The corbynistas and the new world order

[Jason]

Now now, Dands. You quote the net figure for the average earner and the gross figure for the high earner.

The high earner nets £108K.

They already pay 22.5 times more tax.

How much more than that do you want?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

If you want to raise more tax you need to LOWER tax rates on high earners. It's counter-intuitive, but high tax discourages the rich from doing the work anyway, and encourages them to do it in ways that minimise tax or to do it outside the UK.

The question is whether tax should be used to obtain the most (in which case lower the rates) or to punish success (in which case raise).

 

[Drifterwood]

Now now, Dands. You quote the net figure for the average earner and the gross figure for the high earner.

The high earner nets £108K.

They already pay 22.5 times more tax.

How much more than that do you want?

Yes.

If you want to raise more tax you need to LOWER tax rates on high earners. It's counter-intuitive, but high tax discourages the rich from doing the work anyway, and encourages them to do it in ways that minimise tax or to do it outside the UK.

The question is whether tax should be used to obtain the most (in which case lower the rates) or to punish success (in which case raise).[/QUOTE]

I don't mind playing the "social justice" game. The Corbinites mislead regarding tax. If am paying 22.5 times more already, is that not fair and how much more do they want?

The reality of the numbers is that for a long time the richer have been paying more whilst the average and lower have been paying less. This BTW whilst the cost of service provision has been going up relatively.

 

[Perados]

Now now, Dands. You quote the net figure for the average earner and the gross figure for the high earner.[/quote]

The high earner nets £108K.
These statistics usually miss to count VAT, they also exclude all state insurances.

They already pay 22.5 times more tax.

How much more than that do you want?

this can't be the question.
The question is, how much more as they everage can they afford.

That's why it isn't important if they pay 10 times or 100 times as much. As long as the low income can't afford it, the wealthy have to pay.

The questions you could raise, woulg be "are total tax too high?", or "do we need everything we finance?"

 

[Perados]

Tha

Now now, Dands. You quote the net figure for the average earner and the gross figure for the high earner.

The high earner nets £108K.

They already pay 22.5 times more tax.

How much more than that do you want?

Yes.

If you want to raise more tax you need to LOWER tax rates on high earners. It's counter-intuitive, but high tax discourages the rich from doing the work anyway, and encourages them to do it in ways that minimise tax or to do it outside the UK.

The question is whether tax should be used to obtain the most (in which case lower the rates) or to punish success (in which case raise).[/QUOTE]
That's why in the USA and in Europe, in the 1970s, as tax rates were up to 70%, the wealthy refused to invest, avoided to pay tax and produced abroad.

Oh wait, they didn't. They started to pay less, avoid to pay, stopped investing and produced abroad in the 1980s, just as Britain and the USA started they neo liberal agenda... and since then, taxation has been lowered even more and they negative effects have increased and the wealthy keep on doing what they threat to do "if tax get increased".

 

[Jason]

The questions you could raise, would be "are total tax too high?", or "do we need everything we finance?"

Easy!

1) yes
2) no

Fundamentally we need to move from a model of state provision, to a model of provision by individuals. The old ideas of the state providing everything are hopelessly inefficient. We have to do better.

 

[Perados]

Yes.

If you want to raise more tax you need to LOWER tax rates on high earners. It's counter-intuitive, but high tax discourages the rich from doing the work anyway, and encourages them to do it in ways that minimise tax or to do it outside the UK.

The question is whether tax should be used to obtain the most (in which case lower the rates) or to punish success (in which case raise).

I don't mind playing the "social justice" game. The Corbinites mislead regarding tax. If am paying 22.5 times more already, is that not fair and how much more do they want?

The reality of the numbers is that for a long time the richer have been paying more whilst the average and lower have been paying less. This BTW whilst the cost of service provision has been going up relatively.[/QUOTE]
At the same time the income of the lower incomes has dropped, while the income of the wealthy increased.
Looks like they pay less tax, because they earn less. They finance not only public services by lower income, but also the increased income of the wealthy.

You don't want to pay 22 times as much? Then try to increase the income of the lowest. Than they are able to pay more, again.

 

[Perados]

Easy!

1) yes
2) no

Fundamentally we need to move from a model of state provision, to a model of provision by individuals. The old ideas of the state providing everything are hopelessly inefficient. We have to do better.

Since 30 years we reduce tax and services, now you have Corbyn... you like to continue?
And you like to replace it by individuals? Why? Because it worked so well, where it has been tried? Well, have a look again.

 

[dandelion]

Now now, Dands. You quote the net figure for the average earner and the gross figure for the high earner.[/quote] No i didnt. I copied the figures off wikipedia, where there is a graph I linked. £160K for 99th percentile, about 20-25 ish I didnt try measuring the scale exactly, for the 50th percentile. The £25,000 figure I assume is net for two earners

The high earner nets £108K. They already pay 22.5 times more tax. How much more than that do you want?

If we believe these numbers (they are probably not exactly comparable), then the high earner is paying £52k in tax on an income of £160k, or about 1/3. So take someone on £11,600 when the lower earnings limit is £11,500. They pay tax at 20% on £100, £20. That means the high earner pays 52,000/20 =2600x as much tax. Fair? yes. Its a method of presenting the numbers designed to suggest they are unfair when they are not.

And gee, the cheap properties... the only reason they were cheap was because big Victorian Houses, etc had fallen into disrepair, be used badly by rogue landlords like Rackman,[/quote]Not sure what you are saying. Rackman got away with charging huge rents on homes in very poor repair. Corbyn plans to insist properties are maintaind and cap rents. He plans to prevent Rackman's return.

it became the in thing for those with money to move to "poor" areas so they could claim kinship.

Thats nonsense. Areas become gentrified because people see the properties are cheap and move into them, or closer and closer to them.

At the same time they employed workmen etc to gentrify their houses,

You think employing workment should be banned? You think tories should adopt a rule that the only repairs to homes allowed are DIY? That should limit the size of homes for the rich.

I'm afraid that gentrification is a sign of the times,.

Yes indeed. because there are simply not enough homes for everyone, so the rich crowd out the poor.

 

[dandelion]

If you want to raise more tax you need to LOWER tax rates on high earners. It's counter-intuitive, but high tax discourages the rich from doing the work anyway, and encourages them to do it in ways that minimise tax or to do it outside the UK.

Ah now, certainly people always try to avoid or evade tax as best they can. But that does not mean they will simply down tools because tax rates are high. rather, being in position where they are able to adjust their own wages, they tend to pay themselves more to compensate.

The reality of the numbers is that for a long time the richer have been paying more whilst the average and lower have been paying less. .

Yet for a long time the rich have been keeping more and the average and lower less. because, as I said, they are paying themselves more in the first place. And as I have also repeatedly said, you have to tax the people who have the money. Ecen May 'said' she needed to help the JAMs.

 

[southeastone]

"corbynistas" lovely people; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/hang-the-tories-banner-salford_uk_59cfe912e4b06791bb10e129?ncid=webmail

 

[Drifterwood]

The quote system has gone a bit wrong there, Dands.

The fact remains that the lowest 50% pay no direct taxation to speak of. This is our system to allow still to borrow and keep the debt based money supply going. Essentially you only pay direct taxation in the UK if you have more than you need to need to borrow.

All that JC will do is to reinforce this debt cycle economy and call it socialism.

What else can you do?

Take away the irrelevant?

 

[Perados]

The quote system has gone a bit wrong there, Dands.

The fact remains that the lowest 50% pay no direct taxation to speak of. This is our system to allow still to borrow and keep the debt based money supply going. Essentially you only pay direct taxation in the UK if you have more than you need to need to borrow.

All that JC will do is to reinforce this debt cycle economy and call it socialism.

What else can you do?

Take away the irrelevant?

See it like this...
Where does the state gets the money from, when he asks for debts? From those who still have money left after paying tax and don't need it for their living.
These state debts also don't get invested in the industry directly.

So, what is wrong to replace exactly the ammount of new debts by tax income?
The effects would remain the same. It doesn't get needed for living and therefore rams no one. This money (if given as debts), can't be used for direct investments or loans to companies. Same counts if it's tax.
It will harm the economy in no way.

... oh wait, there is one difference I missed, if it's tax, not debts, the state doesn't has to pay interests. We could safe billions...





Only possible if the state and economy dont have to finance its debts by foreign money

 

[dandelion]

The fact remains that the lowest 50% pay no direct taxation to speak of. This is our system to allow still to borrow and keep the debt based money supply going. Essentially you only pay direct taxation in the UK if you have more than you need to need to borrow.

Dont forget all the indirect tax people pay. VAT, council tax, road tax, insurance tax, airport tax, duty on alcohol and petrol, stamp duty,. Not sure how the proportion of tax compare once you have added in all of those, but my example of someone earning only just above the income tax threshold probably ends up paying a proportion nearly as great as the guy in the top 1%. Especially since I recall reading the richest are much more likely to arrange to be paid creatively and therefore avoid direct taxes. So it might be the guy at te bottom ends up paying more than the guy at the top as a percenage of his income.

All that JC will do is to reinforce this debt cycle economy and call it socialism.

Didn't I mention the need for a policy of cheap housing? Oh, Corbyn thought of that.

[QUOTE="Perados, post: 6722094, member: 190888"So, what is wrong to replace exactly the ammount of new debts by tax income?[/quote] Easy perados. If the state takes the money in taxes, then it spends it on public services and we all benefit a little. If a bank takes the money then its employees or shareholders end up with the money and spend it on themselvs. If more goes to the state then the benefits get spread more evenly.

If the state intervenes, then ordinary citizens find their lives a little better, and the elite who would otherwise use their privilege to extract money from the population find theirs a little worse. That is why the tories, funded by business and rich men, have policies which favour business and rich men and repay them those contributions many times over.

And that is indeed why business and rich men crowded up to Blair and 'new labour', to encourage them to do exactly the same.

 

[southeastone]

Dont forget all the indirect tax people pay. VAT, council tax, road tax, insurance tax, airport tax, duty on alcohol and petrol, stamp duty,. Not sure how the proportion of tax compare once you have added in all of those, but my example of someone earning only just above the income tax threshold probably ends up paying a proportion nearly as great as the guy in the top 1%. .

Not sure how that works, in your examples the couple pulling 25k between them against the single 160k, going through your list, VAT, no vat on food, kids clothes etc loads on electrical goods, adult clothes etc so the "poor" couple likely don't pay anywhere near the VAT even in % terms I would guess. Council tax, lower band possibly/likely on in work benefit so pays lot less. Roadtax/insurance, "poor" maybe 1 cheap small car maybe no car, less fuel/lower tax/insurance, "rich", 2 large medium large newer cars possibly on Vatable lease deals? Airport tax, really on 25K a couple you think they are jet setters? Alcohol duty, supermarket beers once a week and a £5 bottle of wine on a friday against resturant/wine bar fridays? stamp duty, you say nobody under 100k is buying houses?.

 

[dandelion]

no vat on food, kids clothes etc loads on electrical goods, adult clothes etc so the "poor" couple likely don't pay anywhere near the VAT even in % terms I would guess.

You only pay VAT if you buy goods. The more you earn, the more you save and therefore dont pay tax on that but just roll up your wealth. You might have pinpointed exactly one reason why the wealth gap is growing, tax breaks for those who can afford to save.

Council tax, lower band possibly/likely on in work benefit

Proagh! pull the other one mate, council tax is a capped tax. Doesn't matter how valuable a house you live in, you still only pay 4-5 times what someone in the tiniest dwelling pays. if your home is worth 100x then you ought to be paying 100x. The numbers drifter quoted about percentage of income tax paid being far more for those on high incomes would work exactly in reverse regarding council tax. (interestingly, businesses in small accommodation now dont pay any business rates. Maybe that should apply to council tax?)

[qute] Roadtax/insurance, "poor" maybe 1 cheap small car maybe no car, less fuel/lower tax/insurance, [/quote]There presumably tends to be an upper limit on how much people pay in taxes on cars, roughly proportionate to the miles driven. So it would not go up with income.

Airport tax, really on 25K a couple you think they are jet setters?

I think there is a limit how often people go on holiday, so the poor probably pay more proportionately. Similarly, how much you pay in alcohol tax will depend how often you are drunk, not what your income is. Likely the poor smoke a lot more too.

Government minister just tried to defend their policy of subsidising house prices and denied it was a subsidy pushing up prices. Unfortunate we have economically illiterate people in the conservative government. Also tried to boast that they have the highest rate of housebuilding since the crash. nor impressive since it was at historic lows and still is.

 

[Drifterwood]

See it like this...
Where does the state gets the money from, when he asks for debts? From those who still have money left after paying tax and don't need it for their living.
These state debts also don't get invested in the industry directly.

So, what is wrong to replace exactly the ammount of new debts by tax income?
The effects would remain the same. It doesn't get needed for living and therefore rams no one. This money (if given as debts), can't be used for direct investments or loans to companies. Same counts if it's tax.
It will harm the economy in no way.

... oh wait, there is one difference I missed, if it's tax, not debts, the state doesn't has to pay interests. We could safe billions..

Only possible if the state and economy dont have to finance its debts by foreign money

There's a flaw in your logic.

You are forgetting that people can spend money that they have earned and not paid in tax and not had to borrow.

The social injustice of people having their own money is truly shocking. They should have this money taken in tax and forced into debt like everyone else. ;-)

 

[chrisrobin]

The quote system has gone a bit wrong there, Dands.

The fact remains that the lowest 50% pay no direct taxation to speak of. This is our system to allow still to borrow and keep the debt based money supply going. Essentially you only pay direct taxation in the UK if you have more than you need to need to borrow.

All that JC will do is to reinforce this debt cycle economy and call it socialism.

What else can you do?

Take away the irrelevant?

I thought by now you had realised that in true corbynista style Dandelion is selective in what he quotes

 

[dandelion]

They should have this money taken in tax and forced into debt like everyone else. ;-)

never forget the lesson of mortgage tax relief. There used to be tax relief on mortgages, perhaps you remember. One of the Thatcher chancellors removed it. What happened? House prices went down.

Everyone is forced to have a home of some sort. So everyone is forced to pay what it costs. There is huge pent up demand for better accommodation. As soon as anyone gets a bit more money they spend it on a better home, and go into more debt (because they only pay the deposit in cash). So in fact, to reduce endebtedness, cut people's incomes. Then house prices will fall and people will owe less because they are borrowing less to buy homes.

The real solution is to build enough homes (or, of course cut the number of people seeking them, but no politicians seriously want to do that). Or I suppose you could re-jig council tax so it hits much harder on more valuable properties, to try to push back against the desireability of larger accommodation. Or introduce rationing, no one allowed more than 20 square metres, that might make MPs address a better solution.

Brexit is not going to help this problem, which is one of the real scandals of our time and has caused huge problems for everyone. Corbyn might.

 

[southeastone]

never forget the lesson of mortgage tax relief. There used to be tax relief on mortgages, perhaps you remember. One of the Thatcher chancellors removed it. What happened? House prices went down.

.

Not sure when Gordon Brown was "one of the Thatcher chancellors" but he removed mortgage tax relief in 2000, house prices have risen steadily since, did you read up on that one before you posted it?

 

[dandelion]

Not sure when Gordon Brown was "one of the Thatcher chancellors" but he removed mortgage tax relief in 2000, house prices have risen steadily since, did you read up on that one before you posted it?

here is a guardian article discussing it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/mar/10/budget1999.budget3

In 2000, mortage interest relief was costing the government £1.4 billion, so it was equivalent to a mortgage subsidy this big. But interest rates were falling at the same time, cutting peoples mortgages and compensating for its abolition. In 1990 the bill was £7.7bn. The conservatives had also been whittling away at it in stages since then, but in 87/88 they announced a halving of the available amount to new buyers. It caused a boom in puchases at the old rate before it was abolished and a crash at the new rate afterwards.

Tax relief on home purchase loans was a subsidy for the rich to help them buy homes. Thatcher was quite the socialist in some ways in presiding over its removal by stages. There was no housing shortage when she came to office. She would not have liked this shortage at all, because she would have seen it as harmfull to the tory party. Curiously, when May talked about helping the JAM's it was Thatcher rhetoric, but no action.

Wealth was increasing fast in 2000 under labour whereas both under Tory Thatcher and now under Tory Cameron/May it has frankly been shrinking away. Thatcher made the mistake of having a guillotine process, whereby if you bought a home one day it would continue to qualify for tax relief. If you bought the next day it would not. This accentuated the problem and showed precisely how much of a boost to prices that subsidy gave. The market in action demonstrated the difference in price of a home with or without tax relief.

The Thatcher strategy was to make people home owners, because then they would feel wealthier and vote for the party of the wealthy class. Allowing prices to rise and rise because there is a huge shortage of homes means that people see they no longer have the opportunity to buy a home and will never get the benefits of doing so. They will be better off not voting for the party of the wealthy, because it isnt going to be them.

Thatcher succeeded mostly because the nation was tired of union misbehaviour, and because the economy was collapsing. Though in fact the collapse of the world economy at that time was due to the oil price shock - oil producing countries successfully created a cartel and demanded vast price increases for the oil they were selling the world. It was not unlike what is happening today therough globalisation, in that the poorer countries suddenly captured a bigger share of the world's wealth. Inevitably this meant a drop in living standards for developed countries, and social unrest. (Brexit will do the same)

New labour was a reaction to the tory success, creating a political party much more to the right, favouring the wealthy, or at least those who imagined they were wealthy or would become so. Traditional Labour is going to succeed now because society understands wealth inequality means a big chunk are losing out. It is a generational thing. Those who lived under Thatcher saw the benefit of the giveaway of national assets the tories engaged in and older people are still voting tory. The young, traditionally poor as they start out, see no benefits to be had because the government will not give them a free house or free shares in former nationally owned companies. Instead it gives them a stonking debt for education, which in reality is an investment for the whole nation.

The liberals trialled Corbyn's policies in 2010 with great success. Yet having been voted in by youth demanding a share of national wealth, they then supported the tories in doing the opposite. They promised what labour will deliver. So of course people under 50 voted labour at the last election.

Housing has been a core driver of who gets to be government for 50 years, maybe longer, and the right have cocked it up now.

Brexit will shrink the Uk economy and make everything worse. If it happens, it will discredit the tories who have pushed the policy. It will make the need for a more socialist state all the more urgent, and more people will be in the camp of the 'have nots'. Brexit will cement in labour wins, and might even restore the fortunes of the liberals, as the new right wing but pro EU party. The conservatives risk turning into new UKIP on 10% support.