I was wondering when he'd make his move. This would shake things up a bit (should he get the required number of nominations):If it be your will wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:01 pmhttps://www.oddschecker.com/politics/br ... our-leader
If I was to place a bet I would go with Rebecca Long-Baily at 5/1, or Barry Gardiner at 100/1
How can you even begin to argue with logic like that. It’s like me burgling a house and explaining in court that it’s not my fault it’s the home owner for being out at the time. For people like you it will never be the Tories’ fault. In power or out of power, blame Labour.dermotdermot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:23 pmIt’s just all so selfish and infantile. People in need of help will suffer and it won’t be the fault of a Conservative government, it will be on account of there being absolutely no credible opposition.
Only after an inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, after Starmer initially decided not to prosecute. Bit tricky not to prosecute after that. If the writer was trying to smear Starmer, it's a wonder how he managed to miss. There's quite a bit to go on. Here for instance: https://twitter.com/holski_beat/status/ ... 4827252736aggi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:08 pmNot entirely sure whether this is the start of the "smear" articles on Starmer or just an incompetent writer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ke ... 76321.html
In 2009 and 2010, Starmer refused to prosecute the police killers of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
The decision on de Menezes was in 2006 before Starmer and the policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson was tried. The writer also tried to suggest that Starmer was responsible for setting the length of prison sentences.
And it always ends up so well under Labour. The Tories usually spend most of their tenure sorting out Labour’s mess, just in time to get hoofed and let Labour in to screw it all up again. Of course the left wing press has no influence on the electorate.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:50 pmEasy there fella. In my opinion the Labour manifesto was excellent. Why would I change that opinion after the election reverse? In the week that our rail prices had an inflation busting rise, with as far as I can see no promise of improved service, the Germans have lowered theirs by ten percent to encourage fewer car journeys. Plenty of people on here saying they can’t rely on Northern Rail to get them to work each day. And how’s broadband going these days? Upgraded to carrier pigeon yet?
It’s utterly preposterous to suggest the rightwing press didn’t have an effect on the election. The content of the anti Corbyn rants on here are evidence enough, if you don’t have time to read any of the academic studies made on the subject.
But this is torytime now. Nobody to blame but themselves for how things pan out.
Oh there's plenty of things to attack him about, which would be the case for any DPP. It's similar to the issues I have with people complaining about Corbyn with **** like "he hates the country". There's enough real stuff without having to resort to making things up.If it be your will wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:41 pmOnly after an inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, after Starmer initially decided not to prosecute. Bit tricky not to prosecute after that. If the writer was trying to smear Starmer, it's a wonder how he managed to miss. There's quite a bit to go on. Here for instance: https://twitter.com/holski_beat/status/ ... 4827252736
But there'll be no co-ordinated smear campaign against Starmer. He's very much the media and establishment's choice for leadership (at least amongst those that have even the remotest chance of winning).
That's just the Daily Mail again. Had the roles been reversed, the Tories would have suffered just as much in the financial crisis, and it's still no reason they've completely failed to deal with the deficit (which was their major promise in 2010). That the Tories have more than doubled the national debt over the last ten years since they took over shows their guardianship of the economy is worse than poor. Bear in mind that during this time peoples wages have stagnated, and we're now worse off than ten years ago. They've also sold off just about everything not nailed down. Trying to get ordinary people to pay the bills, while letting the rich off the hook simply doesn't work. Check out Portugal's revival under a Corbynite government to see what does work.
Ah, the note. It wasn't true that there was no money left (in fact that's impossible in a country that creates and controls its own money). Rather than being some sort of admission of profligacy, I think it's more likely that Byrne was making a joke much in the same vein as Reginald Maudling did after the 1964 election with his note reading, "sorry about all the mess".BennyD wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:47 pmAusterity was a legacy of Labour’s last period in office. Remember the ‘there’s no money left’ note left by the outgoing Labour mob? PFI is also draining the budget and that, again, was the fault of Labour. We can argue the toss but it is largely accepted that Labour are cr4p at managing the economy, just ask Diane Abbott.
), and rather than hacking at the economy and causing all the problems this government has, they built the NHS and built the welfare state, and created the era of greatest shared prosperity we've ever had. They were so successful that the next Tory governments continued with their policies. That is what the 2010 government could have done, but they didn't.Keep smoking the crack.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:06 pmAh, the note. It wasn't true that there was no money left (in fact that's impossible in a country that creates and controls its own money). Rather than being some sort of admission of profligacy, I think it's more likely that Byrne was making a joke much in the same vein as Reginald Maudling did after the 1964 election with his note reading, "sorry about all the mess".
PFI - invented by John Major's government. Used by Blair and Brown, and utterly rejected as a policy under Corbyn's leadership. What are Johnson's plans regarding PFI contracts?
Austerity: A deliberate choice by the Tory government in 2010 to reduce the size of the state on ideological grounds, and force ordinary people to pay for the cost of the financial crisis. A policy so disastrous that it failed both to eliminate the deficit, and caused Britain's credit rating to be reduced. It failed to reduce the deficit because a lot of the money saved was handed out in tax breaks mostly to the very rich, who on seeing how badly the economy was doing stuffed the money in tax havens rather than invest in our country. A policy so disastrous that Boris Johnson is on record denying he had anything to do with it, and has promised to reverse some of the cuts. A policy so disastrous that it caused crime to rise, the NHS to be underfunded, a housing shortage, a cost of living crisis due to pay reductions in real terms, and poverty and all its attendant ills to skyrocket.
The alternative to austerity was always there. Grow the economy, and tax the wealthiest more. This happened in 1945 when we were in far worse shape (Labour cleaning up after the mess left by a Conservative PM -
Keep believing the propaganda, and enjoy Johnson's brexit Britain.
I suspect that <A NEW PARTY> isn't far off at this point. Labour don't look like they've learnt anything from December which means they can't even begin to get back to viability. A new centre/centre-left party will be a welcome addition to the landscape after the realignment of 2019.summitclaret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:32 pmIt's more likely that the real challenge to BJ will come from a new SDLP, after new labour ditch the looney left.
Whilst I can't speak for the Labour membership, I can offer an interpretation of what's going on, and it's not the same as yours.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:45 pmOh there's plenty of things to attack him about, which would be the case for any DPP. It's similar to the issues I have with people complaining about Corbyn with **** like "he hates the country". There's enough real stuff without having to resort to making things up.
I seem to remember there were issues with the pathologist in the Ian Tomlinson case which is why the initial decision was not to prosecute. Wasn't he struck off afterwards and the decision reversed.
Some of the stuff on the link seems a bit weak too. Treating benefit fraud where there is evidence of aggravating features such as multiple offences, abuse of position or substantial loss to public funds. Professionally planned frauds, the use of a false or stolen identity and cases involving attempts to dispose of the evidence will also be targeted. the same as other types of fraud seems reasonable and the story on the lawyers for rape cases doesn't seem to be based on the full guidelines.
On a broader note the labour membership (or at least the vocal part of it which I imagine is in reality a small minority that gets itself heard) seems to be virulently attacking the candidates they don't support wanting to show just how bad they are. It may get their candidate elected in the short term (although obviously only one can win) but I don't think it helps the party in the long term.
Hi iibyw, as I understand it, there are 4 candidates in the contest: Starmer, Long-Bailey, Phillips and Nandy. The others aren't getting the 20+ MP/MEP support - and I think Barry Gardiner has already declared himself out. Which of your 3 groups do you put each candidate in? RBL, yes, a "young Corbyn;" Starmer, is he liberal or socialist - or maybe 2020 Blairite? Where do you place Phillips and Nandy?If it be your will wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:23 pmWhilst I can't speak for the Labour membership, I can offer an interpretation of what's going on, and it's not the same as yours.
Broadly speaking, there appears to be 3 groups that make up Labour. There are the liberals - young, graduate, urban, public sector (or all four). Then there are the Blairites. Lastly the socialists. I've listed them in weighted order - but there are, obviously, overlaps. The socialists are probably the smallest group. Out of nowhere, the socialists suddenly got their man in charge, but the Blairites did everything they could to wreck him right from the off. So much so, that it became obvious a lot of them would rather Labour lose than win with a socialist in charge (remember Stephen Kinnock's face when the 2017 exit poll was announced?). The result is an awful lot of bad blood between these two groups, and I think it's safe to say a lot of socialists would now rather Labour lose than win with a Blairite, too.
The problem is, none of these groups have anything like the numbers to win an election. Without all 3 voting the same way, Labour will never win an election. But the advice that the leadership contest should be conducted in a genteel way so as not to overly damage the eventual winner is of no use. If a Blairite wins, the socialists won't care if they've damaged them in the process - they don't want him to win an election anyway. Same with the blairites if a socialist wins (which is what happened when Corbyn won).
So the only hope of a Labour win is a candidate representing the liberals, and hope enough socialists and blairites stay on side. But I don't think they will. Starmer means nothing to me, so I'd lose all interest immediately, for instance. How would the blairites react to a Starmer win (IanMcL opinion?)? I honestly don't know.
That's why it's not looking good for Labour right now, and why everyone appears to be at each others throats.
I think there's a fourth group, though of course you might be counting them among the socialists. The fourth group is the "I am working class and always have voted Labour and always will vote Labour". (Tories have their equivalent as well, of course.)If it be your will wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:23 pmWhilst I can't speak for the Labour membership, I can offer an interpretation of what's going on, and it's not the same as yours.
Broadly speaking, there appears to be 3 groups that make up Labour. There are the liberals - young, graduate, urban, public sector (or all four). Then there are the Blairites. Lastly the socialists. I've listed them in weighted order - but there are, obviously, overlaps. The socialists are probably the smallest group. Out of nowhere, the socialists suddenly got their man in charge, but the Blairites did everything they could to wreck him right from the off. So much so, that it became obvious a lot of them would rather Labour lose than win with a socialist in charge (remember Stephen Kinnock's face when the 2017 exit poll was announced?). The result is an awful lot of bad blood between these two groups, and I think it's safe to say a lot of socialists would now rather Labour lose than win with a Blairite, too.
The problem is, none of these groups have anything like the numbers to win an election. Without all 3 voting the same way, Labour will never win an election. But the advice that the leadership contest should be conducted in a genteel way so as not to overly damage the eventual winner is of no use. If a Blairite wins, the socialists won't care if they've damaged them in the process - they don't want him to win an election anyway. Same with the blairites if a socialist wins (which is what happened when Corbyn won).
So the only hope of a Labour win is a candidate representing the liberals, and hope enough socialists and blairites stay on side. But I don't think they will. Starmer means nothing to me, so I'd lose all interest immediately, for instance. How would the blairites react to a Starmer win (IanMcL opinion?)? I honestly don't know.
That's why it's not looking good for Labour right now, and why everyone appears to be at each others throats.
Starmer - liberal/urban/educated groupPaul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:40 pmHi iibyw, as I understand it, there are 4 candidates in the contest: Starmer, Long-Bailey, Phillips and Nandy. The others aren't getting the 20+ MP/MEP support - and I think Barry Gardiner has already declared himself out. Which of your 3 groups do you put each candidate in? RBL, yes, a "young Corbyn;" Starmer, is he liberal or socialist - or maybe 2020 Blairite? Where do you place Phillips and Nandy?
The issue is two groups both fighting over the one prize, i.e. the Labour party and all it's heritage and electoral appeal. If these "jewels" weren't so strong, we could have seen new parties being created by groups breaking away from what they have lost to the other side? Yes, do you agree?
Hm. I take your point. I happen to think those were lost overwhelmingly because of the pro-remain stance Labour took, though. Anyone voting leave, from whatever political perspective, were always going to be profoundly miffed to be told they were stupid and got it wrong (which, effectively, is what Labour said to leavers in 2019).dsr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:26 pmI think there's a fourth group, though of course you might be counting them among the socialists. The fourth group is the "I am working class and always have voted Labour and always will vote Labour". (Tories have their equivalent as well, of course.)
But this is the group that Labour lost last time. At least, they lost them in the industrial towns of the north, and so some extent in the smaller cities. Not in the big cities.
In the last 3 years of the Labour government's budgets, which includes 2010-11 because that budget was set by Labour, the government borrowed £389 billion. Maybe that level of continued borrowing would have generated vast profits; who knows. Though I don't see how spending 15-20% more than your income can be a successful long-term strategy. Attlee certainly didn't, in spite of your fond false memories. National debt barely rose at all in his Premiership, and spending as percentage of GDP was below 40% every year after 1948, once the post-war had stabilised to some extent. You could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Attlee's policies, or you could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Brown's policies, but don't pretend the two were parallel. Borrow-borrow-borrow started under Heath, and never went away.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:06 pmAh, the note. It wasn't true that there was no money left (in fact that's impossible in a country that creates and controls its own money). Rather than being some sort of admission of profligacy, I think it's more likely that Byrne was making a joke much in the same vein as Reginald Maudling did after the 1964 election with his note reading, "sorry about all the mess".
PFI - invented by John Major's government. Used by Blair and Brown, and utterly rejected as a policy under Corbyn's leadership. What are Johnson's plans regarding PFI contracts?
Austerity: A deliberate choice by the Tory government in 2010 to reduce the size of the state on ideological grounds, and force ordinary people to pay for the cost of the financial crisis. A policy so disastrous that it failed both to eliminate the deficit, and caused Britain's credit rating to be reduced. It failed to reduce the deficit because a lot of the money saved was handed out in tax breaks mostly to the very rich, who on seeing how badly the economy was doing stuffed the money in tax havens rather than invest in our country. A policy so disastrous that Boris Johnson is on record denying he had anything to do with it, and has promised to reverse some of the cuts. A policy so disastrous that it caused crime to rise, the NHS to be underfunded, a housing shortage, a cost of living crisis due to pay reductions in real terms, and poverty and all its attendant ills to skyrocket.
The alternative to austerity was always there. Grow the economy, and tax the wealthiest more. This happened in 1945 when we were in far worse shape (Labour cleaning up after the mess left by a Conservative PM -
If taxing rich people more (not just billionaires) really can't be done anymore, okay, then it really can't be done. It seems odd that it could - and was - done for 4 decades following the war, but maybe things are different now. But if that is indeed the case, we need to collectively learn to stop pining after a decent NHS, a world class education system, a decent, non-degrading welfare safety net, and roads largely free of potholes, that sort of thing, and stop complaining about it. Because it's only the top 10% (those in possession of about half the total wealth of the UK) that have enough to fund any of this.dsr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 pmIn the last 3 years of the Labour government's budgets, which includes 2010-11 because that budget was set by Labour, the government borrowed £389 billion. Maybe that level of continued borrowing would have generated vast profits; who knows. Though I don't see how spending 15-20% more than your income can be a successful long-term strategy. Attlee certainly didn't, in spite of your fond false memories. National debt barely rose at all in his Premiership, and spending as percentage of GDP was below 40% every year after 1948, once the post-war had stabilised to some extent. You could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Attlee's policies, or you could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Brown's policies, but don't pretend the two were parallel. Borrow-borrow-borrow started under Heath, and never went away.
And don't fall back on this "tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich" guff. How rich do you think these people are? According to Wikipedia, the combined wealth of every British billionaire is £190 billion. UK government spending last year was £821 billion. So if you tax the billionaires at 100% of income and 100% of their net wealth - in other words, pauperise them; or perhaps you would be willing to leave them the odd £1m - you wouldn't raise a quarter of one year's government spending. And who would you tax next year?
I don't think your interpretation is that different to mine, you've just defined the factions. The party is clearly spilt but the difference compared to a party like the Tories is that the factions aren't willing to compromise to get into power.If it be your will wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:23 pmWhilst I can't speak for the Labour membership, I can offer an interpretation of what's going on, and it's not the same as yours.
Broadly speaking, there appears to be 3 groups that make up Labour. There are the liberals - young, graduate, urban, public sector (or all four). Then there are the Blairites. Lastly the socialists. I've listed them in weighted order - but there are, obviously, overlaps. The socialists are probably the smallest group. Out of nowhere, the socialists suddenly got their man in charge, but the Blairites did everything they could to wreck him right from the off. So much so, that it became obvious a lot of them would rather Labour lose than win with a socialist in charge (remember Stephen Kinnock's face when the 2017 exit poll was announced?). The result is an awful lot of bad blood between these two groups, and I think it's safe to say a lot of socialists would now rather Labour lose than win with a Blairite, too.
The problem is, none of these groups have anything like the numbers to win an election. Without all 3 voting the same way, Labour will never win an election. But the advice that the leadership contest should be conducted in a genteel way so as not to overly damage the eventual winner is of no use. If a Blairite wins, the socialists won't care if they've damaged them in the process - they don't want him to win an election anyway. Same with the blairites if a socialist wins (which is what happened when Corbyn won).
So the only hope of a Labour win is a candidate representing the liberals, and hope enough socialists and blairites stay on side. But I don't think they will. Starmer means nothing to me, so I'd lose all interest immediately, for instance. How would the blairites react to a Starmer win (IanMcL opinion?)? I honestly don't know.
That's why it's not looking good for Labour right now, and why everyone appears to be at each others throats.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we'll tax billionaires and that's it. We'll probably keep things like corporation tax, VAT, income tax for lower earners (maybe millionaires will be taxed as well as billionaires).dsr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 pmAnd don't fall back on this "tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich" guff. How rich do you think these people are? According to Wikipedia, the combined wealth of every British billionaire is £190 billion. UK government spending last year was £821 billion. So if you tax the billionaires at 100% of income and 100% of their net wealth - in other words, pauperise them; or perhaps you would be willing to leave them the odd £1m - you wouldn't raise a quarter of one year's government spending. And who would you tax next year?
I'm glad you agree that Attlee was a great prime minister, and understand the work he did. I would just like the same done again.dsr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 pmIn the last 3 years of the Labour government's budgets, which includes 2010-11 because that budget was set by Labour, the government borrowed £389 billion. Maybe that level of continued borrowing would have generated vast profits; who knows. Though I don't see how spending 15-20% more than your income can be a successful long-term strategy. Attlee certainly didn't, in spite of your fond false memories. National debt barely rose at all in his Premiership, and spending as percentage of GDP was below 40% every year after 1948, once the post-war had stabilised to some extent. You could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Attlee's policies, or you could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Brown's policies, but don't pretend the two were parallel. Borrow-borrow-borrow started under Heath, and never went away.
And don't fall back on this "tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich" guff. How rich do you think these people are? According to Wikipedia, the combined wealth of every British billionaire is £190 billion. UK government spending last year was £821 billion. So if you tax the billionaires at 100% of income and 100% of their net wealth - in other words, pauperise them; or perhaps you would be willing to leave them the odd £1m - you wouldn't raise a quarter of one year's government spending. And who would you tax next year?
The country needs the rich. 30% of all income tax is generated from the top 1% of income tax payers (it's worth you noting that this has increased from 24% over the last decade or so).
Have you considered permanently leaving the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers and moving to enjoy sharing life with like minded people?
This is what the Labour Party/socialists just don’t get. Those that earn more, tend to be the most highly skilled. The highly-skilled can go and work anywhere in the world. And they would.dsr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 pmIn the last 3 years of the Labour government's budgets, which includes 2010-11 because that budget was set by Labour, the government borrowed £389 billion. Maybe that level of continued borrowing would have generated vast profits; who knows. Though I don't see how spending 15-20% more than your income can be a successful long-term strategy. Attlee certainly didn't, in spite of your fond false memories. National debt barely rose at all in his Premiership, and spending as percentage of GDP was below 40% every year after 1948, once the post-war had stabilised to some extent. You could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Attlee's policies, or you could claim you wanted the Tories to follow Brown's policies, but don't pretend the two were parallel. Borrow-borrow-borrow started under Heath, and never went away.
And don't fall back on this "tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich" guff. How rich do you think these people are? According to Wikipedia, the combined wealth of every British billionaire is £190 billion. UK government spending last year was £821 billion. So if you tax the billionaires at 100% of income and 100% of their net wealth - in other words, pauperise them; or perhaps you would be willing to leave them the odd £1m - you wouldn't raise a quarter of one year's government spending. And who would you tax next year?
Great post.taio wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:54 amThe country needs the rich. 30% of all income tax is generated from the top 1% of income tax payers (it's worth you noting that this has increased from 24% over the last decade or so).
You do seem to raise contradictory points. You want a much bigger state and significantly higher public spending, yet you want rid of people who generate high levels of tax relied upon to fund crucial public services. Similarly, you despised austerity, yet you are very critical about the lack of pace at which the Tories have reduced the deficit and the extent to which national debt has increased.
It's all quite odd and illogical. You are a big supporter of Corbynism. Corbyn and his cronies had little economic credibility because of contradictions like the ones you promote. It's one of the reasons why Labour got smashed at the election.
Get off your knees, and be a person with dignity. "The country needs the rich" - we don't need billionaires who tell us how to vote for their interests.taio wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:54 amThe country needs the rich. 30% of all income tax is generated from the top 1% of income tax payers (it's worth you noting that this has increased from 24% over the last decade or so).
You do seem to raise contradictory points. You want a much bigger state and significantly higher public spending, yet you want rid of people who generate high levels of tax relied upon to fund crucial public services. Similarly, you despised austerity, yet you are very critical about the lack of pace at which the Tories have reduced the deficit and the extent to which national debt has increased.
It's all quite odd and illogical. You are a big supporter of Corbynism. Corbyn and his cronies had little economic credibility because of contradictions like the ones you promote. It's one of the reasons why Labour got smashed at the election.
What a weak argument.NewClaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:10 pmThis is what the Labour Party/socialists just don’t get. Those that earn more, tend to be the most highly skilled. The highly-skilled can go and work anywhere in the world. And they would.
If they can, the “billionaires”, with property all over the world, certainly can. There will always be another country willing to accept them with open arms to take a smaller share of their wealth. I think James Dyson is an example of one that has already cut and run. Most of the wealthy are willing to make a fair contribution, but target them and they will go.
But Dyson hasn’t been targeted. He got his way with Brexit. He got his way with a Tory majority. Indeed they’ve been in power for a decade. Yet he still cleared off. So what does that tell you?NewClaret wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:10 pmThis is what the Labour Party/socialists just don’t get. Those that earn more, tend to be the most highly skilled. The highly-skilled can go and work anywhere in the world. And they would.
If they can, the “billionaires”, with property all over the world, certainly can. There will always be another country willing to accept them with open arms to take a smaller share of their wealth. I think James Dyson is an example of one that has already cut and run. Most of the wealthy are willing to make a fair contribution, but target them and they will go.
This.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:24 amTax is a necessary evil, all you can ask is that it is fair.
Labours tax plans sound more punitive than fair. They just want to stick it to anyone who is successful. The politics of envy. Get rid of the Queen, scrap the House of Lords. Tax the rich. Thats all communism not socialism.
This Labour party has never understood that many working class people consider themselves successful, and they would be hit along with the rich, for doing nothing more than working hard and making a decent life for themselves. It doesn't mean they don't want to help, or don't care about those who haven't been so fortunate, but they certainly don't want all that hard work to be for nothing.
You need to grasp, and I know its difficult for you, that punishing tax rates for the 'rich' only ever backfires on those least well off. Spending drops, businesses close, workers are laid off. The extra income is soon outweighed by the extra outgoings. It is, and always has been a recipe for disaster, as Tony Blair and New Labour understood. I know New Labour is an anathema for you, but it is the Socialists only chance of success, and you, JC, Momentum just don't get it.
Again, not strictly true - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... s-48885496NewClaret wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:50 amThis.
You only really need to look at how corporation tax receipts have increased over the last 10 years (nearly doubling) whilst the tax rate has reduced, to understand that punitive tax rates do not work. Fair tax rates do, and companies/people are quite willing to pay them.
Everyone wants well-funded public services and social fairness, but you need to have strong tax receipts to fund it, and that is not achieved by heavily taxing the so-called rich.
My point was: he’s the thin edge of the wedge if you start taxing “billionaires” more heavily. There’s a 100 or so now. I bet you’d be able to count them on one hand under Corbyn’s tax regime.Swizzlestick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:48 amBut Dyson hasn’t been targeted. He got his way with Brexit. He got his way with a Tory majority. Indeed they’ve been in power for a decade. Yet he still cleared off. So what does that tell you?
I’m not sure of your point?Swizzlestick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:59 amAgain, not strictly true - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... s-48885496
The Corporation Tax rate is not ‘fair’ - it’s one of the lowest of any major economy and coupled with the enforced ‘austerity’ foisted on the most vulnerable in society results in a set of policies that treat companies and the wealthy with kid gloves while the poorest are made to take a proportionally greater share of the burden. It’s wrong.
You appear to be saying that if we tax billionaires too much, they'll leave - so that something is better than nothing, For me this is an excellent argument for not having billionaires at all (taxing them completely out of existence).
So if someone builds a business with say 10 employees that is worth £15m, then he must ensure that his company does not grow any further and that above all he must not take on any new employees? And if he or she gets married and the spouse has a business, then that spouse must shut it down (not sell it, because that would create money) and put all the employees out of work?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:45 pmYou appear to be saying that if we tax billionaires too much, they'll leave - so that something is better than nothing, For me this is an excellent argument for not having billionaires at all (taxing them completely out of existence).
A million pounds would get me an income of fifty thousand a year for twenty years. Not a lot of money, but a person could live on that - buy a house, go on holiday, etc. A billion pounds could give you an income of fifty thousand pounds for twenty thousand years. It's off the scale, and I would argue it's entirely unnecessary. If the government announced tomorrow, that it was capping personal wealth at fifteen millon pounds per household, 99.9% of people would be unaffected. I'm sure you'd agree that fifteen million is a lot of money, so there would still be rich people, but not billionaire rich.
Why restrict wealth like this? Because wealth is power. When a Russian oligarch's wife can drop thirty thousand pounds just to have an afternoon of tennis with a cabinet minister, then you can be quite sure the conversation isn't going to revolve around funding for the NHS. It's not a coincidence that very rich people fund the Tory Party, and in return the Tory Party looks after the rich. Just as the newspapers that so vociferously attacked Labour in the last election were owned by billionaires, or in the case of Lord Rothermere, a nearly billionaire. You can't even "earn" a billion pounds, so there's not even the argument that you're taking away something someone worked hard for. Rather than a single billionaire, we'd be better off with a thousand millionaires.
Do agree £15m is a huge amount of money.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:45 pmYou appear to be saying that if we tax billionaires too much, they'll leave - so that something is better than nothing, For me this is an excellent argument for not having billionaires at all (taxing them completely out of existence).
A million pounds would get me an income of fifty thousand a year for twenty years. Not a lot of money, but a person could live on that - buy a house, go on holiday, etc. A billion pounds could give you an income of fifty thousand pounds for twenty thousand years. It's off the scale, and I would argue it's entirely unnecessary. If the government announced tomorrow, that it was capping personal wealth at fifteen millon pounds per household, 99.9% of people would be unaffected. I'm sure you'd agree that fifteen million is a lot of money, so there would still be rich people, but not billionaire rich.
Why restrict wealth like this? Because wealth is power. When a Russian oligarch's wife can drop thirty thousand pounds just to have an afternoon of tennis with a cabinet minister, then you can be quite sure the conversation isn't going to revolve around funding for the NHS. It's not a coincidence that very rich people fund the Tory Party, and in return the Tory Party looks after the rich. Just as the newspapers that so vociferously attacked Labour in the last election were owned by billionaires, or in the case of Lord Rothermere, a nearly billionaire. You can't even "earn" a billion pounds, so there's not even the argument that you're taking away something someone worked hard for. Rather than a single billionaire, we'd be better off with a thousand millionaires.
Taxes in France can depend on factors such as number of employees, anecdotally, business people build up businesses to a certain level and then don't expand further as it can trigger increased taxes and regulations ...dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:17 pmSo if someone builds a business with say 10 employees that is worth £15m, then he must ensure that his company does not grow any further and that above all he must not take on any new employees? And if he or she gets married and the spouse has a business, then that spouse must shut it down (not sell it, because that would create money) and put all the employees out of work?
PS - fifty thousand pounds a year is a lot of money. Corbyn himself has said that people with a net income of £50k are rich and should pay more tax.
Let's consider your example - and a person starts a successful company, that grows to be more valuable than the wealth ceiling (whether that be set at £10 Million, £15 Million, £20 Million or whatever). The company could continue to exist, as the owner could share the ownership with the ten employees (for example). The owner could go public. Or the owner could pay the necessary tax to reduce their wealth footprint. If you set the ceiling high enough, very few people will ever encounter this problem (and when they do it's hardly a bad problem to have).dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:17 pmSo if someone builds a business with say 10 employees that is worth £15m, then he must ensure that his company does not grow any further and that above all he must not take on any new employees? And if he or she gets married and the spouse has a business, then that spouse must shut it down (not sell it, because that would create money) and put all the employees out of work?
I don't think you understand that much of these billions are brought about by owning companies that employ people. They aren't just cash in the bank.
PS - fifty thousand pounds a year is a lot of money. Corbyn himself has said that people with a net income of £50k are rich and should pay more tax.
So, if there were no people with personal wealth above £15m, you’d be happy?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:23 pmLet's consider your example - and a person starts a successful company, that grows to be more valuable than the wealth ceiling (whether that be set at £10 Million, £15 Million, £20 Million or whatever). The company could continue to exist, as the owner could share the ownership with the ten employees (for example). The owner could go public. Or the owner could pay the necessary tax to reduce their wealth footprint. If you set the ceiling high enough, very few people will ever encounter this problem (and when they do it's hardly a bad problem to have).
A much worse problem for society, is that of extremely rich people competing with each other to get even richer, and amassing levels of wealth that effectively allow them to tell the authorities in whichever country they've chosen to base themselves, what level of tax they will pay. It's said very often that if we tax them too heavily (and for many of them it's a tiny proportion of their wealth, whereas most of us pay a hugely higher proportion of our wealth in taxes), they will leave the our country, or have the means to avoid tax, or otherwise not pay what we ask them to. If that is the case, then the answer is not to just do as they say, and let them continue getting richer, but to reduce them sufficiently so they can't make threats like this any more.
I agree that a lot of the money we're talking about could be tied up owning assets that employ people and produce growth for the economy. If a lot of it is taxed away, there's no reason why that should change.
All right, let me put it this way. If Richard Branson had known from the outset that once his company had 10, or even 100 employees, he would be taxed 100% on all future income and capital growth and never be allowed to profit from making it grow - how many employees would Virgin have now?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:23 pmLet's consider your example - and a person starts a successful company, that grows to be more valuable than the wealth ceiling (whether that be set at £10 Million, £15 Million, £20 Million or whatever). The company could continue to exist, as the owner could share the ownership with the ten employees (for example). The owner could go public. Or the owner could pay the necessary tax to reduce their wealth footprint. If you set the ceiling high enough, very few people will ever encounter this problem (and when they do it's hardly a bad problem to have).
£15M is a colossal sum of money, and I'd be interested in hearing the moral argument of why someone needs more than that. When you consider wealth measured in the hundreds of millions or more, then justifications wilt away. The more important argument though is that around power. I couldn't really care less that a few people live lives so extravagant they spend more in a week than what I could earn in a year, but the fact that level of wealth can buy influence with governments, sway elections, and misinform the public on a grand scale - then it's simply dangerous for everyone else.
Branson didn't grow his company in hermetically sealed isolation from the rest of the economy. So if Branson hadn't grown his company, and let it tick over keeping him under the wealth ceiling, then lots of other companies would be out there providing the services or products that Branson's company currently supplies. It's often said that small business is the real engine of the economy. And for business that wants to grow and take advantage of size - there's always the option to go public.dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:33 pmAll right, let me put it this way. If Richard Branson had known from the outset that once his company had 10, or even 100 employees, he would be taxed 100% on all future income and capital growth and never be allowed to profit from making it grow - how many employees would Virgin have now?
