The definition of wealth is always arbitrary and depends on life experience and where you live. I have always had the impression that in e.g. London the only thing which people judge someone on is how much s/he earns and whether s/he lives in inner or outer London and owns his/her own home.
I live in a largish house with a modest mortgage in the country and a town house mortgage free with tenants. I cannot "eat" or heat myself with pictures and antique furniture and am dependent on benefits to survive. When my oil ran out on 14th February I had to sit out the rest of winter without heating and just wore an extra jumper because I couldn't afford to refill the oil tank.
I suspect 99% of the population would consider me "wealthy" because dead, my estate would pay a 6 figure sum in inheritance tax but alive my annual income isn't large enough to reach the limit of the personal allowance and pay income tax. Many of you reading this will earn more in a month than I have to live on for a year.
That is your choice though, if your net worth is as described, you could sell your houses, invest it in a mix of equities and bonds and live very comfortably.
I am the 6th generation in my family to live in my house although the first to own it so selling is not a consideration. One does not sell property unless absolutely necessary. Mortgage it, lease it etc but I am only the custodian during my lifetime and it will be for the next generation to decide what to do though I make it very clear in my will what I expect him to do.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Speak for yourself. I find Nick to be an interesting and well-informed poster so I think this ad hominem attack from you is bizarre. Not least your apparent view that being polite is a bad thing - although perhaps that is in itself revealing.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
That is a valid point. Somehow rich has become confused with comfortably off
Rich as you say is when money is no object
It's been confused by people who are neither well off nor comfortable. Growing up I'd have considered someone well off as rich. Telling people like that you're well off not rich wont hold water, it's not a winnable argument I think because they will still be richer than the person in question. I'm on 32k, and relatives think I'm rich as I get double what they do.
The Dickens quote is apposite: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery."
I felt richer before I had children and a house to support, even when my income was lower.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Half of households in the country earn less than £30k a year, so I imagine if you earn double that, you are doing okay (not necessarily great, but okay) and if you're earning 3 times that, then maybe being taxed a little more shouldn't bother you.
I think people also ignore what they get for taxes. We get the NHS, education until 18, roads, fire services, police services, the justice system and a hella lot of other things. This isn't the government just knicking your money and pocketing it. It is a case of raising taxes to pay for civic services that benefit everyone, individually and as a community. I can't understand people begrudging paying taxes. When I first started earning enough to pay tax I felt happy to be able to contribute back to a system that raised me.
I think what people resent is the top 0.1% both domestically and globally, those who earn in the high hundred of thousands/low millions and have millions in capital, who pay the square root of bugger all.
But we can’t/won’t go after them so instead it’s people who’ve worked hard to get where there are and rely entirely upon salary for income in the 60-120k bracket (doctors, medical consultants, headteachers and small businessmen) who get hammered.
I mean, I agree, but there is somewhat of an argument for doing both. If the man in the QT audience, for example, really did earn £80k, he is in the top 5% of earners and should really understand that.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Half of households in the country earn less than £30k a year, so I imagine if you earn double that, you are doing okay (not necessarily great, but okay) and if you're earning 3 times that, then maybe being taxed a little more shouldn't bother you.
I think people also ignore what they get for taxes. We get the NHS, education until 18, roads, fire services, police services, the justice system and a hella lot of other things. This isn't the government just knicking your money and pocketing it. It is a case of raising taxes to pay for civic services that benefit everyone, individually and as a community. I can't understand people begrudging paying taxes. When I first started earning enough to pay tax I felt happy to be able to contribute back to a system that raised me.
I think what people resent is the top 0.1% both domestically and globally, those who earn in the high hundred of thousands/low millions and have millions in capital, who pay the square root of bugger all.
But we can’t/won’t go after them so instead it’s people who’ve worked hard to get where there are and rely entirely upon salary for income in the 60-120k bracket (doctors, medical consultants, headteachers and small businessmen) who get hammered.
A Warren style wealth tax for the super elite is a good idea.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich means having capital. I have a good income but I am not rich because my wife and I came from poor backgrounds and have had to build things up from very heavily taxed income.
That’s a good summary.
It probably means you can have a very luxurious lifestyle as an adult at all stages of your life *without having to work and earn a salary* at any time.
That’s rich.
We are obsessed with taxing income and not overall asset wealth, although the latter can be a bit of a minefield sensible chancellors might do well to look there a bit more soberly.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
That is a valid point. Somehow rich has become confused with comfortably off
Rich as you say is when money is no object
It's been confused by people who are neither well off nor comfortable. Growing up I'd have considered someone well off as rich. Telling people like that you're well off not rich wont hold water, it's not a winnable argument I think because they will still be richer than the person in question. I'm on 32k, and relatives think I'm rich as I get double what they do.
I think rich means have access to considerably amounts of cash not to worry about bills or how to pay for holidays or even dementia care in old age
The problem in our country is that for too many having reliable food, shelter and a future worth living for are riches beyond their dreams.
That’s nonsense. It’s the tosh that labour have talked themselves into, an imagined society between the billionaires and the have nots. It’s just not true for virtually everyone reliable food shelter and a future are a stable given. There’s certainly reform needed in the private rental market to give tenants much more stability. But life is good for the vast many.
My village has a food bank and rough sleepers now, are people doing that for fun?
PB Tories established beyond doubt yesterday that food banks and homelessness are just a lifestyle choice. Nothing to see here!
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
As the sole, reasonably high, income supporting two kids that will head off to uni, a disabled wife and two chronically ill parents needing social care, I think I would be significantly better off.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
The definition of wealth is always arbitrary and depends on life experience and where you live. I have always had the impression that in e.g. London the only thing which people judge someone on is how much s/he earns and whether s/he lives in inner or outer London and owns his/her own home.
I live in a largish house with a modest mortgage in the country and a town house mortgage free with tenants. I cannot "eat" or heat myself with pictures and antique furniture and am dependent on benefits to survive. When my oil ran out on 14th February I had to sit out the rest of winter without heating and just wore an extra jumper because I couldn't afford to refill the oil tank.
I suspect 99% of the population would consider me "wealthy" because dead, my estate would pay a 6 figure sum in inheritance tax but alive my annual income isn't large enough to reach the limit of the personal allowance and pay income tax. Many of you reading this will earn more in a month than I have to live on for a year.
That is your choice though, if your net worth is as described, you could sell your houses, invest it in a mix of equities and bonds and live very comfortably.
I am the 6th generation in my family to live in my house although the first to own it so selling is not a consideration. One does not sell property unless absolutely necessary. Mortgage it, lease it etc but I am only the custodian during my lifetime and it will be for the next generation to decide what to do though I make it very clear in my will what I expect him to do.
Wealth is having that choice, it is not a guarantee of efficient use of capital. As a free market conservative if you make choices that are inefficient then I am sure you expect neither sympathy nor the states support.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
First they came for the Europeans, now they come for the £100k earners, who will be hounded out next?
[deleted] 1. Increase tax on 80k+ = 5.4bn. 2. Corporation tax cuts reverse = 23.7bn. 3. Unitary tax of multinationals = 6.3bn. 4. Taxing investment income as other income = 14bn. 5. Financial transactions tax = 8.8bn 6. Tax avoidance and evasion = 6.2bn 7. Corporate tax reliefs review = 4.3bn 8. R&D funding reform = 4.0bn 9. Reverse cuts to inheritance tax and Bank Levy, impose VAT on private school fees, scrap Married Persons Allowance, introduce a second homes tax = 5.2bn 10. Additional tax revenue from fiscal multiplier = 5bn
Most of those changes look sensible to me. Even Boris has implicitly accepted the principle behind increasing corporation tax.
On what basis do you say these changes "look sensible". Are you saying that you believe that they've been calculated correctly or that they form the basis for a credible fiscal policy? And what authority do you have to make and express such judgments?
And putting all that aside, your statement that "the vast majority is supposed to come from corporations" is palpably incorrect even using the numbers you've cited. Putting aside the fact that, ultimately, many of the additional corporate costs will filter through to individuals anyway, items 1, 4, 6 and 9 add up to over £30bn. Add in the high degree of likelihood that the corporate taxes won't bring in as much as expected (£8.8bn from a financial transactions tax when just by picking up the phone to a broker in Dublin, Amsterdam or New York you could perform the same transaction without tax if companies move their listings as they undoubtedly would?) and individuals are very directly going to be picking up most of this.
It's a recipe for capital fleeing the country, a reduction - not an increase - in tax revenue and the public services we can afford to enjoy, and mass unemployment as multinational and service companies move all or some of their activities offshore. Beware of what you wish for.
The above was said 40 years ago and was without foundation then or now. Go and live in Jersey if you object to paying progressive taxation as the price of a civilised society. Even Ken Clarke now supports the idea of a 'Scandinavian-style welfare state' (remarks on AQ).
Of course, international cooperation is needed. Taxes have been harmonised downwards since the 1980s and need to return to the levels they were at from the 1930s to the 1980s.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
First they came for the Europeans, now they come for the £100k earners, who will be hounded out next?
Answer the question, will Britain be a better or worse country of people who earn over £100k feel as though they can't make a life here?
It is quite interesting how many people want to become rich but when they get there insist that rich is the next level up. Why not claim success and say yay Ive made it?
Perhaps the drive needed to get there in the first place requires a continual upward re-setting of goals.
I consider myself rich, though I keep it quiet. I have a nice house and, together with my wife, we can support a family of five. We can have days out when we want. When asked household income in surveys, it's always one of the top two boxes that gets ticked, which is a reasonable indication that most have a lot less. But short of 70s style inflation neither of us will ever earn £80k. £80k is rich.
But that's beside the point: tax doesn't become fair simply because someone else is paying it.
I'm also pretty convinced I'd end up much poorer with Labour's ta x proposals, even if you accept that their tax proposals will cover their spending*. Most of my wealth, aside from my house, is in pension funds and savings which are dependent on the ability of private companies to make a profit. Most of my working life has been in the private sector; I don't have the luxury of years of public sector employment behind me adding up to a guaranteed pension.
*Which, for many reasons but chiefly because high earners will earn elsewhere or be leaa inclined to bother, I don't believe it will.
A Warren style wealth tax for the super elite is a good idea.
Yes. Modern style global capitalism is a monster for both good and ill. In the latter category is how it allows enormous wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few people. These people are the real "elite". We need a way to either limit this wealth (and associated power) concentration in the first place or to tax it back into the common pot for the general good. We should IMO take whichever of these approaches is the least difficult. Or perhaps a mix of the two.
It's the way Labour want to control and tax private companies that is the real issue to me. Everything about trying to be an entrepreneur with them is the dark side. They have no concept of wealth creation..I'll admit right at the top end it has got out of control but for SMEs this will be a disaster
The definition of wealth is always arbitrary and depends on life experience and where you live. I have always had the impression that in e.g. London the only thing which people judge someone on is how much s/he earns and whether s/he lives in inner or outer London and owns his/her own home.
I live in a largish house with a modest mortgage in the country and a town house mortgage free with tenants. I cannot "eat" or heat myself with pictures and antique furniture and am dependent on benefits to survive. When my oil ran out on 14th February I had to sit out the rest of winter without heating and just wore an extra jumper because I couldn't afford to refill the oil tank.
I suspect 99% of the population would consider me "wealthy" because dead, my estate would pay a 6 figure sum in inheritance tax but alive my annual income isn't large enough to reach the limit of the personal allowance and pay income tax. Many of you reading this will earn more in a month than I have to live on for a year.
That is your choice though, if your net worth is as described, you could sell your houses, invest it in a mix of equities and bonds and live very comfortably.
I am the 6th generation in my family to live in my house although the first to own it so selling is not a consideration. One does not sell property unless absolutely necessary. Mortgage it, lease it etc but I am only the custodian during my lifetime and it will be for the next generation to decide what to do though I make it very clear in my will what I expect him to do.
Wealth is having that choice, it is not a guarantee of efficient use of capital. As a free market conservative if you make choices that are inefficient then I am sure you expect neither sympathy nor the states support.
Conservatism is about preserving wealth not just free trade liberalism
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
The IFS had the mother of all brainfarts that day.
The country being shoehorned into the equivalent of a severe recession lasting many years might very well be worse than a one term Corbyn government. Only the most obsessive Leavers find that difficult to imagine.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Half otribute back to a system that raised me.
I think what people resent is the top 0.1% both domestically and
I mean, I agree, but there is somewhat of an argument for doing both. If the man in the QT audience, for example, really did earn £80k, he is in the top 5% of earners and should really understand that.
Your income and earnings change throughout your career. Those currently in the top 5% may not have been a few years ago and won’t be in a few years time either. So a far higher number of us will earn that sort of money at some stage in our careers.
It all comes down to fairness. I don’t think total government tax take should ever exceed 50% of income above any threshold as it creates perverse incentives and doesn’t reward people for the risks they take and hard work they do. It robs them of the money they’ve earned.
That doesn’t leave many places to go when you add income tax + NI + personal allowance withdrawals on top, not least of which because they might move overseas, and if this is about increasing revenue for the exchequer rather than ideology I’d leave it well alone and look at reforming asset wealth taxes instead and removing tax anomalies.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Labour's proposals come with a high risk of failure and unintended consequences. They are woefully optimistic. They assume a tax base that doesn't up sticks and move away, taking their businesses and their jobs with them.
Some policies are well intentioned. Some just driven by spite and envy, hoping that will appeal to the spite and envy of their base.
It is not a package for moving through the uncertainties caused by Brexit. So we can assume they aren't going to be implementing Brexit. The 52% will take note.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
The IFS had the mother of all brainfarts that day.
The country being shoehorned into the equivalent of a severe recession lasting many years might very well be worse than a one term Corbyn government. Only the most obsessive Leavers find that difficult to imagine.
They made the mistake of taking the Corbyn plans at face value, and not modelling behavioural responses.
We’d certainly get one of those with him in charge too, and economic catastrophe.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
First they came for the Europeans, now they come for the £100k earners, who will be hounded out next?
Answer the question, will Britain be a better or worse country of people who earn over £100k feel as though they can't make a life here?
I am not supporting Labour nor there plans! So Britain is a worse place if Labours plans are implemented and talented people and good businesses leave. Just as Britain is a worse place if Brexit is implemented and talented people and good businesses leave.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
What would be best for the public purse is to grow and develop high income decent jobs in business, finance, new tech and new economy and get as many of us as possible promoted into and earning into that bracket.
That’s what the Government should be focussing its efforts on, and it can then reap the benefits
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Speak for yourself. I find Nick to be an interesting and well-informed poster so I think this ad hominem attack from you is bizarre. Not least your apparent view that being polite is a bad thing - although perhaps that is in itself revealing.
It’s not ad hominem. It’s absolutely fair comment. And he’s given it out to be before too so he’s not as “nice” as you think he is.
There are Labour posters on this forum I both like and respect. The stasi euro-communist isn’t one of them.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
So it is better than No Deal, thanks for confirming
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
First they came for the Europeans, now they come for the £100k earners, who will be hounded out next?
Answer the question, will Britain be a better or worse country of people who earn over £100k feel as though they can't make a life here?
We will not be able to afford an NHS if the decide they can't.
As with the SNP - "Free Stuff" benefits the better off:
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
That doesn’t work as a counter argument
Tories believe in allocation of limited resources in the most effective way (ie means testing / targeted discounts like this
If, like Labour, you believe that free healthcare is a universal right then they don’t care about where there would be a better use of the money elsewhere. You can always tax or borrow or print more
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
As the sole, reasonably high, income supporting two kids that will head off to uni, a disabled wife and two chronically ill parents needing social care, I think I would be significantly better off.
Almost certainly not. His plans would collapse the economy even if you took them at face value.
I agree that fixing anomalies in the tax system should be addressed as a priority though.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
The IFS had the mother of all brainfarts that day.
The country being shoehorned into the equivalent of a severe recession lasting many years might very well be worse than a one term Corbyn government. Only the most obsessive Leavers find that difficult to imagine.
A Corbyn government means sky high inflation and likely recession too as companies leave and cut costs to pay the tax bill
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
As the sole, reasonably high, income supporting two kids that will head off to uni, a disabled wife and two chronically ill parents needing social care, I think I would be significantly better off.
Almost certainly not. His plans would collapse the economy even if you took them at face value.
I agree that fixing anomalies in the tax system should be addressed as a priority though.
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
Well said. I dont agree with Labours policies and think they are very badly thought out, but the same people who dont give a toss about the disruption to the economy that will be caused by Brexit seem to suddenly care about the economy, business and talented people wanting to contribute to the UK.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
snipped for length
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
So. It's an entirely subjective thing whether it's big or not. Even in the south-east, even if you're commuting, for many, many people, it's huge. I also get that if you're living up to your income, it doesn't feel like it.
The *objective* fact, though, is that whether 80k is big or not, only 5 per cent of taxpayers are on it.
Labour's (again subjective) gamble is that it's far enough above most people's aspirations not to worry them. Given you could still be in the top 10 per cent on a salary 25k lower, it's probably not a bad one. (90 per cent of taxpayers are on less than 53k)
The bigger risk for Labour is that people simply don't believe them and expect the basic rate to go back up to 28p on Dec 16th.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
As the sole, reasonably high, income supporting two kids that will head off to uni, a disabled wife and two chronically ill parents needing social care, I think I would be significantly better off.
Almost certainly not. His plans would collapse the economy even if you took them at face value.
I agree that fixing anomalies in the tax system should be addressed as a priority though.
Brexit makes me worse off.
It slows the rate of growth for the UK in the short-term. It doesn’t pull thousands of pounds directly out of your pocket over what you already have.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
So it is better than No Deal, thanks for confirming
It is far worse than staying in the EU, which gives the Conservatives an immediate substantial fiscal handicap relative to Labour and the Lib Dems. And the Conservatives are looking to the magic money tree for more goodies too.
No. Nothing in Islam requires the burka so how can it be? Only racists and extremists like @noo believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
It is entirely reasonable for 4 year olds to see the face of the people looking after them. It's natural. Facial cues are important for children.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
Financially worse off. Socially, culturally and politically we'd be immeasurably enriched.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
So it is better than No Deal, thanks for confirming
It is far worse than staying in the EU, which gives the Conservatives an immediate substantial fiscal handicap relative to Labour and the Lib Dems. And the Conservatives are looking to the magic money tree for more goodies too.
Labour does not want to stay in the EU, Corbyn will just hold a referendum on a Labour Deal Leave could win again, only the LDs want to revoke Brexit
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
No, we’re just interested in what’s more effective for a healthier economy and society.
People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.
The tax rate is being raised due to ideology. There’s no limit where Corbyn’s Labour would think the tax rate is enough.
If those on 80k were already paying 50% he’d want them to pay 60%. If they were paying 60%, it would be 70%.
It’s because he fundamentally believes all wealth is collective, and it’s not for the individual who ‘earns’ it to decide how to spend it.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
He is also not going to ask for an extension of the transition period so we will be faced again with a no Deal Brexit at end 2020.
As with the SNP - "Free Stuff" benefits the better off:
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
Tories believe in allocation of limited resources in the most effective way (ie means testing / targeted discounts like this
Even when it is shown that the testing costs more than applying the benefit universally.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
Financially worse off. Socially, culturally and politically we'd be immeasurably enriched.
As an aside, I think it's ill-advised of the IFS to do interviews on the morning of the manifesto. They should give themselves time to do the necessary analysis. If I remember rightly, in 2017 they did a big announcement when they had their results. That seems a much better approach, which got plenty of press.
No. Nothing in Islam requires the burka so how can it be? Only racists and extremists like @noo believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
It is entirely reasonable for 4 year olds to see the face of the people looking after them. It's natural. Facial cues are important for children.
I agree with you. But do you think @Noo dle-brains will call out Thornberry the way he has Johnson?
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
He is also not going to ask for an extension of the transition period so we will be faced again with a no Deal Brexit at end 2020.
We could be faced with a no deal on the 31st January if the HOC is deadlocked and cannot take action to stop the default position
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
So it is better than No Deal, thanks for confirming
It is far worse than staying in the EU, which gives the Conservatives an immediate substantial fiscal handicap relative to Labour and the Lib Dems. And the Conservatives are looking to the magic money tree for more goodies too.
Labour does not want to stay in the EU, Corbyn will just hold a referendum on a Labour Deal Leave could win again, only the LDs want to revoke Brexit
Labour have not committed to leave the EU. They are therefore entitled to prepare their costings on the assumption that massive cost may well not come to pass.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
I’m not sure what point you are making? Are you arguing that Labour’s plans will actually increase the value of pension funds (individual or collective)?
The point is Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity which increases corporate profits. All perfectly true and reasonable. Whether it is enough to offset the higher rates (and new methods) proposed is very dubious and completely untested.
That doesn't follow. There is no evidence that mass government spending increases productivity, in fact quite the opposite Marxist nations have tended to see productivity fall not rise.
And if you're looking to increase productivity then putting up major tax increases on R&D and Investment seems a bizarre place to start.
Isn't that just Keynesianism, and don't most economists agree it works? (Not that I think economics is anything other than voodoo magic)
No. To overly simplify Keynesian economics is countercyclical economics. It suggests we run a surplus during periods of growth and run a deficit during times of recession.
Borrowing a trillion pounds and taxing and spending so much now has absolutely nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
Taxes are already high. Jez is making them punitively so.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
I’m not sure what point you are making? Are you arguing that Labour’s plans will actually increase the value of pension funds (individual or collective)?
The point is Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity which increases corporate profits. All perfectly true and reasonable. Whether it is enough to offset the higher rates (and new methods) proposed is very dubious and completely untested.
That doesn't follow. There is no evidence that mass government spending increases productivity, in fact quite the opposite Marxist nations have tended to see productivity fall not rise.
And if you're looking to increase productivity then putting up major tax increases on R&D and Investment seems a bizarre place to start.
I thought you studied economics? There is a broad consensus (not no evidence) that infrastructure investment raises productivity.
That does not mean all infrastructure investment raises productivity, of course some of it can be wasteful. I do not support Labours proposals as they are trying to do far too much all in one go but more investment in our infrastructure is a good starting place.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
Hypothetical polls - worth less than the paper they are written on.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Some other aphorisms seem potentially apposite here - the one about it being better to be lucky than skilful, for one. Possibly also the one about the golfer who seemed to get luckier the more he practiced.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
Why does nobody ever point out that taking money out of large companies, raising taxes on investments/ Dividends, basically attacking “greedy“ shareholders has a direct on every single person with a direct interest in personal pension funds, and an indirect interest in public sector fund backed pensions?
The case for pension funds is essentially the same as for individuals - if you organise the economy on the basis of low public investment, low pay and high dependence on an underskilled workforce, you will bump along with 1% growth indefinitely; if Britain is more dynamically managed you may have a slightly lower share of the cake but it'll be a bigger cake.
I’m not sure what point you are making? Are you arguing that Labour’s plans will actually increase the value of pension funds (individual or collective)?
The point is Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity which increases corporate profits. All perfectly true and reasonable. Whether it is enough to offset the higher rates (and new methods) proposed is very dubious and completely untested.
That doesn't follow. There is no evidence that mass government spending increases productivity, in fact quite the opposite Marxist nations have tended to see productivity fall not rise.
And if you're looking to increase productivity then putting up major tax increases on R&D and Investment seems a bizarre place to start.
I thought you studied economics? There is a broad consensus (not no evidence) that infrastructure investment raises productivity.
That does not mean all infrastructure investment raises productivity, of course some of it can be wasteful. I do not support Labours proposals as they are trying to do far too much all in one go but more investment in our infrastructure is a good starting place.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
Only racists and extremists...believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
I see the Burka more often on the streets of London than I do on the streets (to be precise, inside the malls) of Jakarta, capital of the country with the world's largest Muslim population.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
Models with heavy assumptions towards the idea that we should be in the EU in the first place end up with suggesting we should be in the EU. Gee what a shock. However those models have already been shown to be flawed by now. These are models suggesting we should have had an immediate recession after the vote and suggesting that investment into the UK would fall if it looked like we were leaving the EU whereas in reality the UK is getting more investment than ANY EU nation isn't it?
The UK will likely outgrow the Eurozone over the next decade confounding your 'models' - that's a problem with models they depend upon your assumptions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
As with the SNP - "Free Stuff" benefits the better off:
"Labour’s manifesto includes a £600 million promise to scrap prescription charges in England. Broadly speaking, the old, the young, the poor, the disabled and the chronically sick are already exempt from charges: as a result 89% of prescriptions last year were provided free. The main beneficiaries of Labour’s policy to make the remaining 11% free of charge are therefore likely to be working-age people of reasonable financial means, and who are not chronically sick."
Tories believe in allocation of limited resources in the most effective way (ie means testing / targeted discounts like this
Even when it is shown that the testing costs more than applying the benefit universally.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It isn't in London or the south east.
If you're paying for full time childcare, an expensive season ticket and a big mortgage you are "self-sustaining" but you have many financial commitments.
"After Labour puts up your taxes, are you sure you can still afford your mortgage?"
That should do it.
We’d be snookered.
I earn over £80k and pay high childcare fees and commuting costs. And I don’t believe for a second he’d stop at ‘just’ an extra 5% tax on me.
Corbyn would price us out of our family home.
That's our worry as well, I think we'd have to move back to Zurich if Jez became PM. Currently I pay about £40k in income tax and NI, is the UK better or worse of if people like me feel that they aren't able to make a life in this country or can have a better life elsewhere where we won't be hounded by Marxists.
Financially worse off. Socially, culturally and politically we'd be immeasurably enriched.
Absolute bollocks - but hey you have been dealt 7 2 what else can you do
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Ask Nick about his "tick tock" reports before the election back when he was an MP
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
Well said. I dont agree with Labours policies and think they are very badly thought out, but the same people who dont give a toss about the disruption to the economy that will be caused by Brexit seem to suddenly care about the economy, business and talented people wanting to contribute to the UK.
The problem will be caused by a sudden jump in tax (etc) for those people. If there was a five year plan* with stepped increases, the £120k-ers for whom it wipes out a season ticket and several months' mortgage payments would have time to adjust their lives. While I absolutely support higher taxes at higher levels, I can see why a big change immediately on April 6th next year would frighten the horses.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
At some point, people are going to have to start entertaining the idea that Johnson and Cummings might actually know what they're doing.
Hopefully after Dec 12.
There's a wonderful aphorism by Warren Buffett that I'm a great believer of that goes something like this:
"When a management with a reputation for brilliance takes over a business with a reputation for poor performance, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
We humans like simple stories. Our brains are hardwired to believe them. Dominic Cummings is the superhero in this tale: with insight, and brilliance and intelligence.
The reality is simpler. People, even most Remainers, want Brexit done. Corbyn is a dangerous joke. Johnson is like syphilis when the alternative is herpes. At least you know that you can get rid of him without too many consequences later.
But Boris Johnson is a man who sways in the slightest breath of wind if he sees a second of advantage. (And by advantage, I mean one second longer in power.) Like Tony Blair, who I sadly think he resembles, he is a man with only a passing interest in the truth.
And he is likely to be handed a large majority. Not because of the brilliance of Cummings, but because he's in the right place at the right time.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic. (He's certainly better than the alternatives.) But I fear that the next five years are not going to go well for the UK.
Some other aphorisms seem potentially apposite here - the one about it being better to be lucky than skilful, for one. Possibly also the one about the golfer who seemed to get luckier the more he practiced.
It's totally plausible that Johnson is just a chancer with a bunch of advantages from birth that are responsible for almost all his achievements. But, he's been doing this a while now, and whatever he's doing does seem to be working.
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
No, we’re just interested in what’s more effective for a healthier economy and society.
People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.
The tax rate is being raised due to ideology. There’s no limit where Corbyn’s Labour would think the tax rate is enough.
If those on 80k were already paying 50% he’d want them to pay 60%. If they were paying 60%, it would be 70%.
It’s because he fundamentally believes all wealth is collective, and it’s not for the individual who ‘earns’ it to decide how to spend it.
“People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.”
In my experience there are plenty of wealthy people that don’t work especially hard. Luck and connections can play a huge part in success.
This argument has been raging for centuries, used to be called the undeserving poor vs. the undeserving rich. We are unlikely to resolve it today.
Regardless I am glad to contribute those less fortunate than me and given our societies ills am happy to contribute more. I am surprised others don’t feel the same.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
If he was as persuasive as you suggest he'd still be an MP.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
I think they're banking on it saying 'it's not quite as bad as labour' which would be aringing endorsement indeed.
Given that the IFS found last month that a Corbyn government would be better than a no-deal Brexit, that's not a given.
Boris has a Deal Brexit enabling free trade talks with the EU
Most models of Boris Johnson's deal find that its economic impact is not far off as bad as a no deal Brexit.
Models with heavy assumptions towards the idea that we should be in the EU in the first place end up with suggesting we should be in the EU. Gee what a shock. However those models have already been shown to be flawed by now. These are models suggesting we should have had an immediate recession after the vote and suggesting that investment into the UK would fall if it looked like we were leaving the EU whereas in reality the UK is getting more investment than ANY EU nation isn't it?
The UK will likely outgrow the Eurozone over the next decade confounding your 'models' - that's a problem with models they depend upon your assumptions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The fruitloops' enthusiasm for the IFS hasn't survived the morning. Sad!
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Words have meaning. I am responsible for my words not Labours plan. I am not supporting Labours overall economic plan. My post said Labours plan was likely to be bad. It said infrastructure investment leads to productivity which it does. It even caveated (for the sake of pedants) that not all infrastructure investment is good for productivity, it can be ineffective.
No. Nothing in Islam requires the burka so how can it be? Only racists and extremists like @noo believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
It is entirely reasonable for 4 year olds to see the face of the people looking after them. It's natural. Facial cues are important for children.
I agree with you. But do you think @Noo dle-brains will call out Thornberry the way he has Johnson?
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The noise you get when well off people are asked to pay a penny more towards those less fortunate than them is remarkable. It’s as if it’s the end of world.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
No, we’re just interested in what’s more effective for a healthier economy and society.
People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.
The tax rate is being raised due to ideology. There’s no limit where Corbyn’s Labour would think the tax rate is enough.
If those on 80k were already paying 50% he’d want them to pay 60%. If they were paying 60%, it would be 70%.
It’s because he fundamentally believes all wealth is collective, and it’s not for the individual who ‘earns’ it to decide how to spend it.
“People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.”
In my experience there are plenty of wealthy people that don’t work especially hard. Luck and connections can play a huge part in success.
This argument has been raging for centuries, used to be called the undeserving poor vs. the undeserving rich. We are unlikely to resolve it today.
Regardless I am glad to contribute those less fortunate than me and given our societies ills am happy to contribute more. I am surprised others don’t feel the same.
Not wealthy/not rich - (1) false dividing line.
Happy to contribute - (2) we already contribute a lot, emotional blackmail over a straw man.
I might be missing something here, but is this not helpful to Labour? I'm not sure why they are complaining.
A cynic might wonder who this man is and if he really does earn what he says he does.
Is he really on 80K a year? Looks like a down and out.
There were a series of quite posh "guests" on question time about a month ago who all spoke eloquently about how much they enjoy zero hour contracts. It would not surprise me at all if they choose someone dishevelled for the 80k is normal argument and someone looking great for promoting zero hours.
The BBC needs to manage the propoganda party spinners better.
Comments
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery."
I felt richer before I had children and a house to support, even when my income was lower.
It probably means you can have a very luxurious lifestyle as an adult at all stages of your life *without having to work and earn a salary* at any time.
That’s rich.
We are obsessed with taxing income and not overall asset wealth, although the latter can be a bit of a minefield sensible chancellors might do well to look there a bit more soberly.
But that's beside the point: tax doesn't become fair simply because someone else is paying it.
I'm also pretty convinced I'd end up much poorer with Labour's ta x proposals, even if you accept that their tax proposals will cover their spending*. Most of my wealth, aside from my house, is in pension funds and savings which are dependent on the ability of private companies to make a profit. Most of my working life has been in the private sector; I don't have the luxury of years of public sector employment behind me adding up to a guaranteed pension.
*Which, for many reasons but chiefly because high earners will earn elsewhere or be leaa inclined to bother, I don't believe it will.
Everything about trying to be an entrepreneur with them is the dark side.
They have no concept of wealth creation..I'll admit right at the top end it has got out of control but for SMEs this will be a disaster
Hope you can work out what I said!
Is this islamophobia?
https://youtu.be/FerX57mURt8?t=32
It all comes down to fairness. I don’t think total government tax take should ever exceed 50% of income above any threshold as it creates perverse incentives and doesn’t reward people for the risks they take and hard work they do. It robs them of the money they’ve earned.
That doesn’t leave many places to go when you add income tax + NI + personal allowance withdrawals on top, not least of which because they might move overseas, and if this is about increasing revenue for the exchequer rather than ideology I’d leave it well alone and look at reforming asset wealth taxes instead and removing tax anomalies.
Some policies are well intentioned. Some just driven by spite and envy, hoping that will appeal to the spite and envy of their base.
It is not a package for moving through the uncertainties caused by Brexit. So we can assume they aren't going to be implementing Brexit. The 52% will take note.
I know that people here enjoy seeing both sides of the debate.
We’d certainly get one of those with him in charge too, and economic catastrophe.
Well, so much for TheJezziah's line....
That’s what the Government should be focussing its efforts on, and it can then reap the benefits
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1197792435180453888?s=20
There are Labour posters on this forum I both like and respect. The stasi euro-communist isn’t one of them.
The very same people do not give a second thought to benefit changes at the other end of the income spectrum that proportionately have a far greater impact to those individuals.
Tories believe in allocation of limited resources in the most effective way (ie means testing / targeted discounts like this
If, like Labour, you believe that free healthcare is a universal right then they don’t care about where there would be a better use of the money elsewhere. You can always tax or borrow or print more
I agree that fixing anomalies in the tax system should be addressed as a priority though.
The *objective* fact, though, is that whether 80k is big or not, only 5 per cent of taxpayers are on it.
Labour's (again subjective) gamble is that it's far enough above most people's aspirations not to worry them. Given you could still be in the top 10 per cent on a salary 25k lower, it's probably not a bad one. (90 per cent of taxpayers are on less than 53k)
The bigger risk for Labour is that people simply don't believe them and expect the basic rate to go back up to 28p on Dec 16th.
https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1197570885638672385?s=20
It is entirely reasonable for 4 year olds to see the face of the people looking after them. It's natural. Facial cues are important for children.
No, we’re just interested in what’s more effective for a healthier economy and society.
People in that bracket already work very hard and pay an awful lot of tax, so please don’t play the “selfishness” card.
The tax rate is being raised due to ideology. There’s no limit where Corbyn’s Labour would think the tax rate is enough.
If those on 80k were already paying 50% he’d want them to pay 60%. If they were paying 60%, it would be 70%.
It’s because he fundamentally believes all wealth is collective, and it’s not for the individual who ‘earns’ it to decide how to spend it.
They should give themselves time to do the necessary analysis. If I remember rightly, in 2017 they did a big announcement when they had their results. That seems a much better approach, which got plenty of press.
Borrowing a trillion pounds and taxing and spending so much now has absolutely nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Do watch right through to assure yourself he's not just confused himself. He is either nuclear-grade thick as mince, or just mendacious:
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1197797810495733760?s=20
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
https://twitter.com/sparkyhamill/status/1197794665187164165?s=20
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=david+cameron+autobiography&adgrpid=52989614637&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9ZP-u8T95QIVTbDtCh07zQQNEAAYASAAEgIRwPD_BwE&hvadid=259137303760&hvdev=m&hvlocphy=9045997&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=b&hvrand=14598751865412349224&hvtargid=kwd-314903820406&hydadcr=14789_1828869&tag=hydrukspg-21&ref=pd_sl_24h3c07okx_b
The UK will likely outgrow the Eurozone over the next decade confounding your 'models' - that's a problem with models they depend upon your assumptions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
(*TBF, Jez should be up for those)
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
In my experience there are plenty of wealthy people that don’t work especially hard. Luck and connections can play a huge part in success.
This argument has been raging for centuries, used to be called the undeserving poor vs. the undeserving rich. We are unlikely to resolve it today.
Regardless I am glad to contribute those less fortunate than me and given our societies ills am happy to contribute more. I am surprised others don’t feel the same.
Again I'm pro-choice and in no way anti-abortion but this is awful.
I mean, he lost to Anna Soubry......
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1197814255933960193?s=20
Until then have a lovely day.
Polling on support for abortion at eight and a half months would be worth a look.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
Happy to contribute - (2) we already contribute a lot, emotional blackmail over a straw man.
The BBC needs to manage the propoganda party spinners better.