Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[Smollet]

chris watton said:

LoonyTunes said:

I know, it's almost as bad as supporting a leader who's party is so clearly riddled with racists and yet is also so utterly unable to deal with it.

Thanks to nutters like you, the word 'Racist' has completely lost its meaning and power to put others down using the term.

Hard to argue against that. Never has a word been so diluted as racist has.

[chris watton]

jakesmith said:

chris watton said:

LoonyTunes said:

I know, it's almost as bad as supporting a leader who's party is so clearly riddled with racists and yet is also so utterly unable to deal with it.

Thanks to nutters like you, the word 'Racist' has completely lost its meaning and power to put others down using the term.

Isn't antisemitism = racism?

Perhaps the likes of Looney are simply projecting. Chances are they are a hell of a lot more racist than any 'normal' person - they just try to hide it by lashing the term out like confetti at others.

Most people aren't as rabidly partisan as that poster, the type who'd rather see the world burn than be proved wrong. (Which they are, of course)

[technodup]

2xChevrons said:

you can take 10% of the richest man's wealth without harming his quality of life in any way and make massive improvements to the lives of 1000 people at the bottom. There is no logical or moral reason not to.

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

How about we take 10% of your net worth and give it to the poor in Africa? Or does this only count for people wealthier than you?

[JagLover]

fblm said:

JagLover said:

The reason why they still didn't win is that there are many centrist voters who would never vote for him.

It's not just the centre. My father-in-law is a life time Labour voter and TGWU convener of 30 years; according to him very few of his union palls voted for Corbyn because they remember the mess the last time Militant infiltrated the Labour party! Those under 40/50 don't. FWIW mother-in-law volunteers in an OAP community centre and recons the Tory's inexplicably stupid attack on pensions swung her old dears from mostly Tory to mostly Labour. At this point if they have to buy the OAP vote to keep the communists from wrecking the rest of the economy then I can live with that.

The centre ground is always moving.

My dad was an old Labour voter. Poster in his window every election etc. I think the last leader of Labour he rated was John Smith and he certainly wouldn't vote for Corbyn.

Times change and the Glastonbury crowd seem far more in tune with Corbyn's world view then those you would meet down a working man's club.

[Dr Jekyll]

2xChevrons said:

And you can take 10% of the richest man's wealth without harming his quality of life in any way and make massive improvements to the lives of 1000 people at the bottom. There is no logical or moral reason not to.

There is a perfectly logical and moral reason not to, it's his money.

[Trolleys Thank You]

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

[Zod]

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

Yes, the How to Destroy the Economy Handbook (c) The Labour Party.

If you confiscate the majority of the money made by richer people, they have no incentive to make more money through investing hard work and money in growing businesses in the UK.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

Presuming that you live in the UK and have anything other than a minimum wage job, in global terms you are the wealthy elite. When can we expect the payment?

[djc206]

Trolleys Thank You said:

If you want a society which functions with decent public services then higher taxes are inevitable. Little surprise those countries with much higher tax takes than ourselves like Denmark have the best general happiness ratings in the world.

The average Dane pays 45% income tax. I have no problem with high taxation so long as the majority who wish to benefit from a well organised state are contributing to it like in Denmark. Under Corbyn only the top 5% of earners would be paying that sort of contribution so it simply wouldn’t work.

[2xChevrons]

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a perfectly logical and moral reason not to, it's his money.

And what makes it his? Did he earn it single-handedly? Did he earn it at all, or did he merely make it? Did other people, and society at large, not have any hand in creating it? He benefits from having healthy and educated workers, from having his private property protected, from having infrastructure to deliver his products. Did no-one else have any part in generating this money? How did he obtain his capital in the first place? Where did he get his education? How did he get his health? The self-made man is a myth.

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

I like the cut of your jib, TTY

[jakesmith]

2xChevrons said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a perfectly logical and moral reason not to, it's his money.

And what makes it his? Did he earn it single-handedly?

More so than someone who has never worked a day in his life I'd say & there is the problem

[andy_s]

2xChevrons said:

And you can take 10% of the richest man's wealth without harming his quality of life in any way and make massive improvements to the lives of 1000 people at the bottom. There is no logical or moral reason not to.

It's not a closed system, so if people will think it worth while to feck off elsewhere you'll get 10% of bugger all, and as the top 1% generate about 25% of tax revenue, you'd be wise not to scare too many away, they already make massive improvements for 1000s at the bottom, it's just not acknowledged very much. Sorting out inefficiencies in govt. would make things better for 1000s at the bottom, but that doesn't fit a binary political agenda and wold need a govt. stocked with intelligent people instead of Eton old boys or failed Marxist lecturers.

[Henners]

That approach leads to a race to the bottom. If I can do bugger all and get rich Dave's money, brill!

[gadgetmac]

Zod said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

Yes, the How to Destroy the Economy Handbook (c) The Labour Party.

If you confiscate the majority of the money made by richer people, they have no incentive to make more money through investing hard work and money in growing businesses in the UK.

So, these “rich”, do they all suddenly down tools and stop trying to make money? Or do they redouble their efforts in order to earn even more money so as to offset the increase in the additional tax they are being asked to pay?

It’s unthinkable that people of that mindset would be so demoralised by an increase in taxation that they’d abandon their entreprenurial instincts.

It’s like the tired old myth that they’d leave the UK in droves. If it were true we’d be swamped with French wealth makers ourselves.

[amusingduck]

Russian Troll Bot said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

Presuming that you live in the UK and have anything other than a minimum wage job, in global terms you are the wealthy elite. When can we expect the payment?

£7.83 minimum wage x 40 hours a week x 44 weeks (to err on side of caution) is approx £13k net pa.

That puts you in the top 6% worldwide, according to http://www.globalrichlist.net/

I see no reason why they'd be exempt

[Trolleys Thank You]

Zod said:

Yes, the How to Destroy the Economy Handbook (c) The Labour Party.

If you confiscate the majority of the money made by richer people, they have no incentive to make more money through investing hard work and money in growing businesses in the UK.

Will the Royals also take an extended vacation? You're only selling this to me.

[Dr Jekyll]

2xChevrons said:

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a perfectly logical and moral reason not to, it's his money.

And what makes it his? Did he earn it single-handedly? Did he earn it at all, or did he merely make it? Did other people, and society at large, not have any hand in creating it? He benefits from having healthy and educated workers, from having his private property protected, from having infrastructure to deliver his products. Did no-one else have any part in generating this money? How did he obtain his capital in the first place? Where did he get his education? How did he get his health? The self-made man is a myth.

If he earned/made the wealth as opposed to inherit it or win the lottery he must have done something the rest of us didn't do. He bought the services of healthy and educated workers for at least as much, possibly more than the rest of the world were willing to pay, and turned that input into something the world in general was willing to pay for, to pay more than the input cost. In other words he created wealth. If he kept the whole of the wealth created, the rest of us would be no worse off. In fact we'd still be better off than if that product or service hadn't been created.

Decide to punish success buy transferring that wealth to those of us he didn't earn it, and he might as well not have bothered. Perhaps nobody will bother in future.

This is what is fundamentally wrong with 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. We end up with a large chunk of the population deciding to acquire 'needs' in the form of children they can't afford to keep without govt subsidy instead of going to college and acquiring some abilities.

[Trolleys Thank You]

Russian Troll Bot said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

technodup said:

Why stop at 10%? You could take 80% and not affect the richest's daily lives.

Yep. You're getting the hang of this now.

Presuming that you live in the UK and have anything other than a minimum wage job, in global terms you are the wealthy elite. When can we expect the payment?

For your idea to make any sense at all, nations and borders would no longer exist and we'd all work under one single global currency. We're a way off that yet but one day?

[Halb]

Trolleys Thank You said:

For your idea to make any sense at all, nations and borders would no longer exist and we'd all work under one single global currency. We're a way off that yet but one day?

not unless you can get rid of fkwittery, religion, racism, tribalism, greed, the Dutch and humans.

[Dr Jekyll]

gadgetmac said:

So, these “rich”, do they all suddenly down tools and stop trying to make money? Or do they redouble their efforts in order to earn even more money so as to offset the increase in the additional tax they are being asked to pay?

It’s unthinkable that people of that mindset would be so demoralised by an increase in taxation that they’d abandon their entreprenurial instincts.

It’s like the tired old myth that they’d leave the UK in droves. If it were true we’d be swamped with French wealth makers ourselves.

There was a case recently where a number of contractors working for a public sector organisation were told that in future their working arrangements would change in such way that their tax liability would be vastly increased. It was a paperwork change only, the work didn't change, only the tax. Most of the contractors instantly terminated their contracts.
A neighbour of mine in the same line of work was commuting at weekends to the other end of the country and living in a B & B. When the tax rules changed so that he had to pay travel and accommodation out of taxed income he quit. He then spent 6 months living on savings and paying no tax at all because it just wasn't worth the hassle for what little he would take home.

Governments tax sugary drinks to discourage us from drinking them, cigarettes to discourage us from smoking, motor fuel to discourage us from driving. Then they tax work and are incredulous when less wealth gets created.