Labour policies

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST weren't tax rates much higher in the 70s? If so wasnt that give with one hand take away with the other

I haven't got the figures for the 1970s, but the first graph in this report by the independent and usually well-balanced IFS says that in 1980, tax receipts as a proportion of GDP (dark green line) were no higher than they are now.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

Income tax rates then we're a lot higher, but VAT was a lot lower.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn, an example child benefit. Should someone earning 60k as a one income family pay back child benefit but a family with two earning 50k each pay back nothing?

Given house prices etc is the 40% tax band too low?

Child benefit is to be spent on the child - who as far as I know doesn't have any income and has the same basic need regardless of what their parents earn.

What on earth have house prices got to do with income? They're expenditure.

Exactly right, but you are aware the child benefit is reduced pending the parents income and that in the scenario above this is exactly what happens.  A family earning 60k can lose it via repayment, another earning 100k may not.

The point on house prices, given the size of them in modern times and the size subsequently of mortgages, is it not the case that middle incomes pay too much tax?

Not too sure on Child Benefit as I'v never had kids, but I have my own ideas on how I'd like to see t used.

As for mortgages, it's not the tax system's fault that people have bought houses beyond their means.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

What are those ideas glyn?

Mortgages, dont people have to live somewhere?  This is an economic problem whereby 40% level in the north is probably at a better place than the south when factoring in cost of living.  In london no way are the bands high enough.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

[SydneyRover]

Whatever people think about paying tax and it's quite obvious that many haven't a clue how and why, it's no good squeezing stones coz they don't have any more to give. Therefore if you base a tax system on everyone paying an equal %age the system will eventually collapse unless of course you want to big up financial assistance for those in need or to introduce food banks across the country to feed the poor.

Genuine question what would.you say the rates and bands would be fair set at?

One of the things I fundamentally disagree on is the level people are perceived as well off or rich.

I don't know have the answer to that bfyp, but my thinking is every type of benefit should be means tested with tapering, and tax scales have to be graduated with a threshold set at a liveable or some point so that the lower paid are not paying an amount of tax that keeps them in poverty.

What did someone post a while back, poor people are seen to need to be kept on low wages as an incentive to work harder whilst rich people need high wages as an incentive to work harder.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well now.

I was saying yesterday that the biggest economic problem facing us is the way in which investors and company owners have grabbed all the proceeds of growth.

Sounds like the witterings of a jealous lefty doesn't it?

Well here's the chief economist at that well known left wing propaganda rag, the Financial Times, saying exactly the same.

https://amp.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?__twitter_impression=true

And he says more. He says that the way the rich have set up Rentier Capitalism is actually destroying Capitalism because it's squeezed out the incentive to innovate, so productivity has collapsed.

Read that article. It's not difficult. And then ask yourself if that's the world you want.

It's got to change folks. And you know damn well that parties like the Tories and the Farragists who are in bed with the money men aren't going to change it.

[idler]

Well now.

I was saying yesterday that the biggest economic problem facing us is the way in which investors and company owners have grabbed all the proceeds of growth.

Sounds like the witterings of a jealous lefty doesn't it?

Well here's the chief economist at that well known left wing propaganda rag, the Financial Times, saying exactly the same.

https://amp.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77?__twitter_impression=true

And he says more. He says that the way the rich have set up Rentier Capitalism is actually destroying Capitalism because it's squeezed out the incentive to innovate, so productivity has collapsed.

Read that article. It's not difficult. And then ask yourself if that's the world you want.

It's got to change folks. And you know damn well that parties like the Tories and the Farragists who are in bed with the money men aren't going to change it.

A very depressing if accurate account of how we are succumbing to the greed of the big companies and their boards and shareholders.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Idler.

The start of this problem was the way that we neutered the unions in the 1980s.

Thatcher's naive dream was that this would unleash a tidal wave of innovation from brilliant entrepreneurs who'd been held back by union muscle preventing change.

In fact, what happened when the unions were killed off was that there was no way for workers to fight for a better share of profits. So all the profits have gone to the tiny number of owners.

It needs a revolution as huge as the one Thatcher unleashed, to put this right.

[Sprotyrover]

Quote of the week from Glynn!

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.


Yes but we can’t all live with our Mum Glynn!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Never heard of renting, gents?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.

It doesn't matter, you're missing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?

[Filo]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.

It doesn't matter, you're kissing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?

a mortgage was a no brainer for me when I bought, it was cheaper than renting

[Glyn_Wigley]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.

It doesn't matter, you're kissing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?

a mortgage was a no brainer for me when I bought, it was cheaper than renting

And that was your choice of what was best for you at the time. Same as for everybody else when they have to make a similar choice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just a follow up to what I was saying further up the thread about income inequality.

Look at some of these figures from the USA. I suspect Britain is similar.

1) Look at how the income of the top 5% richest families (after allowing for inflation) has risen since the 1970s, while the poorest 20% have seen zero growth. And look at how they all free together in the generation after the War.

https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-2

2) And then look at just how concentrated that inequality is in the richest 1%.

https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-at-the-top-dwarf-those-of-low-and-middle-income-households-6

Thing is, I DO understand where this anger comes from agsinst The Elite. The anger that fuelled Trump winning and Brexit.

But Jesus! It is precisely Trump and Johnson and Rees-Mogg and Lord Ashcroft and Farage and Banks and co who are this 1% who have f**ked all over us for a generation.

They f**ked all over us, stole our money and then blame Poles and Romanians and Mexicans and EU bureaucrats.

It staggers me that ordinary people don't see how they have been ripped off then lied to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And here's the one that really smashes it home.



That shows the percent increase in income from the mid 80s to 2010 across the world. Poorest people at the left. Richest at the right.

So, apart from the very, very poorest, most of the lowest 2/3rds or so did well. That's China and Brazil and Mexico and India and Indonesia and Vietnam dragging themselves out of abject poverty.

But most of the richest quarter of people in the world didn't see much growth.

That's thee and me. And ordinary folk in the USA.

But it's not because our countries didn't have growth. It's because pretty much all that extra wealth went into the pockets of the very richest at the far right of the graph. That's Rees-Mogg and Banks and Trump.

Funny old world, int it?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Child Benefit? Larger than current amount for first child. Same amount as current for second child. Then decreasing amounts for every subsequent child. To encourage smaller family size and re-use of previous childrens' stuff.

You don't need a mortgage to live somewhere. I don't have one.

Glyn, how much do you think either a mortgage or 3 bed house in london would be? Now tell me the tax rates there are correct. They might be ok in donny, but not in london.

It doesn't matter, you're missing the point. Mortgages are a life choice, if you can't afford one don't have one. No-one forces you to have a mortgage. What do you think people are going to do when interest rates eventually go up again and the cost of mortgages rockets?

When I rented it was not cheaper than a mortgage, my point remains that rent or mortgage it is tough in parts of the uk for people to live and the tax rates do not help.

[Bentley Bullet]

I always thought to rent was dearer than having a mortgage. It is basic rental arithmetics.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....

[tommy toes]

The issue with Watson is his allegedly taking money from Israeli lobbyists to stir up the anti sematism debate in the party.
That's the latest reason that momentum want rid of him.

[bobjimwilly]

And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....

maybe they should stop fighting and just remove the whip from all the mp's who disagree with Corbyn. You know, Tory style...

[Glyn_Wigley]

The issue with Watson is his allegedly taking money from Israeli lobbyists to stir up the anti sematism debate in the party.
That's the latest reason that momentum want rid of him.

A much more basic reason is that he as Deputy Leader behaves as a maverick when he keeps coming out with stuff contrary to the Party Leader. It doesn't matter whether you agree with Corbyn, Watson, neither or both - no party looks good when that happens.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ahhh McCluskey the Stalinist following his idol's example.

We're about to go into an existential battle like Stalin was in the late 30s. Tell you what! Let's have a purge! That's a grand idea.

Whispers are that even Corbyn is furious about this little stunt by McCluskey and Lansman. Those people WILL purify the Labour party if they are not brought to boot. But it will be the death of the party. Because everything the Stalinist left touches, it destroys.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wey-hey.

Finally. FINALLY. Corbyn faces down McCluskey.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ShehabKhan/status/1175339743745384448

If he'd done this 9 months ago over Brexit, Labour wouldn't have lost 5 million supporters this year.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/49781152

Course, if the Labour party thought there was a need to show Corbyn standing up to the idiots on the far left, they could scarcely have set this up better...

[SydneyRover]

Here's an interesting take on JC and labour

''Faced with the Tories’ no-deal extremism and a glaring crisis in capitalism, the financial establishment is losing its fear of a radical Labour government''

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/21/bankers-corbyn-tories-no-deal-capitalism-radical-government

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is a scathing attack on the 4Ms from Andrew Fisher. It won't make any difference because they still control Corbyn's decision making on most issues.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1175543112288153600?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

When Labour lose in November, those 4 bas**rds, McCluskey, Milne, Murphy and Murray want throwing off a cliff.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

And in true labour style, rather than talk about policy etc they're having internal fights again....

maybe they should stop fighting and just remove the whip from all the mp's who disagree with Corbyn. You know, Tory style...

Which they shouldn't have done.....

The thread is about labour policy though. Their brexit policy is still stupid at the moment. I mean the answer from Corbyn on whether hed campaign for or against his own deal is laughable. 

[albie]

Andrew Fisher on twitter is a great source of info on what is happening on the policy front at conference;
https://twitter.com/fisherandrew79?lang=en
Sometimes it is better to sidestep the headlines designated by the media, which do not address the key policy issues.

People have disagreements in politics all the time.....nothing new here.

Clearly the Sunday Times and other Murdoch outlets will big it up, that is what they do!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

Is that the best you can do? Using "It's the Murdoch Press" to shut down debate like a Get Out Of Jail Free card?

Convenient.

You don't have to address polls because...well you don't believe in polls. Now you don't have to address Corbyn's longest personal adviser saying that the 4Ms have a lack of professional competence and human decency, (his own words, written by his own hand) because it's a Sunday Times reporter reporting it?

You can keep on ignoring the world outside, but it has a tendency to suddenly smack you in the face.