the future as anyone earning >£35K.

the maths graduate who works in finance

I wonder if he made that up as well?

[img] [/img]

just5minutes

- Corporation Tax receipts in the last full year were a record £56Bn - with the rate now standing at 19%. So reducing the rate brings in more money.

Only if there are no other factors, which there are.

Popbitch election voting analysis

"One week to go until the general election and the polls seem to be all over the place. Can we learn anything more about the state of the campaign from the betting markets? We spoke to @LadPolitics to see what was happening online and in Ladbrokes stores, and they told us something interesting.

Back in the EU referendum, the betting odds favoured Remain because more money had been placed on it, even though a greater number of individual bets were on Leave.

In the US Presidential election, Clinton was favourite because more money was put on her, but many more people were betting on Trump.

In this general election more money has been placed on the Conservatives, but a shitload more bets are on Labour.

It can't happen, can it? Two is a coincidence but three would be a trend, right? "

- Corporation Tax receipts in the last full year were a record £56Bn - with the rate now standing at 19%. So reducing the rate brings in more money.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc ]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/url]

Only if there are no other factors, which there are.

So what are they, and why did that last Labour Government reduce Corp Tax from 31% to 28% while they were in office? Surely if the rate makes no difference to actual receipts there would be no point?

@gobuchal we are talking marginal tax rates as I said above not the blended take of your calculation. Ourtwx system is progressive, if you did your calculation across income bands you'd see the higher rates paid by higher earners and the size of the absolute bills of course.

EDIT: btw I doubt you'll find that term anywhere as no one really looks at tax like that. As an aside in Singapore the first £175k (fx equivalent) attracts a blended rate of 13%, the £175k is where the top rate of 20% kicks in.

For someone earning £80k every £1 they earn at that level is taxed at 54.8p hence my calculation. When people talk about salaries and earnings they talk about the gross salary of the employee so adding in employers NI and expressing that relative to the stated salary is the right calculation in my view.

Of course once you hit £100k the marginal tax rate jumps to over 60% (employee marginal tax rate and higher again if you add in the employers tax which is a tax on the job) due to loss of personal allowance.

If you do not understand the issue you are trying to explain to us then please dont try and explain it to us.

here is a simple [ and suitably right wing explanation] for you

https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

Surely if the rate makes no difference to actual receipts there would be no point?

Edit - JY beats me to link

every £1 they earn at that level is taxed at 54.8p hence my calculation

When people talk about salaries and earnings they talk about the gross salary of the employee so adding in employers NI and expressing that relative to the stated salary is the right calculation in my view.

btw I doubt you'll find that term anywhere as no one really looks at tax like that.

Really? I wonder why?

For someone earning £80k every £1 they earn at that level is taxed at 54.8p hence my calculation.

FFS. If that was true then they would have net earnings of £45,200.

Which they don't.

So it's NOT TRUE.

I can't understand how you can argue this.

I guess I must be just a lot stupider than you as I don't understand your argument.

When people talk about salaries and earnings they talk about the gross salary of the employee so adding in employers NI and expressing that relative to the stated salary is the right calculation in my view.

How do you make that leap?

When you negotiate your salary do you include the true capitation cost of your position?

Do you include your employers payroll admin costs? Your desk? Your electricity consumption? All equally important to your employer as is the NI contribution.

I don't really want to get too involved here but the marginal rate of tax on every extra pound earned over £80k could be 54.8p in the pound. So reluctantly I'd have to say I can see where Jambas coming from.

At which point they will likely determine that having defined "Rich" as people earning >£150K in 2010, and >£70K in 2017, it will be defined in the future as anyone earning >£35K.

As rich is subjective and not exactly scientific it is best not to use it. It also seems very emotive for greedy right wingers.

I would use the average salary as a base and use multiples of that to determine what tax rules to apply. It also adds the perspective required.

#Jambanomics! 😆

Showing up your entire online persona to be utter balls here Jamba! 😆

Meanwhile - Bernie Sanders has just started a 3-day tour of the UK and is getting some positive press for Corbyn.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn-endorse-general-election-2017-labour-brighton-speech-donald-trump-paris-a7768226.html

I don't really want to get too involved here but the marginal rate of tax on every extra pound earned over £80k could be 54.8p in the pound. So reluctantly I'd have to say I can see where Jambas coming from.

Is that what he's saying?

I missed that in his ramblings.

Besides, why shouldn't that be a fair rate?

As rich is subjective and not exactly scientific it is best not to use it. It also seems very emotive for greedy right wingers.

Which is funny because it came straight out of the mouth of John McDonnell who has a very nice £1.5m pension pot he hasn't paid a penny towards. But sitting on £1.5m you haven't paid for yourself apparently = "working class hero".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour