Labour's magic money tree

LeadBelly · Post by **LeadBelly** » Sun May 07, 2017 12:50 pm

Did that nice and clever Ms Abbott do all the sums for this economic programme?

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sun May 07, 2017 12:53 pm

So we just need the top five percent to give up 3/5 of their wealth and everyone will be happy for 8, 12 and 200 years.

OffTheBar · Post by **OffTheBar** » Sun May 07, 2017 12:54 pm

Hey, it worked in Venezuela...

Are you suggesting a one-off 20% wealth tax, or just using some irrelevant figures?

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Sun May 07, 2017 12:55 pm

A trillion only pays for 8 years!!!! It really is a bottomless pit. What happens after Brexit when the City moves to Europe and business collapses nobody will be earning over £80k

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:00 pm

How much could Jeremy make if he flogged our Nuclear Weapons to North Korea.
How many migrants is he going to let into the country to enjoy this new found plunder.
How many people are going to lose their jobs because their company has just gone bust.
How many people are going to lose their homes because they just lost their job.

NOBODY disagrees that the wealthiest need to pay a fair share in taxes, but the Old Labour of squeezing them till they bleed, just leads to economic ruin. Share the wealth by all means, but first you have to create an environment to make wealth. The first few years of Jeremys government might be wonderful, the last few would be back to the dark days of the 70's.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:03 pm

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:05 pm

Sadly McDonnell still making it up on the back of a fag packet.
Of course if we want the NHS to function properly we need to give it more resources, but that means trained staff etc, all things which require long-term planning.
For a prospective future Chancellor to rule out so many levers of government is foolhardy, but when he can't even answer the question as to whether he is a Marxist honestly what hope.
Any Chancellor should be looking at the self -employed who have been dodging paying taxes for years, in fact it's a badge of honour.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:05 pm

People pay enough income tax in my view. There's better ways of balancing the economy.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:07 pm

Labour can promise anything at the moment because they know they won't be elected.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:10 pm

Sadly LCP that's true, but the duplicity of May really makes me hope she comes to a sticky end, she is no Maggie Thatcher that's for sure.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:19 pm

Hi if it be your will,

Where do you get those wealth figures from? Take a look at the Sunday Times rich list. Many of the people on that list are not Brits. Some have very little connection with UK. The greater part of their wealth is not in the UK and is outside the reach of UK taxation.

John McDonnell has said there will not be a tax on wealth. The £80,000 per year income has been mentioned because the plan is to tax income. According to IFS, 1p on income tax for the top 5% (i.e. > £80k) will bring in £1 billion.

How many billions does JC want to spend? £5 bn? £10 bn?

IFS view is that if Labour's spending plans are to be covered we will all need to pay more in income tax - there's not enough "free money" from the top 5%.

Oh, and as for JC's lies - I don't track these things - but, didn't JC have a rally in Manchester on Friday to celebrate Andy Burnham winning the mayoral election? Didn't he say that Andy Burnham couldn't be there because he was "already working hard for the hard working people of Manchester?"
And, didn't Andy Burnham say that "no, I'm celebrating my victory with my family...."

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:25 pm

Goalposts · Post by **Goalposts** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:30 pm

and of course all these people being taxed will nstay in the country and contribute rather than take there wealth abroad and open businesses there, i mean why would they

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:35 pm

If it be your will wrote:The IFS. It's in the link (the first graph being a visual representation).

Yes, I've looked at the link. But, where can I get the details behind the conclusions?

The S.Times Rich list is published today. You've got to go a long way into the list before you find much UK taxable wealth - i.e. people who live in the UK and have their wealth in the UK. Jim Ratcliffe, Manchester born owner of Ineos is the first I can identify. Ratcliffe moved Ineos' head quarters to Geneva to lessen the impact of UK taxation on the business after the existential financial pressures Ineos was under following the "world financial crisis." He's moved back now - but, it tells you everything you need to know that will happen if a government tries to "overreach" on taxation.

The same move abroad happened in France when Hollande hiked his taxes.

CnBtruntru · Post by **CnBtruntru** » Sun May 07, 2017 1:36 pm

Away with the Fairies and the Magic Money Tree, sounds like a best seller too me!

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:05 pm

If it be your will wrote:1 divided by 5 is actually 1/5. and Labour need less than 1/10 of this for their program, so we're looking at less than 2% (1/50). That's the scale of wealth in the top 5%. They're laughing heartily, they simply can't believe that all they have to do is get their press to blame immigrants and their party gets in. Here they are:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 24548.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They can't believe it's this easy.

It is 1/5 if you want to pick one of the three areas to fund (by your figures) if you want to fund all three you'd need 3/5. That's only the first hole in the theory mind you.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:21 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:23 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:24 pm

CnBtruntru · Post by **CnBtruntru** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:27 pm

If it be your will wrote:Hopefully a best seller, yes. Just a few more votes needed.

Not a hope on the votes

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:27 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:28 pm

If it be your will wrote:Exactly. They live here and store wealth in tax havens abroad, which is why Labour will crack down on tax havens. The Tories won't, because their donors have their wealth in tax havens.

Jim Ratcliffe "stores" his wealth in chemical companies around the world.

Roman Abromovich keeps some of his in a football club in west London.

I hope you aren't taking economics lessons from JC's labour party - or giving them economics lessons.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:29 pm

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:31 pm

Rule number one. Do not listen to or believe anything said by the Tory propaganda machine, which also includes virtually all the national media.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:36 pm

Saves lives

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:37 pm

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 2:41 pm

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Sun May 07, 2017 3:56 pm

So their wealth grew by 92 Billion in one year!!! Just their increase in wealth of 1,000 people in one year would more than fund the entire education spend for next year.[/quote]

Their wealth grew in the same way that anyone with money invested in the Stock Market can say their wealth grew. It's all on paper!

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun May 07, 2017 4:07 pm

7 years of Tory rule and the deficit has risen and you slag Labour off , brilliant!

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun May 07, 2017 4:16 pm

joey13 wrote:7 years of Tory rule and the deficit has risen and you slag Labour off , brilliant!

I wish some people knew the difference between deficit and debt.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 4:36 pm

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun May 07, 2017 4:42 pm

If it be your will wrote:Both **** under the Conservatives.

Would you have supported much more austerity because I reckon realistically that's the only way net borrowing and national debt could have been significantly less?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sun May 07, 2017 4:48 pm

I'm starting to think the OP is actually Jeremy Corbyn

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:00 pm

To break it down, what we need to do is take away all the net contributers to the economy's money and distribute it between the people who take more than they contribute.
Doing this is in the best intrest to our kids and grandkids and is in no way stupid, just completely fair.

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:05 pm

I'm amazed that left wing simpletons can't grasp what a terrible idea it is to steal money from wealth creators.

We'll steal money from the top 5% and and the bone idle can live off that for a year or two.

When the money runs out and the top 5% have ****** off to somewhere with reasonable tax system we'll just the steal from the top 20%.

When that money runs out we'll steal from the top 50%.

And soon enough the socialist Utopian paradise is realised. Everyone get an equal and fair share of naff all. We can join the Venezuelans and start eating rats in the streets. Sounds lovely.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:14 pm

This family will be taking their money out of the country should JC and his looney party get in power with these policies. It might not be all that much better in the grand scheme of things. But trust me there will be thousands of us doing it and perhaps you might all on your own be able to work out the consequences.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:34 pm

If it be your will wrote:I assume you take your economic lessons from the Telegraph. (Bit rude for you, that, PaulWaine! Usually so measured.)

I apologise, profusely, if it be your will. Yes, the excitement of this w/end's football is making me forget the usual mb courtesies. You should have seen me at Selhurst Park last week!

Re Telegraph and other economics "pundits" - I can be critical of them all. I think you saw my comments on FT's editor a couple of days ago. I admire scholarship in anyone's work - and, I will certainly pause for thought if someone expresses ideas I'm not familiar with.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:40 pm

You cannot insulate everyone from tax rises.

Everyone knows that, so Labour saying that it doesn't affect them is not going to wash with the people who they need to vote for it for them to have a chance of every enacting it.

Much better to say that there will be tax rises, a bit of honesty is probably better at this moment in time.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:44 pm

taio wrote:I wish some people knew the difference between deficit and debt.

Do you ?

Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £73.5 billion per annum, or around £1.4 billion each week.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:46 pm

LongsideFacingUp wrote:I'm amazed that left wing simpletons can't grasp what a terrible idea it is to steal money from wealth creators.

We'll steal money from the top 5% and and the bone idle can live off that for a year or two.

When the money runs out and the top 5% have ****** off to somewhere with reasonable tax system we'll just the steal from the top 20%.

When that money runs out we'll steal from the top 50%.

And soon enough the socialist Utopian paradise is realised. Everyone get an equal and fair share of naff all. We can join the Venezuelans and start eating rats in the streets. Sounds lovely.

Really !
I'm amazed at Tory simpletons period !

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:56 pm

joey13 wrote:Do you ?

Yep, because then you'd know that the deficit hasn't risen under the Conservatives. It peaked at about £150 billion under the Labour Government and is now less than a third of that figure. It's the debt that has risen which of course it will do while we are running a budget deficit.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Sun May 07, 2017 5:58 pm

Is Jack Straw and his lovely attitude the link in the demise of the inwardly looking deluded Labour Party and the mighty BRFC?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 6:05 pm

[quote="If it be your will"]You mean this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830087" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The top 1,000 only represents 0.002% of the population. And isn't it appalling how they continue to get ever wealthier under the conservatives?

Their wealth rose by 14% over the past year to a record £658bn

So their wealth grew by 92 Billion in one year!!! Just their increase in wealth of 1,000 people in one year would more than fund the entire education spend for next year.[/quote

Hi if it be your will, have you any idea how those people managed to "grow their wealth" by that amount in that period of time?

Let's put some thoughts down:
1) A lot of the people on the "UK rich list" are not UK citizens, some might now live in the UK, or might have one of their houses in the UK, but a larger part of their money is outside the UK - and subject to other jurisdictions (and I don't mean hidden in tax havens);
2) The "gain" in the GBP estimate of their wealth is based on wealth held in non-GBP currencies and the change in exchange rates from last year to this. But, if you or I owned a US$1 million house in Florida and the USD/GBP exchange rate changes, the value of the house will be higher in GBP, but will still (only) be US$1 million in Florida. If you are a non-UK national, the GBP value is an illusion, not a real gain in wealth. if you are a UK national, yes, the GBP value matters more, but it's only a change in exchange rates - and they can change the other way;
3) Growth and/or increase in value of the business(es) owned by these individuals (including their families). These businesses often employ a lot of people, both in the UK and abroad. If the owner sells the business (or part) capital gains tax is charged on the gain (yes, there are reliefs), any dividends or other earning taken from the business is subject to income tax. And, under current rules - and subject to international tax protocols - the businesses will often pay corporation tax.

So, one thing we can be sure about, these billionaires are not getting wealthier "under the conservatives" - their activities are global and their wealth comes as much from the break-up of the old Soviet Union, the development of India and many more areas that are a long way away from UK politics.

FulledgeClaret · Post by **FulledgeClaret** » Sun May 07, 2017 8:25 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:A trillion only pays for 8 years!!!! It really is a bottomless pit. What happens after Brexit when the City moves to Europe and business collapses nobody will be earning over £80k

A hell of a lot of the money that disappears into the NHS is taken by greedy pharmaceutical companies for medicines.I Saw something a while ago where a basic generic drug(cant recall what it was called) manufactured in the UK was charged to the NHS at over £9 a tablet the same drug is sold to other countries as low as 1p per tablet, it may not be the sole cause of the problem the NHS has but sh1t like that is not helping sort the NHS out.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 07, 2017 10:08 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun May 07, 2017 10:57 pm

If it be your will wrote:Then tax their paper wealth.

Honestly, this thread is like reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. It seems all these posters that rail against how **** everything is on other threads are desperately searching for reasons why nothing can be changed, and then rejoice when they think they've thought of one! (Paul Waine is different. I suspect his taxes might actually go up under Labour, though).

There's a program on offer here that will dramatically improve schools, the NHS, and all public services and it's available for free. Now if you actually want things to stay as bad as they are, then obviously Labour isn't for you. Otherwise, just do it. You don't even have to tell anyone.

Hi if it be your will, yes, I've paid my dues in taxes - and I've done this under both Labour and Conservative governments. I'm not working much now - I've posted before about my health "challenges." Excessive taxation of a small section of the population has been shown before not to work. Labour is talking of raising income taxes on incomes over £80,000 - this will not produce higher tax receipts for the government, it will reduce the taxes collected. In most probability it will also lead to lower employment, including reductions in employment for people with lower earnings.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun May 07, 2017 11:12 pm

If it be your will wrote:Then tax their paper wealth.

Honestly, this thread is like reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. It seems all these posters that rail against how **** everything is on other threads are desperately searching for reasons why nothing can be changed, and then rejoice when they think they've thought of one! (Paul Waine is different. I suspect his taxes might actually go up under Labour, though).

There's a program on offer here that will dramatically improve schools, the NHS, and all public services and it's available for free. Now if you actually want things to stay as bad as they are, then obviously Labour isn't for you. Otherwise, just do it. You don't even have to tell anyone.

The problem is not that people don't want infinite amounts of cash and happiness by voting Labour. It's that they don't believe it can happen.

Do you really believe that Corbyn is a genius who just happens to have hit on a way to make everything right without it costing?

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Sun May 07, 2017 11:38 pm

I'm looking forward to this election simply to see the back of Corbyn. There is talk of him hanging on but I don't think that will be possible. Even McCluskey has begun to see the error of his ways and is talking to more moderate MP's in the hope that they can rebuild from the ashes of what is left.

Corbyn thinks that he leads a party but where are they? No one rallies round him apart from that joke of a shadow chancellor and what is just so far beyond a joke of a shadow home secretary. He trots out every day on the campaign trail but he's always on his own. No one wants him near them for fear that being associated with him will contribute towards them losing their seats.

Such a fiasco. I personally think that Labour will be lucky to retain one hundred seats, it will be that bad. And what will it have all been for? Asked whether it was worth it at the last election, an associate of Miliband came out with the classic quote ' yes it was because at least we had a go '. Will Corbyn and Mcdonnell come out with similarly fatuous remarks when they see the devastation that they've caused.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Sun May 07, 2017 11:41 pm

If it be your will wrote:Then tax their paper wealth.

Honestly, this thread is like reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. It seems all these posters that rail against how **** everything is on other threads are desperately searching for reasons why nothing can be changed, and then rejoice when they think they've thought of one! (Paul Waine is different. I suspect his taxes might actually go up under Labour, though).

There's a program on offer here that will dramatically improve schools, the NHS, and all public services and it's available for free. Now if you actually want things to stay as bad as they are, then obviously Labour isn't for you. Otherwise, just do it. You don't even have to tell anyone.

It's not for free! How much more money do you want?