Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[nickm]

The top 1% pay nearly a third of all income tax in the UK. We're truly fecked if we start increasing taxes on them, they are the ones with the means to leave if they want to.

What really needs to change is tax on existing wealth, and thats not a loophole.

I agree with that, although not sure how you do it. Maybe when assets are sold.

But I'm genuinely concerned by the wish lists we're seeing from Labour and the Tories. We already have a 40 billion gap every year between what we earn and what we spend. That's money we have to borrow and pay interest on and it costs us £48billion/year (and rising), which is more than we spend on defence, police, housing and transport. I don't think that's funny.

What level would Sweet Square like that number to get to? 100bn/year, which is more than we spend on education maybe? For someone who hates capitalists so much, he's sure keen on their generosity.

 

[Sweet Square]

You really aren't very good at this are you?

You spend a ton of time in here moaning about the Labour Party and its ''far left'' turn etc. But your own political views are not even close to being on the left at all, I would get if it you had a few annoyances or concerns with the party platform but you fundamental disagree with it. And you are basically in favour of austerity fiscal responsibility.

It would be like me complaining that the tory party isn't trying to win the socialist vote. Its very odd.

 

[ZupZup]

I think when thinking of taxing the top 1% (or 0.1%) we have to consider the reason that it isn't already happening.

For every single political party of any persuasion, taxing the top 1% is an absolute no brainer. They represent a tiny minority of the votes and the money they could provide would win a large majority of the votes. It would be the easiest ticket to perpetual election winning if it could be done.

The problem is you can't tax them anymore than we currently are. It isn't just about them leaving, it's about them finding ways around paying more than they feel is fair.

The part you're not accounting for in your migration statement is that the top 0.1% particularly aren't paying tax according to the doctrines and rules you or I do. They are paying tax according to their own rules. If they want to pay less tax they wouldn't need to move to do so.

Essentially the cost to make them pay more in tax outweighs the tax the country will receive. Again this is obvious as there is every single incentive to tax them to a greater level. Any party who was able to shake them down for another £100 billion would win a landslide.

So in your opinion... raising tax rates on the wealthy won't matter because they won't need to move away and will take avoidance measures to pay less anyway. I mean, not everyone avoids tax but I guess no harm in raising the taxes in that case if that's what you believe. Really, I would say this country needs large scale tax reform to make avoidance far more difficult but that's another thing.

I mean, when the people in power are very wealthy... you believe they'd have an incentive to tax themselves more? The reality is that those in power are in that position because they largely have the support of other very wealthy and powerful people. I don't think they would keep that support for too long if they decided to 'shake them down for another £100 billion'.

Do you think the majority of the mainstream media support the Conservative party because of altruism?

 

[nickm]

You spend a ton of time in here moaning about the Labour Party and its ''far left'' turn etc. But your own political views are not even close to being on the left at all, I would get if it you had a few annoyances or concerns with the party platform but you fundamental disagree with it. And you are basically in favour of austerity fiscal responsibility.

It would be like me complaining that the tory party isn't trying to win the socialist vote. Its very odd.

Only if your starting point is wrong. Caring about the public finances used to be a centrist position. There's an argument for spending a bit more, or re-prioritising spending, or raising taxes in some areas - these are all moderate arguments that left and right could and used to argue over, but there was a basic starting point. But the barking mad, uncosted laundry list we're seeing from both the main parties, is a sign they have lost their senses. I can't vote for that.

 

[Cheesy]

Only if your starting point is wrong. Caring about the public finances used to be a centrist position. There's an argument for spending a bit more, or re-prioritising spending, or raising taxes in some areas - these are all moderate arguments that left and right could and used to argue over, but there was a basic starting point. But the barking mad, uncosted laundry list we're seeing from both the main parties, is a sign they have lost their senses. I can't vote for that.

The problem is that the austerity measures employed from 2010 onwards which came under the guise of fiscal responsibility essentially meant punishing ordinary people for the mistakes and greed of rich bankers and the like. Why should ordinary people accept that sort of politics instead of voting for people who instead offer them much more?

 

[finneh]

So in your opinion... raising tax rates on the wealthy won't matter because they won't need to move away and will take avoidance measures to pay less anyway. I mean, not everyone avoids tax but I guess no harm in raising the taxes in that case if that's what you believe. Really, I would say this country needs large scale tax reform to make avoidance far more difficult but that's another thing.

I mean, when the people in power are very wealthy... you believe they'd have an incentive to tax themselves more? The reality is that those in power are in that position because they largely have the support of other very wealthy and powerful people. I don't think they would keep that support for too long if they decided to 'shake them down for another £100 billion'.

Do you think the majority of the mainstream media support the Conservative party because of altruism?

I think the mainstream media tend to support the party they think is the most popular. This is obviously in their interest, the same reason they make columns about United relentlessly and not Mansfield Town.

They successfully supported Blair for the few elections he won and then moves to supporting Cameron on the elections resulting in his Prime Ministership. I think the whole media argument is correlation not causation. It pays to back a winning horse.

Overall there are no statistics that currently show the richest people in society wouldn't move away if they were taxed to a greater level, because they've never been forced to pay tax at a level that is over a level they believe to be fair.

If rich people were forced to give up the entirety of their wealth, or move, they'd obviously move. Likewise if it cost the exchequer £100b in civil servants, private investigators and lawyers to enforce this new tax, which generated only £50b, it would be a dumb idea.

As I said we're currently taxed as a country more than we've ever been taxed before, whilst at the same time the richest are paying more than ever. That's common sense because as I said squeezing the maximum amount from this group is electorally a home run. To assume that politicians aren't putting their own interests (keeping their jobs and keeping their power) above anything else would be naive in my view.

But the barking mad, uncosted laundry list we're seeing from both the main parties, is a sign they have lost their senses. I can't vote for that.

Absolutely agreed. Both parties are unelectable in a system where one of those parties has to be elected. We're in Turd Sandwich Vs Giant Douche territory.

 

[ZupZup]

To assume that politicians aren't putting their own interests (keeping their jobs and keeping their power) above anything else would be naive in my view.

You speak of naive but you think the media just support a party because they think they are popular? You don't think Tony Blair had a deal with Murdoch in return for his support? Now that... is naive.

 

[finneh]

You speak of naive but you think the media just support a party because they think they are popular? You don't think Tony Blair had a deal with Murdoch in return for his support? Now that... is naive.

If Tony Blair were to have offered Murdoch some form of "deal", why didn't Major offer Murdoch the same or more? By your logic the papers are inherently Tory and therefore this deal would have been taken by Major.

The problem with this logic is again it assumes the press decide who gets elected. If that were true we'd have the same party having been elected for the last 40 years.

Blair was always going to win in 1997 and was always going to win in 2001 and 2005. At the start he was against poor opposition who were a mess and throughout the period there was a global economic boom.

In this scenario Blair would have no incentive to accept such a "deal" as you're proposing unless the cost of said deal was close to zero. At the same time the chance of the Tories getting in was small so the incentive for them to offer Murdoch a deal was very high. In that scenario it's obvious that the Tories would offer infinitely more than Blair ever would.

 

[ZupZup]

If Tony Blair were to have offered Murdoch some form of "deal", why didn't Major offer Murdoch the same or more? By your logic the papers are inherently Tory and therefore this deal would have been taken by Major.

The problem with this logic is again it assumes the press decide who gets elected. If that were true we'd have the same party having been elected for the last 40 years.

Blair was always going to win in 1997 and was always going to win in 2001 and 2005. At the start he was against poor opposition who were a mess and throughout the period there was a global economic boom.

In this scenario Blair would have no incentive to accept such a "deal" as you're proposing unless the cost of said deal was close to zero. At the same time the chance of the Tories getting in was small so the incentive for them to offer Murdoch a deal was very high. In that scenario it's obvious that the Tories would offer infinitely more than Blair ever would.

Why didn't Major offer the same deal? It isn't as simple as that... it's like two suppliers cosying up to the same sales prospect. At the end of the day, the customer will pick one. If both offers are similar, then I am sure public opinion will also play a part. Alastair Campbell's deputy talks about it in his book... it was basically a case of Labour would leave Murdoch to pursue his business interests without interference and the party would receive favourable coverage in return.

I didn't say they are inherently Tory. I think they can very easily switch allegiance. You believe their only allegiance is to who is most popular with the public and I disagree. I think their allegiance depends very much on their own personal interests and they are well aware of their own power to influence public opinion.

 

[finneh]

Why didn't Major offer the same deal? It isn't as simple as that... it's like two suppliers cosying up to the same sales prospect. At the end of the day, the customer will pick one. If both offers are similar, then I am sure public opinion will also play a part. Alastair Campbell's deputy talks about it in his book... it was basically a case of Labour would leave Murdoch to pursue his business interests without interference and the party would receive favourable coverage in return.

I didn't say they are inherently Tory. I think they can very easily switch allegiance. You believe their only allegiance is to who is most popular with the public and I disagree. I think their allegiance depends very much on their own personal interests and they are well aware of their own power to influence public opinion.

The point is the options would never have been similar. A party in a weak electoral position would always have a greater incentive to offer Murdoch the most. A party guaranteed to win would not offer him anything.

Therefore if Murdoch controlled election results you could guarantee the party going into the election with a much smaller vote share would offer him the most and therefore win.

So then the question is do the underdogs generally win elections? The answer to that is patently no.

 

[ZupZup]

The point is the options would never have been similar. A party in a weak electoral position would always have a greater incentive to offer Murdoch the most. A party guaranteed to win would not offer him anything.

Therefore if Murdoch controlled election results you could guarantee the party going into the election with a much smaller vote share would offer him the most and therefore win.

So then the question is do the underdogs generally win elections? The answer to that is patently no.

I am losing the will to live here... I will just call it a day. I am not changing your mind and you certainly won't change mine.

 

[Red Dreams]

I listened to Corbyn's speech at the Conference and agreed with his policy positions.
Raising Taxes on the Top 5% is the minimum.

He did not mention a Wealth Tax. Those Off Shore Accounts must be taxed.

 

[11101]

The thing is... this whole 'if you tax the mega rich more than they will just up and leave' is not based on actual evidence. It also doesn't take a great imagination to wonder why the theory gets thrown around, almost as if it is fact.

They did a study on every million $ earner in the USA and these people could literally just move to another state to pay less tax if they wanted to... they don't even have to go to another country. Yet the levels of inter state migration was lower than for poorer or middle class people. The reality is, that when you have that much money... place is actually more important than the extra $. If you are a millionaire, settled with a family and business... are you really going to up sticks and move just to pay a bit less tax?

Tell that to the French. Their 75% tax on high earners backfired spectacularly. And Sweden.

The US is different because there isn't a massive difference across states and there's only so many places you can go for top jobs. Even still, estimates suggest anything much more than 50% and Americans will start to move.

 

[11101]

The problem is that the austerity measures employed from 2010 onwards which came under the guise of fiscal responsibility essentially meant punishing ordinary people for the mistakes and greed of rich bankers and the like. Why should ordinary people accept that sort of politics instead of voting for people who instead offer them much more?

What people forget is that for years before 2010, those same ordinary people were being supported by the success of those rich bankers. It went both ways. Under Gordon Brown we made a deal that we would use financial services for our spending plans and accepted we would become reliant on it.

 

[ZupZup]

Tell that to the French. Their 75% tax on high earners backfired spectacularly. And Sweden.

The US is different because there isn't a massive difference across states and there's only so many places you can go for top jobs. Even still, estimates suggest anything much more than 50% and Americans will start to move.

I really can't be bothered with this... but nobody is talking about 75%.

"Estimates suggest"... of course they do.

 

[11101]

I really can't be bothered with this... but nobody is talking about 75%.

"Estimates suggest"... of course they do.

that's exactly what you said when trying to argue the other way that it wouldn't make a difference.

Anyway, we don't need estimates. We have France and Sweden. We know people will leave.

 

[finneh]

that's exactly what you said when trying to argue the other way that it wouldn't make a difference.

Anyway, we don't need estimates. We have France and Sweden. We know people will leave.

We also have situations in which taxes on things such as alcohol and cigarettes have forced people across borders to purchase goods.

That's before even looking at the fact that reducing the top rate of tax actually increased tax receipts. The same with Ireland having a greater proportion of tax take being corporation tax despite lower rates.

We're currently at the tip of the Laffer curve.

 

[11101]

Great series of posts, I agree with all of them. Including Sweet's, Momentum Labour won't win over those interested in fiscal responsibility, as your own post shows you find the very subject laughable.

There are loopholes need closing, but the point about existing wealth is a good one.

The problem about taxing existing wealth is that almost everybody has some. A lot of people have benefited from the huge rise in asset prices over the last decades. Its all well and good everybody crying about 'the rich' and the high income earners but its a different story when those people think they might have to pay a bit more themselves too.

 

[ZupZup]

that's exactly what you said when trying to argue the other way that it wouldn't make a difference.

Anyway, we don't need estimates. We have France and Sweden. We know people will leave.

No. I was referring to a factual study that had been carried out on the migration stats for every million dollar earner in the US.

 

[711]

The problem about taxing existing wealth is that almost everybody has some. A lot of people have benefited from the huge rise in asset prices over the last decades. Its all well and good everybody crying about 'the rich' and the high income earners but its a different story when those people think they might have to pay a bit more themselves too.

I think we all get people don't like paying taxes, and some can't get beyond that, there's nothing more to it for them, but the rest of us think about what's fair and hopefully what works.

 

[Smores]

The problem about taxing existing wealth is that almost everybody has some. A lot of people have benefited from the huge rise in asset prices over the last decades. Its all well and good everybody crying about 'the rich' and the high income earners but its a different story when those people think they might have to pay a bit more themselves too.

Not true at all, I'm a higher rate payer and would happily pay more. Many Labour members are in the same situation.

I've yet to read tax arguments on here and it not seem true that whatever the rate people would argue it's irresponsible to go higher. If the Tories lowered it 10 years in a row and Labour wanted to put it back to what it was just last year they'd be the same outcry. It's not the rates people have issue with it's the increase.

 

[11101]

Not true at all, I'm a higher rate payer and would happily pay more. Many Labour members are in the same situation.

I've yet to read tax arguments on here and it not seem true that whatever the rate people would argue it's irresponsible to go higher. If the Tories lowered it 10 years in a row and Labour wanted to put it back to what it was just last year they'd be the same outcry. It's not the rates people have issue with it's the increase.

Everybody's definition of what is more and what is acceptable is different.

Where I live now has a wealth tax on global assets. Because of some loopholes it costs me a few hundred quid. If those loopholes were closed it would cost me about 10k a year. I'd leave. Others wouldn't, and others would have already gone on the first 5k.

 

[nickm]

The problem is that the austerity measures employed from 2010 onwards which came under the guise of fiscal responsibility essentially meant punishing ordinary people for the mistakes and greed of rich bankers and the like. Why should ordinary people accept that sort of politics instead of voting for people who instead offer them much more?

Do you agree or not that there has to be some correlation between tax revenues and expenditure? We can debate the level of correlation and its phasing, but in general?

Austerity happened because tax revenues dropped like a stone, mainly from the banking and housing sectors. Maybe the mistake was the govt betting so much of spending on what turned out to be an unreliable source of revenue? Or in your words "rewarding ordinary people from the greed of rich bankers".

 

[EwanI Ted]

Not true at all, I'm a higher rate payer and would happily pay more. Many Labour members are in the same situation.

I've yet to read tax arguments on here and it not seem true that whatever the rate people would argue it's irresponsible to go higher. If the Tories lowered it 10 years in a row and Labour wanted to put it back to what it was just last year they'd be the same outcry. It's not the rates people have issue with it's the increase.

I kind of agree, though there are thresholds. I think the real issue is whether people trust the party spending those taxes. If people believe that the party will simply waste the money, then they’ll resist any increases in the amount taken. They may justify that feeling with some post hoc rationalisation, about laffer curves or whatever, but then we’re all guilty of that at times. Labour already have a harder time getting people trust them with money for various reasons. As their tax and spending promises increase that trust falls further and people push back more.

 

[BobbyManc]

Do you agree or not that there has to be some correlation between tax revenues and expenditure? We can debate the level of correlation and its phasing, but in general?

Austerity happened because tax revenues dropped like a stone, mainly from the banking and housing sectors. Maybe the mistake was the govt betting so much of spending on what turned out to be an unreliable source of revenue? Or in your words "rewarding ordinary people from the greed of rich bankers".

There was nothing inescapable about austerity. It was a political choice borne out of ideological convictions; it was never an economic necessity, and certainly not to the extent that it was imposed by Osborne.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

There was nothing inescapable about austerity. It was a political choice borne out of ideological convictions; it was never an economic necessity, and certainly not to the extent that it was imposed by Osborne.

Yep. Debt increased from 2010 anyway. It was austerity for the people and public services while corporation tax for businesses was reduced.

 

[esmufc07]

The UK deficit was £152bn in 2010. How would you have reduced that number?

 

[Smores]

How, how are we still having the same austerity argument?!? Have people really not figured it out yet i despair.

The deficit level was caused by the recession but still wasn't historically frightening and austerity was nothing more than a con for targeted cuts.

 

[nickm]

How, how are we still having the same austerity argument?!? Have people really not figured it out yet i despair.

The deficit level was caused by the recession but still wasn't historically frightening and austerity was nothing more than a con for targeted cuts.

It kind of was historically frightening. The following is a graph (top row) which shows just how big it was - it was the biggest as a % of gdp since the end of the war. We’d lost a large chunk of revenue, permanently. There has to be some correlation between revenue and expenditure. Now was there some politics around austerity? Yes. Could we have maybe borrowed more for longer, to give the economy time to recover faster? Perhaps. But there’s no way we could have borrowed £150bn a year indefinitely.

 

[nickm]

Not true at all, I'm a higher rate payer and would happily pay more. Many Labour members are in the same situation.

I've yet to read tax arguments on here and it not seem true that whatever the rate people would argue it's irresponsible to go higher. If the Tories lowered it 10 years in a row and Labour wanted to put it back to what it was just last year they'd be the same outcry. It's not the rates people have issue with it's the increase.

True. But it is also true that whatever the rate is, there’s always an argument that it should be higher.

 

[Red Dreams]

It kind of was historically frightening. The following is a graph (top row) which shows just how big it was - it was the biggest as a % of gdp since the end of the war. We’d lost a large chunk of revenue, permanently. There has to be some correlation between revenue and expenditure. Now was there some politics around austerity? Yes. Could we have maybe borrowed more for longer, to give the economy time to recover faster? Perhaps. But there’s no way we could have borrowed £150bn a year indefinitely.

Mate.
You are putting forward the same arguments here in the US that the Republicans paint.

Cut benefits to reduce the National Debt.
The fact is if we do not invest in Health care, Education and Social Security (Yes. They are investments because a health educated population is needed to grow the economy.)

Giving tax cuts and countless wars, which the same people are responsible for are the real reasons why the National Debt grows.

EDIT:
I meant Tax Cuts to the top earners.

 

[Smores]

It kind of was historically frightening. The following is a graph (top row) which shows just how big it was - it was the biggest as a % of gdp since the end of the war. We’d lost a large chunk of revenue, permanently. There has to be some correlation between revenue and expenditure. Now was there some politics around austerity? Yes. Could we have maybe borrowed more for longer, to give the economy time to recover faster? Perhaps. But there’s no way we could have borrowed £150bn a year indefinitely.

Yeah i meant to say spending to contrast austerity doh.

Indefinitely is a very misleading word to use, recessions take out your revenue yes but economies recover. You will always see spending increase as a % of GDP when a recession hits (obvious statement is obvious) and in turn deficits will go up. You can use that moment for political narrative as some do but most know it's just natural flow.

Our debt level on a historical basis was and remains low comparatively as does debt payments as % of gdp.

 

[esmufc07]

How, how are we still having the same austerity argument?!? Have people really not figured it out yet i despair.

The deficit level was caused by the recession but still wasn't historically frightening and austerity was nothing more than a con for targeted cuts.

FYI I didn't and don't support the depth of cuts that were made. I agree it was a political choice and before Brexit took over the language being used against those on benefits and immigrants to justify the cuts was shocking.

I just think, much like the myth that Labour caused the economic crisis, it's also a bit of a myth that we could have just carried on as normal in 2010 and ignored the £152bn deficit.

 

[Pexbo]

FYI I didn't and don't support the depth of cuts that were made. I agree it was a political choice and before Brexit took over the language being used against those on benefits and immigrants to justify the cuts was shocking.

I just think, much like the myth that Labour caused the economic crisis, it's also a bit of a myth that we could have just carried on as normal in 2010 and ignored the £152bn deficit.

You are such a Tory.

 

[esmufc07]

You are such a Tory.

Humbug

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Back to the 1960s, basic rate tax at 33%. Top rate around 90%. Abolish VAT - reintroduce Purchase Tax .
All the rich and talented people said goodbye .

 

[berbatrick]

As you would imagine I disagree with your economics. I do agree though that government investment absolutely has provided a foundation to a lot of the great technologies we have today, that's unquestionable. The question is whether those technologies (and others on top) would have been made had that money remained in the hands of business and entrepreneurs, rather than been stolen by government in the form of taxation. My view is they would have.

In terms of the deaths in hospitals you're acting like this isn't happening anyway in awful NHS hospitals around the country. Likewise deaths that needlessly occur on our dreadful road system every day.

I agree by the way that laws against monopolisation should be regulated more vociferously, however creating public sector monopolies is counterproductive to that.

The market we mustn't forget is merely a reflection of individuals. If consumers demand green products, they will get them. If they prioritise cheaper goods instead then they will get these. My faith is in individuals, not in business (business merely reflects those individuals).

The economics in my post weren't "mine". Econ 101 was a compuslory college course, and this is what I remember from it. Inelastic goods, the conditions for perfect competition, etc are all concepts not from Marx but from mainstream marginal economics. I used soe basic concepts from there to show what (successful) market competition means. If I wanted to be ideological, I would point out that a series of privatisations of basic services in the UK have resulted in a lack of competition, rising prices, and often worse serivice.

The excess death in the current NHS could very probably be solved by higher expenditure, to bring UK spending in line with more privatised systems like Switzerland or France:

(y-axis = percent GDP expenditure on healthcare; x-axis = percent of govt expenditure in total healthcare spending).


On your statement about monopolies - you don't seem to have read Econ 101 itself. Firstly the natural formation of monopolies (for example in the late 19th and early 20th century oil industry) shows that despite open competition (including the building of private railways) and the utter lack of government regulation, the market can tend towards larger size, less choice, super-profits etc. Secondly you seem to implicitly be saying, ignoring every point in my previous post, that competition, specifically market competition, is a cure-all and monopolies are necessarily bad. As a counterexample, you have the remarkable rapid gains in human health outcomes seen by monopolies as varied as the Soviet system, the Cuban system, and the NHS. None of these were subject to market competition, and they were at times greatly underfunded compared to others, yet produced better results. The same can be said for some transport companies like the publicly-owned trains in France. Again, no comeptition, great outcomes.

This doesn't mean the converse is necessarily true. But the trite, just-so, story about markets and competition and optimisation has a ton of caveats, holes, and failures too.

 

[Sweet Square]

Yeah i meant to say spending to contrast austerity doh.

Indefinitely is a very misleading word to use, recessions take out your revenue yes but economies recover. You will always see spending increase as a % of GDP when a recession hits (obvious statement is obvious) and in turn deficits will go up. You can use that moment for political narrative as some do but most know it's just natural flow.

Our debt level on a historical basis was and remains low comparatively as does debt payments as % of gdp.

Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries.” Alexei Sayle

 

[nickm]

Mate.
You are putting forward the same arguments here in the US that the Republicans paint.

Cut benefits to reduce the National Debt.
The fact is if we do not invest in Health care, Education and Social Security (Yes. They are investments because a health educated population is needed to grow the economy.)

Giving tax cuts and countless wars, which the same people are responsible for are the real reasons why the National Debt grows.

EDIT:
I meant Tax Cuts to the top earners.

Not really. Republicans don’t care about the deficit at all.

 

[nickm]

Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries.” Alexei Sayle

It’s a nice line but the financial crash wasn’t caused by govt spending. But govt spending was affected by it.