General Election June 8th

[Chippy_boy]

Since we're being dicks about it, why not cut more police officers, firefighters and put less funding in the NHS so that we can give anyone earning over £80000 their earnings tax free?

The fact is, when the lowest paid people in society are paid more that just means more money going back into the economy. Some businesses will prosper from that, some won't. Just like some people can live comfortably on £7.50 an hour and some can't. Your post sounds like the claptrap that was about when the minimum wage was first introduced, Tory scaremongering at its finest.

Do you have any clue that someone who earns £80,000 per year already pays TWELVE times as much income tax as someone on only £20,000 a year? Just asking.

You might consider that on four times the income, four times the tax would be fair. But even the Tories think TWELVE times is fair. But apparently this is not enough.

And yet you make it sound like the people on £80,000 are in some way at fault.

 

[Len Rum]

Here's your man....

And Corbyn knows it.

But as it stands Clive Lewis, or any Corbyn preferred candidate, would struggle to get thirty Labour MPs' nominations that are presently required to get him or her on the ballot, and that will still be true regardless of the make up of the new post election parliamentary party, as, for the most part, the new labour tories are still in situ. Changing the ballot threshold will be the first battle of the post election Corbyn challenge.

My prediction, Labour loses, Corbyn refuses to resign and the Blairites can't (yet again) get him out. So Corbyn strikes a deal, he'll step down but only if a candidate from the left is guaranteed a place on the ballot, it might require a rule change or maybe (though unlikely) a sufficient number of Blairites will hold their nose and cough up the requisite number of signatures.

Outcome: Corbyn's candidate will win.

I'd go along with that scenario.
Everyone's a winner.
Apart from the Tories of course, but who gives a fcuk about them.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Apart from the Tories of course, but who gives a fcuk about them.

Hopefully, a majority of the electorate.

 

[Stuuuuuu]

Do you have any clue that someone who earns £80,000 per year already pays TWELVE times as much income tax as someone on only £20,000 a year? Just asking.

You might consider that on four times the income, four times the tax would be fair. But even the Tories think TWELVE times is fair. But apparently this is not enough.

And yet you make it sound like the people on £80,000 are in some way at fault.

Twelve times is not enough. They are comfortable enough to pay more.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Do you have any clue that someone who earns £80,000 per year already pays TWELVE times as much income tax as someone on only £20,000 a year? Just asking.

You might consider that on four times the income, four times the tax would be fair. But even the Tories think TWELVE times is fair. But apparently this is not enough.

And yet you make it sound like the people on £80,000 are in some way at fault.

I was being facetious to a guy being facetious. It wasn't meant to be a post that made any kind of statistical sense.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Twelve times is not enough. They are comfortable enough to pay more.

How would you know?

How much more should they pay? Would your idea be to take more and more off them until they are no longer comfortable enough? How about a 100% tax rate on incomes over £100,000 then?

 

[SWP's back]

Sorry for the straw man mate, but would that be the Dominic Raab who didn't know the size of the national debt now and when the Tories took power?
PS approx 1.7 tn now and 1tn back in the day. Probably 2tn at least by 2025.Unbelievable Jeff.
PPS I do know the difference between deficit and national debt. Tory deadlines for it's ( the deficit's) elimination were 2015,2017,2020 and now 2025 and of course the longer it takes to eliminate the deficit the higher the total debt when you eventually reach the promised land.

It's a wonderful straw man and you're right.

Still doesn't mean anyone shouldn't roll their eyes at the fat bird coming out with such lines of bollocks.

 

[Len Rum]

Do you have any clue that someone who earns £80,000 per year already pays TWELVE times as much income tax as someone on only £20,000 a year? Just asking.

You might consider that on four times the income, four times the tax would be fair. But even the Tories think TWELVE times is fair. But apparently this is not enough.

And yet you make it sound like the people on £80,000 are in some way at fault.

And did you know that someone who earns 80k a year pays one thousand and twenty times more than someone on 11.6k a year?
Spare us the O level economics mate.
Our public services need money NOW and it has to come from somewhere NOW.
Your last reply that it has to come from an expanding economy (to quote Mavis) was based on a growing economy delivering greater tax receipts, but unfortunately government revenue declined in the recent phase of ( modest) growth.
'Trickle down' economics does not seem to have worked, does it?
In the circumstances Labour's proposal offers a solution and hope.
What are you offering - nothing.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I was being facetious to a guy being facetious. It wasn't meant to be a post that made any kind of statistical sense.

As someone who works 60 hours a week and earns well to pay a decent slug of tax and have a decent amount in my pocket may be I should not bother if you are going to take more money off me. Don't thank me for working hard paying half my wage, employing lots of people who also pay tax , if u are going to keep taking more, do you know what I will work less hard make some people redundant and work out how to play the system so I get out of society rather than put in. Seems to be popular on here.

 

[Chippy_boy]

And did you know that someone who earns 80k a year pays one thousand and twenty times more than someone on 11.6k a year?
Spare us the O level economics mate.
Our public services need money NOW and it has to come from somewhere NOW.
Your last reply that it has to come from an expanding economy (to quote Mavis) was based on a growing economy delivering greater tax receipts, but unfortunately government revenue declined in the recent phase of ( modest) growth.
'Trickle down' economics does not seem to have worked, does it?
In the circumstances Labour's proposal offers a solution and hope.
What are you offering - nothing.

I don't accept any of the premises you suggest.

• Our public services don't need more money now. You'd like them to have more money now, and of course more money is desirable, but need? No, like.
• I didn't say anything about money coming from expanding economy
• I am not sure government revenue has declined (maybe it has, but I am not sure)
• Trickle down economics does work
• Labour's proposals offer no solution nor hope
• I am not offering anything, since I am not in government. A continuation of Conservative policy will yield a continuing improvement in the state of our economy, and with it, public services and standards of living for all.

 

[Vic]

Matters not. He's a communist in waiting. Supporter of Marxist ideals, check. Supporter of Hugo Chavez, check. Supporter of Lenin, check.

He's surrounded himself with like-minded communists. This is what his Director of Strategy and Communications thinks:

"For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment."

But apart from that, what did the Soviet bloc ever do for us?
When the renowned West-German magazine Der Spiegel asked former GDR-inhabitants whether the GDR "had more good sides than bad sides", 57% of them answered yes. To the statement of the interviewing journalist that "GDR inhabitants did not have the freedom to travel wherever they wanted", Germans replied that "present-day low-wage workers do not have that freedom either".

I tend to agree. The man is absolute poison and the sooner he is banished from British politics the better for all of us. There's a strong chance (imo likelihood) he will remain as leader if he is not thrashed in the election.

Corbyn would be 73 at the next election (if May won and didn't want to u-turn again on the fixed term parliament). So far as I can see, the Corbynistas are not exactly rushing to help local campaigns and apparently Momentum want to organise their own Corbyn for PM stunts when they should be on the phones and doors. If Labour does do well on this manifesto you might find some supposed Blairites actually like the lefty stuff but just thought it was electoral suicide. Who might emerge as the new leader is harder to call. Barry Gardiner has come across well but has a bit of family expenses history to live down.

They will have £2.50 more than the person who has £2.50 less. How much more is that overall? Taking money off people, to give it to other people, is NOT wealth creation.

It is if those who get it spent it whereas those who donated it didn't spend it.

 

[jay_mcfc]

As someone who works 60 hours a week and earns well to pay a decent slug of tax and have a decent amount in my pocket may be I should not bother if you are going to take more money off me. Don't thank me for working hard paying half my wage, employing lots of people who also pay tax , if u are going to keep taking more, do you know what I will work less hard make some people redundant and work out how to play the system so I get out of society rather than put in. Seems to be popular on here.

Did you read my post? Or what I was responding to?

 

[1.618034]

FTR

This is for a married person with no additional allowances/benefits etc... £20k vs £80k

As an example... A 1% increase in the 40% rate, making it 41% would cost that £80k earner, a quite well off person, an extra £350 per year or £29 per month or £6.72 per week...

How on earth would they cope???

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

FTR

This is for a married person with no additional allowances/benefits etc... £20k vs £80k

As an example... A 1% increase in the 40% rate, making it 41% would cost that £80k earner, a quite well off person, an extra £350 per year or £29 per month or £6.72 per week...

How on earth would they cope???

Do you know those roads and schools and NHS and benefits, tax credits , they are paid by people you know? Someone has to pay, there is a tipping point for these people. What is paid now is fair, more is unfair and acts as a disincentive to wealth creation.

 

[Len Rum]

I don't accept any of the premises you suggest.

• Our public services don't need more money now. You'd like them to have more money now, and of course more money is desirable, but need? No, like

A spaceman came travelling on his ship from afar...

 

[Chippy_boy]

A spaceman came travelling on his ship from afar...

It's a question of compromises Len. Something you seem to have difficulty grasping.

If in order to better fund our public services, it was necessary to reduce the personal allowance by several thousand and increase the basic rate of tax by a few points, such that the very poorest in society had to pay even more, would you be in favour? I very much doubt it.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

A spaceman came travelling on his ship from afar...

Hey Len, if you are for paying more tax that's great, feel free to send a cheque for many thousands to Hmrc . They won't return it you know. They will cash it and it will make you feel better contributing more to society .

Same with all others who think tax rates are too low. I expect Jezza pays the minimum amount of tax on his salary. If he thinks it should be higher then Jezza by all means pay it over, no arguments from Hmrc or any of us....

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Did you read my post? Or what I was responding to?

I've read your posts

 

[Stuuuuuu]

How would you know?

How much more should they pay? Would your idea be to take more and more off them until they are no longer comfortable enough? How about a 100% tax rate on incomes over £100,000 then?

I would know because I know roughly what stuff costs and because, well, £80,000 is a lot of money.

No, I wouldn't suggest taking more and more off them until they are uncomfortable. That wasn't my point. The point was that it is (in my view) unreasonable to complain about them paying a lot more tax than someone on a very low wage.

The argument that bothers me is the one that implies that high earners work harder than low earners and therefore should not pay a high rate of tax, i.e. tax rates penalise hard workers. But the reality is that many low earners work incredibly hard and often very long hours.

 

[jay_mcfc]

I've read your posts

Well then you'll know I haven't mentioned anything about tax rates for anyone, so thanks for clearing that up.