Are Labour a total shambles now as an opposition?

[The perfect fumble]

He offered a then-girlfriend of mine a job in Stringfellows once. I'd by lying if I said I wasn't buzzing when he did!

You'll get no stick from me mate, I'm sure I'd have been the same.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Similar bunch of trouble makers today

Except they drive round on pushbikes and drink green tea in co-operative coffee shops, the boring bastards.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Move to Islington - you can hardly move for them

I'm in Islington with work three or four times a year. Don't mind it actually.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Even though they themselves admitted that there’s a problem?

How exactly was that worded in context of the smear campain being held? Because admitting there is a problem seems still far away from getting the mark of being an anti semitist party.

 

[Jack Hackett]

I'm in Islington with work three or four times a year. Don't mind it actually.

Islington is fine - after all it’s the home of Arsenal... as well as champagne socialists

 

[Jack Hackett]

How exactly was that worded in context of the smear campain being held? Because admitting there is a problem seems still far away from getting the mark of being an anti semitist party.

Welcome to Corbyn’s world where telling the truth or stating uncomfortable facts is deemed a ’smear’ campaign

 

[Vic]

I don’t have the time to check all the countries he listed but enough time to demonstrate the list was wrong in the ones I did look at

Listing countries proves nothing without the data which he failed to show (I wonder why? Because it’s wrong)

He was guessing. Some of the countries on the list plainly do have relatively a high tax take (a word that is not pejorative unlike burden) and have higher growth than we do. It only needs some in that position for your assertion to be proved wrong.

It is a basic fact that an increase in income tax results in lower take home pay meaning lower consumer spend meaning businesses that depend on it suffer a downturn resulting in lower GDP growth and higher job losses - all of which are a feature of every Labour government in history leaving office with increased public debt and increased unemployment

Taxing the poor has that effect because they spend 100% of their income in the UK. Taxing the rich doesn't because they save and they spend more money abroad (and buy more luxury imported goods). You're just talking Reaganomics, and Galbraith summed up those tax cuts for the rich with "we have exchanged the certain spending of the poor for the discretionary spending of the rich".
Tax cuts for the rich don't help the balance of payments either.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Welcome to Corbyn’s world where telling the truth or stating uncomfortable facts is deemed a ’smear’ campaign

If i look at more in dept discussions regarding the matter then i'd say there is much more to it than youre statement would suggest.
for example:



Furthermore i asked a specific question: what was the form of Labour's admittence that there is a problem? i much prefer to get a answer to my question rather than getting a irellevant reply that is dismissive of the discussion, and which would suggest the antisemitism among labour as a fact for all the stigma it holds. Surely when it comes to such a laden term one should grant the respect to specify the nature and the gravity of the anti-semmitist remark or action, for certaintly there is propportionallity to how bad it is?

 

[Jack Hackett]

He was guessing. Some of the countries on the list plainly do have relatively a high tax take (a word that is not pejorative unlike burden) and have higher growth than we do. It only needs some in that position for your assertion to be proved wrong.


Taxing the poor has that effect because they spend 100% of their income in the UK. Taxing the rich doesn't because they save and they spend more money abroad (and buy more luxury imported goods). You're just talking Reaganomics, and Galbraith summed up those tax cuts for the rich with "we have exchanged the certain spending of the poor for the discretionary spending of the rich".
Tax cuts for the rich don't help the balance of payments either.

What do you mean by rich?

You can get into the top 5% of taxpayers with a salary of £70k pa

Hardly rich

Increasing taxes on them does impact consumer spend

As for the poor they pay relatively little or no tax

I was referring to Labours policy to tax what they call the ‘rich’ which would clearly impact GDP

 

[blueinsa]

What do you mean by rich?

You can get into the top 5% of taxpayers with a salary of £70k pa

Hardly rich

Increasing taxes on them does impact consumer spend

As for the poor they pay relatively little or no tax

I was referring to Labours policy to tax what they call the ‘rich’ which would clearly impact GDP

Ignore them mate.

Demanding huge change on one hand most of them and then in another thread, will defend Junker and co on €350k+ a year with special perks on tax and pensions and the €Billions it costs everyone in the EU to run the show.

I will be kind and describe their political position as inconsistent.

 

[FlemishDuck]

What do you mean by rich?

You can get into the top 5% of taxpayers with a salary of £70k pa

Hardly rich

Rich can be plotted on a exponential curve. I feel that this certaintly has implications for the very question you are asking since by it's nature it narrows to a exponentionally smaller elite the further you move along the curve. Perhaps one cannot argue for any specific point on the curve to be deffinatly the border of rich, whereas otoh there is obvious utillity to the sepperation of groups into rich or poor depending on some aribitary point along that curve. So isn't this remark somewhat intellectually dishonest then? The terms rich and poor return often in political discussions but i don't see that many people who feel a need to side track it with a semantics debate about the boundary's of its meaning, neither do i feel that internet discussions should so often lead to reinterpretations of the Oxford dictionary as much as they seem to do.

Perhaps were actually missing some critical aspects to consider in the first place like the sheer curvature.

 

[Fame Monster]

Is there a reason why you missed out three of the first six on his list? Perhaps they prove his point that you can have high growth with higher taxes? All it takes is being more community minded and developing the idea of the common good, and dropping the pejorative phrase "tax burden". When your mum wants cancer treatment, tax isn't a burden.

Good point Vic. I’m guilty of using the term ‘tax burden’ myself on this thread - definitely not a burden when you see the enormous benefits that taxation provides and the enormous economic growth that state spending drives. The reason @JackHackett didn’t address all the other countries on the list and all the other countries not mentioned is because they disprove his fantasy-land politics.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I will be kind and describe their political position as inconsistent.

In a kinder light it's called flexible, strange old world where the left is criticised for its rigidity and when it's obvious that's not the case, they're hypocrites.

Ho-hum.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Good point Vic. I’m guilty of using the term ‘tax burden’ myself on this thread - definitely not a burden when you see the enormous benefits that taxation provides and the enormous economic growth that state spending drives. The reason @JackHackett didn’t address all the other countries on the list and all the other countries not mentioned is because they disprove his fantasy-land politics.

Plus, his postulation fails to take into account the false economy of ‘savings’ on public spending have provided. Saving money on police numbers, for example, has knock-on effects on the wider economy, as crime rises snd impacts on the private sector.

Many parts of the public sector (local government and the justice sysstem in particular) presently desperately require an injection of cash, whereas ten years ago they were arguably somewhat bloated.

 

[Fame Monster]

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?

I can only speak for myself but calling for higher taxes doesn’t mean you want to see some of the tax rates of the 1960s. It’s about raising taxes across the board (and possibly lowering some) so that our overall tax take is similar to the best, happiest countries in the world, that are growing at a much faster rate than we are. So that could mean something as simple as introducing a 30% threshold or lowering by a few thousand the point at which you pay the highest rate of tax. It could mean that you’re taxed more than you are now if you want to buy-to-let multiple properties. It could mean NI contributions are increased. There are myriad ways in which the U.K. could become a better, safer, fairer, more prosperous country with a faster growing economy by raising taxes that don’t require you to plonk the top rate of tax up to 95%.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Personally i think globalism has been a very significant factor in the abbilety for the wealthy elite to get better conditions in comparison to the rest of community's within nation state's, it's easier to threathern to move away in a small world and this increases bargaining power vs state and unions.

If the trend of that might actually predict a significant weakening of the nation state and the abbilety to serve it's poppulation then the public perhaps has more than enough reason to need to do something about it eventually and then likely sooner than later.

It's not because a challenge can cause significant headache that it motivates to give in if the consequences might be dire. In fact one would underestimate the power of the modern economic elite if one thought they would be so uncapable to do a massive powergrab and go on a extermination spree for personal gain. Noone likes alarmist, otoh it's also stupid to put the milk by the cat in regards to the dangerous power some of them could actually wield.

 

[Fame Monster]

Plus, his postulation fails to take into account the false economy of ‘savings’ on public spending have provided. Saving money on police numbers, for example, has knock-on effects on the wider economy, as crime rises snd impacts on the private sector.

Many parts of the public sector (local government and the justice sysstem in particular) presently desperately require an injection of cash, whereas ten years ago they were arguably somewhat bloated.

Good point.

I suppose the important thing to remember as well in these debates about the economy is that economic growth isn’t the be all and end all. So even if the dozens of faster growing countries with a higher tax take than the U.K. didn’t exist, there are much more important things that politicians and legislatures should aspire to in the creation of policy and law. I’d have more respect for these low tax advocates if they just said ‘I want to go to the Maldives again this year and don’t really give a fuck about the homeless’ than giving some false rationalisation about how paying a penny more tax would make the homeless situation even worse.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I can only speak for myself but calling for higher taxes doesn’t mean you want to see some of the tax rates of the 1960s. It’s about raising taxes across the board (and possibly lowering some) so that our overall tax take is similar to the best, happiest countries in the world, that are growing at a much faster rate than we are. So that could mean something as simple as introducing a 30% threshold or lowering by a few thousand the point at which you pay the highest rate of tax. It could mean that you’re taxed more than you are now if you want to buy-to-let multiple properties. It could mean NI contributions are increased. There are myriad ways in which the U.K. could become a better, safer, fairer, more prosperous country with a faster growing economy by raising taxes that don’t require you to plonk the top rate of tax up to 95%.

I think they need to look at taxing property and assets more assiduously than hitherto, especially second homes.

 

[Vic]

What do you mean by rich?

You can get into the top 5% of taxpayers with a salary of £70k pa

Hardly rich

Increasing taxes on them does impact consumer spend

As for the poor they pay relatively little or no tax

I was referring to Labours policy to tax what they call the ‘rich’ which would clearly impact GDP

If you're in the richest 5% in the country you ain't poor.

No tax on the poor? VAT? I somehow feel you don't mix much with the poor.

 

[Vic]

Ignore them mate.

Demanding huge change on one hand most of them and then in another thread, will defend Junker and co on €350k+ a year with special perks on tax and pensions and the €Billions it costs everyone in the EU to run the show.

I will be kind and describe their political position as inconsistent.

Ha! Leaver mod finds new outlet for rant.