Jeremy Corbyn suggests earnings cap

[Machiavelli]

thats rather the point, remove £40bn of tax revenue (~25% of ~£160bn raised), then everyone else is going to have to pay more in tax to cover the short fall (assuming no cuts to spending). look at the raw economics rather than the ideology, taking out all those earnings do not make higher earnings elsewhere in the companies, so the tax revenue is lost (it maye filter out in profits somewhere, not necessarily in the UK though). the bottom 50% pay in only ~10% and arent able to pay more, so the 2%-49% cohort are going to be paying an awful lot more income tax.

I find it staggering when people claim that they're engaging in 'raw economics' as opposed to 'ideology' as if these were entirely distinct fields. What you fail to understand is that: if capital was more widely spread more of it will be spent; if income was more widely spread more of it would be taxed; if property was more widely owned, more taxes could be raised on it. I could go on. Broadly this is what happened in the post-war consensus when One Nation Tories merely preserved the settlement instigated by the social-democratic Attlee government -- and during this period growth was much higher, and the Gini coefficient was much lower. I'm trying (but no doubt failing) to work on [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] with this post too.

 

[Machiavelli]

I actually like the fact that this has been raised for debate. That is what Corbyn is doing. As I am of a certain age I do remember a Britain that was more egalitarian in its wage structure. Footballers were not paid £massive or bankers or even politicians. There was near full employment. All got thrown away in the eighties/nineties with the sell off of Britain. What we all owned became what the few owned. We were conned into this with the promise of trickle down. Many did well out of this, but as I felt at the time, this effect would be short term. What of the next generation? I mean, sell off the council houses and not replace them! Thus pushing the next generation into buying or renting, both driving prices. You end up with a population on one side of a divide or the other. Rich getting richer poor poorer. Ultimately we will end up with one private owner of everything. Surely if we look abroad we can see alternatives that work for more of the nation. In Scandinavia they chose an opposite direction to the UK . This has led to high employment ,well paid jobs. The economy grows due to many customers having money to spend. The more the money circulates the better for all . The tax base spreads. Years ago I had a friend in Sweden who earnt twice my wage doing the same job. Years later they earn 4x my wage doing the same work. Whats not to like about that.

Spot on, fella.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

Dunk will probably be above the threshold and therefore banned due to being paid too much

The whole squad will be above the threshold so they'll be plying their trade abroad

 

[vegster]

I absolutely do not want Tony Bloom to have an earnings cap placed on him, and it is people like him, and more importantly what they do with their money, that make an earnings cap a stupid idea.

Tony Bloom comes from a wealthy family already and was destined to be pretty well off whatever he did. I do not begrudge him his money bu,t remember that BHAFC is still a business and if/when we get to The Premiership and it's inherent costs he may feel he has taken the club ( Business) as far as he can and sell out. There is stupid amounts of money sloshing around that wants to buy a Premiership team for many reasons... how would you feel then ?

 

[vegster]

Of course Corbyn wants a socialist republic. He's campaigned for this all his life. What part of him continually professing his socialist principles and beliefs have you missed? It's fair enough too, I'm not saying he's a crack pot for wishing that but you're right that the UK will never be like that because it will always be a minority view. It certainly isn't Tory propaganda to say that Corbyn wants a fully socialist UK. It's a fact.

I think you are mixing up Communism with Socialism. Corbyn campaigns on a platform for democratic socialism. I can't see any chance that the country would want a Republic and he knows it. Still this sort of hysteria clouds over the facts that he fights for the underprivileged and for workers rights and a decent wage. Somehow in this country things have been twisted to show that if you are at the bottom of the social ladder it must mean you deserve to be there for some reason and anyone who tries to help the poorest in society must be vilified at all costs.

How's you pay and conditions by the way ? Comfortable or just getting along ? or is business booming for you at the moment ? do you feel you could do with say a 5% pay rise after the last 8 years of slog ?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I actually like the fact that this has been raised for debate. That is what Corbyn is doing. As I am of a certain age I do remember a Britain that was more egalitarian in its wage structure. Footballers were not paid £massive or bankers or even politicians. There was near full employment. All got thrown away in the eighties/nineties with the sell off of Britain. What we all owned became what the few owned. We were conned into this with the promise of trickle down. Many did well out of this, but as I felt at the time, this effect would be short term. What of the next generation? I mean, sell off the council houses and not replace them! Thus pushing the next generation into buying or renting, both driving prices. You end up with a population on one side of a divide or the other. Rich getting richer poor poorer. Ultimately we will end up with one private owner of everything. Surely if we look abroad we can see alternatives that work for more of the nation. In Scandinavia they chose an opposite direction to the UK . This has led to high employment ,well paid jobs. The economy grows due to many customers having money to spend. The more the money circulates the better for all . The tax base spreads. Years ago I had a friend in Sweden who earnt twice my wage doing the same job. Years later they earn 4x my wage doing the same work. Whats not to like about that.

The last few sentences certainly don't relate to the first few. We were the sick man of Europe prior to the 80's/90's. All that full employment, all I can remember is militant unions.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Cap earnings, kill ambition.

 

[Buzzer]

I think you are mixing up Communism with Socialism. Corbyn campaigns on a platform for democratic socialism. I can't see any chance that the country would want a Republic and he knows it. Still this sort of hysteria clouds over the facts that he fights for the underprivileged and for workers rights and a decent wage. Somehow in this country things have been twisted to show that if you are at the bottom of the social ladder it must mean you deserve to be there for some reason and anyone who tries to help the poorest in society must be vilified at all costs.

How's you pay and conditions by the way ? Comfortable or just getting along ? or is business booming for you at the moment ? do you feel you could do with say a 5% pay rise after the last 8 years of slog ?

I think you're over-analysing things. I'm not mixing communism and socialism at all. Let's take this right back to the beginning - you said that both May and Corbyn wanted to change capitalism; I said that May wants to reform it whereas it's very clear (to me) that Corbyn wants to replace it with socialism. You said that I must be swallowing Tory propaganda that Corbyn wants a socialist republic. There's no mention of communism either by you or me here.

Corbyn IS a lifelong socialist, there's no doubting that (democratic socialism is still a form of socialism) and he does campaign under a very socialist manifesto as you have confirmed. And he is a republican - he's on record for that too so it's very plain to me that Corbyn wants a socialist republic here in the UK. There's no hysteria and neither am I vilifying him here when I write that. It's the plain truth.

 

[beorhthelm]

I find it staggering when people claim that they're engaging in 'raw economics' as opposed to 'ideology' as if these were entirely distinct fields. What you fail to understand is that: if capital was more widely spread more of it will be spent; if income was more widely spread more of it would be taxed; if property was more widely owned, more taxes could be raised on it. I could go on.

so many ifs! it would be wonderful if a company took the savings from high salaries and distributed out to other employees, but reality is that isnt likely to happen. realistically, companies would retain that cash, reinvest it, or distributed to shareholders, maybe it will be taxed elsewhere, though you cant be certain and with foreign companies and shareholders certainly not. so the same taxpayer base less the 1% would have to cover the shortfall in revenue.

 

[Hastings gull]

They'll be more than happy to on the proviso that they're earning more money, which is precisely what I stated in that post and, rather helpfully, included capital letters: rather than calling me glib, try and engage with the issues.

But I was engaging with you! Go back to your post and read it - you talked about tax and then stated that the 99% would take up the slack. Nowhere did you say that the 99% would be earning more, which would have made more sense, and . . .don't think that such a sweeping statement that 99% would be earning more is in fact rather glib?

 

[clapham_gull]

As a can't be bothered to vote they are all the same brigade...

I find it interesting that Corbyn is attacked for his principles, whilst others on the other side of political spectrum seemingly applaud those often wear on their sleeve the fact they don't have any.

I'm out for this for myself and so should you be isn't a principle.

Having said I've found the Labour fascinating to watch over my lifetime. Slowly modernising (unlike the Tories) under a slow and steady progression of Kinnock and Smith and then letting Blair quite royally **** the whole thing up.

They are the Portsmouth FC of the politics world and it's gonna years for them to get in any position of election. It's isn't gonna happen with a new leader, it's probably gonna take 2 or 3.

 

[NooBHA]

Earnings Caps are wrong and unrealistic and unworkable.

I love Corbyn and what he stands for and would vote for him all day long and so will many more people than the Press would have us believe. He will galvanise a lot of people to the Polls when the Election does come round

However we need wealthy people. We need good successful businesses in the UK. Pure Socialism can never work in the modern global trading world. Pure Capitalism cannot be allowed to take hold because that's not fair and the poor and the weak in society like the disabled or the less learned people or elderly get left behind.

We need to strike a balance and whilst I said we need the Wealthy people in society it is true but the problem comes when the Wealthy also hold the Power because that is when people get left behind.

For me someone like Corbyn would be ideal because his goals would be to use Public spending to try and stop as many people as possible being over-looked left behind or marginalised. He will not have all the answers. No one can and he has failings but at least he will try and stand up for the common man and common woman.

Can he win an Election. The Polls tell us he can't but lets the people decide and not the Sun Newspaper or the Telegraph. And so roll on Jezza. Give it your best shot and if you fail then at least you gave it a go to try and bring ''greed and peoples' self gratification under control.

 

[beorhthelm]

apparently Coryn dropped the policy, back tracking to a pay ratio, then only applicable to government contracts. that went well then.

 

[heathgate]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

and he will be joining the Southern Rail strikers on the picket line.

I assume he never wants to live in Downing Street then.

Want to know what these rail strikes are really about? Well, here's Sean Hoyle, president of the RMT union, "Rule no. 1 in our [RMT] bible is that we must strive to replace the capitalist system with a socialist order".

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[synavm]

Earnings Caps are wrong and unrealistic and unworkable.

I love Corbyn and what he stands for and would vote for him all day long and so will many more people than the Press would have us believe. He will galvanise a lot of people to the Polls when the Election does come round

However we need wealthy people. We need good successful businesses in the UK. Pure Socialism can never work in the modern global trading world. Pure Capitalism cannot be allowed to take hold because that's not fair and the poor and the weak in society like the disabled or the less learned people or elderly get left behind.

We need to strike a balance and whilst I said we need the Wealthy people in society it is true but the problem comes when the Wealthy also hold the Power because that is when people get left behind.

For me someone like Corbyn would be ideal because his goals would be to use Public spending to try and stop as many people as possible being over-looked left behind or marginalised. He will not have all the answers. No one can and he has failings but at least he will try and stand up for the common man and common woman.

Can he win an Election. The Polls tell us he can't but lets the people decide and not the Sun Newspaper or the Telegraph. And so roll on Jezza. Give it your best shot and if you fail then at least you gave it a go to try and bring ''greed and peoples' self gratification under control.

There in lies the problem.

I went to a speech in Brighton a number of years ago by John McDonnell and the Labour Representation Committee. I twigged during that speech that I really couldn't support people on that side of the Labour Party when he said 'ethical capitalism is fundamentally impossible', then going onto push more or less pure Socialism as the only alternative. I think my whole family, who are all very left-wing, left thinking 'I'm not THAT left wing'. I've moved right quite a bit since then and would regard myself as a Liberal now.

 

[Curious Orange]

Tony Bloom comes from a wealthy family already and was destined to be pretty well off whatever he did. I do not begrudge him his money bu,t remember that BHAFC is still a business and if/when we get to The Premiership and it's inherent costs he may feel he has taken the club ( Business) as far as he can and sell out. There is stupid amounts of money sloshing around that wants to buy a Premiership team for many reasons... how would you feel then ?

I think you may have missed the point I was making generally about philanthropy, would the world be a better place if people no longer had the means to do things that one might not consider a benefit to all, certainly wouldn't be funded directly by government, and might only be appreciated by a small section of society, things like propping up a local football club?

As for your point about the Premier League, it strikes me that the money sloshing around there is probably a reason why Tony would be less likely to sell if anything, as he won't be constantly having to dip in his pocket. The Amex is better appointed than a lot of Premier League grounds in terms of its facilities - *cough* Selhurst *cough* - so maximising match day revenues isn't an ongoing problem, and these are dwarfed by the TV money in any case.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[ALBION28]

The last few sentences certainly don't relate to the first few. We were the sick man of Europe prior to the 80's/90's. All that full employment, all I can remember is militant unions.

That is probably because you listened to the right wing media. Lets not mention Saudi Arabia and the oil price hikes that caused wage demand. The unions had to respond they represented most of us on low wages. Inflation had kicked in. Most disputes were settled reasonably. The stand out was the over the top demands of the coal mining union led by a certain Mr Scargill. That brought about a strong anti union feeling amongst many. It paved the way for anti union legislation leaving workers rights in a siding. Only the European Union was left to give some kind of protection to workers. That struggle also led to the end of the consensus that had emerged from the 1930's being binned. You think the start of my comment does not relate to the last? Well I think you will find that one event can have consequences that lead to others. Throw a stone in a pond and watch the ripples.

 

[alfredmizen]

That is probably because you listened to the right wing media. Lets not mention Saudi Arabia and the oil price hikes that caused wage demand. The unions had to respond they represented most of us on low wages. Inflation had kicked in. Most disputes were settled reasonably. The stand out was the over the top demands of the coal mining union led by a certain Mr Scargill. That brought about a strong anti union feeling amongst many. It paved the way for anti union legislation leaving workers rights in a siding. Only the European Union was left to give some kind of protection to workers. That struggle also led to the end of the consensus that had emerged from the 1930's being binned. You think the start of my comment does not relate to the last? Well I think you will find that one event can have consequences that lead to others. Throw a stone in a pond and watch the ripples.

Rubbish , union leaders were literally household names in the 70s , they led politically motivated disputes that nearly finished this country, anti union feeling was strong way before the last miners strike.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

That is probably because you listened to the right wing media. Lets not mention Saudi Arabia and the oil price hikes that caused wage demand. The unions had to respond they represented most of us on low wages. Inflation had kicked in. Most disputes were settled reasonably. The stand out was the over the top demands of the coal mining union led by a certain Mr Scargill. That brought about a strong anti union feeling amongst many. It paved the way for anti union legislation leaving workers rights in a siding. Only the European Union was left to give some kind of protection to workers. That struggle also led to the end of the consensus that had emerged from the 1930's being binned. You think the start of my comment does not relate to the last? Well I think you will find that one event can have consequences that lead to others. Throw a stone in a pond and watch the ripples.

rubbish, end of.