Forum menu
5thElefant - MemberClearly no normal person would vote for a Marxist. Normal people don't support a system that requires millions to die.
You're getting your ideologies mixed up a bit, that's Sauron you're thinking off
How else do you propose to sweep the bourgeoise out of the way?
How else do you propose to sweep the bourgeoise out of the way?
I thought they were all going to be leaving the country ?
I thought they were all going to be leaving the country ?
Incompatible with the concept of united international proletarian action
Corbyn "fan" here- did his comments on MS did contain some factual errors? As covered here for those who want to read further:
https://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-takes-on-wall-street-but-do-his-claims-stand-up-11151621
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who [b]didn't need a bailout[/b] were therefore blameless.
But thats wrong. MS had to pay a $3.2B settlement in the US over sub-prime lending:
"Morgan Stanley knew that it was selling securities backed by residential mortgages with "material defects" — such as loans that were "underwater," where the loan was larger than the value of the house.
Internal emails helped document that the company was fully aware of the high risks of the loans it was securitizing, the New York attorney general's office writes:
In a May 31, 2006 email, the head of Morgan Stanley's team tasked with doing due diligence on the value of properties underlying the mortgage loans asked a colleague, 'please do not mention the 'slightly higher risk tolerance' in these communications. We are running under the radar and do not want to document these types of things.'
"In another email on November 21, 2006, a member of the Morgan Stanley due diligence team forwarded a list of questionable loans, seeking review and approval to purchase them and adding 'I assume you will want to do your 'magic' on this one?' "
The settlement announced Thursday was negotiated by a working group including both federal and state authorities, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."
Corbyn is right- bailout or no, they were up to their necks in it.
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who didn't need a bailout were therefore blameless.
Nope.
But nice diversion from your hero’s actual comments. Still who needs facts these days. One or two sugars with your snake oil sir?
teamhurtmore - Member
This view now seems to have taken hold generally- that MS and other institutions who didn't need a bailout were therefore blameless.
Nope.But nice diversion from your hero’s actual comments. Still who needs facts these days. One or two sugars with your snake oil sir?
I'm not attempting a diversion from his comments. To assert that I am is t allege that I'm trying to dissemble.
What I'm saying is- his comments are correct.
Jamba it's best not to look at the polls, the last election was a Tory landslide apparently?
No they are not. Far from. Lots of errors. Your choice if you want to “believe” them though
Corbyn is right- bailout or no, they were up to their necks in it.
That’s right, Morgan Stanley we’re up to their necks in it,..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2811167/Blair-Junior-banks-on-Morgan-Stanley.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2810381/Brown-picks-banker-for-top-job.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7133843.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35046961
Ninfan- I don't really care about Labour and Blair's involvement in MS, but thanks.
None of that disproves what I said above.
"In a May 31, 2006 email, the head of Morgan Stanley's team tasked with doing due diligence on the value of properties underlying the mortgage loans asked a colleague, 'please do not mention the 'slightly higher risk tolerance' in these communications. We are running under the radar and do not want to document these types of things.'
"In another email on November 21, 2006, a member of the Morgan Stanley due diligence team forwarded a list of questionable loans, seeking review and approval to purchase them and adding 'I assume you will want to do your 'magic' on this one?' "
They were deeply, deeply involved in the whole shebang.
I don't really care about Labour and Blair's involvement in MS,
Really, because if “The next Labour Government is a threat to a damaging and failed system that’s rigged for the few.” Then I would suggest that Labours longstanding involvement and close ties to Morgan Stanley opens
some really quite interesting questions,
Shall we just "cite", as they say?
“These are the same speculators and gamblers who crashed our economy in 2008 and then we had to bail them out. Their greed plunged the world into crisis and we are still paying the price.”
Is the "bail out" line why you're asserting that Corbyn was wrong? I'll give you that. No bailout was made to MS.
However, as I noted above, they were forced to pay a $3.2 billion settlement because they were aware of what risks they were carrying and covered it up.
Not exactly blameless.
ninfan - Member
I don't really care about Labour and Blair's involvement in MS,
Really, because if “The next Labour Government is a threat to a damaging and failed system that’s rigged for the few.” Then I would suggest that Labours lingstanding involvementand clise ties to Morgan Stanley opens some really quite interesting questions"
Labour's [i]former[/i] involvement, you mean?
Cody to your credit you more informed than your hero. His comments were quite different, more specific and wrong. But no change really.
Labour's former involvement, you mean?
One of Morgan Stanley’s current directors is a Labour Peer FFS!
teamhurtmore - Member
Cody to your credit you more informed than your hero. His comments were quite different, more specific and wrong. But no change really.
I'll be honest THM- I went through all he said line by line, and nothing I found- other than what I noted above- had anything factually correct that I could see. But as its you, I'll review it later and if I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so.
I do accept his broad assertion about the actions of certain banks prior to 2008 and afterwards. So.
ninfan - Member
Labour's former involvement, you mean?
One of Morgan Stanley’s current directors is a Labour Peer FFS!
Indeed, suggested by Harman IIRC. So?
I'll be honest THM- I went through all he said line by line, and nothing I found- other than what I noted above- had anything factually correct that I could see.
That’s a bit harsh. But you might be correct. Wouldn’t surprise me
j
jambalaya - Member
What’s really worrying for Labour is Bristol Labour council planning a trebling of council tax for “the rich”.
What's funny is whenever you see jamba making an outlandish claim you know without even googling that he's talking shite.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/increase-council-tax-200-richest-806346
I would say more people vote for the Conservative party in blissful ignorance as they are not part of the 5% that actually benefit from having a Conservative party
Absolutely.
I don't get that at all. Comes down to being a true blue and all that. But without the capacity to understand what shitting on your own doorstep means.
The Alf Garnett effect:
"My father borrowed a pair of boots to walk fifteen miles to the polling station to vote Conservative!"
Turkeys, Christmas etc....
@DrJ look at all the rises proposed for just shy of 16,000 owners. Owning a £1m property in Bristol doesn’t make you rich does it ? £500k property not rich, £1m property with £500k mortgage = rich ?
@Rusty running up a £90bn per anum deficit having soectacularly failed to properly regulate banks whilst claim8 g to have ended “boom and bust” certainly doesn’t help the 95%
“(Corbyn) going the full (Hugo) Chavez” - brilliant 🙂
Are you drunk?
Yes it does.Owning a £1m property in Bristol doesn’t make you rich does it ?
Sadly not it’s Monday. Did you watch the video, tremendous ? Or are you referring to something else
yeah but not like really rich, you know just quite well off.
Owning a £1m property in Bristol doesn’t make you rich does it ? £500k property not rich, £1m property with £500k mortgage = rich ?
And with that you show just how out of touch you are. £500 000 mortgage only available to the very richest couple of % of the UK
Yes it does.
Why are you richer owning a £1m property with a £500k mortgage than a £500k property without, or indeed a £900k property mortgage free. IMO a £900k property mortgage free makes you much richer than a £1m property owner with a 50% ltv loan
either example only is available to the very rich. £500 000 mortage is what - £3500 pcm.
@DrJ look at all the rises proposed for just shy of 16,000 owners. Owning a £1m property in Bristol doesn’t make you rich does it ? £500k property not rich, £1m property with £500k mortgage = rich ?
You didn't even get what DrJ was saying. The article references a report put out by Bristol's "wing" of Momentum. I realised this as I'd seen mention of it on twitter when you posted it the other day but didn't bother responding at the time. Yet, here you are talking about it again. It is not a "plan" by Bristol City Council. It's not even anywhere near a "plan" - let alone policy to be implemented. Jesus wept - what planet are you on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom
In terms of global poverty criteria, the United Kingdom is a wealthy country, with virtually no people living on less than £4 a day. In 2012-13, median personal income was approximately £21,000 a year but varies considerably by age, location, data source and occupation.[2] There is both significant income redistribution and income inequality; for instance, in 2013/14 income in the top and bottom fifth of households was £80,800 and £5,500, respectively, before taxes and benefits (15:1). After tax and benefits, household income disparities are significantly reduced to £60,000 and £15,500 (4:1).[3]
Out of touch?
TJ you clearly don’t understand the difference between wealth and income then. The day you start a £100k a year job you are not rich. It’s also substantially more than a “couple lf percent” that can afford a £500k 50% LTV mortgage be they individuals, couples or even BTL landlords.
Jamba - you clearly have no idea of what riches are. Being able to afford a 500 000 mortgage makes you one of the very rich elite and yes it will be the top couple of % of the population.
The day you start a £100 000 job you become one of the richest in our society.
The day you start a £100k a year job you are not rich.
Well most would wait until pay day...
YEAR MONTH WEEK
Gross Wage £100,000£8,333 £1,923
Taxable Wage £88,491 £7,374 £1,702
Tax Paid £28,696 £2,391 £552
Tax Free Allowance£11,509£959 £221
National Insurance£5,524£460 £106
Take-home pay £65,780 £5,482 £1,265
vs Median
YEAR MONTH WEEK
Gross Wage £21,000 £1,750 £404
Taxable Wage £9,491 £791 £183
Tax Paid £1,898 £158 £37
Tax Free Allowance £11,509 £959 £221
National Insurance £1,540 £128 £30
Take-home pay £17,561 £1,463 £338
So in 3 months on 100k you earn the same as somebody on the median wage does in a year? Definitely not rich, if you choose to live a lifestyle that spends most of your 100k then that is a choice and that does make you rich.
So what about Bristol City Council's plans for a 3x Council Tax rise jamba?
Is this true or not? Has Bristol City Council said that it's planning to raise Council Tax for the highest banded houses in the city? All I can find is stories about a 5% rise while making 30 odd million cuts - so those in Clifton and Stoke Bishop don't have to worry quite yet - unless you can cite specific plans to raise the council tax for Band H by 200%?
The day you start a £100 000 job you become one of the richest in our society.
Yep, assuming you keep that salary for a while. I count myself as relatively rich. Don't have much spare money each month because A LOT of money is going on a house but I can do that because I am rich.
So do I feel rich - not really
Am I rich - yes
he day you start a £100 000 job you become one of the richest in our society.
that also depends where you live - if you got that salary but lived and worked in the welsh valleys you would be a lot richer than someone working in London and having to cope with the much higher living/housing costs.
We all have a choice in where we live.
Moaning about living in the most affluent areas is a bit off, tbh.
But McDonald is being sensible. Populism succeeds despite being BS indeed arguably because of it. Even he doesn’t understand what he is saying about borrowing and ruturnd so his safe with the voters
Everytime I see McDonald I think that he will be echoing Trump if he ever got in - saying things like
"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject, Nobody knew [insert any of 'railways', 'the economy', 'water utilities', 'government borrowing', or anything else he has promised to nationalise] could be so complicated."
that also depends where you live - if you got that salary but lived and worked in the welsh valleys you would be a lot richer than someone working in London and having to cope with the much higher living/housing costs.
Indeed but it's still 3x average London salary and I lived there for 10 years on far less than 100k, is have felt much richer on 100k !
110K pa puts you firmly in the richest few % of the country. This is a fact. You might not feel rich but you are compared to the rest of us.
We all have a choice in where we live.
Moaning about living in the most affluent areas is a bit off, tbh.
Moaning - I think you are missing the point.
A bit like Labour threatening to tax people earning over £80k more without, it seems, any weighting for where the earner lives. A salary of £80k in London is worth a lot less than £80k in Bangor.
Yes, I know.
We supposedly live in the same country.
If you're happy with increased inequality and genuinely don't care about anyone outside your own little bubble, your argument holds water.
If not, it doesn't.
You are one of the wealthiest in our society.
You choose your lifestyle and how to spend your money.
Complaining that living costs are higher in the area you choose to live is, in my opinion, in extremely poor taste.
Don't complain because prices are higher in more affluent areas.
Isn't that how the blessed free market works?
A bit like Labour threatening to tax people earning over £80k more without, it seems, any weighting for where the earner lives. A salary of £80k in London is worth a lot less than £80k in Bangor.
You'd then get people pulling sneaky non-dom kind-of tricks so they didn't appear to live in London.
And it's quite hard to earn £80k in Bangor BTW.
Yep, when you start complaining how hard it is to live on 100k in the same city as people on minimum wage you might as well ask why they don't want some cake.
turnerguy - and that 80 000 still puts you in the richest few % of the population. Jeezo - the worlds of unreality some of you live in!