Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[Dont like rolls]

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

And that structure was implemented in Germany when and by whom ?

[Digga]

Dont like rolls said:

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

And that structure was implemented in Germany when and by whom ?

They had unions for as long as we did and, like ours, the began from grass roots collectivism.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Burwood said:

I initially looked at that calculation and though bks. It's correct. No imputation and no allowance. Even if your under 100k, say 80k it's still 58% effective.

Once you get above 50% tax people will actively seek ways to avoid it.

[vaud]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Once you get above 50% tax people will actively seek ways to avoid it.

Impossible on PAYE?

[edh]

jonby said:

Why are you all using facts

There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.

But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites

facts - your suggestion is labour policy

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

Pages 33-34

[Stay in Bed Instead]

vaud said:

Impossible on PAYE?

Not always.

Max out pension contributions using carry forward for example.

[djc206]

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

I’m a union member with a couple of mates who work with our union. Ours works constructively with our employer and although they clash from time to time we have never called a strike and they have always managed to find middle ground in the end. I wouldn’t be without our union but by the same token I’m bloody glad it’s not of the militant ones.

[The Don of Croy]

Have just been reading the manifesto - as I'm sure you all have.

Great stuff - full of vision, passion, creativity,...and holes. Big holes where answers should be...

Local authorities can take over bus companies - because they naturally have the skills to run these. And they'll be low carbon too. So the capital requirement will be...?

They back nuclear...but say nothing about who/how/cost/where.

There is a mantra of 'good jobs' with 'full unionisation' across pretty much all sectors - just like that! Question - if public ownership is unarguably the best way to operate major infrastructure (presumably including airports and toll bridges) then why would you also need unions? The state will already have the workers' best interests at heart - it's all over the manifesto - so why add an extra layer?

However as a casual reader with a hankering for 'fairness' it appeals. As for real-world pragmatism it is lacking. Be a fun experiment until about 6 months in when nothing is achieved, and everyone is poorer, and annoyed, and on strike...

[jonby]

edh said:

jonby said:

Why are you all using facts

There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.

But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites

facts - your suggestion is labour policy

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

Pages 33-34

They want to keep the loss of personal allowance for those earning over 100k it would appear ? So the high marginal rate of tax for those earning just over 100k p.a. remains. But the rest I like. .

[Burwood]

jonby said:

edh said:

jonby said:

Why are you all using facts

There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.

But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites

facts - your suggestion is labour policy

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

Pages 33-34

They want to keep the loss of personal allowance for those earning over 100k it would appear ? So the high marginal rate of tax for those earning just over 100k p.a. remains. But the rest I like. .

Im not sure what you're saying 'keep the loss'. Are you ok with someone paying 72% effective tax rates?

[Zirconia]

djc206 said:

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

I’m a union member with a couple of mates who work with our union. Ours works constructively with our employer and although they clash from time to time we have never called a strike and they have always managed to find middle ground in the end. I wouldn’t be without our union but by the same token I’m bloody glad it’s not of the militant ones.

I have had good help from them and appreciate that a lot has been done to make the work place safer and better pay etc. but then I have seen the way the shirkers use it for their own ends and seen real grafters take on issues that need taking on, and seen the way meetings are basically run by those that know what the top want and the rules to ensure it stays that way despite what the ordinary member might want to put forward.

What I see with Len is a step backwards to worker control. One out all out etc. Show of hands and dig in the ribs if you don't stick your hand up.

[kev1974]

Votes for 16 years olds is still in there in the manifesto - to make sure that they stay voted in if they manage to get voted in now

[Stay in Bed Instead]

jonby said:

They want to keep the loss of personal allowance for those earning over 100k it would appear ? So the high marginal rate of tax for those earning just over 100k p.a. remains. But the rest I like. .

Oops.

"Keep the small profits rate at 19% in April 2020, rising to 20% in April 2021 and 21% in
April 2021"

Their typo not mine.

They use 17% CT as the base in their report but Boris has already made the increase less.

[Zirconia]

kev1974 said:

Votes for 16 years olds is still in there in the manifesto - to make sure that they stay voted in if they manage to get voted in now

Welsh Labour already on the case. It is expected to pass in when voted on soon. Council elections only though, should keep Welsh Labour in power for another term comfortably.

[Dont like rolls]

Digga said:

Dont like rolls said:

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

And that structure was implemented in Germany when and by whom ?

They had unions for as long as we did and, like ours, the began from grass roots collectivism.

It all changed a bit in the late 40's

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sh0WqgY4-b0C&a...

[The Don of Croy]

My studies continue (slow day at work)...

There will be an Orgreave enquiry (£?), and sundry attempts to pursue 'popular justice' with other individual cases ('Truth about Zane') all funded by HMG.

In the food security ideas there's a throw-away comment about special steps to ensure 'food security' which might mean something benign, or there again...?

Fair compensation (that word again) for victims of contaminated blood seems OK.

There's a fair bit of loose wording regarding making companies source from the UK if they get HMG money/contracts, and have to meet unspecified green conditions, or risk de-listing from the LSE. Nice. And they will comprehensively audit foreign imports for carbon content and arrive at some level of compo. Eh?

And ICE cars will no longer be sold (new) after 2030 - just a decade away!

[crankedup]

The Don of Croy said:

Have just been reading the manifesto - as I'm sure you all have.

Great stuff - full of vision, passion, creativity,...and holes. Big holes where answers should be...

Local authorities can take over bus companies - because they naturally have the skills to run these. And they'll be low carbon too. So the capital requirement will be...?

They back nuclear...but say nothing about who/how/cost/where.

There is a mantra of 'good jobs' with 'full unionisation' across pretty much all sectors - just like that! Question - if public ownership is unarguably the best way to operate major infrastructure (presumably including airports and toll bridges) then why would you also need unions? The state will already have the workers' best interests at heart - it's all over the manifesto - so why add an extra layer?

However as a casual reader with a hankering for 'fairness' it appeals. As for real-world pragmatism it is lacking. Be a fun experiment until about 6 months in when nothing is achieved, and everyone is poorer, and annoyed, and on strike...

I can at least offer a possibility for the reasoning behind Labour requiring unionisation of State controlled services - yet more jobs for the boys. Union barons and all the hangers on, paid for by the workers in their belief that they are being represented.

[Dont like rolls]

crankedup said:

I can at least offer a possibility for the reasoning behind Labour requiring unionisation of State controlled services - yet more jobs for the boys. Union barons and all the hangers on, paid for by the workers in their belief that they are being represented.

Political Commissars are workers as well you know !

[jonby]

Burwood said:

jonby said:

edh said:

jonby said:

Why are you all using facts

There should be no loss of personal allowance and actually, there should be one rate of tax that applies to income, dividends, CGT, etc to remove the incentive for those with a choice as to how they declare their income to do so in the most tax efficient manner.

But that's not a vote winner for labour as it doesn't pull on emotional heartstrings in easy soundbites

facts - your suggestion is labour policy

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

Pages 33-34

They want to keep the loss of personal allowance for those earning over 100k it would appear ? So the high marginal rate of tax for those earning just over 100k p.a. remains. But the rest I like. .

Im not sure what you're saying 'keep the loss'. Are you ok with someone paying 72% effective tax rates?

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying (poorly) that labour want to keep this unfair loss of personal allowance that those earning 100k p.a. suffer from and this anomaly needs removing from the system

[crankedup]

djc206 said:

Digga said:

Unions, like any other construct, are neither inherently good or bad and, even then, the relative goodness and badness is subjective.

However, the way the unions in the UK evolved, is generally worse than the way they have evolved and helped shape industry in Germany.

I’m a union member with a couple of mates who work with our union. Ours works constructively with our employer and although they clash from time to time we have never called a strike and they have always managed to find middle ground in the end. I wouldn’t be without our union but by the same token I’m bloody glad it’s not of the militant ones.

That’s how it should work, sadly most seem to be stuck with a 1970’s mindset it seems. Unions can work well, as in your place of work and proven in the Japanese work culture.