Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
2xChevrons said:
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!
I'm not sure the neighbours will agree. My latest "don't work - hobby" project was to fabricate a straight-through exhaust 
I'm off to test it - I must make sure the welds hold at 7500rpm
I find it laughable that it's often the same bedwetting Corbynites that screech Brexit will mean an exodus of productive people from the UK but insist a socialist government would absolutely not result in the same.
I also can't understand how people honestly think we live in some sort of rampaging, free market, dystopian capitalist nightmare. Government spending is fully 42% of GDP. Schooling, healthcare, dentistry, the list goes on, all free at point of use for any British citizen. We have half a million people a year coming to the UK to peats sake!
As for the UnHerd article it has no relevance whatsoever to the propensity of rich people in the UK to seek out lower tax jurisdictions in which to live. During the 1970's plenty of people decided to quit the UK for tax purposes. I'll bet the Ed Sheerans of the world will suddenly have extended 'work commitments' in LA if Jeremy get the keys to No10.
I also can't understand how people honestly think we live in some sort of rampaging, free market, dystopian capitalist nightmare. Government spending is fully 42% of GDP. Schooling, healthcare, dentistry, the list goes on, all free at point of use for any British citizen. We have half a million people a year coming to the UK to peats sake!
As for the UnHerd article it has no relevance whatsoever to the propensity of rich people in the UK to seek out lower tax jurisdictions in which to live. During the 1970's plenty of people decided to quit the UK for tax purposes. I'll bet the Ed Sheerans of the world will suddenly have extended 'work commitments' in LA if Jeremy get the keys to No10.
Welshbeef said:
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!
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. Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 26th April 01:31
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
National Trust - fuel to get to the NT property, use of tea room.
Agree on overseas, except for travelling costs inside the UK and check-in staff wages, etc at the airport..
Almost any UK-based hobby will put money into the Exchequer. It will be less than would be added through your wages, though.
Edited by pingu393 on Thursday 26th April 12:07
98elise said:
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
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.
I'm going to be in a similar situation in a few years when my workplace pension starts to pay me. Not 40%, but ANY tax. I'll be cutting back to earn the minimum needed to be happy - which isn't very much.
RichB said:
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
JagLover said:
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.
Very good point about the state tax being deductible although the way it works is that the state gets first bite say 13% in California and then the feds get 40% of the remaining 87% so the highest marginal rate is 48%. It reinforces the point that gagetmacs assertions based on minimal state tax differences are invalid elsewhere.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.
On your other point anything over about 150 iirc is subject to AMT which cancels out any other deductions.
Timmy40 said:
RichB said:
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
Doh! Not your finest hour.
Trolleys Thank You said:
Timmy40 said:
RichB said:
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
Doh! Not your finest hour.
Timmy40 said:
Indeed, but what she is pointing out is that is what Labour policies amount to. Maybe you missed Sadiq Khans war on Uber.
Please show me where Labour's policy amounts to a ban? Better conditions for workers and compliance with TFL driver checks does not equal a ban and is more sensible than Truss' free for all, zero standards stance on people's lives and livelihoods.
I'm sure after C-day (Corybn or C
, whichever), Britain would be the perfect communist utopia for a motorcycle holiday with Dianne. Perhaps get a good bit of arcaheology done too, what with all those abandoned factories from the era of capitalism...
As for the guy who called bluff on people leaving... maybe not for economic reasons personally, but if Corbyn gets in, I'm on the next El Al flight to Tel Aviv. Hopefully the government handover will take long enough to ensure safe passage...
...failing that, it's drive to Dover with the speedos.
, whichever), Britain would be the perfect communist utopia for a motorcycle holiday with Dianne. Perhaps get a good bit of arcaheology done too, what with all those abandoned factories from the era of capitalism...As for the guy who called bluff on people leaving... maybe not for economic reasons personally, but if Corbyn gets in, I'm on the next El Al flight to Tel Aviv. Hopefully the government handover will take long enough to ensure safe passage...
...failing that, it's drive to Dover with the speedos.
Edited by Solocle on Thursday 26th April 18:10
nikaiyo2 said:
Makes sense. One out, all out.What is comrade in binary?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff