The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Awol]

Thank you, we're here all week.

 

EDIT:

On a serious note, I have no issue with where people send their children to school and if that includes public schools then that's fair enough. The obvious hypocrisy of leftwing politicians who do the best for their children while exhorting others not to do the same is the thing that destroys their credibility in my eyes.

Clearly the solution is for left wing politicians to stop trying to dictate people's choices over how and where they choose to educate their own children, then there would be no hypocrisy to criticise. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by Awol

[HanoiVillan]

No problem! It's just amusing to see you accusing somebody else of 'rank hypocrisy'. 

[tonyh29]

I don't know why kids don't turn around and tell their parents to go screw themselves when told which school they're going to, as clearly if they're planning a career in politics it's only going to be held against them for life if they go to a posh one.  Heaven forbid people in high positions having in theory the best education you can get.

ah but unless your name is Diane Abbot , nowadays you send your kids to a state school to prove to the electorate that you are one of them  ... so you **** up your children's chances in order to win votes 

strange world we live in sometimes

Is this you saying you think Diane Abbott was unfairly criticised for this? I don't understand why you mentioned it otherwise. 

Presumably Tony was referring to the rank hypocrisy of preaching the gospel of comprehensive education for all while sending her own children to private school.

 

I have to admire conservatives for this. You've managed, totally successfully, to frame the oh-so-important issue of 'where politicians send their children to school' in such a way that it is literally impossible for any left-wing politician to win. I'm serious, it's diabolically brilliant. It's a three-step process, observe carefully how it's done:

1) State that public school is much better than state school in terms of educational outcomes. 

2) When a left-wing politician, like, say, Jeremy Corbyn wants to send his children to state school, you can say something like this: 'Why any parent would put their own political bias before trying to do all in their power to improve their child's life chances is inexplicable to me' (Awol, 1 hour ago)

3) When a left-wing politician, like, say, Diane Abbott chooses to send her children to private school, you can say something like this: 'Presumably Tony was referring to the rank hypocrisy of preaching the gospel of comprehensive education for all while sending her own children to private school' (Awol, 5 minutes ago)

As I say, you have to admire the brilliance of it. 

or as we say in Eton

[HanoiVillan]

Thank you, we're here all week.

 

EDIT:

On a serious note, I have no issue with where people send their children to school and if that includes public schools then that's fair enough. The obvious hypocrisy of leftwing politicians who do the best for their children while exhorting others not to do the same is the thing that destroys their credibility in my eyes.

Clearly the solution is for left wing politicians to stop trying to dictate people's choices over how and where they choose to educate their own children, then there would be no hypocrisy to criticise. 

Could you please provide me with one example of a left-wing politician who has sent their children to private school 'exhorting others not to do the same'? NOTE: Stating a belief that it would be a better education system if everyone went to an equally excellent state school doesn't count, for obvious reasons. If you can find such a person, then they will indeed be guilty of hypocrisy. I'm certainly not aware that Diane Abbott, who was the person under discussion, has ever 'exhorted' people not to go to private school. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[PongRiddims]

Just caught up on thread, thanks all for explaining why the Guardian wasn't massively supportive of Corbyn, some very interesting points.

 

I have to say, Corbyn is one step closer for me to voting Labour again in the future. My concern with him, and any other left wing politics really, is how far the work/welfare policies go. A lot of left leaners seem to dislike success, which I can't understand, but I don't believe he's made any remarks about raising taxes for high earners as yet, just clamping down on tax evading and avoidance, is that correct? Also, I'm not against benefits or welfare but I think it needs a complete review and overhaul.

I think you're going to find that he is definitely and absolutely in favour of increasing taxes for high earners, though I'm sure he'd disagree with your characterisation of doing so as 'disliking success'. 

I expected that may be the case, as it seems to be the only option the left can consider, not something I can ever get my head round, one flat rate of tax (slightly higher than the current one) from top to bottom always seems a much more logical option but then I'm not an economist or a politician.

Still, a lot of what I've seen, read and heard about JC sits well with me thus far.

[HanoiVillan]

Just caught up on thread, thanks all for explaining why the Guardian wasn't massively supportive of Corbyn, some very interesting points.

 

I have to say, Corbyn is one step closer for me to voting Labour again in the future. My concern with him, and any other left wing politics really, is how far the work/welfare policies go. A lot of left leaners seem to dislike success, which I can't understand, but I don't believe he's made any remarks about raising taxes for high earners as yet, just clamping down on tax evading and avoidance, is that correct? Also, I'm not against benefits or welfare but I think it needs a complete review and overhaul.

 

I think you're going to find that he is definitely and absolutely in favour of increasing taxes for high earners, though I'm sure he'd disagree with your characterisation of doing so as 'disliking success'. 

 

I expected that may be the case, as it seems to be the only option the left can consider, not something I can ever get my head round, one flat rate of tax (slightly higher than the current one) from top to bottom always seems a much more logical option but then I'm not an economist or a politician.

 

Still, a lot of what I've seen, read and heard about JC sits well with me thus far.

Flat taxes are a terrible idea, because of the decreasing marginal utility of money, ie. money is worth more to poor people than to rich people. Your tax idea would massively redistribute wealth from poor people and hand it to rich people. There are a number of reasons why this is a poor idea, beyond just fairness. It would be difficult to fund the Exchequer if rich people paid far less tax, and the government would need to be paying out more money, in terms of income support and tax credits to people on low incomes. In other words, if you don't want to bankrupt the government, you don't want a flat tax. The fact that it looks simpler is irrelevant. 

[Awol]

Thank you, we're here all week.

 

EDIT:

On a serious note, I have no issue with where people send their children to school and if that includes public schools then that's fair enough. The obvious hypocrisy of leftwing politicians who do the best for their children while exhorting others not to do the same is the thing that destroys their credibility in my eyes.

Clearly the solution is for left wing politicians to stop trying to dictate people's choices over how and where they choose to educate their own children, then there would be no hypocrisy to criticise. 

Could you please provide me with one example of a left-wing politician who has sent their children to private school 'exhorting others not to do the same'? NOTE: Stating a belief that it would be a better education system if everyone went to an equally excellent state school doesn't count, for obvious reasons. If you can find such a person, then they will indeed be guilty of hypocrisy. I'm certainly not aware that Diane Abbott, who was the person under discussion, has ever 'exhorted' people not to go to private school. 

Abbott defiant in Private School row

Labour MP Diane Abbott made a second attempt to defend her decision to send her son to a fee-paying school, after she was attacked by her neighbouring MP in East London.

When the revelation first broke more than 10 days ago that the MP, who had criticised both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman over their choice of schools, was sending her child to the £10,000 per year City of London school, Ms Abbott initially refused to comment.

Since then she has admitted her decision was "indefensible" but attacked the state of the education system in her Hackney constituency - one of the most deprived areas in the country.

How's that?

[Jarpie]

I think progressive tax rate is good idea but it should be constructed so that the tax rate wouldn't be too high for those who make more money, as they can either just earn less (as they can afford to, when the lower income people can't) or then they'll find ways to avoid paying taxes if they think they're being demanded to pay too much than it's fair.

I'm not economist so I can't say what those rates would be but my gut says that if I'd earning lot of money, I certainly would find ways to pay less taxes if the rate would be 45-50% or more as I don't think anyone should pay (over) half or close to it for taxes of what they earn.

[HanoiVillan]

Thank you, we're here all week.

 

EDIT:

On a serious note, I have no issue with where people send their children to school and if that includes public schools then that's fair enough. The obvious hypocrisy of leftwing politicians who do the best for their children while exhorting others not to do the same is the thing that destroys their credibility in my eyes.

Clearly the solution is for left wing politicians to stop trying to dictate people's choices over how and where they choose to educate their own children, then there would be no hypocrisy to criticise. 

Could you please provide me with one example of a left-wing politician who has sent their children to private school 'exhorting others not to do the same'? NOTE: Stating a belief that it would be a better education system if everyone went to an equally excellent state school doesn't count, for obvious reasons. If you can find such a person, then they will indeed be guilty of hypocrisy. I'm certainly not aware that Diane Abbott, who was the person under discussion, has ever 'exhorted' people not to go to private school. 

 

Abbott defiant in Private School row

 

Labour MP Diane Abbott made a second attempt to defend her decision to send her son to a fee-paying school, after she was attacked by her neighbouring MP in East London.

When the revelation first broke more than 10 days ago that the MP, who had criticised both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman over their choice of schools, was sending her child to the £10,000 per year City of London school, Ms Abbott initially refused to comment.

Since then she has admitted her decision was "indefensible" but attacked the state of the education system in her Hackney constituency - one of the most deprived areas in the country.

How's that?

Fair enough, she clearly admits her own hypocrisy there. 

However, I think you and I know full well that you would make exactly the same criticism of any Labour MP who sent their child to private school. whether they had previously said anything else or not. 

EDIT: That's unfair of me. I have no idea whether you personally would make that same criticism, so please accept my apology for that. However, my experience of these arguments - and I've seen many of them - is that the accusation is always made of Labour MP's that they are 'hypocrits' if they send their child to private school. It isn't hypocrisy, because to argue for a better system to replace the current system isn't the same as saying you shouldn't make your peace with the current system while it exists. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[HanoiVillan]

I think progressive tax rate is good idea but it should be constructed so that the tax rate wouldn't be too high for those who make more money, as they can either just earn less (as they can afford to, when the lower income people can't) or then they'll find ways to avoid paying taxes if they think they're being demanded to pay too much than it's fair.

I'm not economist so I can't say what those rates would be but my gut says that if I'd earning lot of money, I certainly would find ways to pay less taxes if the rate would be 45-50% or more as I don't think anyone should pay (over) half or close to it for taxes of what they earn.

Of course wealthy people can often find ways of lowering their real rate of tax. In small amounts, this isn't a problem. In large amounts, it is a problem, and you end up with a situation like Greece where the government can't fund itself in large part because of systemic tax avoidance. Rich people do actually need to contribute money to the government of the country, it really doesn't work if they don't. 

On your second paragraph, a 50% tax rate on the highest earners doesn't mean they pay half of their income in tax, it means they pay half of their income over a certain threshold in tax. In the UK, you only pay the highest rate, 45%, on the money you earn over £150,000. 

[Rodders]

need to close all the loopholes explicitly to get the most tax first. I doubt the mega rich in the 40% bracket at the moment actually even pay that, so might as well raise it to 60% just so we can try and get 30% from the ****.

People only say it's unworkable because the other people find ways round it - well the solution is simple enough - stop the **** ways round it. 50% tax bracket, and those who dodge it are de-naturalised and banned from earning any future profits from any business even tangentially connected to the UK. **** em. They earn more than they really need anyway ( note : this is not the same as saying everyone should earn the same before someone willfully misinterprets it ).

 

Or use incentives to encourage them to pay up and support communities. There is no social responsibility any more - it's all a mathematical "get stakeholders the money and that's it" like some milton **** nut friedmann drone.

but meh, I'd line them all up against a wall and shoot them. money created from money is creating a two lane economy - the other being an anemic productive economy. **** the financiers, and the super rich. They don't earn their billions by being useful and starting business' that employ british [ residents as opposed to citizens, as in normal people living here( of any nationality - just to clarify really ) people, pay proper wages and create proper shit we can export - most if it is done through dodgy short term trading or hostile take-overs and private equity horseshit that provides next to no value or return for the exchequer and the general economy ( you know in the world outside that terrorist haven that is the City )

Edited September 14, 2015 by Rodders

[Jarpie]

I think progressive tax rate is good idea but it should be constructed so that the tax rate wouldn't be too high for those who make more money, as they can either just earn less (as they can afford to, when the lower income people can't) or then they'll find ways to avoid paying taxes if they think they're being demanded to pay too much than it's fair.

I'm not economist so I can't say what those rates would be but my gut says that if I'd earning lot of money, I certainly would find ways to pay less taxes if the rate would be 45-50% or more as I don't think anyone should pay (over) half or close to it for taxes of what they earn.

Of course wealthy people can often find ways of lowering their real rate of tax. In small amounts, this isn't a problem. In large amounts, it is a problem, and you end up with a situation like Greece where the government can't fund itself in large part because of systemic tax avoidance. Rich people do actually need to contribute money to the government of the country, it really doesn't work if they don't. 

On your second paragraph, a 50% tax rate on the highest earners doesn't mean they pay half of their income in tax, it means they pay half of their income over a certain threshold in tax. In the UK, you only pay the highest rate, 45%, on the money you earn over £150,000. 

Yeah, of course the loopholes need to be closed and tax avoidance minimized, and everyone needs to contribute so that government doesn't run out of the money. I remember reading some arguments from the USA that when under some president they lowered the taxes for those who makes most money, the tax income actually raised because they felt that they weren't asked to pay more than what's fair so they didn't avoid paying the taxes, so I don't think it's necessarely that black and white that rich people avoids paying taxes because they are greedy assholes who don't want to contribute.

Edit: So as with pretty much everything, maybe trying to find a balance on which everyone is happy about, sure some rich are probably assholes who would avoid paying taxes no matter what, but some would probably stop avoid paying taxes if they'd feel that they're not asked to pay more than what's fair. Although, I grant that it's impossible to say how much of either group there are.

When it comes to Greece, their economic fall was due multitude of problems, such as people in public/civil service getting bonuses for showing up in time to work, for using computer at work and so on (taken from here http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/04/28/in_greece_you_get_a_bonus_for_showing_up_for_work.html), so I don't think their economic situation was just due the systematic tax avoidance but also crazy spending although probably a big part of it yeah, but maybe (I'm not saying it is necessarely so) people avoided paying taxes if they knew how much of their money the government is wasting.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Jarpie

[HanoiVillan]

I think progressive tax rate is good idea but it should be constructed so that the tax rate wouldn't be too high for those who make more money, as they can either just earn less (as they can afford to, when the lower income people can't) or then they'll find ways to avoid paying taxes if they think they're being demanded to pay too much than it's fair.

I'm not economist so I can't say what those rates would be but my gut says that if I'd earning lot of money, I certainly would find ways to pay less taxes if the rate would be 45-50% or more as I don't think anyone should pay (over) half or close to it for taxes of what they earn.

Of course wealthy people can often find ways of lowering their real rate of tax. In small amounts, this isn't a problem. In large amounts, it is a problem, and you end up with a situation like Greece where the government can't fund itself in large part because of systemic tax avoidance. Rich people do actually need to contribute money to the government of the country, it really doesn't work if they don't. 

On your second paragraph, a 50% tax rate on the highest earners doesn't mean they pay half of their income in tax, it means they pay half of their income over a certain threshold in tax. In the UK, you only pay the highest rate, 45%, on the money you earn over £150,000. 

Yeah, of course the loopholes need to be closed and tax avoidance minimized, and everyone needs to contribute so that government doesn't run out of the money. I remember reading some arguments from the USA that when under some president they lowered the taxes for those who makes most money, the tax income actually raised because they felt that they weren't asked to pay more than what's fair so they didn't avoid paying the taxes, so I don't think it's necessarely that black and white that rich people avoids paying taxes because they are greedy assholes who don't want to contribute.[1]

Edit: So as with pretty much everything, maybe trying to find a balance on which everyone is happy about, sure some rich are probably assholes who would avoid paying taxes no matter what, but some would probably stop avoid paying taxes if they'd feel that they're not asked to pay more than what's fair. Although, I grant that it's impossible to say how much of either group there are.

When it comes to Greece, their economic fall was due multitude of problems[2], such as people in public/civil service getting bonuses for showing up in time to work, for using computer at work and so on (taken from here http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/04/28/in_greece_you_get_a_bonus_for_showing_up_for_work.html), so I don't think their economic situation was just due the systematic tax avoidance but also crazy spending although probably a big part of it yeah, but maybe (I'm not saying it is necessarely so) people avoided paying taxes if they knew how much of their money the government is wasting.

Wow, a lot of points! I highlighted two:

1] I didn't say that they were!

2] It certainly was due to many factors. Even if Greece didn't have a problem with tax avoidance, the economy would still have tanked. But the tax avoidance sure didn't help!

[Jarpie]

Yeah, of course the loopholes need to be closed and tax avoidance minimized, and everyone needs to contribute so that government doesn't run out of the money. I remember reading some arguments from the USA that when under some president they lowered the taxes for those who makes most money, the tax income actually raised because they felt that they weren't asked to pay more than what's fair so they didn't avoid paying the taxes, so I don't think it's necessarely that black and white that rich people avoids paying taxes because they are greedy assholes who don't want to contribute.[1]

Edit: So as with pretty much everything, maybe trying to find a balance on which everyone is happy about, sure some rich are probably assholes who would avoid paying taxes no matter what, but some would probably stop avoid paying taxes if they'd feel that they're not asked to pay more than what's fair. Although, I grant that it's impossible to say how much of either group there are.

When it comes to Greece, their economic fall was due multitude of problems[2], such as people in public/civil service getting bonuses for showing up in time to work, for using computer at work and so on (taken from here http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/04/28/in_greece_you_get_a_bonus_for_showing_up_for_work.html), so I don't think their economic situation was just due the systematic tax avoidance but also crazy spending although probably a big part of it yeah, but maybe (I'm not saying it is necessarely so) people avoided paying taxes if they knew how much of their money the government is wasting.

Wow, a lot of points! I highlighted two:

1] I didn't say that they were!

2] It certainly was due to many factors. Even if Greece didn't have a problem with tax avoidance, the economy would still have tanked. But the tax avoidance sure didn't help!

1] Ah, good that it got sorted out then, also I thought it'd be good to clarify what was behind my thinking so there wouldn't be misunderstandings :).

2] Yep, and I thought Finland has crazy infrastructure and lots of unnecessary spending but what I've seen about Greece...WOW.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

maximum wage ftw.

actually i think Corbyn  has argued for maximum wage at some point.

 

[snowychap]

 

2] It certainly was due to many factors. Even if Greece didn't have a problem with tax avoidance, the economy would still have tanked. But the tax avoidance sure didn't help!

The reasons for the Greek economy being a basket case were multifarious. Selecting one or two that fit a particular political viewpoint, as you suggest, is crazee mental.

[HanoiVillan]

For sure. I'm simply pointing out that tax avoidance does have real-world consequences. Of course it's only one of a multiplicity of factors. But, as I said, it certainly didn't help (You'll notice that it's not only in fiscal terms that it didn't help - creditors used it as one reason to have less sympathy for the Greek situation, and it was one part of the narrative of 'lazy southern Europeans' that we've seen developed over the last few years, even though there are entirely understandable reasons why it occurred). Overall, tax avoidance is estimated to cost Greece around 6% more of GDP than other OECD nations, according to Haris Theoharis, who was until recently the man in charge of tax collection. 

As I say, none of this means it was the only factor, just an important one. 

[MakemineVanilla]

Should Corbyn have placed women in the Great Offices of State?

[tonyh29]

From my recollection over dinner with a mate I met who lives out there   .... Greece have never written off old tax debts , unlike almost every other country ... so there's is more of an accounting issue rather than tax avoidance as such   .. you can make an argument that they are the only ones doing it correctly and everyone else is using creative accounting

but where Greece falls down is the black economy where they are running at 27% compared to around 11% in the UK  and the fact they are one of the worse countries in Europe at collecting VAT

 

tax avoidance is a factor for sure , but not THE factor

 

Edited September 15, 2015 by tonyh29

[bickster]

Should Corbyn have placed women in the Great Offices of State?

Well if the best fit was Angela Eagle for Shadow Chancellor, definitely not