Jeremy Corbyn

Labour haven’t said this is the only tax change they are making though, they are also changing capital gains, corporation and inheritance to help fund their policies

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what’s planned.

Blue herring.

The cuts to PIP and other disability benefits aren’t likely to cover all future costs either.
I don’t remember anyone having to point this out.

I was struck by how entirely similar Theresa May’s discourse is to that of the British National Party candidate I fought in Blackburn in 2005. That led me to turn to the BNP 2005 Manifesto, and I can see little significant difference between it and current Tory policy.

The British National Party in 2005 advocated:

– Severe cuts in immigration
– Leaving the EU
– Bringing back grammar schools
– Increased military spending
– More “security” and “strong leadership”
– Foreign policy driven by “British national interest” not human rights
– Reduce development aid

Interesting, heres a few he missed:

A ban on postal voting
Ban the conducting or publishing of opinion polls in the last three weeks of an election campaign,
each of our traditional Saints Days would be made Public Holidays in the nations in question,
Schools in England will be encouraged to celebrate May Day
We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers
We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.
Owners should work, and workers should own – BNP supports the gradual assumption of worker ownership through their pension funds.
Abolition of income tax
abolish TV licence
abolish road fund licence
renationalisation of public transport
introduce a special tax on companies that evade paying other taxes in Britain by out-sourcing jobs to factories and call centres overseas
fund research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy sources and transmission systems, such wind power, solar power, wave power, hydrogen fuel, and the pebble-bed nuclear reactor.
reintroduction of National Service
not permit the growing of GM crops.
withdraw from NATO

Saints days as bank holidays? Withdraw from NATO? Anti GM crops? Renationalise public transport? Workers ownership of firms? Taxes aimed at tax dodging international companies?

How very Jeremy!

at the moment Corbyn’s communist lite polices don’t seem to be that popular.

For a start they are not close to communist polices but whose to say they are not that popular?

If people took a second to think about what would be best for them they would suit the majority of people. Unfortunately people don’t think and are easily led into thinking Corbyn is some sort of communist who will take us back to the 70’s – with your comments I would put you in that camp.
As it is, we will get a May government where we have no way of knowing if her policies are popular as she doesn’t seem to have any. Being strong and stable is not a policy….

I understand it needs to be funded and think all should pay (plucked out of thin air) 25% tax rate. I am suggesting exactly that, someone earning 20k takes home 15k, someone earning 200k takes home 150k.

You need to do the maths. The above example would give you £55k from tax whereas with current system you would be getting much more than that. That means you would have to raise the tax to around 40%. DO you really think someone earning £20k should pay £8K in tax?

It also goes back to the fact that why is the one person earning £200k, 10 times more than the person on £20k. Market forces, going to Uni BS aside are they really worth 10 times as much?
My thoughts are no they are not, whatever they are doing, so while I cannot stop them earning £200k I can take a good proportion of it to distribute fairly. They are then left with £100K, still 5 times more than the person on the lower wage.

“Labour haven’t said this is the only tax change they are making though, they are also changing capital gains, corporation and inheritance to help fund their policies”

Nobody’s disputing that. The question still remains: Is it enough.

You disputed it a few posts ago:

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what’s planned.

So why did you bring it up in the first place?

I would suggest the point at which people can afford to pay more is well below 80k per year, it just wouldn’t be popular for a politician to say so.

This. I’d like to know where the magic line is so I can stay the right side of judgement.

This. I’d like to know where the magic line is so I can stay the right side of judgement.

That would be impossible…

…Single earning household, or double? Kids or no kids? Much of a mortgage – depends when you got on the property ladder, how long have you been earning, how much debt etc.

What sounds like a large wage could very well be just-about-managing to someone else, no?

Nobody’s disputing that. The question still remains: Is it enough.

FT Do labours plans balance

Guess we’ll know more when they publish their costed budget

Paywall

Weird, works for me

You disputed it a few posts ago:

I was using an electric screwdriver with a toddler nearby and also typing that post on a mobile at the same time, so it didn’t get the attention it deserved! 😀 I was aware there will be other tax rises apart from income tax (corporation tax has had a lot of press), so yes I should not have said tax increases in general.

The FT article is behind a paywall for me too. It’s only £1 for a 4 week trial and you can pay by paypal, so I think I’ll change the habit of a lifetime and stump up.

It’s not just you, it appears to be endemic.
🙂

It appears that double standards apply.

You don’t believe it, it’s patently absurd, it deflects attention from the issues, but it’s anti Labour so let’s crack on.

The FT article is behind a paywall for me too. It’s only £1 for a 4 week trial and you can pay by paypal, so I think I’ll change the habit of a lifetime and stump up.

Because I’ve already got a log-in it won’t let me have the 1£ 4 week offer… 🙁

You don’t believe it,

I might believe there’s a ton of spare cash available for HMRC to harvest – I haven’t seen the numbers yet, which is what I was asking for this morning.

EDIT: ‘it’ defined.

You’ve already said you don’t stand by your post, make your mind up!

Sorry, noticed your edit, my initial post was ambiguous.
I don’t have a screwdriver, but I am watering the garden.
🙂

I’m sure I read somewhere that 34 pence in every pound paid to your local council goes towards the pensions of council employees.
I wish I didn’t have to fund the majority of my pension.

Try this for the FT article
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ:https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what’s planned.

Sorry but those maths are way off. If you assume the average income for £80k plus earners is £100k, and the tax rate at £80k moves from 40% to 45% you get a net increase in tax contributions of £1,000 per person. You can fiddle around with the numbers and % above but you will struggle to get to £30k.

sargey – Member

I’m sure I read somewhere that 34 pence in every pound paid to your local council goes towards the pensions of council employees.
I wish I didn’t have to fund the majority of my pension.

1) Government cuts to local authority funding means that your council tax is also a significantly greater %age of their overall balance sheet than 7 years ago. (Particularly if your local council is labour-controlled and your area has a poor conservative vote in general elections too -although the government will dispute this till they are blue in the face the conincidence is quite compelling.)

2) They are reducing spending all over the place by quite extraordinary amounts: you can close libraries, move to fortnightly bin collections, farm out road repairs to crappy subcontractors etc but cutting people’s pension repayments is not so simple to enact. Therefore pension payments represent and increasing percentage of their budget (which is increasingly from you personally not the government) because it is not falling in line with cuts to services and current staffing levels.

3) if its anything like the NHS pension, then the story goes that there is no pension ‘fund’ as a load of money that exists saved up for pensions. -pansion payouts come from this years budget not money saved up 30 years ago. Mine is just like an extra bit of tax that the DOH spend on other stuff in the hope that in 26 years time they will be able to pay me back as if they had actually put it away somewhere to save it for me.

4) How did you calculate that 34% of your council’s tax take makes the ‘majority’ of these peoples’ pensions payments? How many pensions, and of what value are they paying out for with that notional 34% (our local council employed thousand and thousands of people in the 80’s and 90’s, most of whom had pensions and many of whom are now retired.

If you assume the average income for £80k plus earners is £100k, and the tax rate at £80k moves from 40% to 45% you get a net increase in tax contributions of £1,000 per person. You can fiddle around with the numbers and % above but you will struggle to get to £30k.

Yup, that’s the problem.

Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That’s 1.6 Billion. You just can’t generate significant cash by taxing the ‘rich’.

But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts ‘helped’.

Except no one will die because of it.

That, plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way. No one is saying it’s everything, but it’s a start.

plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it’s worked every time in the past after all.

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it’s worked every time in the past after all.

…and yet somehow insisting we are spending less these last 7 years seems to have increased our national debt by just over 50%. uncomfortable truth here[/url] Has money just got more expensive these days?

Try this for the FT article
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ:https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Ta much appreciated. So the cash can come from increased revenue forecast in 2018/2019.

But it helps.

I suspect a lot of people were expecting something a bit more significant than 0.2pc of the national budget. Blair trebled the NHS budget to £94bn over 10 years. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555344.stm)

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less,

yet spending less now costs more in the future, see education & in particular sure start dentres etc

Has money just got more expensive these days?

Well we did lose our AAA rating so in theory it should have. But ironically uncertainty makes bond more desirable so seemingly it doesn’t matter.

Yeah, but

Yeah but nothing.

The right wingers on this thread would not condemn the cuts to disability benefits until pressed to do so, and then how many did so?
One or two of you?

Mention something that would affect your income and it’s as if someone has suggested we all take up recreational bestiality.

It’s obvious where priorities lie, and it’s doesn’t reflect well on any of you.

Rusty Spanner – Member
But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts ‘helped’.

Except no one will die because of it.

I think youll find that all the appeals to wrongly applied sanctions has cost the taxpayer far many £millions than the sanctions “saved”

(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)

Tory mentality.

A Tory MP has been blasted for claiming emergency food parcels should not be given to people because they could become reliant on them.

Paul Maynard, who works for Minister of State Oliver Letwin, said people could start going to food banks out of habit rather than helping themselves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservative-mp-paul-maynard-food-2335762

(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)

No worries, I didn’t think you were.

I don’t think the disability cuts were just about the illusion of cost saving.
They were about punishment.

A softening up exercise for the demolition of social security.

Once its gone, cue much threads of STW middle management privilege types gnashing of teeth as the Precariat feed their kids by preying on the weak –
Their bike sheds

Be careful what you wish for, Welfare is an insurance policy of many facets

The ‘Yeah but’ in my post relates to text recently deleted from a recent post.

Would the poster involved care to respond?

ninfan – Member

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it’s worked every time in the past after all.

Darling & Brown post 2008 Global crash economic turnaround, much? Damn. There goes that selective right wing memory again

Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That’s 1.6 Billion. You just can’t generate significant cash by taxing the ‘rich’.

Very poor maths going on there. The £1,000 is for the person on £100k, they are at the bottom of the 5%.
The average is around £160k from memory so you would get a few times that in extra tax. Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.

Now you are going to tell us that someone earning £200k per year (around £10k net per month) is not rich either.

“The £1,000 is for the person on £100k”

The £1000 didn’t come from me, I don’t think it’s even a real number just that poster’s ballpark guess.

The FT article posted by greentricky answers one of my two questions, and I’m not sure the other one has a definitive answer, so I’m happy.

Morning.

Care to respond to my post?

Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.

I fear we’ve been here before