Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

quarky

hungrymark said:
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.

Sod that. Screw them both for making me look like a socialist

Drew_TNBD

quarky said:

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.

Well... growing up on a poor estate prevents you from having opportunities, but there are other factors as well. It's a murky topic and deserves a thread all of it's own.

chrispy108

You mispelt communist....

DarnWeight

chrispy108 said:

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?

Well, if you read the piece, it does contain comment from fund managers and banking professionals, so I'd argue it's not a promo piece.  And, to be honest, given the massive right-wing bias in the media at large, where else would you expect to find a piece challenging a fairly central tenet of neoliberal orthodoxy?  A Murdoch outfit?  The BBC?  Unlikely.

quarky

Drew_fx said:

quarky said:

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?

There is evidence both ways, but there is evidence that even a lot of the rich accept (the really rich) that they are better off too with less inequality, because if nothing else, it leads to less growth through less consumer spending (how can people spend what they don't have?).

Also, I personally don't like the idea of the rich getting richer, because unfortunately, money buys power and influence. Does anyone really doubt that? Do we really want more and more power and influence condensed into a smaller and smaller subset?

There are loads of reasons though.

Some inequality is fine. Actually more than that, in our current economic system it is essential. But a lot of the reason we have a middle class in the first place is because of redistribution of wealth. Without that, there is no middle class. That redistribution doesn't have to be done by taxation, but without taxation, it is incredibly difficult, and the populist position in this thread seems to be that inequality isn't a problem, or it it will be fixed in some other way (which hasn't been disclosed).

quarky

Drew_fx said:

Well... growing up on a poor estate prevents you from having opportunities, but there are other factors as well. It's a murky topic and deserves a thread all of it's own.

Yep, it isn't just money. But would the top 10% and the bottom 10% have the same statistical outcome with the same parents? Unless someone is going to convince me that people better off don't spend money on better schools, better resources, extra tuition, etc., I am unlikely to find the argument that there is no link between wealth and opportunity compelling.

@fretwired said that a high percentage of politicians are from Oxbridge. While I would question whether being a politician is the same as being successful, this is an interesting article (although from 2010).

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/22/percentage-poor-pupils-oxbridge-one-percent ;

Drew, I know you are not saying it is nothing to do with being rich and poor, but for those saying it is all about "opportunities" and "education", I would be interested to know what they think the cause is is it nothing to do with wealth.

quarky

chrispy108 said:

You mispelt communist....

Thanks

PolarityMan

So one interesting observation is that if you divide the total tax income by the potential working population in the UK you get a figure of £18,421.

Assuming a nominal tax exposure, including NI of about 50% that means you need to be on £36k just to be paying "your fair share". If we want to improve the country I don't think we should be asking how to squeeze more money out of people. We should be asking what the fuck are the government doing that is worth £18k per person per year.

What we have isnt a problem with income disparity, it's a public spending problem. 

PolarityMan

Or to put it another way I suspect you could double the tax take and only see marginal improvement in living conditions / public services etc.

Drew_TNBD

quarky said:

Drew_fx said:

Well... growing up on a poor estate prevents you from having opportunities, but there are other factors as well. It's a murky topic and deserves a thread all of it's own.

Yep, it isn't just money. But would the top 10% and the bottom 10% have the same statistical outcome with the same parents? Unless someone is going to convince me that people better off don't spend money on better schools, better resources, extra tuition, etc., I am unlikely to find the argument that there is no link between wealth and opportunity laughable.

@fretwired said that a high percentage of politicians are from Oxbridge. While I would question whether being a politician is the same as being successful, this is an interesting article (although from 2010).

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/22/percentage-poor-pupils-oxbridge-one-percent ;

Drew, I know you are not saying it is nothing to do with being rich and poor, but for those saying it is all about "opportunities" and "education", I would be interested to know what they think the cause is is it nothing to do with wealth.

Actually I think you're kinda circling one of the central issues - parents.

Parents who are stressed, worrying about money and the house, and working long hours in shitty jobs that they don't enjoy... largely don't make good parents - and have a higher propensity for psychologically and physically abusing their kids.

Rich parents don't have those woes, and their kids grow up in nice environments and they get every chance to flourish.

Sambostar

I'm gonna go on the DLA and have lots of ginger children by different women because my back hurts, you lot can pay for it.  I'm doing my bit for procreating and securing a diverse and genetically sound genepool of the future.

UnclePsychosis

Statistically speaking, on the whole parents who earn "good" incomes tend to have done well at school and in the education system.They (on the whole) know how to help their own offspring do the same. 

"poor" parents are more likely to have done less well at school and in further education. They don't necessarily know how to help their children do better than they did. Its a cycle that repeats. 

Drew_TNBD

Sambostar said:

I'm gonna go on the DLA and have lots of ginger children by different women because my back hurts, you lot can pay for it.  I'm doing my bit for procreating and securing a diverse and genetically sound genepool of the future.

You're never gonna get laid.

Fretwired

Drew_fx said:

quarky said:

Drew_fx said:

Well... growing up on a poor estate prevents you from having opportunities, but there are other factors as well. It's a murky topic and deserves a thread all of it's own.

Yep, it isn't just money. But would the top 10% and the bottom 10% have the same statistical outcome with the same parents? Unless someone is going to convince me that people better off don't spend money on better schools, better resources, extra tuition, etc., I am unlikely to find the argument that there is no link between wealth and opportunity laughable.

@fretwired said that a high percentage of politicians are from Oxbridge. While I would question whether being a politician is the same as being successful, this is an interesting article (although from 2010).

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/22/percentage-poor-pupils-oxbridge-one-percent ;

Drew, I know you are not saying it is nothing to do with being rich and poor, but for those saying it is all about "opportunities" and "education", I would be interested to know what they think the cause is is it nothing to do with wealth.

Actually I think you're kinda circling one of the central issues - parents.

Parents who are stressed, worrying about money and the house, and working long hours in shitty jobs that they don't enjoy... largely don't make good parents - and have a higher propensity for psychologically and physically abusing their kids.

Rich parents don't have those woes, and their kids grow up in nice environments and they get every chance to flourish.

Check the stats .. lots of kids from wealthy parents go off the rails and don't do well as parents have high flying careers and outsource their kids to nannies and the boarding schools. The problem with this issue is it's complex ...

As for taxing people I sat in a meeting with some, mostly Labour MPs, about 10 years ago, including Blunkett who is a nice guy in which they stated how poor the taxation system is in delivering results. For example for every £10 in tax only £1 gets spent on front line services - the other £9 gets lost in the system. That's why Prescott wanted unitary authorities with tax raising powers - it would have meant £6 or more reaching front line services at the taxes could be raised locally with a central grant from government and as it was more effective taxes wouldn't have to rise.. The Tories are now going some way to fixing this by allowing local authorities to keep taxes they raise locally.

The biggest impact on poverty is done at a community level - it's about housing, social services, support for parents and kids and education.

tabbycat

DarnWeight said:

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

a-f*cking-men. thanks for the comment and the link @DarnWeight

more here:

"The west’s leading economic thinktank on Tuesday dismissed the concept of trickle-down economics as it found that the UK economy would have been more than 20% bigger had the gap between rich and poor not widened since the 1980s."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report

"The idea that increased income inequality makes economies more dynamic has been rejected by an International Monetary Fund study, which shows the widening income gap between rich and poor is bad for growth.

A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens.

The study – covering advanced, emerging and developing countries – said technological progress, weaker trade unions, globalisation and tax policies that favoured the wealthy had all played their part in making widening inequality “the defining challenge of our time”.

The IMF report said the way income is distributed matters for growth. “If the income share of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth,” said the report."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study

tabbycat

CabbageCat said:

Why should anyone care how much the rich own?

My take on inequity of property is "mind your own f*cking business".

a) because increasing inequality is proven to be damaging to society.

b) you and louis xvi.

Axe_meister

I don't have a problem with how much the rich have but they need to spend the money not hoard it.
Invest in poor areas and create new jobs. They would do a more efficient job than governments and make a long term profit to boot

quarky

Fretwired;1039359" said:
Check the stats .. lots of kids from wealthy parents go off the rails and don't do well as parents have high flying careers and outsource their kids to nannies and the boarding schools. The problem with this issue is it's complex ...

Sure, as I said though, are you honestly going to claim that someone from the bottom 10% is as likely to succeed as someone in the top 10%?

As for taxing people I sat in a meeting with some, mostly Labour MPs, about 10 years ago, including Blunkett who is a nice guy in which they stated how poor the taxation system is in delivering results. For example for every £10 in tax only £1 gets spent on front line services - the other £9 gets lost in the system. That's why Prescott wanted unitary authorities with tax raising powers - it would have meant £6 or more reaching front line services at the taxes could be raised locally with a central grant from government and as it was more effective taxes wouldn't have to rise.. The Tories are now going some way to fixing this by allowing local authorities to keep taxes they raise locally.

Nice anecdote. Not sure what you are trying to say, but I appreciate it

The biggest impact on poverty is done at a community level - it's about housing, social services, support for parents and kids and education.

Hey, I am all for divestiture of power and decision making to a local level. I think a lot more should be done in that regard. That doesn't change the fact that someone in the top 10% is way more likely to go to a good university than someone from the bottom 10%, and the the financial resources of the family that kids grow up in, has a definite impact on their success later in life. Moving spending power down to a local level isn't going to fix that. Besides, with talk about community and social services, you sound like a socialist

Axe_meister said:

I don't have a problem with how much the rich have but they need to spend the money not hoard it.
Invest in poor areas and create new jobs. They would do a more efficient job than governments and make a long term profit to boot

And that is a big part of the problem. The rich can make money way faster than they can spend it, due to the power of capital and compound interest. That is why the tax system is a good (IMO) way to tackle that. No one has suggested any other alternatives here besides denying it is actually a problem, or basically leaving them to it.

Evilmags

Tax is just theft. You have to be pretty dumb to honestly believe that the people who saddled the country with 4 years income per person worth of debt can be trusted to run a piss up in a brewery. Politicians have the perfect job. If they totally screw the economy they get to be in opposition amd get paid. No skin in the game and very little to lose.

ICBM

PolarityMan said:

So one interesting observation is that if you divide the total tax income by the potential working population in the UK you get a figure of £18,421.

Assuming a nominal tax exposure, including NI of about 50% that means you need to be on £36k just to be paying "your fair share". If we want to improve the country I don't think we should be asking how to squeeze more money out of people. We should be asking what the fuck are the government doing that is worth £18k per person per year.

What we have isnt a problem with income disparity, it's a public spending problem. 

That's an astounding bargain for the infrastucture, defence, education, health, welfare, policing and everything else maintained by government in this country which alone enables us to maintain the comfortable and secure lives most of us have.

It's also final proof that socialising expenditure works. Just imagine what it would be like *not* to have a government which can spend money on those things - £18K a year is not going to go far if you have to pay for any of that yourself, let alone all of it.

We do indeed have a public spending problem - there's not enough of it.