Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
El stovey said:
Income inequality now in the USA (comparing the top 20% and lowest 20%) is similar to the levels before the French Revolution.
It's a massive problem.
Another interesting article about wealth inequality here
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...
Most are not disputing that the west now has serious problems.It's a massive problem.
Another interesting article about wealth inequality here
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...
We have had stagnating real incomes for most in the middle since the early 2000s. In America they have the same since the early 90s.
Here we also have falling home ownership rates and worsening pension provision for most outside the public sector.
What I am saying is that whether the top rate of tax is 45%, 50%, or even 55% has very little bearing on these trends. What matters is the economic forces involved and whether any government is going to have the courage to confront them.
hyphen said:
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
We are in some ways drifting back to the feudal system, where the few own lots of land (BTL's) and the many are grateful for being allowed to live there.JagLover said:
snip
Here we also have falling home ownership rates
/snip.
Off topic a bit I know, and not picking on you JL, but I've often wondered quite why we get so het up in the UK about low levels of home ownership.Here we also have falling home ownership rates
/snip.
I seem to recall that a lot of our European chums (Germany is the only example i have experience of) have much more rental - often very long term; they don't seem to worry about having "wasted" their income on rent, or vilifying landlords.
Happy for anyone to dig up ownership figures by country to see if I'm talking tosh, or that things have changed in the past years.
Stickyfinger said:
hyphen said:
Tuna said:
As an aside, I'm not sure if anyone has done a comparative study, but back in the Middle Ages, what was income inequality like? Surely then you had the lowest of the low dying in their teens from malnutrition whilst Kings and Lords owned all the land. That sounds to me pretty extreme in terms of inequality.
We are in some ways drifting back to the feudal system, where the few own lots of land (BTL's) and the many are grateful for being allowed to live there.http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-39581284/wom...
Gargamel said:
not really then.....Gargamel said:
Sounds like marriage - but without the certificate 
gooner1 said:
Burwood said:
Corbyns first of many attempts at hog tying the govt...failed.
Or did it?Moonhawk said:
Which ones though?
Corbyn is indicating he will increase corporation tax - yet historical data shows this is unlikely to increase the tax take, and could even reduce it.
In fact - if you trend the data on that chart above, a reduction in CT could actually result in an increase in the CT tax take - and may bring other benefits like increased investment, increased employment etc.
Of course - giving the 'nasty profit making corporations' a tax cut won't go down well with the frothing lefties and it would be political suicide if Corbyn did what was best for the country - rather than pursuing policies that are there to do nothing but placate the frothers.
Just as the image posted a few posts above indicates - frothers just want 'rich people' to be taxed more - even if there is no financial benefit to the country. Apparently it's the 'moral thing to do'........or something.......
Oh bloody hell, why is the idea that reducing corporation tax almost certainly likely to result in increase Tax Take such a difficult concept to understand?????? Really? If JC cannot understand this he's not bright enough to be elected. Corbyn is indicating he will increase corporation tax - yet historical data shows this is unlikely to increase the tax take, and could even reduce it.
In fact - if you trend the data on that chart above, a reduction in CT could actually result in an increase in the CT tax take - and may bring other benefits like increased investment, increased employment etc.
Of course - giving the 'nasty profit making corporations' a tax cut won't go down well with the frothing lefties and it would be political suicide if Corbyn did what was best for the country - rather than pursuing policies that are there to do nothing but placate the frothers.
Just as the image posted a few posts above indicates - frothers just want 'rich people' to be taxed more - even if there is no financial benefit to the country. Apparently it's the 'moral thing to do'........or something.......
bearman68 said:
Moonhawk said:
Which ones though?
Corbyn is indicating he will increase corporation tax - yet historical data shows this is unlikely to increase the tax take, and could even reduce it.
In fact - if you trend the data on that chart above, a reduction in CT could actually result in an increase in the CT tax take - and may bring other benefits like increased investment, increased employment etc.
Of course - giving the 'nasty profit making corporations' a tax cut won't go down well with the frothing lefties and it would be political suicide if Corbyn did what was best for the country - rather than pursuing policies that are there to do nothing but placate the frothers.
Just as the image posted a few posts above indicates - frothers just want 'rich people' to be taxed more - even if there is no financial benefit to the country. Apparently it's the 'moral thing to do'........or something.......
Oh bloody hell, why is the idea that reducing corporation tax almost certainly likely to result in increase Tax Take such a difficult concept to understand?????? Really? If JC cannot understand this he's not bright enough to be elected. Corbyn is indicating he will increase corporation tax - yet historical data shows this is unlikely to increase the tax take, and could even reduce it.
In fact - if you trend the data on that chart above, a reduction in CT could actually result in an increase in the CT tax take - and may bring other benefits like increased investment, increased employment etc.
Of course - giving the 'nasty profit making corporations' a tax cut won't go down well with the frothing lefties and it would be political suicide if Corbyn did what was best for the country - rather than pursuing policies that are there to do nothing but placate the frothers.
Just as the image posted a few posts above indicates - frothers just want 'rich people' to be taxed more - even if there is no financial benefit to the country. Apparently it's the 'moral thing to do'........or something.......
Efbe said:
but neither of you are bright enough to realise how useless that chart is...
Not as useless as an inane comment backed up by.....erm......nothing whatsoever.But as usual - stupid playground insults are much preferred to actually making a point
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 29th June 01:09
Steve_W said:
Off topic a bit I know, and not picking on you JL, but I've often wondered quite why we get so het up in the UK about low levels of home ownership.
I seem to recall that a lot of our European chums (Germany is the only example i have experience of) have much more rental - often very long term; they don't seem to worry about having "wasted" their income on rent, or vilifying landlords.
Happy for anyone to dig up ownership figures by country to see if I'm talking tosh, or that things have changed in the past years.
Home ownership in isolation may not necessary be crucial, what matters is overall can most of the population build up a stake in the system, as this leads a more even distribution of wealth and greater stability.I seem to recall that a lot of our European chums (Germany is the only example i have experience of) have much more rental - often very long term; they don't seem to worry about having "wasted" their income on rent, or vilifying landlords.
Happy for anyone to dig up ownership figures by country to see if I'm talking tosh, or that things have changed in the past years.
Most who don't own their own home usually have poor private pension provision and little savings as well.
Internationally, in 2015, we now rank 42nd on rates of home ownership and the rate has been plummeting since the early 2000s.
We shouldn't therefore be surprised that millions are now prepared to vote for a hard left agenda.
JagLover said:
Internationally, in 2015, we now rank 42nd on rates of home ownership and the rate has been plummeting since the early 2000s.
How much of that is through choice though.Houses can be had for reasonable money. My parents first house recently sold for around £85k (~3.5x average wage). On the Wirral (where the property is) there are currently 655 properties listed at less than £100k - two thirds of them are houses.
Burwood said:
gooner1 said:
Burwood said:
Corbyns first of many attempts at hog tying the govt...failed.
Or did it?In essence, when you say "we all know the conservatives will give something back"
Is, we fully agree our front line Services deserve improvements in their contracts, but we aint't
going to give you SFA until we chose to, because, well because Corbyn.
Is
gooner1 said:
Burwood said:
gooner1 said:
Burwood said:
Corbyns first of many attempts at hog tying the govt...failed.
Or did it?In essence, when you say "we all know the conservatives will give something back"
Is, we fully agree our front line Services deserve improvements in their contracts, but we aint't
going to give you SFA until we chose to, because, well because Corbyn.
Is
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff