Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[2xChevrons]

edh said:

Income tax changes wont help all that much. The solution is to tax land not work. Labour is edging towards this.

Attacking rent seeking takes us back to the original free market thinking of Adam Smith.

Exactly. A Georgist approach to wealth taxation is the fairest, the least economically cramping and one of the hardest to avoid. It was also favoured by noted lefties Adam 'Father of Modern Capitalism' Smith and Winston 'Communism Rots the Soul of a Nation' Churchill.

In fact Smith's writing are riddled with the realisation that capitalism has to be made to work for everyone if it is to work at all - that those at the top are dependent on the bottom for their economic livelyhoods in a way that is not present in reverse. Hence:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged."

Sounds horribly like entitled, naïve socialism to me!

WindyCommon said:

Oh I think they understand it. It's not about optimisation. A YouGov poll showed that 69% of Labour voters supported tax increases for higher earners "...even if it did not bring any extra money"

Leaving aside the fact that the Laffer Curve is a serious over-simplification of a complex issue that is by absolutely no means an accepted economic tool, it's funny how it's only ever brought up as an excuse to cut or maintain tax rates. You never see anyone saying "We could increase our tax take if we raised tax to this point...look at this Laffer Curve!" Which isn't surprising considering it was created by one of the main architects of Reagan's economic platform. In any case it's brought up we're always on the 'high-x' part of the curve, or just about to teeter over onto it.

And it's not as if you never find conservatives angling for policies even when presented with adverse hypotheticals. Witness all those "I'd vote for Brexit even if it had a long-term depressive effect on the economy" or "I think there should be a welfare cut-off after a family has had two children, even if this ultimately increased the cost to the state" type findings. People aren't pure number-crunching machines out for maximum economic benefit. We have beliefs and ideas about how society should be that transcends them. It's a matter of principle, on both sides of the spectrum.

djc206 said:

I won’t leave but I will work less. My time is important to me and I won’t sacrifice it for less than a third of the money I’m being paid for it. I’ll just cut my hours and find a hobby to occupy them.

Great! Why be a slave to mammon. Cut your hours, work less and spend more time on a hobby. Why not? Make the economy work for you rather than you work for it. Your hobby will keep some other people in gainful employment and make you a happier, more rounded citizen. Why not enjoy the fruits of added productivity through less labour rather than more output? Presumably you haven't previously been engaged in pointless make-work, so the labour you choose not to do will be performed by someone else. The system works!

Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 26th April 01:31

[Solocle]

2xChevrons said:

Leaving aside the fact that the Laffer Curve is a serious over-simplification of a complex issue that is by absolutely no means an accepted economic tool, it's funny how it's only ever brought up as an excuse to cut or maintain tax rates. You never see anyone saying "We could increase our tax take if we raised tax to this point...look at this Laffer Curve!" Which isn't surprising considering it was created by one of the main architects of Reagan's economic platform. In any case it's brought up we're always on the 'high-x' part of the curve, or just about to teeter over onto it.

And it's not as if you never find conservatives angling for policies even when presented with adverse hypotheticals. Witness all those "I'd vote for Brexit even if it had a long-term depressive effect on the economy" or "I think there should be a welfare cut-off after a family has had two children, even if this ultimately increased the cost to the state" type findings. People aren't pure number-crunching machines out for maximum economic benefit. We have beliefs and ideas about how society should be that transcends them. It's a matter of principle, on both sides of the spectrum.

Put simply: Taxes are purely economic. Brexit is not. Brexit is a hugely multifaceted issue with many dimensions, only one of which is the economy. But what reason is there, on Earth, to tax people when it doesn't make more money? The whole purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. It's a single purpose utility. What next? Tax offenders at 100% as a punishment, keep them on benefits? Makes more sense than taxing people who've comitted the "crime" of being wealthy. From there it's a small step, no more than a little hop, to 100% taxation for all.

[djc206]

gadgetmac said:

You’re ‘rich’ then are you? Because I and the articles I’ve linked to are talking about the entrepreneurs, the high rollers, the serious wealth creators not the merely ‘well paid’.

I’m employed by one such high profile person, helicopter, plane(s), yacht, high-end cars x 8 and he isn’t going anywhere and he has no plans to. Neither do his associates. They’ll just spend more money on financial advisors to help them mitigate any tax increases.

No I’m not. I have been called rich by McDonnell though as I earn more than £80k which certainly doesn’t make me feel rich. The reality is going after the rich is not very easy because of the reasons given, it is however very easy to go after people like me on PAYE and there’s far more of us than of people like your boss.

[djc206]

2xChevrons said:

Great! Why be a slave to mammon. Cut your hours, work less and spend more time on a hobby. Why not? Make the economy work for you rather than you work for it. Your hobby will keep some other people in gainful employment and make you a happier, more rounded citizen. Why not enjoy the fruits of added productivity through less labour rather than more output? Presumably you haven't previously been engaged in pointless make-work, so the labour you choose not to do will be performed by someone else. The system works!

Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 26th April 01:31

I try not to spend my free time in the UK so it will just see more money go abroad.

So the system works by reducing tax take? That doesn’t sound too smart or like it would be working to me.

[JagLover]

fblm said:

gadgetmac said:

You wont go. Tell you what, PM me if Corbyn gets in and I’ll give £100 to the charity of your choice if you do go. I’ll even drive you to the airport free of charge.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/05/26/do...

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/29/1358...

Its bullst spouted by predominantly tory voters as some kind of threat that the electorate better not vote against their interests or they’ll take their ball and go and play elsewhere.

They never do, they never will. There are a few high paid workers here and there that might but the numbers are inconsequential.

In fact more of the lower paid workers leave than the higher paid ones:

https://unherd.com/the-feed-blog/rich-wont-leave-e...

Seriously? You know US state taxes are minimal right? (0-13% but most are about 5%). Wealthy US citizens have to pay federal income tax a fraction under 40% no matter where they live in the world, let alone which state so it makes little difference to them. Moving from California (53%) to Nevada (40%) is a rather different prospect than moving from the UK (47%) to Guernsey (20%), Zurich(20%), BVI(8%), Monaco(0%) etc...

You say "They never do, they never will"; I did but you're right I am inconsequential. I'm not sure your assertion that all of us are, is any more valid than your extrapolating the findings of a US study globally though.

Also, as the recent US tax changes revealed, until recently it was possible to offset all the local income tax against the income subject to federal income tax.

Another point though is that you cannot compare headline tax rates either across the world and (often) with past rates in the same country.

The headline top rate of US is not that much different to our own. However they still have Mortgage interest tax relief and a child tax allowance that is phased out at a much higher income level than the UK tax credit benefit.

The US is not alone in this and while the UK doesn't even offer a personal allowance to earners over £123K, many countries still have significant allowances reducing headline rates of tax.

When the 50p top rate of tax was brought in the Economist worked out that a single person with no kids earning £1m had the lowest take home pay of any of the world's top financial centres.

This is Labour's economic vision therefore, in an economy uniquely dependent in international terms on professional services and finance, they will make sure the highest earning employees of these sectors have the lowest take home pay for any given income level.

[Welshbeef]

djc206 said:

2xChevrons said:

Great! Why be a slave to mammon. Cut your hours, work less and spend more time on a hobby. Why not? Make the economy work for you rather than you work for it. Your hobby will keep some other people in gainful employment and make you a happier, more rounded citizen. Why not enjoy the fruits of added productivity through less labour rather than more output? Presumably you haven't previously been engaged in pointless make-work, so the labour you choose not to do will be performed by someone else. The system works!

Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 26th April 01:31

Why would his hobby keep others in gainful employment? His hobby may have zero requirement on anyone ie let’s say he loved gardening and instead of paying someone to do it he now sacks them and enjoyed it himself. So they lose gainful employment.

Let’s say he loves going to National trust properties - but already had annual membership. No one gains but OP and as it’s a charity from a labour side no one is gaining gainful employment.

What if he likes traveling overseas and usual non U.K. carriers to fly with so no U.K. taxes paid or trivial amounts and he spends his money overseas. No gianful employment for he U.K.

In fact the only way there is gainful employment in the U.K. is if the person elects to do things in the U.K. which cost money moreso than they spent before

[Rovinghawk]

2xChevrons said:

added productivity through less labour

Work less, produce more- it's a revolutionary concept. Liverpool will be the most productive city in the country.

[WindyCommon]

2xChevrons said:

WindyCommon said:

Oh I think they understand it. It's not about optimisation. A YouGov poll showed that 69% of Labour voters supported tax increases for higher earners "...even if it did not bring any extra money"

Leaving aside the fact that the Laffer Curve is a serious over-simplification of a complex issue that is by absolutely no means an accepted economic tool, it's funny how it's only ever brought up as an excuse to cut or maintain tax rates. You never see anyone saying "We could increase our tax take if we raised tax to this point...look at this Laffer Curve!" Which isn't surprising considering it was created by one of the main architects of Reagan's economic platform. In any case it's brought up we're always on the 'high-x' part of the curve, or just about to teeter over onto it.

And it's not as if you never find conservatives angling for policies even when presented with adverse hypotheticals. Witness all those "I'd vote for Brexit even if it had a long-term depressive effect on the economy" or "I think there should be a welfare cut-off after a family has had two children, even if this ultimately increased the cost to the state" type findings. People aren't pure number-crunching machines out for maximum economic benefit. We have beliefs and ideas about how society should be that transcends them. It's a matter of principle, on both sides of the spectrum.

What is the principle underlying the idea of tax increases that do not bring in any extra money?

[Rovinghawk]

WindyCommon said:

What is the principle underlying the idea of tax increases that do not bring in any extra money?

If tax rates were 99.9% would you bother to work?

Alternatively, if they were 90% wouldn't you find some form of avoidance scheme ?

et cetera

[Johnnytheboy]

Rovinghawk said:

WindyCommon said:

What is the principle underlying the idea of tax increases that do not bring in any extra money?

If tax rates were 99.9% would you bother to work?

Alternatively, if they were 90% wouldn't you find some form of avoidance scheme ?

et cetera

In the context of Labour voters in the graph wanting people to pay higher tax even if it didn't bring any more money in, it's that people shouldn't be allowed to be rich.

Edited by Johnnytheboy on Thursday 26th April 09:06

[98elise]

Rovinghawk said:

WindyCommon said:

What is the principle underlying the idea of tax increases that do not bring in any extra money?

If tax rates were 99.9% would you bother to work?

Alternatively, if they were 90% wouldn't you find some form of avoidance scheme ?

et cetera

Or you wouldn't bother doing whatever was needed to do that high paid job. A doctor can earn 100k a year, but would you train for 7 years for a job that earned you 10k a year after tax?

I certainly wouldn't. Even the 40% rate made me consider if it was worth the effort. The first time I hit high rate tax it was through overtime. At that point I started turning work down as I valued my Saturdays over earning less per hour than my normal job.

[andy_s]

98elise said:

Or you wouldn't bother doing whatever was needed to do that high paid job. A doctor can earn 100k a year, but would you train for 7 years for a job that earned you 10k a year after tax?

I certainly wouldn't. Even the 40% rate made me consider if it was worth the effort. The first time I hit high rate tax it was through overtime. At that point I started turning work down as I valued my Saturdays over earning less per hour than my normal job.

It's stinking attitudes like this that lead to bread queues and the downfall of the motherland - labour camps would solve that problem, there are many apparatchiks that can help re-educate you Comrade.

[edh]

fblm said:

Welshbeef said:

ellroy said:

Welshbeef said:

He means the 50% to 45%

That 50% rate that didn’t generate any positive tax take? That one?

That’s the one.

Of course... that will be Labour's poison pill that permanently eroded the high rate tax base as thousands who begrudgingly paid the previous 40% found all sorts of new ways to pay themselves outside of PAYE. That one right?

You mean the one that was gamed because it was only temporary and saw income brought forward and held back either side?

Even then I've seem nothing conclusive on the net change in receipts. I have read some osbornomic propaganda but that had no credibility. One might say Laffable ...

Anyway, you can't hide land....

[Zod]

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.

You clearly don't live in London; it's absolutely full of French high earners.

[Gargamel]

Zod said:

You clearly don't live in London; it's absolutely full of French high earners.

Second biggest French city after Paris.

[Halb]

Gargamel said:

Zod said:

You clearly don't live in London; it's absolutely full of French high earners.

Second biggest French city after Paris.

900,000 French people live in that london?

[Timmy40]

Meanwhile Labour announces plans to ban Air BnB and Uber. Keep it up Jezza.

[RichB]

Timmy40 said:

Meanwhile Labour announces plans to ban Air BnB and Uber. Keep it up Jezza.

That'll attract the young voters!

Edited by RichB on Thursday 26th April 11:17

[Europa1]

Halb said:

Gargamel said:

Zod said:

You clearly don't live in London; it's absolutely full of French high earners.

Second biggest French city after Paris.

900,000 French people live in that london?

President Macron reckoned it was 6th biggest.

[Digga]

Yet more Labour electoral fraud uncovered in news yesterday. This time Hammersmith and Fulham: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/police-pr...