Are Labour a total shambles now as an opposition?

[Ban-jani]

Not to re-litigate the whole Suddam Hussein affair but did we, as a people, force fund a war predicated on a lie?

Yes or no?

No

 

[RabidCity]

And how would you do that? And what would be fairer? Higher taxes? We are already suffering the highest tax burden in the last 30 years which is increasingly affecting our competitiveness in atttacting overseas investment and constraining economic growth.Tax the rich? ( I'd like to know how you would define the rich - £70,000 pa puts you in the top 5% of earners). The top 1% of income earners already pay a third of all income tax collected and in total is greater than the amount paid by the bottom 90% of tax payers.

Lastly, income tax only yields around a third of all government revenues (VAT and other taxes account for the rest) so there is a limit to what increasing income tax can do. Of course, if you wanted to tax the top 50% more to subsidise the bottom 50%, that would lead to a huge cut in economic demand due to reduced net disposable income and likely leading to a recession and loss of jobs making such a move highly counter productive.

And that's the problem with the woolly headed hand wringing economic policies of the Left - a complete inability to honestly represent the impact on economic growth and tax revenues from their policies.

That's why I can't support the left. Great points well made. My field is accountancy, so I can appreciate the importance of balancing the tax system.

 

[Bigga]

No

Okay, did we find any such weapons?

Why did we end up funding that war?

 

[bluethrunthru]

And how would you do that? And what would be fairer? Higher taxes? We are already suffering the highest tax burden in the last 30 years which is increasingly affecting our competitiveness in atttacting overseas investment and constraining economic growth.Tax the rich? ( I'd like to know how you would define the rich - £70,000 pa puts you in the top 5% of earners). The top 1% of income earners already pay a third of all income tax collected and in total is greater than the amount paid by the bottom 90% of tax payers.

Lastly, income tax only yields around a third of all government revenues (VAT and other taxes account for the rest) so there is a limit to what increasing income tax can do. Of course, if you wanted to tax the top 50% more to subsidise the bottom 50%, that would lead to a huge cut in economic demand due to reduced net disposable income and likely leading to a recession and loss of jobs making such a move highly counter productive.

And that's the problem with the woolly headed hand wringing economic policies of the Left - a complete inability to honestly represent the impact on economic growth and tax revenues from their policies.

Fuck me you went off on one didn't you? In typical anti left diatribe too. The answer is simple - the money is already there. The guy at the desk gets a little less salary and bonus - that money which the employer saves means they can pay the cleaning contractor more who in turn pays his employees higher wages. No increased taxes. No penalising the rich just sharing around whats already there a little fairer. Problem is too many people have grown up in the "greed is good" and me me me environment all the morality and fairness has been drained out of them and they end up like you just jumping down my throat with your version - the only version you can consider - of what can happen. Redistribution doesn't mean what you want it to mean so you can shout at it.

 

[Jack Hackett]

Fuck me you went off on one didn't you? In typical anti left diatribe too. The answer is simple - the money is already there. The guy at the desk gets a little less salary and bonus - that money which the employer saves means they can pay the cleaning contractor more who in turn pays his employees higher wages. No increased taxes. No penalising the rich just sharing around whats already there a little fairer. Problem is too many people have grown up in the "greed is good" and me me me environment all the morality and fairness has been drained out of them and they end up like you just jumping down my throat with your version - the only version you can consider - of what can happen. Redistribution doesn't mean what you want it to mean so you can shout at it.

So, let me get this right.

You want the employer to cut the pay of their higher paid workers so as to pay a third party contractor more to pass on to their cleaners?

I don't think you have thought this through.

It's fantasy land nonsense.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The clue is there, you just refuse to see it.

And you refuse to accept unavoidable, cold, hard reality.

WIsh the world was different? Sure you do. Sorry, that's tough, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Fame Monster]

And how would you do that? And what would be fairer? Higher taxes? We are already suffering the highest tax burden in the last 30 years which is increasingly affecting our competitiveness in atttacting overseas investment and constraining economic growth.Tax the rich? ( I'd like to know how you would define the rich - £70,000 pa puts you in the top 5% of earners). The top 1% of income earners already pay a third of all income tax collected and in total is greater than the amount paid by the bottom 90% of tax payers.

Lastly, income tax only yields around a third of all government revenues (VAT and other taxes account for the rest) so there is a limit to what increasing income tax can do. Of course, if you wanted to tax the top 50% more to subsidise the bottom 50%, that would lead to a huge cut in economic demand due to reduced net disposable income and likely leading to a recession and loss of jobs making such a move highly counter productive.

And that's the problem with the woolly headed hand wringing economic policies of the Left - a complete inability to honestly represent the impact on economic growth and tax revenues from their policies.

Much of your post is predicated on one of the most persistent, virulent right-wing myths - that higher tax leads to reduced economic growth, peddled consistently by a few on here.
If taxation is so destructive to economic growth, how can there be bigger and faster growing economies than the UK with a higher tax burden?

 

[bluethrunthru]

So, let me get this right.

You want the employer to cut the pay of their higher paid workers so as to pay a third party contractor more to pass on to their cleaners?

I don't think you have thought this through.

It's fantasy land nonsense.

No - I am talking about limiting future pay rises to level the playing field. Why is that wrong?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Much of your post is predicated on one of the most persistent, virulent right-wing myths - that higher tax leads to reduced economic growth, peddled consistently by a few on here.
If taxation is so destructive to economic growth, how can there be bigger and faster growing economies than the UK with a higher tax burden?

Under a Labour government, 40 odd years ago, the highest rate of taxation in Britain was 83%, in addition,
any monies held in bank accounts were taxed at 15%, in essence 98% taxation on the 'Rich.'
This policy meant that the tax take plummeted, so much so, that the country was virtually bankrupt.
The present taxation rates have been fixed after careful analysis of the amounts that can realistically be collected,
for the maximum benefit to the exchequer.
Now, instead of all the moralising and political theory, what would you increase taxation to, and who would be
expected to stump up more, to eradicate completely the perceived injustices suffered by those on lower incomes?
Many cite the likes of Amazon and Starbucks as targets, and we all understand the frustration of these giants avoiding
tax, but nobody, including every past and present chancellor, has managed to tackle this, it's virtually impossible
without worldwide agreements, which by their disparate nature, makes it difficult, to say the least.
So, do we up the top rate to 80 odd percent, after experience tells us it is massively counter productive, or just
continue to howl at the moon at the world's injustices?
What figure, exactly?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Under a Labour government, 40 odd years ago, the highest rate of taxation in Britain was 83%, in addition,
any monies held in bank accounts were taxed at 15%, in essence 98% taxation on the 'Rich.'
This policy meant that the tax take plummeted, so much so, that the country was virtually bankrupt.
The present taxation rates have been fixed after careful analysis of the amounts that can realistically be collected,
for the maximum benefit to the exchequer.
Now, instead of all the moralising and political theory, what would you increase taxation to, and who would be
expected to stump up more, to eradicate completely the perceived injustices suffered by those on lower incomes?
Many cite the likes of Amazon and Starbucks as targets, and we all understand the frustration of these giants avoiding
tax, but nobody, including every past and present chancellor, has managed to tackle this, it's virtually impossible
without worldwide agreements, which by their disparate nature, makes it difficult, to say the least.
So, do we up the top rate to 80 odd percent, after experience tells us it is massively counter productive, or just
continue to howl at the moon at the world's injustices?
What figure, exactly?

Ahh now i understand why i paid more tax than Starbucks ....

 

[Champions again in 2012]

To answer the original question my belief, sadly is yes, labour are currently a shambles as an opposition. I view Corbyn in the same way I viewed Michael Foot - I think he is virtually unelectable- I see years of hung parliaments and deals being done in party political interests and bollocks to the national interest.

 

[Jack Hackett]

No - I am talking about limiting future pay rises to level the playing field. Why is that wrong?

Good luck with that

 

[Jack Hackett]

Much of your post is predicated on one of the most persistent, virulent right-wing myths - that higher tax leads to reduced economic growth, peddled consistently by a few on here.
If taxation is so destructive to economic growth, how can there be bigger and faster growing economies than the UK with a higher tax burden?

It’s not a right wing myth but an uncomfortable macro economic fact for the Left that higher income tax leads to reduced net disposable income meaning demand is taken out of the economy reducing growth.

As for higher tax economies than the U.K. with higher economic growth, name them.

Remember that every Labour government has left office with higher public debt and higher unemployment and it was a Labour Chancellor that had to go begging to the IMF to bail out the economy wrecked by their high tax and high borrowing policies

Anyone voting for Corbyn is an economic illiterate

 

[FlemishDuck]

Now, instead of all the moralising and political theory, what would you increase taxation to, and who would be
expected to stump up more, to eradicate completely the perceived injustices suffered by those on lower incomes?

The wealthy elite can move abroad to avoid personal taxation, but that doesn't mean they can move the factory's or shops abroad nessecarily.

I would introduce a predatory capitalist element upon tax evasion of the elite. You want to take away the disloyal wealthy's methods of making money in the country so it's taking away their factory's or shops etc if they do not pay up, but otoh you don't want to nationalise or run by state intervention so rather you let another capitalist take over all those facory's and shops at a reduced price and then depending on how you set youre % you can guarantee youre income and furthermore make the capitalist piss their pants for fear of other capitalists.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Our political system has led us to the current government and opposition, both of which are a fucking shambles.

The whole thing needs breaking down and rebuilding, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Vic]

Under a Labour government, 40 odd years ago, the highest rate of taxation in Britain was 83%, in addition,
any monies held in bank accounts were taxed at 15%, in essence 98% taxation on the 'Rich.'
This policy meant that the tax take plummeted, so much so, that the country was virtually bankrupt.
The present taxation rates have been fixed after careful analysis of the amounts that can realistically be collected,
for the maximum benefit to the exchequer.
Now, instead of all the moralising and political theory, what would you increase taxation to, and who would be
expected to stump up more, to eradicate completely the perceived injustices suffered by those on lower incomes?
Many cite the likes of Amazon and Starbucks as targets, and we all understand the frustration of these giants avoiding
tax, but nobody, including every past and present chancellor, has managed to tackle this, it's virtually impossible
without worldwide agreements, which by their disparate nature, makes it difficult, to say the least.
So, do we up the top rate to 80 odd percent, after experience tells us it is massively counter productive, or just
continue to howl at the moon at the world's injustices?
What figure, exactly?

2% extra this year, 2% the next. Enough to make a difference but not make it worth moving to the Caymans. And tax their empty properties.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

2% extra this year, 2% the next. Enough to make a difference but not make it worth moving to the Caymans. And tax their empty properties.

Tax who, exactly, at 2%?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Good luck with that

so is it or isn't it wrong to aspire to level the playing field in that manner?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The wealthy elite can move abroad to avoid personal taxation, but that doesn't mean they can move the factory's or shops abroad nessecarily.

I would introduce a predatory capitalist element upon tax evasion of the elite. You want to take away the disloyal wealthy's methods of making money in the country so it's taking away their factory's or shops etc if they do not pay up, but otoh you don't want to nationalise or run by state intervention so rather you let another capitalist take over all those facory's and shops at a reduced price and then depending on how you set youre % you can guarantee youre income and furthermore make the capitalist piss their pants for fear of other capitalists.

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying here, it seems you would impose a 'Predatory' tax on the likes of Amazon,
by threatening to sequestrate their property, am I correct? I'm not sure such an act would be passed by parliament,
and a company like these could remove to another location abroad to nullify it. What I would do though, is set council
rates according to the size of the warehouses involved, I see no reason why Amazon should enjoy miniscule rates by
virtue of locations in isolated areas, whilst High St shops pay many times more, to sell the same, or similar
goods based on the values of their properties in urban areas.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Labour is in a better position now than it has been for the last 20 years all it has to do now is run with the Australian immigration system, bring in only what you need and reduce the huge pool of unemployed