Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Fretwired

quarky said:

Lets do nothing then, and just let the gap grow and grow. 

You won't close the gap through the tax system. It's never worked anywhere. When Thatcher cut income tax the tax take went up and those that had exiled themselves in California came home.

quarky

As I wrote above, in the decades earlier, inequality was decreasing. Since the tax changes in the 80's here and in the US, and the polices since then, it has increased.

Do you just think that is all coincidence? The fact that inequality fell when the upper rate was much higher and climbed when it was much lower is like climate change and pirates?

Fretwired

quarky said:

As I wrote above, in the decades earlier, inequality was decreasing. Since the tax changes in the 80's here and in the US, and the polices since then, it has increased.

Do you just think that is all coincidence? The fact that inequality fell when the upper rate was much higher and climbed when it was much lower is like climate change and pirates?

Inequality fell in the 1970s as all the wealthy people pissed off to the USA and took their wealth with them. Inequality fell because there were far fewer rich people hence my comment about statistics. When the tax rates were cut the tax take went up which meant the government had more money to spend on the NHS and education and on alleviating poverty. Inequality may have increased but so did the lot of the people at the bottom. I'm no fan of Blair and Brown but inequality got worse under them but they had record tax receipts and spent the money on health, new schools and hospitals, the minimum wage and other benefits that supported the poor. You're looking the wrong way down the telescope.

scrumhalf

Inequality is handy phrase to use but it doesn't really mean anything in day-to-day life.

If I have enough, then whatever excess over that that you may have is not wholly relevant unless there is no other wealth available, and only then if my wealth falls.

Also, figures on spending are meaningless without context and without value-for-money audits. If spending on the NHS increases but is pissed away on, say, PFI contracts and ranks of non-clinical management with too little actually going into patient care, then the spending figure is irrelevant.

quarky

Fretwired said:

Inequality fell in the 1970s as all the wealthy people pissed off to the USA and took their wealth with them. Inequality fell because there were far fewer rich people hence my comment about statistics. When the tax rates were cut the tax take went up which meant the government had more money to spend on the NHS and education and on alleviating poverty. Inequality may have increased but so did the lot of the people at the bottom. I'm no fan of Blair and Brown but inequality got worse under them but they had record tax receipts and spent the money on health, new schools and hospitals, the minimum wage and other benefits that supported the poor. You're looking the wrong way down the telescope.

Ah OK. So inequality fell in the US and the UK because more rich people were going to the US. Sorry, I will believe the "meddled stats" as I think it makes a little more sense.

Fretwired

quarky said:

Fretwired said:

Inequality fell in the 1970s as all the wealthy people pissed off to the USA and took their wealth with them. Inequality fell because there were far fewer rich people hence my comment about statistics. When the tax rates were cut the tax take went up which meant the government had more money to spend on the NHS and education and on alleviating poverty. Inequality may have increased but so did the lot of the people at the bottom. I'm no fan of Blair and Brown but inequality got worse under them but they had record tax receipts and spent the money on health, new schools and hospitals, the minimum wage and other benefits that supported the poor. You're looking the wrong way down the telescope.

Ah OK. So inequality fell in the US and the UK because more rich people were going to the US. Sorry, I will believe the "meddled stats" as I think it makes a little more sense.

I was around in the 1970s and remember all the rock stars and film stars leaving Britain due to tax .. fact not fiction. The wealthy simply left.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-exile-the-refuge-of-britains-richest-non-doms-781521.html

quarky

That is anecdotal.

I just find the desperation to avoid accepting that when the top tax rate was much higher, inequality decreased, bizarre. If you had *any* explanation to fit, I could understand, but you don't seem to.

Just like you acceptance that this ever-widening gap is no bad thing, or even actually a good thing. Coupled with your statement that someone could be a billionaire (ie, in the top 100 rich list) but not be able to pay tax because they are "cash poor"), (so because of that hypothetical but completely unrealistic scenario, we shouldn't tax the rich more) leaves me almost speechless.

Defending the free market and capitalism is one thing, and it is good. But the common defence from socialists is that all the failed socialist states are imperfect or impure. While it is no valid defence of socialism, it is factually correct, and the same (imperfect and impure) can be said for capitalistic states too. There is no perfect implementation which is why we have a society with safety nets, because actually, deep-down, people understand that. So it is perfectly fine @fretwired to be a capitalist and accept state intervention, or even agree that it can be a good thing. It is in fact reality.

Fretwired

@quarky .. it's not anecdotal .. Google is your friend. I'd like you to provide some stats to back up your claims as even Gordon Brown agreed that higher taxes led to lower tax takes, which can lead to lower equality, as the wealthy moved money offshore and left the country. Richard Branson actually bought Nekker Island where he still lives to avoid tax. Your argument boils down to the manipulation of stats to prove a political point. I was studying economics in 1975 and this was a hot topic.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-28/raising-taxes-on-the-rich-can-t-fix-inequality

And why do you simply bang on about wealth? The biggest inequality in our country is opportunity - just look at our political class. A high proportion are from a private school and Oxbridge.

hungrymark

I'm no expert but I think their point is that inequality dropped not because the poor suddenly got wealthier but because the rich suddenly stopped getting richer or they buggered off. Who does that benefit? The poor aren't actually any better off, and you just get less tax coming into the system because the people who used to pay most of it aren't there anymore.

That said, this has been a very interesting thread and a reminder of why I come back to this forum. As an educated (but fairly ignorant of economics) layman who likes to think he can evaluate an argument, I have to say I find the @Fretwired, @CabbageCat etc position more convincing but well played both sides. Impressive and informed stuff.

Right, carry on.

chrispy108

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Raising the tax rate doesn't necessarily increase the tax intake.

No one is saying a billionaire shouldn't pay tax, they are saying the convoluted idea you propose is unworkable. Billionaire's already pay lots of tax, and create lots of jobs.

DarnWeight

I thought the myth of trickle-down economics had been thoroughly debunked by 30+ years of neoliberal fuck-piggery (or should that be pig-fuckery).  Anyway, here's a good piece from last year that sets things out pretty convincingly...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-wealth-that-failed-to-trickle-down-report-suggests-rich-do-get-richer-while-poor-stay-poor-9989183.html

chrispy108

You've just linked to a centre-left wing newspaper "analysis" which is just a press release about a "report" by a centre-left American thinktank (of which it's funding is largely secret), which Ed Balls helped write.

Hardly an unbiased source giving an unexpected opinion is it?

quarky

Fretwired said:

@quarky .. it's not anecdotal .. Google is your friend. I'd like you to provide some stats to back up your claims as even Gordon Brown agreed that higher taxes led to lower tax takes, which can lead to lower equality, as the wealthy moved money offshore and left the country. Richard Branson actually bought Nekker Island where he still lives to avoid tax. Your argument boils down to the manipulation of stats to prove a political point. I was studying economics in 1975 and this was a hot topic.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-28/raising-taxes-on-the-rich-can-t-fix-inequality

And why do you simply bang on about wealth? The biggest inequality in our country is opportunity - just look at our political class. A high proportion are from a private school and Oxbridge.

Nekker Island? I am not going to compete on anecdotes. There is plenty of actual data out there is you want to look.

Opportunity? Good job growing on in a poor household has no statistical effect on how the future turns out for children...

hungrymark

Yes, but that is about the poor being poor. Which isn't ideal, obviously. But why is it a problem if the rich are rich?

Drew_TNBD

um.... I don't think that is true at all.

quarky said:

Opportunity? Good job growing on in a poor household has no statistical effect on how the future turns out for children...

Drew_TNBD

skankdelvar

Bugger all this capital gains tedium. When Mr Corbyn publishes his tax return next year we will at last discover how much rent he has been charging his lodger the Daily Mail 'digital journalist' Mr Gian Volpicelli.

Assuming Mr Volpicelli's rent included 'board' as well as lodging, the cost of providing breakfast tea, toast, and tasty marmalade might be tax-deductible. One anticipates with deferred pleasure Mr Corbyn's submission of receipts for Robertson's Silver Shred and the well-known Venezuelan butter substitute '¡No Puedo Creer Que No Es Mantequilla!'

quarky

hungrymark said:

Yes, but that is about the poor being poor. Which isn't ideal, obviously. But why is it a problem if the rich are rich?

It is the increasing rich/poor gap that is the problem, and the concentration of more and more wealth in a smaller and smaller wedge of the population.

quarky

Drew_fx said:

um.... I don't think that is true at all.

quarky said:

Opportunity? Good job growing on in a poor household has no statistical effect on how the future turns out for children...

No, I don't think it is true either, but according to some people here, it is all about the opportunity. The real world doesn't work that way.

Drew_TNBD

quarky said:

hungrymark said:

Yes, but that is about the poor being poor. Which isn't ideal, obviously. But why is it a problem if the rich are rich?

It is the increasing rich/poor gap that is the problem, and the concentration of more and more wealth in a smaller and smaller wedge of the population.

Why is the gap a problem? How does the gap manifest in the world and what negative consequences does it have for people? Does it have any positive consequences?