Jeremy Corbyn

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.

BBC Link

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 additional 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%.

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?

😐

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 on its own.

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.