Labour In A Nutshell

[Baldric]

Came across this posted in a thread earlier today

///If public services for 100% of the population, can be funded properly, by modestly increasing the tax burden on 5% of the population, then just what is wrong with that ? ///

To my mind it just sums up the Labour attitude perfectly,
"Why should we pay when the rich can pay for it for us?

You have been warned.

[Mamyalynne]

Would it not have been easier to link to the thread or simply comment on it?

I read it earlier in situ, but thanks for the warning.

[Old_Geezer]

How did the rich get rich ? By exploiting the rest for labour and selling the results at high price. Why shouldn't they then pay the lion's share of the costs of society ?

[youngmafbog]

That is simply not true OG. Some maybe but not all by a long chalk (especially if 80k is rich)

[Bazile]

The tories should not worry about labour's intentions .
It's a foregone conclusion that the they will walk this ( just like that French bloke ) .

Will someone tell Mrs May and others not to waste their time and money on the doorsteps , advertising , and making countless tv appearances .

It's all in the bag

[Jackdaw33]

Spot on Baz. They should save their dosh for 5 years' time.

[youngmafbog]

One should never be complacent in an election. Kinnock did and look what happened.

[Jackdaw33]

You can hardly compare May to Kinnock!

[youngmafbog]

No, I'm just saying I dont think anyone should ever take something for granted, the British in particular take a very dim view of it and are likely to act unpredictably. As Kinnock found out.

Of course, if you are talking about the outcome in places like tower Hamlets then if probably can be taken for granted.

[naomi24]

The original thread is about people who earn £80,000 pa. They are not rich, companies to not pay big salaries for nothing, and those people already pay more into the pot than most. They aren’t where they are through exploiting the ‘worker’ either. They work damned hard!! This ‘them and us’ mentality that we constantly hear from the whinging Labour lame ducks makes me sick! If you aren’t happy with what you’re earning, get off your backsides, take responsibility for yourselves and do something about it – if you have the brains and the wherewithal – and if you don’t possess those attributes, sorry, but that’s life!

[New Judge]

Somebody who earns £20k pays £3,120 (15.6%) in income tax and N.I. Somebody who earns £80k pays £25,824 (32.3%). So, they pay more than twice as much in percentage terms and more than eight times as much in absolute terms.

So Labour, in a nutshell, believes this discrepancy does not go far enough. I believe it goes too far.

[fiction-factory]

I earned close to £80000 pa about 10 years ago OG and am pretty sure I never exploited anyone. I did a degree and then spent 6 years taking professional qualifications by studying after work at weekends and evenings . I took responsibility for projects and teams and committed myself fully when others were quite happy to drift along and enjoy work. I then got to the point where the high levels of tax meant it no longer seemed worth going the extra mile to earn a few thousand more.

[Deskdiary]

Given the numbers provided by New Judge, does this not demonstrate in the interests of fairness, what I suggested in the earlier thread, that rather than hammering the middle earners even more than they are being hammered already, that if there is going to be a tax rise, the purpose of which is to raise revenue (rather than simply being gesture politics) that the tax hike should be aimed at those earning less than 80k of which there are millions more than those earning 80k?

Can somebody have a stab at explaining to me how it is fair that somebody earning 80k pays double the % amount in tax than somebody earning £20k, and 8 times the amount in pound note terms? Can they then further explain how it is fair that those earning 80k should have the % amount they pay even higher than it currently is? I'm intrigued by the rationale of those who think it is OK.

[Kromovaracun]

So you want Labour to promise to tax the lowest earners more while claiming to represent them? And there wouldn't be a thread complaining about that if they did it?

I know Corbyn isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but I'd like to think he isn't THAT far gone....

Personally I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes if it was going to help fix the dire problems in the public sector. But it is hardly surprising (or should not be) that a party which positions itself as representing low earners does not propose to tax them. It's the same reason that the Tories routinely shaft young people.

Don't let me interrupt the cathartic torrent of hot air blowing through this thread though...

[naomi24]

Krom, //I know Corbyn isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but I'd like to think he isn't THAT far gone.... //

I think he probably is, but thankfully it's highly unlikely that he'll be put to the test.

[Deskdiary]

Kromovaracun "So you want Labour to promise to tax the lowest earners more while claiming to represent them?"

What I want is fairness.

Middle earners already (to use John Ashworth's phrase) shoulder the heavier burden. But Labour aren't satisfied with this - they want those already shouldering the heavier burden to shoulder an even heavier burden. Nobody seems to be able to explain why this is fair.

Unless Mad McDonnell intends to rape the middle earners by imposing a swingeing increase, whatever is raised is not going to amount to a great deal in the overall scheme of things, and therefore this smacks of gesture politics along the lines of "don't worry you poor souls earning less than £80k, we're going to increase the tax burden even more on those rich *** earning over £80k, because how dare they have the temerity to do OK in life".

It's a bad idea from a very poor shadow chancellor in a very poor Labour party, but I have no doubt it will appeal to the bitter amongst us.

[Deskdiary]

The asterisked word is B-a-s-t-a-r-d-s.
clearly such a bad word that we must be protected from it.

[Baldric]

Well said DD,
///we're going to increase the tax burden even more on those rich *** earning over £80k, because how dare they have the temerity to do OK in life///
As always, the Politics of envy.

[naomi24]

Labour's latest scheme is to raise tax on private health care and use the money to fund hospital parking. Well, at least those who won't be able to afford private health care in future will get free parking when they clog up the NHS even more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/labour-plan-hit-millions-workers-hiking-medical-insurance-tax/

[Deskdiary]

They really are priceless.

What warped mind would come up with a scheme to tax those who have PMI, and therefore by dint of which will be a lesser burden on the NHS, to pay for the parking of people who park in NHS car parks?

They are completely bonkers.