The corbynistas and the new world order

[southeastone]

My point was that it was not stopped under Thatcher and it did not bring house prices down as you claimed. Incidentally don't forget Thatcher built more houses than labour by a long way so when labour got in that was the start of the house price boom combined with their open door immigration which created massive instant demand.

 

[Drifterwood]

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. .

OK - let's look at indirect tax and the direction it has been taking.

VAT - you don't pay it on food, kids clothes and lower rates for house fuel etc. You don't pay it on rent.

Council tax - there is a sliding scale, and you don't pay it you get housing benefit and you pay less or half if you live alone or are elderly.

Road Tax - this has just changed. If you have a gas guzzler you pay over £500 a year and nothing if you have a small car. You also pay an extra road tax tax on new cars over £40K. It is a back door luxury vat rate.

Airport tax - not sure that the really poor would find this a problem, but again the rich pay a huge amount more.

Alcohol - again I'm not sure you can defend the social injustice here, but the more expensive your tipple, the more you pay.

Petrol - a problem for the rural poor. If TFL are an example of Corbinite transport costs then god help us.

Stamp Duty - did you miss that being changed to a sliding scale that kicks the crap out of property over around £900K

I think a lot of your examples reflect the concerns of the not rich in the South rather than what would be a problem for poor people elsewhere.

Since the crash, tax on richer people has gone up, with new taxes directed at them, whilst tax on the poor and lower paid has been brought down, see the tax allowance up to £12,500. I have never known the less well off pay so little tax in my life, and the better off pay more. These are the facts, but they don't fit the political rhetoric of JC.

 

[southeastone]

OK - let's look at indirect tax and the direction it has been taking.

VAT - you don't pay it on food, kids clothes and lower rates for house fuel etc. You don't pay it on rent.

Council tax - there is a sliding scale, and you don't pay it you get housing benefit and you pay less or half if you live alone or are elderly.

Road Tax - this has just changed. If you have a gas guzzler you pay over £500 a year and nothing if you have a small car. You also pay an extra road tax tax on new cars over £40K. It is a back door luxury vat rate.

Airport tax - not sure that the really poor would find this a problem, but again the rich pay a huge amount more.

Alcohol - again I'm not sure you can defend the social injustice here, but the more expensive your tipple, the more you pay.

Petrol - a problem for the rural poor. If TFL are an example of Corbinite transport costs then god help us.

Stamp Duty - did you miss that being changed to a sliding scale that kicks the crap out of property over around £900K

I think a lot of your examples reflect the concerns of the not rich in the South rather than what would be a problem for poor people elsewhere.

Since the crash, tax on richer people has gone up, with new taxes directed at them, whilst tax on the poor and lower paid has been brought down, see the tax allowance up to £12,500. I have never known the less well off pay so little tax in my life, and the better off pay more. These are the facts, but they don't fit the political rhetoric of JC.

Points I raised in an earlier post (not so clearly I admit),which Dandie still refuses to accept.

 

[chrisrobin]

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 large flat screen televisions, subscriptions to satellite services, mobile phone/tablet contracts, designer clothes, package holidays and out three times a week, oh my friend, this country has been so hand fed and pampered by the socialist dream that it has forgotten how to save and how to enjoy what you have saved for.
A new socialist order will, like it or not have to implement vast loans to pay for all their wildest dreams and put this country into such deep debt that it will struggle for years after they are removed from power for being profligate.
[con 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.

 

[dandelion]

A new socialist order will, like it or not have to implement vast loans to pay for all their wildest dreams

Estimates predict a massive housebuilding scheme would be self financing. because the people have to pay rents or mortgages anyway, and right now the government is paying huge amounts in housing bnefits which it would not if rents dropped. No it would be cheaper.

And similar benefits are to be had if pay at the lower end is brought up. Its win win on the government account.

And then there is the fact that government spending raises government revenue. Always does, however badly you spend it (for example, on bailing bankers). Governments get back most of what they spend.if thye are really clever, they get back more than they spend.

 

[Perados]

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. ;-)

Right people COULD spend their money... but they aren't. The state is able to burrow billions, because people don't feel the need to spend it. They want to lend it.
Exactly this money could be taken by tax

 

[Jason]

A further issue with UK tax is its complexity. My affairs aren't intrinsically complicated, but they seem to become complicated on a tax form.

We're at the stage where people decide not to do work for two reasons:
A) tax is so high it is scarcely worth it
B) filling in the form is such a pain, especially for yet another small income stream.

I've just accepted a job where I'm going to be paid in shares, and not many of them. No doubt I I'll discover how I declare this on a tax form, but I bet it's complicated!

 

[dandelion]

We're at the stage where people decide not to do work for two reasons:
A) tax is so high it is scarcely worth it
B) filling in the form is such a pain, especially for yet another small income stream.

Its only rich people who think its scarcely worth earning more. Doubt it would make much difference if you taxed 99% of what they earn above a certain threshold, they would still keep going because that is not what is motivating them.

 

[dandelion]

Morning news: May supports Corbyn policy on housebuilding. The one she said just said was unaffordable.

So is she a liar, a hypocrite, or both.

 

[Jason]

Its only rich people who think its scarcely worth earning more. Doubt it would make much difference if you taxed 99% of what they earn above a certain threshold, they would still keep going because that is not what is motivating them.

There's plenty of research on this. Above a certain level income tax becomes counter-productive because it leads to a lower tax take. In the UK economy its in the region of 40%. Increase tax above this and in total you get less tax.

When Labour talks of increasing tax on the wealthy they actually mean increasing tax or decreasing services on the poorest. They have not accepted the reality that higher taxes for the rich cost more than they bring in. If they really introduce a 50% tax it means less money for (say) the NHS.

 

[Jason]

Morning news: May supports Corbyn policy on housebuilding. The one she said just said was unaffordable.

So is she a liar, a hypocrite, or both.

It's more nuanced than you suggest, but it is unaffordable.

The UK needs austerity. However the people are not supporting this. Basically we run up debt that could have been avoided so that people can have good stuff now. It is not investment, it's expenditure. I think we will get a relaxation on austerity. People in their 20s today (the generation clamouring for this) will get a benefit now for which they will pay many times over towards the end of their lives. It's comparable to drug taking - a buzz now, misery later.

A strong and stable Conservative government could avoid this. A responsible opposition could work with the government on austerity. We have neither. Therefore we have policies which ensure today's 20- year olds will have a poor old age.

 

[dandelion]

Afternoon news. May's housebuilding plans would seem to largely depend on local councils spending their own current money to build houses, which she will now give them authority to build. But not money. And someone on the news said they are forbidden to borrow to spend on housing, even where it would clearly be a profitable exercise. So all in all th conservative rhetoric seems to be to copy labour policies, but hobble them so they dont actually happen.

 

[dandelion]

The UK needs austerity. However the people are not supporting this. Basically we run up debt that could have been avoided so that people can have good stuff now.

Jason, it is government policy to shrink government spending and borrowing, but simulateneously encourage private borrowing and spending. The government has tried to privatise the national debt. Thats conservatives for you, their grand plan has been to transfer the national debt which all have a notional share in to us all as personal debt we are directly liable for.

And the justification for this is that borrowing to consume boosts the economy. Which makes money for someone, even if the first person ends in debt. Which is indeed exactly what is happening and the flaw in what they are doing. Whereas, if government borrows, then it sees a direct return in its revenues as each of the new transactions takes place. The government is uniquely placed to borrow and spend, and then get the money coming back to it. Potentially even more than 100% of what it spent coming back, because it gets a cut every time something taxed gets sold, or every time someone gets paid for doing work.

The conservatives have been crippling the economy with austerity, because they have an aim to shrink government services and turn them into private services. Then the private sector makes money from them, instead of the government. Its a way to help the rich get richer at the exense of all the rest of us. That is the root of conservative policy.

Its why May will not succeed with her dreams of a socialist conservative party, because socialists aim fro the money to end up distributed amongst all while capitalists aim to concentrate it in the hands of the company owners.

 

[dandelion]

It's more nuanced than you suggest, but it is unaffordable.

No, it isnt. After WW2 the UK had what you would describe as socialist governments, whether they were called conservative or labour. There was massive public spending, on housebuilding and the creation of the welfare state. During this time the national debt fell by 85% from its peak of 225% of GDP to about 50% of GDP in the 1970's. Socialist policies worked and provided full employment in what were by the standards of the day well paid jobs, where a household could feel comfortable on one main income.

The 70's were characterised by disruption of the whole world economy by oil price shocks and indeed shortages of supply. These were in 73 and 79 particularly, and took out the Heath conservative government, and indeed labour Callaghan government. Both these governments would have been considered socialist by your standards today. Labour in 2008 were taken down by the world bank fraud, which once again was an external factor causing a world recession.

During the conservative government run from Thatcher to Major, oil prices globally fell and we started producing our own, further boosting the UK economic stability and success. The Uk government seems to have made directly about £200bn from north sea oil over the years, which number is presumably reflected by a fall of this amount in national debt. (but I just added up the numbers, and £1bn in 1980 when oil revenues got started was worth a lot more than now. So maybe £300-400bn in current terms) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/637097/Table_11.11_June_2017.pdf

Of course, this coincided with further decline of the coal industry, which while moribund because of better coal reserves being developed around the world and the general switch to oil, had presumably been an important contributor to the economy. But again, the 70's was a critical transition period, where one national resource was in steep decline while oil had yet to come onstream. At one time the Uk was a massive coal exporter. The 70s was a pefect storm for the Uk economy.

The 80's conservative government saw a switch away from the socialist policies which had been so successful post war. There was no good reason for doing this, and the arguments deployed were pretty much the same as now, that they were unaffordable. The economy recovered because the world economic situation improved, and the UK started to get inward investment because of its EU membership. The conservatives engaged in a programme of giving away nationl assets which had been built up by its socialist predecessors of both stripes. The ones who had both paid off most of the national debt, yet also built up those state assets.

 

[Drifterwood]

A further issue with UK tax is its complexity. My affairs aren't intrinsically complicated, but they seem to become complicated on a tax form.

We're at the stage where people decide not to do work for two reasons:
A) tax is so high it is scarcely worth it
B) filling in the form is such a pain, especially for yet another small income stream.

I've just accepted a job where I'm going to be paid in shares, and not many of them. No doubt I I'll discover how I declare this on a tax form, but I bet it's complicated!

You and the company giving the shares have to be very careful.

A valuation will be sought and you will have to pay cash tax on a possible benefit in kind. I say possible because who knows where the shares will go in the future when you may want cash for them.

 

[Jason]

@Drifterwood thanks. And yes, I am being careful. Curiously it illustrates my point about intrinsic complexity of our system. I'm not being paid in money because the newish company doesn't have it, but instead being invited to take a punt on the future success of the company. In effect l'm investing my labour, and what I get back could well be zero. This is precisely the sort of input companies need to grow, yet our system makes a meal out of it.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion, you are playing games with terms. The Labour governments between 1945 and 1979 were broadly socialist. These aside the UK has had no socialist governments. A concern for society - demonstrated by governments since 1979 - is not socialism. Indeed it may well be the antithesis.

What Corbyn is proposing is a radical departure. He is looking at a hard-line socialism on the way to full-blown communism. He advocates the full Venezuela. He admires USSR. He supports Marxist terrorism including IRA and the Islamists.

If Corbyn ever gets in the only question for anyone with the ability to make a decision is how to get out of the UK. The Jews in the UK have mostly already had "the conversation" about whether they go to Israel or USA. I don't know where I would go. For those left in Corbyn's hell hole there will be pain and suffering. No health service, no pensions, and the Corbyn mob following the lead of the IRA.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion, you are playing games with terms. The Labour governments between 1945 and 1979 were broadly socialist. These aside the UK has had no socialist governments.

Not at all. The conservtive party at that time was just as committed to the welfare state and housebuilding. It had to be because the people wanted this, and frankly -it worked.

What we have seen since 1980 is the deconstruction of the benefits built up immediately after the war. The ruling elite recapturing the position which had been taken away from them.

Hammond today announced h does not intend to spend any money on facilities which would be needed following a hard Brexit. He clearly believes there will not be one. One must assume therefore that the tories are reconciled to losing the next election, and concur with Corbyns opinion that he is likely to be the next PM. The tories might introduce someone to replace May, but it looks increasingly like she agreed to be the fall guy for stopping Brexit, and is fulfilling her role well.

 

[Jason]

What you are describing @dandelion is social democracy or liberal democracy. I appreciate that socialism is a spectrum, and some very broad definitions might include social/liberal democracy within socialism, but I don't think this is particularly helpful. Corbyn's socialism is that of Marx, Mao, Trotsky, even Stalin. It is in effect "proper" socialism. It is hell.

 

[dandelion]

What you are describing @dandelion Corbyn's socialism is that of Marx, Mao, Trotsky, even Stalin. It is in effect "proper" socialism. It is hell.

I don't recall where I posted it, but May and Corbyn have a lot in common. They both want the same policies. May would likely be happier leading labour than the tories. She also wants redistributive policies, though her party is even more against it than were new labour. They both seem pragmatic about the possibility of Brexit, while seeking to stop it because of the harm it would cause.