Quite.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Quite.
Text book Stalinism from Corbyn.
Very true, Jeremy has always been up front about what he believes in and nobody can say after the election, if Jeremy is elected as PM, "Can we do it again please, people didn't know what they were voting for"?
I'd hazard a guess it's a lot more than the second time as they've posted leaflets in my constituency with fictional bar charts in too... claiming that Angela 'funny tinge' Smith is the only one who can beat the Conservatives here. The bar chart is complete fiction. Has the Tories and Lib Dems neck and neck on 32% and 31%, with Labour on 12%.
Most people are happy to pay more, but how much is more?
Being in the top 5% means you should have a net wealth of ~1.7m, and your sibling 17m. Assuming that is correct, under Labour's ideas you/your children will be left with an 800k bill. Your sibling will pay 8 million. This is all from money you have already been taxed on, remember. You have 6 months to sell the assets to pay for it, or they will take them from you and sell them for whatever they can get.
Be careful what you wish for.
So basically we should cripple our public services to bring back billionaires who've already left? I'm not understanding this logic.
Who said about crippling public services or bringing back billionaires who've left. Corbyn today talked about billionaires, which billionaires, the ones who have already left or the ones that will leave or have their assets in another country. It's more fantasy.
If Corbyn is banking on billionaires or tax dodgers to pay more to finance better public services he is even more stupid than I thought.
I have a feeling that the manifesto is going to get massacred when his Brexit stance is in black and white.
An argument could be made that a 9m windfall is still extremely high for someone that's possibly had zero contribution to generating that wealth.
This is quite a confusing line of thinking to follow, I'll try to set out my thinking below:
1. A lot of people who become wealthy care about accumulating significant amounts of money. The process becoming wealthy often involves sacrifice of one kind or another.
2. I believe that for people who are minded this way, they very rarely have a change of heart and think "I've made enough money now". The pursuit of more wealth drives them until they die.
3. Therefore if taxes rise for people who are minded this way, they are capable of making the sacrifice of leaving the country. Some of these people care about the accumulation of wealth above all else.
I'm not saying that everyone who is wealthy was motivated purely by wealth. Sportspeople, actors, some entrepreneurs etc. may have been lucky in accumulating wealth doing something they love. However for those who have become wealthy by aiming at it, which I expect to be quite a significant number of the wealthy, would be happy to move should the tax environment become detrimental to that accumulation.
You don't even live in this country. Its quite clear because you keep banging on about Brexit as if that's the problem people are faced with every day.
Brexit will be a footnote in the Labour manifesto because there are more pressing quite literal life and death issues that take precedent. They'll do well to just brush it aside and push forward what people really need.
I will in fact stick my neck out and say that this won't be the Brexit election everyone keeps thinking it must be. I expect nothing significant for TBP or Lib Dems in this election. And you can quote me on it when the exit poll comes out on election night!
But if billionaires were willing to keep their assets out of the country while we were being ruled by a pro-austerity Tory party intent on shrinking the state and helping the rich then there's not much that can be done to stop them leaving other than a race to the bottom: there's always going to be another tax haven they can try to move their wealth instead. This shouldn't stop us from rightfully demanding that they pay their fair share if they're here and aiming to reduce inequality to help poorer people instead of letting it widen.
Never trust anyone with a beard.
Just because he's consistent doesn't mean he's consistently right. Hitler was also consistent.
Alright, Mao and Stalin were (I think).Of course there are other issues which seem important but if Labour treat Brexit as a footnote then they are not being serious about what impact Brexit will have on the economy. Pretending Brexit would be a minor inconvenience is being dishonest especially when they are making out they're going to negotiate a deal that will keep things about the same but we'll get into more detail when the manifesto is published.
It will probably be between Tories and Labour but Labour have to win over people, not just loyal supporters.
I don't disagree with that at all, what I'm saying is that in practice I don't believe such measures will work and when prospective voters that Labour are trying to win over realise that they will be the ones who are really affected, not the billionaires that might not prove too popular.
I honestly don’t know who to vote for.
It’s a fairly depressing line up
Small size, but it's interesting that the poll here has Brexit at about half of the Conservative vote, while in actual polling the numbers are ~7 and 35.
UDA must have phoned Sylvia Hermon...
Stalin famously wasn't. Sided with the party right to kick out Trotsky, then adopted Trotsky's policies and kicked out the party right, and finally had them all killed. He called the Social Democrats social fascists and then 2 years later called for a worldwide popular front, including social democrats and liberals, against fascism.
Mao invited criticis in the hundred flowers campaign and then destroyed it with the anti-rightists campaign.
Basically, what I'm saying is that this is exactly the kind of thing Corbyn would do once elected, and very in keeping with his history of sponsoring pigeons' rights motions from the back benches.
Last edited:
I guess, if we accept your caricature of wealthy people (which I'm highly dubious of), the question is where the line is that enough people would leave that we're no longer increasing the tax income for the government.
Me neither
I usually plump for the least bad option, but I don't see any options which aren't really, really bad.
Manys the election when I have thought, feck it, they're all a bunch of cnuts, I'm going for Monster Raving Loony this time. This time, everyone is a monster raving loony.
I realise that if you are a voter struggling to put food on the table you won’t care about the seemingly abstract problems of Brexit. But from a Labour leadership point of view, I don’t know how you can implement transformative policies while the economy is shrinking due to a break with our biggest market and the civil service (and ministers) are spending a huge amount of time trying to put in place alternative arrangements. To me it’s an either/or situation - a meaningful Brexit (not some pointless Norway model which just removes our vote) or the ability to increase public spending and reverse some of the post-1979 settlement.
This is the Laffer Curve. Many a book written on the topic, and many a right winger has abused the concept to justify avoiding tax increases.
Me neither
I usually plump for the least bad option, but I don't see any options which aren't really, really bad.
Manys the election when I have thought, feck it, they're all a bunch of cnuts, I'm going for Monster Raving Loony this time. This time, everyone is a monster raving loony.
https://getvoting.org/
updated to show you who would win with and without suggested tactical voting
Again, you're simply being dishonest.
Yes, tax revenue as a percentage of gdp was far higher, especially for the ultra rich. In the 50s and 60s, the rich paid far higher taxes than the poor. Now, they pay less. There was a famous quote from Buffet a decade or so ago where he said 'I pay less tax than my secretary.'
Also bizarre is the conservative notion that taxes on the top400 encourage migration, which is mainly a young mans game. The number who do it for tax purposes whilst well publicised are very few. Most don't mind paying more.
Maybe a mod can change his name to Dishonest John
I'm only interested in tax take, rather than irrelevant percentages. Corporation tax reductions haven't decreased UK tax to GDP, which is at a record level. If doubling insurance tax is a better means of taxing companies than corporation tax then surely that's preferable to socialists? Likewise if we adopted Ireland's corporation tax and it allowed our exonomy to grow at their speed (6-9% per annum) then it's a no brainer.
That's the problem though. McDonell inferred it during his LBC interview yesterday. It isn't about tax receipts, it's about ideology. The current Labour party would prefer £700b tax receipts with a large increase in all taxes, rather than £800b with tax reductions propelling growth. It's the same with the NHS... If a private company are efficient to such an extent of being able to provide a better service than the public sector and make a profit on top, that's irrelevant. It should be brought into the public sector simply because a bad service with no private profit is better than a good service with private profit. He intimated pharmacies would be privatised... Absolute lunacy.
I know many wealthy people and I absolutely disagree with this. If wealthy people want to pay more they give to charity, not the wasteful treasury (it's simple to donate to the treasury if you want to pay more... Shocking though that peanuts are donated every year)
Last edited:
It’s not just the 4.5 million using foodbanks. Its the teachers and parents that are asked for donations to fund basic school supplies. It’s the nurses and doctors that are leaving the NHS in droves because they cannot do their job and the patients suffering as a result. It’s the working families struggling to find the time to take care of their elderly or disabled relatives because of decimated social care. It’s the parents losing their children to crime and violence because of the closure of virtually all youth services nationwide. It’s quite literally all of us, but will someone fecking think of the billionaires. Oh and Brexit!
Is it just me or is this a pretty flat speech by Boris' standard up to now?
They have completely lost it.
edit - never mind
edit - never mind
Last edited:
Tom Watson's retiring from front line politics to spend more time visiting Carl Beech.
Yet we are still behind the OECD average. We also disproportionaly tax more personal income than corporate income versus the OECD average.
Re: privatisation. We are currently living under a privatisation ideology. Even when that is not the efficient route. It's not working for the consumer ir the general public in nearly all cases. Look at the railways, the royal mail debacle (we lost over £1bn), the energy companies overcharging, even look at the terrible deal for Hinkley point. This is not efficient pragmatism it is privatisation ideology.
Prime example of Tory ideology below. Chinese effectivly taking a UK nuclear power station partly under Chinese public sector control!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant
If a private company in an essential sector are inefficient to such an extent that being brought into the public sector would provide a better service for the people and generate more revenue for the country then why not do that?
I didn’t mention billionaires so let’s drop the strawmen. As for Brexit, surely you can help those people better through progressive taxation when the economy is going well? The concept of planning to be the most left-wing government since the 70s while implementing (or at least seeming agnostic to) a project which is Thatcher on steroids seems confused.
@finneh everything run for profit has only one aim, profit. Everything else doesn’t matter. They can cut corners on health and safety, they can provide terrible service, they can enslave workers, anything is acceptable because profit is above all else. Railways, various G4S contracts, Grenfell, etc. nothing matters more than profit.
Labour is remain. The country voted leave. They cannot be seen to ignore a democratic vote and do as they please. The offer of another democratic vote is the only way to legitimately change course with all the facts laid bare, should the country choose to of course.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for people to understand this position and to understand that it’s not worth talking about over and over and over when there are more pressing issues for people.
Has there been a poll conducted of what people in the country rank as number one priority in this or last election? I can tell you Brexit might not even make top 3.
- Status