Corbyn & the earnings limit

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:55 am

Jeremy wants to put a maximum limit on how much a person can earn.

Can't imagine it will be less than his £140,000 a year salary.

He won't give a figure though so let's imagine he says £500,000 per year. Reasonable?

So what would happen to our professional footballers, film stars & to celebrities, property developers, bankers & financiers (easy target for you), sports people, musicians & popstars etc?

its ok him floating an idea to get elected, but he would have no way of making this work.

exclaret · Post by **exclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:59 am

I don't mind Corbyn - he's a principled guy but also lives in cuckoo land at times.

The idea that he's preaching communist views in this era (Brexit, Trump, Marine Le Pen, UKIP and others) baffles me.

He's just being laughed at!

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:02 am

Read all the twitter #Corbyn comments. Almost everyone is mocking his pie in the sky ideas. There is never any detail in his ideas.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:05 am

He can say anything he wants as he has about as much chance of being Prime Minister as a racist, homophobic, sexist TV reality star becoming the President of America

Hang on.....faaaaaak

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:08 am

Principled?

What he said today on freedom of movement directly contradicts what he said in his conference speech three months ago.

Its a great time to a conservative at the moment, there is actually no opposition to them at all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:16 am

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:20 am

As already stated, he can say what he likes, he is never going to be elected. The bonus may be that the more bilge he spouts, the sooner the muppets who voted for him will see through his hollow promises and get rid.

BurnleyPaul · Post by **BurnleyPaul** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:25 am

The muppets who voted for Corbyn though are, on the whole, happy with him!

They're going to keep drinking the Kool-Aid until the next general election and the. When Labour loses that they're going to claim it was all because of the evil red-Tories in the party and really do a brutal purge....

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:29 am

When I want to act like I did when I was 20 I just get drunk.
But I don't think Jeremy drinks and there, folks, is the problem.

Inchy · Post by **Inchy** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:08 am

He is totally unelectable.

Labour need to rediscover the new Labour values to have any chance in the future

BurnleyPaul · Post by **BurnleyPaul** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:53 am

Inchy wrote:He is totally unelectable.

Labour need to rediscover the new Labour values to have any chance in the future

Ermmmm....two crunching leadership elections in favour of Corbyn sorta suggest that isn't going to happen soon.

Labour is wandering off to the left and abandoning all those who supported it under Tony B.liar; you know those middle class floating voters who are pretty centrist but who generally help parties win general elections!

If it wasn't so horrendous in terms of the implications for holding the government to account and offering a prospective alternative government it'd be hilarious.

I mean come on...Diane Abbott as Home Secretary???? Does she still have blackmail matieral on him from when they were shagging each other in fields back in the late 70s/early 80s or something????

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:13 pm

I like the idea, it's worth developing and discussing I'd say. The ever-expanding gap between rich and poor is a problem that should be addressed and to address it will take more than the lip service paid by May, so far. It's an issue that should be higher on the agenda and if announcements like this acheive that then it's a good thing.

When I've seen this idea discussed before it's been along the lines of the the guy at the top can't be paid more than 100 times the guy at the bottom. So if the lowest salary is £15,000 a year the highest would be limited to £1,500,000. There would obviously be a tonne of exemptions and workarounds to enable football clubs to sign who they want.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:21 pm

lucs86 wrote:I like the idea, it's worth developing and discussing I'd say. The ever-expanding gap between rich and poor is a problem that should be addressed and to address it will take more than the lip service paid by May, so far. It's an issue that should be higher on the agenda and if announcements like this acheive that then it's a good thing.

When I've seen this idea discussed before it's been along the lines of the the guy at the top can't be paid more than 100 times the guy at the bottom. So if the lowest salary is £15,000 a year the highest would be limited to £1,500,000. There would obviously be a tonne of exemptions and workarounds to enable football clubs to sign who they want.

I expect this is more what Corbyn means. However, as usual he has not gone into specifics and left himself open to ridicule from his political opponents.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:24 pm

In the current political climate, he should have suggested a maximum wage cap for foreigners. He would have got a bit more support for a policy like that.

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:28 pm

lucs86 wrote:I like the idea, it's worth developing and discussing I'd say. The ever-expanding gap between rich and poor is a problem that should be addressed and to address it will take more than the lip service paid by May, so far. It's an issue that should be higher on the agenda and if announcements like this acheive that then it's a good thing.

When I've seen this idea discussed before it's been along the lines of the the guy at the top can't be paid more than 100 times the guy at the bottom. So if the lowest salary is £15,000 a year the highest would be limited to £1,500,000. There would obviously be a tonne of exemptions and workarounds to enable football clubs to sign who they want.

But it`s a waste of time even discussing it because it will never happen.
It`s just lip-service for the masses!

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:32 pm

Falcon wrote:However, as usual he has not gone into specifics and left himself open to ridicule from his political opponents.

Not just his political opponents. The vast majority of the population too.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:33 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:Not just his political opponents. The vast majority of the population too.

What's the difference

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:43 pm

Knowing full well that he will never be in power gives Corbyn license to say and put forward ideas that he knows will never be implemented or taken very seriously. They are merely topics for debating in the media. The more preposterous and unworkable the ideas the more coverage he seems to attract.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:50 pm

The broad principle is't all that bad. The problem is that it's fundamentally unworkable. Even if that problem was overcome (I could only imagine through heavy taxation over a certain threshold) you'd have the problem of people and businesses leaving the country, at least on paper if not physically.

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:51 pm

Falcon wrote:I expect this is more what Corbyn means. However, as usual he has not gone into specifics and left himself open to ridicule from his political opponents.

I think he's probably just more careful with what he says, he doesn't want to announce something that he'll have to disown or u-turn on straight away. There's been plenty examples of this sort of policy coming from the Tories over the last 6 years but the 'incompetency' labels don't seem to stick in the same way, probably because Corbyn isn't savvy enough to exploit them and in my opinion the media are more sypathetic when it comes to the Tories.

To be honest I don't think the 'left himself open to ridicule' bit would have been any different if he had said a number, most of the ridicule is just the standard 'unelectable', 'Islington communist' stuff rather than about what he's said.

The problem isn't the product it's the salesman. His product is good, but he's the wrong salesman for this marketplace.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:05 pm

If that is the case, then he's got a lot more faith in the pension system than most of us have

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:46 pm

Bacchus wrote:The broad principle is't all that bad. The problem is that it's fundamentally unworkable. Even if that problem was overcome (I could only imagine through heavy taxation over a certain threshold) you'd have the problem of people and businesses leaving the country, at least on paper if not physically.

It's exactly what happened in the 60's when Labour introduced 99% tax band for highest earners. They all left to live elsewhere. So then the country receives no tax at all from them and we all suffered.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:51 pm

He's earning ~ £140k a year at the moment, he may manage to save some of that.

SGr · Post by **SGr** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:24 pm

Deluded, as usual. He's an idealist, some of them are appealing but he is totally and utterly unelectable and his ideas would never manage to be implemented successfully regardless

MrTopTier · Post by **MrTopTier** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:40 pm

He's earning ~ £140k a year at the moment, he may manage to save some of that.

Doesn't need to save, guaranteed a £50k year pension and owns a house worth approx 900k.

I have no idea what he is trying to achieve with this latest nonsense, it is almost like lets get Jeremy out there, just in case people have forgotten that he exists and then he comes out with this and then people think, why did we wheel him out again.
A Corbyn Utopia doesn't exist and will never exist.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:49 pm

Surely it's a good idea to have ideals, and once you are satisfied they are reasonable then you go about looking how they can be implemented and what compromises need to be made.

Is everyone here happy with the status quo - the increasing gap between rich and poor; the reduction of opportunities for certain classes of people; our management of an aging population? If 'yes', well OK. If 'no', then what is a better way? The questions of a maximum wage, or a universal wage then come into the discussion.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:04 pm

Even the most blinkered, delusional 'momentum' type must see the joke's gone way too far now.

Pretty much everything they were warned about while they elected him and had those giddy little rallies has come to pass. It wouldn't kill them just to admit they were wrong and start looking for a proper leader - god forbid a working class northern one - and start pulling things back.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:20 pm

Corbyn criticises Theresa May and the cabinet over the Brexit negotiations on a daily basis.

But can you imagine what he would do? Jeremy hasn't a clue, but he's all for making cheap, political capital.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:32 pm

To his target demographic, 16-24 year old students and pot smoking, unemployed hippies/professional protesters I suppose policies like this sound fantastic.

They don't need to be logical or workable for this crowd, they simply have to sound virtuous.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:45 pm

even if he did get elected, even if he did manage to bring in a wage cap it would still be pointless. He wouldn't be able to stop clubs giving players performance bonuses (like sales reps get) or stop them buying players houses and cars etc to make up the gap in wages. Full blown bellendery from Corbyn (and I wouldn't vote Tory in a million years)

thomaspaine · Post by **thomaspaine** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:53 pm

Sounds like a good idea to me - whether it would be workable is a different matter.Whats not to like about this - unless of course you are a selfish, greedy, one-eyed Tory.

lovebeingaclaret · Post by **lovebeingaclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:09 pm

thomaspaine wrote:Sounds like a good idea to me - whether it would be workable is a different matter.Whats not to like about this - unless of course you are a selfish, greedy, one-eyed Tory.

Or of course a selfish greedy one eyed socialist.

thomaspaine · Post by **thomaspaine** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:25 pm

lovebeingaclaret wrote:

Or of course a selfish greedy one eyed socialist.

Never met one mate -and thus I think you'll find thats a contradiction in terms

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:35 pm

His mate Mcdonnell needs to tell him that the top 25% of earners pay 75% of income tax the Treasury receives and the top 1% about 33% before he starts meddling with salary caps. The top 3000 pay more tax than the bottom 9million workers.
All data from reliable Newspapers

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:37 pm

lucs86 wrote:I like the idea, it's worth developing and discussing I'd say. The ever-expanding gap between rich and poor is a problem that should be addressed and to address it will take more than the lip service paid by May, so far. It's an issue that should be higher on the agenda and if announcements like this acheive that then it's a good thing.

When I've seen this idea discussed before it's been along the lines of the the guy at the top can't be paid more than 100 times the guy at the bottom. So if the lowest salary is £15,000 a year the highest would be limited to £1,500,000. There would obviously be a tonne of exemptions and workarounds to enable football clubs to sign who they want.

Thats a really good idea.
We will put an earnings cap in place of 1.5 million.
Oh and then everyone who earns over 1.5 million can be exempt from the cap.

You really thought that, wow,

If you put a way to be exempt everyone will find a way to be exempt.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:40 pm

NottsClaret wrote:Even the most blinkered, delusional 'momentum' type must see the joke's gone way too far now.

Pretty much everything they were warned about while they elected him and had those giddy little rallies has come to pass. It wouldn't kill them just to admit they were wrong and start looking for a proper leader - god forbid a working class northern one - and start pulling things back.

I think the drugs have put them all into an alternate reality to the rest of us.
As a Labour I have a real problrm at the next election, I have no idea who I can vote for.

Goalposts · Post by **Goalposts** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:46 pm

stupid is as stupid says and stupid does,,,,,,,,,

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:11 pm

Unfortunately, Corbyn is a f*ckwit which is good for the Tories but bad for us. We need a credible opposition not the gang of hard left dickheads and former bikes he has surrounded himself with.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:35 pm

I think they're should be a basic income and an average wage and an immigration points system so that only those indigenous can have the basic income. It would save a lot of administrative burden and build a fairer society and get rid of a lot of wannabe angst. £15,000 basic income, £30,000 average or maximum wage. Who WOULDN'T vote for it? The tiny fraction of the populace, who are millionaires? ALSO, average house prices, SAME LAND VALUE wherever.

john'sroseyspecs · Post by **john'sroseyspecs** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:06 pm

Pstotto wrote:I think they're should be a basic income and an average wage and an immigration points system so that only those indigenous can have the basic income. It would save a lot of administrative burden and build a fairer society and get rid of a lot of wannabe angst. £15,000 basic income, £30,000 average or maximum wage. Who WOULDN'T vote for it? The tiny fraction of the populace, who are millionaires? ALSO, average house prices, SAME LAND VALUE wherever.

I think this has been tried

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:20 pm

Try again except better. Why not?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:27 pm

They thought they had got it right last time. Unfortunately they didn't, and consigned generations to working in penury in the tractor factories.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:29 pm

Pstotto and his Five year plan

Pstotto and the Great Leap Forward

Pstotto's No gain in keeping, no loss in weeding out

I just can't think of a suitable slogan for it

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:34 pm

Nice idea could not work. Next...

john'sroseyspecs · Post by **john'sroseyspecs** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:35 pm

Pstotto wrote:Try again except better. Why not?

Because its a utopian pipe-dream.Comrade Cornyn doesn't understand this because he's never had a real job in the real world. Like most MPs, thinking about it, to be fair to the deluded bell end !

rejected · Post by **rejected** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:48 pm

Or the lowest paid turnstyle operator is in for a MASSIVE MASSIVE pay rise!!!

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:54 pm

Not for the first time I find myself in disagreement with Corbyn. I entirely agree that inequality is out of control, and something has to be done about it. However I don't think his (or more accurately, the Labour Party's) proposal goes far enough. To really tackle the problem we need to put a cap on wealth itself.

If we want to have a functioning market economy we need to redistribute wealth. When a significant proportion of a society's wealth is owned by a tiny group of people, and there are a lot of people at the other end of the scale who can hardly afford to get by the system needs to be readjusted or replaced. The vast majority of people in Britain have seen their incomes stagnate since 2010, but the richest 1000 have seen their wealth double to over half a trillion pounds. During this time we've seen huge cuts to public services - the NHS is on the ropes, university tuition fees have tripled, libraries, road repair, and care for the elderly, slashed; draconian measures taken against disabled and poor people. And the cost of living has shot up as well - thanks to water, power and train companies.

If anyone is drinking koolaid, it's those who think the status quo will bring us all prosperity.

Of course the media don't like Jeremy Corbyn. The rich people who own it - some of whom aren't even UK citizens ("take back control!" says US citizen Rupert Murdoch) - have the most to lose if he tries to make things fairer. While they're allowed to, they'll all strive to hoover up as much cash as they can, and none of them give a toss about ordinary people suffering. And this makes it all the more disappointing to see their mantras repeated on boards like this - for the most part by people they'd quite happily kick into the dirt if it meant they'd have to pay less tax. When Osborne and Cameron imposed pay freezes on the public sector, did the papers kick up a fuss about marxist state intervention? Of course not! But when it's their vastly greater incomes under threat it's a different story.

Unless you're extremely rich you have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by deriding redistribution. If you don't like Corbyn, fine, but rather than just saying 'he's unelectable' why not put forward your own ideas about how to re-balance the economy?

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:00 pm

One thing that really gets up my nose is all the wealthy people buying up property so young people can't afford to get on the housing ladder....and have to rent from said people.

My solution? Buy to let mortgages should be made illegal and anyone selling a property that has been rented out, pay 100% tax on any profit they have made!

Dejavu · Post by **Dejavu** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:16 pm

Under a future Labour government, he said the chief executive of any company awarded a government contract would not be paid 20 times more than the company average. But he proposed going further by introducing measures across the private sector.

Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:37 pm

In the 1920s, J.P. Morgan, the Wall Street banker limited salaries to 20 times that of junior employees.

Another advocate of pay ratios was David Cameron . His government proposed a 20:1 pay ratio to limit sky-high pay in the public sector and now all salaries higher than £150,000 must be signed off by the Cabinet Office.

Labour will go further and extend that to any company that is awarded a government contract.

A 20:1 ratio means someone earning the living wage, just over £16,000 a year, would permit an executive to be earning nearly £350,000. It cannot be right that if companies are getting public money that that can be creamed off by a few at the top.

But there is a wider point too. 20 years ago the top bosses of the FTSE 100 companies earned just under 50 times their average worker, today that figure is now 130 times. Last year alone, the top bosses got a 10 per cent pay rise, far higher than those doing the work in the shops, in the call centres, in the warehouses.

So what can we do?

… We could allow consumers to judge for themselves, with a government-backed kitemark for those companies that have agreed pay ratios between the pay of the highest and lowest earners with a recognised trade union.

… We could ask for executive pay to be signed off by remuneration committees on which workers have a majority.

… We could ensure higher earners pay their fair share by introducing a higher rate of income tax on the highest 5 percent or 1 percent of incomes.

… We could offer lower rates of corporation tax for companies that don’t pay anyone more than a certain multiple of the pay of the lowest earner.

There are many options. But what we cannot accept is a society in which a few earn the in two and a bit days, what a nurse, a shop worker, a teacher do in a year. That cannot be right.

This is not about limiting aspiration or penalising success, it’s about recognising that success is a collective effort and rewards must be shared.

We cannot have the CEO paying less tax than the cleaner and pretending they are worth thousands times more than the lowest paid staff.

I've copied it so that at least people can judge for themselves before it goes through the Mail/Sun/bloke in the pub/someone on a forum filter.