Current Affairs The Labour Party

[BlueToff]

Need to make sure companies pay the right tax, clamp down on the tax avoidance schemes.

I'm fully on board with that. Any government should do that and it's a massive failing of the current mob.

Still, that isn't going to be enough... is it?

 

[BlueToff]

The simple solution to this is to reform the manner in which taxation is administered. I would strongly recommend that you read the Joy of Tax by Richard Murphy if you'd like to find out about radical reform in our system of tax.




1. Of course they are? It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's the low earners who rely on the state and local services more than the middle classes.




2. Labour want to share the success. Free tuition, and a real ecologically-driven industrial strategy are just two policies that'll shift the "successes" from the few - to the many.



3. I don't understand this. Nobody is completely self made. We all benefit from our public infrastructure, and without it - we'd be far less off. It's obvious that we need investment, investment of which will benefit everyone.



4. Well if people supported the democratic will of Labour members, we'd ensure that all of them would be willing to "pay the price".

I'll have a look at that book.

1. 50k is not a 'middle class' wage. Not one bit. As I've mentioned before in this thread, one of my best friends earns that amount. He's from a working class family and background and one of the poorest areas of where I'm from. He went into an apprenticeship with National Grid at 16 (left college after a year) and has worked his way up, starting on a very low wage to get his full qualifications and now earns around 50k. He's taxed his fair share as it is. He's managed to put a mortgage down on a decent two-bed starter home (which was still 180k!) by 24. He is no way 'middle class' and has in no way been protected from austerity. He still relies on the NHS and other vital services just like me, and I earn a lot, lot less. He is working class. I think there's a real issue now with people saying 'working class' are the people who earn the least amount of money. That's not really the case. You can be working class and have a very good job.

2. 'Share the success'. That's all well and good. But if people aren't gonna work hard then they don't deserve the success. It can't be handed to them on a plate. If someone who earns enough wants to send their kids to private school, so be it. Nobody should care. It's really weird. It's not unfair. All it should do is drive people on to want to earn more, if indeed that's what drives them. Plenty of people go to uni, spunk £9k a year up the wall and do f all while they're there other than rack up a load of debt. Nobody is forcing them to go to uni. I'd say we have a massive issue of too many people going to uni and it becoming over-saturated. Surely money would be better spent in funding organisations that open up other avenues for kids leaving school/college, rather than simply lowering tuition fees so it can become even more saturated?

3. Of course, agree entirely. Doesn't mean people should be paying more than half, though. Everyone should pay a fair share. 'Fair' isn't over half, in my book.

4. 'If people supported the democratic will of Labour voters' - is that what a lot of the current Labour MPs who are almost blatantly ignoring a lot of their constituents when it comes to Brexit are doing? Huge amounts of Labour voters voted out, but guess they're the wrong ones, ey? Or as the MP for (I believe) Dewsbury implied the other day, they're just too thick to have a say.

 

[BlueToff]

Or in other news, a dramatic increase in child poverty in the wake of the biggest recession in 100 years.

The graph above suggests that the economy has held up slightly better than it did after the Depression, which is undoubtedly positive, but to suggest that we would ever carry on like nothing happened is madness. There was always going to be some fallout (sadly), as that's kinda what happens during recessions.

It's also sadly a reality that the Recession affected the lower skilled more than the higher skilled (as is often the case tbh), which has resulted in inequality growing.

Unfortunately, like you say, this was to be expected.

It's sad but surely this would always be the case?

If you have a skill, if you've worked for that skill, then ultimately you're likely to be better off.

That's not me saying people who were affected are 'lazy' or anything like that. There's obviously an issue with opportunity there. But ultimately that isn't just on the government for not providing those chances. There's loads of factors at play – upbringing, the place where they grew up, religion, young parenthood etc. It all factors into it and people have to dedicate their time to other things rather than aim to get that skill. I'm not sure how we can fix those things because there's so many different factors.

 

[abelard]

I'll have a look at that book.

1. 50k is not a 'middle class' wage. Not one bit. As I've mentioned before in this thread, one of my best friends earns that amount. He's from a working class family and background and one of the poorest areas of where I'm from. He went into an apprenticeship with National Grid at 16 (left college after a year) and has worked his way up, starting on a very low wage to get his full qualifications and now earns around 50k. He's taxed his fair share as it is. He's managed to put a mortgage down on a decent two-bed starter home (which was still 180k!) by 24. He is no way 'middle class' and has in no way been protected from austerity. He still relies on the NHS and other vital services just like me, and I earn a lot, lot less. He is working class. I think there's a real issue now with people saying 'working class' are the people who earn the least amount of money. That's not really the case. You can be working class and have a very good job.

2. 'Share the success'. That's all well and good. But if people aren't gonna work hard then they don't deserve the success. It can't be handed to them on a plate. If someone who earns enough wants to send their kids to private school, so be it. Nobody should care. It's really weird. It's not unfair. All it should do is drive people on to want to earn more, if indeed that's what drives them. Plenty of people go to uni, spunk £9k a year up the wall and do f all while they're there other than rack up a load of debt. Nobody is forcing them to go to uni. I'd say we have a massive issue of too many people going to uni and it becoming over-saturated. Surely money would be better spent in funding organisations that open up other avenues for kids leaving school/college, rather than simply lowering tuition fees so it can become even more saturated?

3. Of course, agree entirely. Doesn't mean people should be paying more than half, though. Everyone should pay a fair share. 'Fair' isn't over half, in my book.

4. 'If people supported the democratic will of Labour voters' - is that what a lot of the current Labour MPs who are almost blatantly ignoring a lot of their constituents when it comes to Brexit are doing? Huge amounts of Labour voters voted out, but guess they're the wrong ones, ey? Or as the MP for (I believe) Dewsbury implied the other day, they're just too thick to have a say.

Once again, nobody will pay 50% of their income in taxes.

They will only pay 50% on income earned above the first 80k (a figure in line with almost every other industrialised country).

Your friend who earns 50k will not be affected.

 

[BlueToff]

Once again, nobody will pay 50% of their income in taxes.

They will only pay 50% on income earned above the first 80k (a figure in line with almost every other industrialised country).

Your friend who earns 50k will not be affected.

The report I saw said that the 52% was in the bracket that is currently taxed at 40%. That's what I've gone off.

Good to know if that's not the case.

 

[abelard]

The report I saw said that the 52% was in the bracket that is currently taxed at 40%. That's what I've gone off.

Good to know if that's not the case.

It is easy to get confused, because the way it is presented in the media is misleading - but it is not 50% of total income, just 50% (or 52%) on income earned above £80,000k/anuum.

You should play around with this - it's quite useful.

Here you can put your annual salary in and see how much more tax you'd pay under a labour govt than currently:

ForLabour.com is for sale | HugeDomains

Customer service is our #1 priority. Get a premium domain for your website today. Financing available.

calculate.forlabour.com

You'd only pay more if earning above 80k

You can see that if your annual income is £79,999, you won't pay a single additional cent under Labour.

If, on the other hand, you earn £81,000 per year, your taxes would increase by £50 per year.

Even if you earn £100,000 a year, your taxes wouldn't increase by more than the cost of the average electricity bill.

That really doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask, given the state of the schools, hospitals, prisons, trains, housing, food banks, and everything else the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have vandalised.

 

[abelard]

I'll have a look at that book.

1. 50k is not a 'middle class' wage. Not one bit. As I've mentioned before in this thread, one of my best friends earns that amount. He's from a working class family and background and one of the poorest areas of where I'm from. He went into an apprenticeship with National Grid at 16 (left college after a year) and has worked his way up, starting on a very low wage to get his full qualifications and now earns around 50k. He's taxed his fair share as it is. He's managed to put a mortgage down on a decent two-bed starter home (which was still 180k!) by 24. He is no way 'middle class' and has in no way been protected from austerity. He still relies on the NHS and other vital services just like me, and I earn a lot, lot less. He is working class. I think there's a real issue now with people saying 'working class' are the people who earn the least amount of money. That's not really the case. You can be working class and have a very good job.

I don't mean to pile on, but while I've no doubt that your friend comes from a working class background, £50k/year (if he is single) means that his equivalent household income is higher than 96% of the UK population, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies: https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

That housing is still a challenge even for someone like him says a lot more about the disaster that is the financialisation of UK real estate than it does about Labour's tax plans.

It also suggests that Britain is a far more unequal society than almost anyone who lives there realises.

 

[BlueToff]

It is easy to get confused, because the way it is presented in the media is misleading - but it is not 50% of total income, just 50% (or 52%) on income earned above £80,000k/anuum.

You should play around with this - it's quite useful.



You can see that if your annual income is £79,999, you won't pay a single additional cent under Labour.

If, on the other hand, you earn £81,000 per year, your taxes would increase by £50 per year.

Even if you earn £100,000 a year, your taxes wouldn't increase by more than the cost of the average electricity bill.

That really doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask, given the state of the schools, hospitals, prisons, trains, housing, food banks, and everything else the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have vandalised.

I do understand that mate. I still don't think it's right that it's more than 52% of the income above that figure.

I genuinely believe you shouldn't be paying more than half of a (section) of your income in tax.

But fair enough, if it's an 80k bracket and those figures you state are correct, then it's not awful. But it's a fine line if they then decide to keep upping the taxes again and again.

 

[BlueToff]

I don't mean to pile on, but while I've no doubt that your friend comes from a working class background, £50k/year (if he is single) means that his equivalent household income is higher than 96% of the UK population, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies: https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

That housing is still a challenge even for someone like him says a lot more about the disaster that is the financialisation of UK real estate than it does about Labour's tax plans.

It also suggests that Britain is a far more unequal society than almost anyone who lives there realises.

He isn't single.

He is working class. Working class in my book does not equate to 'poor' or a low earner. It's your background and where you're from and what values you have. He wasn't born into money. He's worked too earn that money. Same with me. Same with all my friends.

Football players who come from working class backgrounds are still working class when they go on to earn millions, mate.

 

[Billy Dean]

Forbes has gone communist!

Why Small Businesses Should Not Fear Jeremy Corbyn

Labour's plans for small businesses are supportive rather than hostile

www.forbes.com

 

[abelard]

Forbes has gone communist!

Why Small Businesses Should Not Fear Jeremy Corbyn

Labour's plans for small businesses are supportive rather than hostile

www.forbes.com

Reforming the business rates would make a huge difference in improving the high streets. There's a familiar narrative about online shopping, which is not untrue, but taxation which unduly punishes small business is a far more serious threat. I've yet to see any other Party mention this, or any mainstream news outlet other than what you posted, report that this is a priority for Labour.

Of course, making sure that Amazon and Starbucks etc actually pay tax in the first place wouldn't hurt small business either... and no prizes for guessing the only Party that will at least give that a serious go either.

 

[tsubaki]

Reforming the business rates would make a huge difference in improving the high streets. There's a familiar narrative about online shopping, which is not untrue, but taxation which unduly punishes small business is a far more serious threat. I've yet to see any other Party mention this, or any mainstream news outlet other than what you posted, report that this is a priority for Labour.

Of course, making sure that Amazon and Starbucks etc actually pay tax in the first place wouldn't hurt small business either... and no prizes for guessing the only Party that will at least give that a serious go either.

The impact of government (central and local) high street policies really cannot be overestimated. I grew up near Wrexham, which used to have one of the best high streets / set of markets going but which has been completely destroyed - at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds - by the people meant to run the place (a Labour council, shamefully).

I was in the South of France last week and it was really remarkable how few chain stores there were actually on the high streets (only really a few Monoprix and Carrefour, though there were more the one shopping centre I saw), and how full the high streets were of what appeared to be independent shops of the kind that have been pushed out down here.

 

[catcherintherye]

I do understand that mate. I still don't think it's right that it's more than 52% of the income above that figure.

I genuinely believe you shouldn't be paying more than half of a (section) of your income in tax.

But fair enough, if it's an 80k bracket and those figures you state are correct, then it's not awful. But it's a fine line if they then decide to keep upping the taxes again and again.

In an abstract sense it's unfair. But why is 50% more unfair than 40% currently? Or 60% as it was under Thatcher? How do you draw the line at 50% being the key figure?

What also seems unfair though, is children living in poverty without food, homelessness, schools dreadfully underfunded, the NHS in a fiscal crisis, elderly care almost none existent, police unable to do their job etc etc.

The two issues are connected. It is complicated I grant you, money can be wasted, or people can work very hard earning over 80 p/a. However to provide the services we require it needs funding which has to come from somewhere. Everyone will have a different view of it, but personally I'd rather pay 50% of earnings over 80k than say pay an extra 25% on my earnings at 20-25k. Everyone will have a different preference, but thats my view I suppose.

 

[tsubaki]

In an abstract sense it's unfair. But why is 50% more unfair than 40% currently? Or 60% as it was under Thatcher? How do you draw the line at 50% being the key figure?

What also seems unfair though, is children living in poverty without food, homelessness, schools dreadfully underfunded, the NHS in a fiscal crisis, elderly care almost none existent, police unable to do their job etc etc.

The two issues are connected. It is complicated I grant you, money can be wasted, or people can work very hard earning over 80 p/a. However to provide the services we require it needs funding which has to come from somewhere. Everyone will have a different view of it, but personally I'd rather pay 50% of earnings over 80k than say pay an extra 25% on my earnings at 20-25k. Everyone will have a different preference, but thats my view I suppose.

TBF any discussion on what is a correct level of tax for people to pay should never take place until a complete assessment is made of what the money the state currently takes is spent on, and whether that represents good value. Currently, and for almost entirely political reasons, we waste many tens of billions trying to pretend that "private industry" can do things better than nationalized ones, or that paying rent to private landlords is somehow more ethical than the state building homes and then charging rents, or that it is cheaper to pay a firm with PFI contract to build and run a hospital than it would be for the NHS to do it.

Until we stop doing that, it really is immoral to take any more money off anyone else - we would just be shovelling it down a bottomless pit.

 

[BlueToff]

In an abstract sense it's unfair. But why is 50% more unfair than 40% currently? Or 60% as it was under Thatcher? How do you draw the line at 50% being the key figure?

What also seems unfair though, is children living in poverty without food, homelessness, schools dreadfully underfunded, the NHS in a fiscal crisis, elderly care almost none existent, police unable to do their job etc etc.

The two issues are connected. It is complicated I grant you, money can be wasted, or people can work very hard earning over 80 p/a. However to provide the services we require it needs funding which has to come from somewhere. Everyone will have a different view of it, but personally I'd rather pay 50% of earnings over 80k than say pay an extra 25% on my earnings at 20-25k. Everyone will have a different preference, but thats my view I suppose.

For me, it's the fact that 50% is half. And I don't believe more than half of a section of your earnings should be taken away via tax. That's my fundamental belief in this regard.

45-50% is still plenty. If everyone paid their fair share it would be enough. The issue is we have the biggest corporations not paying their fair share. But someone earning 80k a year aren't really in the 1%, are they...