Jeremy Corbyn

You do realise it's nonsense don't you?

I doubt they're interested in that they're back in Jeremy Corbyn soggy biscuit mode 🙂

ffs outofbreath.
At least do a basic fact check before spouting.
It's all on his tax return, just not in the place where the media decided it should be.
And it was very very stupid for them to think it should be 40k given that the tax year and the leadership election don't match.

It was 27k and it's all on his tax return in black and white. Just completely made up bollocks as usual.

"ffs outofbreath.
At least do a basic fact check before spouting.
It's all on his tax return, just not in the place where the media decided it should be.
And it was very very stupid for them to think it should be 40k given that the tax year and the leadership election don't match.
It was 27k and it's all on his tax return in black and white. Just completely made up bollocks as usual."

Looked to me like you were accusing him of deliberately leaving 40k off his return.

That seemed implausible.

If you're saying all his income was there, then yeah, that seems more likely. A lot of effort will have gone onto getting this right, there's no way anything would get deliberately left off.

Alex it wasn't in the place where your work income is supposed to be. When the story first broke and we commented no one in the Labour office could answer the question "where is his leader's pay / has he forgotten it" - it seems perfectly legit to assume a screw up given last year's pension debacle.

Amateur Hour.

As for everyone earling over a £1m a year publishing their return its like a Robbers Charter - let's flag up who has the loot and is worth a break-in

As for everyone earling over a £1m a year publishing their return its like a Robbers Charter - let's flag up who has the loot and is worth a break-in

yeah itd never work....

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/apr/11/when-it-comes-to-tax-transparency-norway-leads-the-field

When the story first broke

And then you try and justify it by saying "when the story first broke", or "no one in the Labour office", etc. It's a non-story spun to show incompetence when in fact there was none.

Focus on why the media have leapt on this instead of the incredible lack of transparency elsewhere.

This is just the biggest crock of bollocks ever - just maddening. We should be talking about policies ... But instead, you've fallen completely for a trumped-up piece of nonsense that someone leapt on without actually looking a tiny tiny bit deeper (or maybe they did but thought there was a story in it anyway by playing dumb). And then you try and justify it by saying "when the story first broke", or "no one in the Labour office", etc. It's a non-story spun to show incompetence when in fact there was none. Focus on why the media have leapt on this instead of the incredible lack of transparency elsewhere.

Indeed. Corbyn's will be one of the simpler tax returns. Imagine now much press titillation there will be over some of the others and how much more distracting media attention there will be over them.

It's a needless gimmick and distraction. Mind you, you've made several posts about it today and zero on Labour Policy, so perhaps you're less interested in policy than you think.

Alex it wasn't the Tories who created the distraction was it ? Another own goal from Corbyn's team whilst attempting to embarrass Phillip Hamond. At the very least they should have briefed the Press Office.

So Corbyn promised to publish his tax return, did so, and a load of the usual suspects cry "cock up". It's shown that there wasn't a cock up and the "financial experts" don't have the decency to admit that they got it wrong. Quelle surprise.

Policy? Can you name me any? Actual costed policies, with any detail at all?

There aren't any. That's the point. It's a vacuum. Just vague, lefty, 6th form, get-my-guitar, mood music, or maybe forming yet another committee to look into the issue

Apparently even the most loyal Corbynites (are there any left other than John and Dianne?) are totally exasperated about the endless meetings, to discuss the agenda for further meetings, where they chunter on and on for days on end, without actually reaching any decisions or conclusions about anything. No rush eh Jeremy? Take your time eh mate? Nothing of much significance going on at the moment

Oh.... there's the 3 line whip about voting through the Tory's Brexit bill for them. The only issue he's ever been decisive on. Cheers for that one Jeremy. Other than that....?

Anyone? Bueller....? Bueller....? Bueller... ?

[i]So Corbyn promised to publish his tax return, did so, and a load of the usual suspects cry "cock up". It's shown that there wasn't a cock up and the "financial experts" don't have the decency to admit that they got it wrong. Quelle surprise. [/I]

As said previously, it was in the 'wrong' box, or rather not where some folk thought it should be.

But lets be clear it looks just like the tax return you get back from HMRC, so presumably it IS in the right place, and a serious non-story?

[quote=cranberry ]When the left wants "everyone to pay more tax":
It means everyone but them.

You are the honorouble (sic) member for Clacton, and I claim my £5 - how disingenuous of both of you when the chap in the video says he is quite happy to pay more tax (demanding a cheque is a straw man - though like #trumptweets it plays well to the kippers who are too daft to recognise one, which is all he cares about).

p.s. I'm not a natural leftie

[quote=jambalaya ]@aracer there is only so long the eurozone / EU can keep kicking the can down the road / into the long grass.

That doesn't appear to answer my question - was it 5 years ago or 10 years ago you first made such a prediction?

You are the honorouble (sic) member for Clacton, and I claim my £5 - how disingenuous of both of you when the chap in the video says he is quite happy to pay more tax (demanding a cheque is a straw man

That is the short version of the video of one of the 1% - as the liked to label people, repeatedly saying he wanted more tax to be paid and repeatedly ignoring Carswell's help to go to the tax office and give over a cheque - of any amount. It displays well the hypocrisy of those who very loudly signal their virtue, on the basis that other people will be actually pay the bill.

Owen Jones is estimated to have earned £500,000, mostly from book sales, in 2015.

And how much tax did he pay?

Not enough according to the words he speaks - he wants *everyone* to pay more tax.

You would assume that *everyone* includes himself, that he wouldn't just be calling for other people to pay for the things he wants ?

You're hilarious

"demanding a cheque is a straw man"

Explain.

You would assume that *everyone* includes himself, that he wouldn't just be calling for other people to pay for the things he wants ?

Either you're being willfully stupid or just trolling. As you well know, Owen Jones or anybody for that matter individually volunteering to pay more tax will make negligible difference. Society as a whole collectively paying more tax however would make a huge difference. If you can't tell the difference between 'we should all pay more tax' and 'you/I should pay more tax' then you're an idiot.

So the news today is that Theresa intends to announce loads of money for education. if by 'education' you mean her socially divisive, 1950's retro-tastic, bollocks-to-social-mobility, grammar schools programme. Thus ensuring that nice middle class kids from leafy suburbs (whose parents vote Tory, obvs) never have to experience anyone wearing a tracksuit, who might live on a council estate.

Anyone expecting to hear anything from Jeremy today on the issue?

He'll probably be on his allotment, bless him. Suns out, and its a busy time of year when you've vegetables to attend.

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/07/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-disastrous-labour-resign ]Stephen Hawking is not happy.[/url]

[quote=outofbreath ]"demanding a cheque is a straw man"
Explain.

In case you need an answer to that specific question, dazh covered it. Not volunteering to pay more tax when nobody else does is completely different to not being happy to pay more tax if everybody else is which appears to be the accusation.

If you can't understand that, you're probably a kipper.

@aracer we had a discussion on this before, it is always caveated. I will pay more tax; if we end poverty, if the rich pay their fair share etc etc. When I suggested we have WTO tariffs on EU imports (would raise many many billions) and that all the money went to the NHS there was ZERO support. Ditto VAT on food like they have in Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium ... As soin as you suggest a tax everyone will pay out comes the oppostion / excuses.

Labour said in 2015 they'd raise £2bn for the NHS by that old faithful, a banker bashing bonus tax. £2bn is/was a fraction of what the NHS needs. It barely scratches the surface.

What Labour mean is somebody else should pay more tax.

Labour had zero credibility on tax in 2015 and Corby/McDonnell have a lower rating than that.

[quote=Jamie ]Stephen Hawking is not happy.

Nails it in the first 3 paragraphs of that article. Even if you think Corbyn is great (he's far from the worst leader the Labour party has had in my lifetime) it is clear that he's not good for the party electorally. I mean FFS as I wrote above I'm not a natural leftie or Labour voter, but I'm looking around for somebody to vote for who isn't a Tory (or a kipper 🙄 ) right now. I'm exactly the sort of voter Labour needs to attract, yet I'd still struggle to vote for Corbyn's Labour. (in reality Labour don't have a hope in my constituency, so I'm hoping the Lib Dems put up somebody a but better than they did last time, but if I lived half a mile away in a Labour/Tory marginal it would be an incredibly difficult decision)

[quote=jambalaya ]@aracer we had a discussion on this before, it is always caveated. I will pay more tax; if we end poverty, if the rich pay their fair share etc etc. When I suggested we have WTO tariffs on EU imports (would raise many many billions) and that all the money went to the NHS there was ZERO support. Ditto VAT on food like they have in Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium ... As soin as you suggest a tax everyone will pay out comes the oppostion / excuses.

Now you're strawmanning - what a surprise! WTO tariffs is a different subject, though it has similarities to VAT on food in being a regressive tax (it also has similarities with Trump suggesting he'll make the Mexicans pay for the wall through tariffs, your thinking is as clear as his), forgive me if I don't support that. Yes of course there is a caveat that the rich should pay their fair share - which you think so unreasonable. (almost) Everyone pays income tax, I don't think anybody suggesting higher taxes is against raising that, therefore disproving your point.

£2bn is/was a fraction of what the NHS needs. It barely scratches the surface.

Thanks for pointing out where Carswell fails with his demand for a cheque.

BTW you still don't appear to have clarified how many years ago the EU failed according to your predictions.

Thanks for pointing out where Carswell fails with his demand for a cheque.

I work it out to £206 per labour voter ( going by 2015 voting tendencies )

Too much to pay to signal how virtuous they are ?

You're not giving up on this are you? Which part of "everyone to pay more tax" is it you don't understand?

Though it shouldn't really surprise me that a kipper can only see things from the perspective of the individual.

VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption. But carry on.....

(not everyone pays income tax either, but since when has precision been important when talking about tax?)

[quote=teamhurtmore ]VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption.

Yeah, because that's an essential part of the definition. Quick question for you - if VAT was levied on food, would the poor pay a larger portion of their income on food VAT than the rich?

(not everyone pays income tax either, but since when has precision been important when talking about tax?)

Hence "almost", but then I'm not sure what the big problem is with the poorest not paying any more tax than they do already under the "everyone to pay more tax" theory. Unless of course you're the honourable member for Clacton who probably thinks somebody on the breadline should pay as much tax as his millionaire mates.

pointless argument aracer, he never changes his mind. But simply VAT targets lower income people more. I'm sure THM knows the days well when VAT went up (or Fuel Duty etc) and the amount of money left in his bank acount dropped noticably. Or how the increase in VAT levied goods meant he had to stop buying other essentials or decide which one to pay for this week.

If you can put your disposible income into pensions, property and investments then maybe it's a bit easier...

"But simply VAT targets lower income people more."

Can you cite a reliable source for that.

VAT is impossible to legally avoid and poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on zero rated goods like food.

I'd have thought sales taxes were good for the poor and bad for big spenders.

Aracer, correct it's THE essential part of the definition. Get that wrong and you score nul points in an econ exam. The reason "he never changes his mind." and a pretty good one IMO.

VAT doesn't target anyone.

All governments use it increasingly for a specific reason and effect. The result that you allude to - albeit incorrectly - also changes over one's lifetime and is the subject of considerable academic debate not least because "over the lifetime" the IFS (for one) claim that the "impact" on lower income groups is not as commonly described. The reason why Vat is used - some claim that it is less distorting than income tax as it doesn't affect the incentive to work among other things - is also disputed.

The breakdown of who does and doesn't pay tax is easily available.

Hint: we're not doing an economics exam and you're not ninfan - I couldn't care less about the semantics. Answer the question: which part of the population spends the highest proportion of its income on food?

It seems you couldn't care less about precision either.

Oh I care a lot about that - I care about real world precision where the means for collecting tax makes no difference at all to how much you pay. Your refusal to answer a simple question speaks volumes.

Here's an economics professor - I presume you've passed more exams than him?

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/

Yes, I'm giving you a get out clause from a worng arguement - you just don't realise it. That's what a lack of precision does for you.

Anyway, I'll humour you as you persist.

What sort of food are we talking about - a rich tea, chcccie digestive or a Jaffa cake?

Why don't you humour me by explaining why you're a better authority than an economics professor? The point was a suggestion to levy vat on all food, not to revisit the question of whether a jaffa cake is a cake or a bisquit, something you seem to have forgotten in your eagerness to appear clever

VAT cannot be regressive since it is not a tax on income, it's a tax on consumption.

What definition of regressive are you using there?

Pedantry over the incorrect use of the word 'targeted' aside, are you seriously saying that the burden of this kind of indirect taxation is not heavier on the lowest income groups?

"Pedantry over the incorrect use of the word 'targeted' aside, are you seriously saying that the burden of this kind of indirect taxation is not heavier on the lowest income groups?"

I haven't seen a definitive answer but I suspect it's heavier on high income people because it can't be avoided , rich people buy more stuff and poor people spend more on zero rated stuff like food.

Coffee chains can avoid corporate tax but they can't avoid VAT

Given the lack of a definitive answer from google I'm guessing nobody really knows.

I haven't seen a definitive answer

Well i gave a link up there, I'm not going to try and argue the case, but just point out that while rich people buy more stuff, such spending is low in income elasticity (ie as people earn more their spending on VAT rated stuff doesn't go up in proportion). I think a lot of this is related to spending on "sin goods".

Though in any case it seems THM has successfully Trumped here by deflecting the discussion - his original reply was to a suggestion of imposing VAT on food, something I think we can all agree is regressive in effect.

"Well i gave a link up there"

I skim read it and it didn't mention tax avoidance which is critical to the calculation.

Even as a PAYE wage slave there are several things I can do to reduce my taxable income, I have no way to avoid a sales tax without smuggling.

[img] [/img]

Well I'm enjoying this one, so thought I'd carry on (and was struggling to link from the phone earlier):

[quote=teamhurtmore ]Aracer, correct it's THE essential part of the definition.

Why don't you provide us with a reference for that? Because I'm struggling to find one, whereas I could pretty much just post any random link from a search for "regressive indirect tax" which has an authority discussing how regressive various indirect taxes are. Here are a few examples from various economic bodies:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/fiscal-policy/regressive-tax/
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Aggressively%20Regressive.pdf

Though I note the following sentence from the last one "It is well established that indirect taxes are nearly always regressive" which is I presume why THM is so desparate to deflect the issue by arguing (incorrect) semantics.

[quote=mikewsmith ]pointless argument aracer, he never changes his mind

I don't really care - I'm happy enough to make him look silly.

Here's an economics professor - I presume you've passed more exams than him?

He is - and he has an economics degree, but I don't see any evidence of any further academic study on his website - no PhD for instance. He has of course been a very active tax campaigner and written few books and one of his ideas has been adopted by the OECD. However, he is not really an academic economist and some of his articles are very light weight. City University does have a habit of making practitioners Professors or Teaching Academics rather than pure academics. Even I have lectured there.

Well I am glad that we are agreed that thinking about food as a homogenous group is incorrect - yes Jaffa cakes were a deliberate choice.

The correct one Martin

Aracer, for the same reason that the IFS disagree with good old Murphy - he's wrong. If your intention is to make ME look silly then please do carry on. It will be amusing ....