Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Heartfeltdawn

Moe_Zambeek said:

Heartfeltdawn;1036570" said:

quarky said:


In other words, over 1979-2005, the Labour-Liberal vote averaged 56.52% per election.

And the Conservative - Liberal vote averaged 58.77%

Adding these numbers doesn't tell you an awful lot other than that the Conservative vote is consistently higher than the lib dems or labour. You can slice it and dice it anyway you want but adding up all the losers and saying it's proof of anything is a waste of time. Psephology is an extremely complicated field and as has been mentioned many factors affect voting. Looking at those numbers I'd say the uk is very much a small-c conservative country...

The time period for those figures, 1979 to 2005, the Lib Dems were steered by the social liberal elements. Steel, Ashdown, Campbell, Kennedy, Simon Hughes, all social liberals. There's no way in the world they can be called "small c conservatives". Once the Orange Bookers took over, the movement toward the centre-right began. So I'd say the country was left-leaning in that time period. 

Now if we talk 2005 to the present day, then I've already said that I think we've moved further to the right and moved to this curious mixture of being a small everything country. The small c conservatives are out there and fear change but wouldn't go fully 1922 Committee on yr'ass: the small s socialists are the ones who believe in the public education and healthcare systems but throw up at the mention of socialism and Corbyn: and we have a country where 59% of the population say they have Christian beliefs yet the attendance rates at church don't reflect this. We don't yet have the same level of polarity between political factions that we have seen in America during the primaries. 

chrispy108

ICBM said:

I'm not sure how far I'm willing to take refusal to comply with the 'named person' thing yet.

I've only had a quick read of a few sites, but it doesn't seem to be anything different to what already happens, just with a name?

Pre-school age it's a health visitor, and school ages it's a teacher at school. Those people already have a duty of care and legally have to investigate anything reported now.

Skipped

I am still slightly shocked about the way the Coalition negotiations panned out in 2010.

In 2009 the Telegraph estimated that the cost of the Lib Dem Tuitions Fees pledge would be £2.5 billion a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/6212180/Nick-Clegg-faces-tuition-fees-u-turn-backlash.html
In 2012 the IFS estimated that the agreement to raise the income tax threshold (to £10K) would/will cost much more than the Tuition Fees pledge. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6045


It therefore seems to me.....that if Nick Clegg had gone into the Coaltion talks saying "Tuition Fees is the Red Line. Tuition Fee Policy is Non Negotiable." then he would have got that. Because at that moment....at the very start of the talks.....the Tories were desperate.

So.....we have to ask: Why did Nick Clegg sacrifice Tuition Fees -  by far the cheaper of his top 2 Red Line demands - with the knowledge that there was a significant danger that the backlash would be devastating, possibly enough to destroy the Libdems, possibly enough to destroy Nick Clegg.
He must have known that. It is impossible that he did not consider that!

And so......we have to consider the possibility (even though this is a Politician that we are discussing) that Nick Clegg was telling the truth :-O  :-O  when he told us that the 10k Tax Threshold jumped to the top of his demands because it was the right thing to do for the country.

Fretwired

Skipped said:

I am still slightly shocked about the way the Coalition negotiations panned out in 2010.

So you buy a house without inspecting it properly or getting a quantity surveyor to check that it is sound and in good condition. You plan to fit a new kitchen and add an extension. You move in and find the foundations aren't sound and the electrics and plumbing are knackered so rather than spend money on an extension or new kitchen you fix more important things. Your kids are seriously pissed off with you ...

The issue is when they got into power things were worse than they thought - the problem was making firm promises in the knowledge that you may not be able to deliver on them. The fault lies with us as we are like kids in a sweet shop and we always want candy. Tax cuts, more spent on the NHS, no uni fees ... the interest payments on the UK's debt was eye watering. If a politician was really honest we wouldn't vote for them.

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

Skipped

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

quarky

Skipped said:

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

Maybe he did by trying to close bearer share loopholes

Snap

Putting "Fact" after a statement does not make it true.

Fact

CabbageCat

Fundamentally, lowering taxes (or raising thresholds) is a right wing policy. And, equally fundamentally, granting free education is a left wing policy. Both "cost money" but whether that cost is because of taking less or spending more is pretty much the difference between left wing and right wing politics. It's no surprise that the Tories would be happier with a tax cut than with a spending splash - that's why people vote for them.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

The fault lies with us as we are like kids in a sweet shop and we always want candy. Tax cuts, more spent on the NHS, no uni fees ..

The trouble here is that most people can't think in terms of the sums of money involved. I've had so many conversations with people where they think that a couple of million would solve the uni fees problem, or ten times that would fix the NHS etc.

People think in terms of what difference it'd make to their life, so millions = huge numbers. There's a massive cognitive rupture that occurs when you point out that £1 million is enough to cover the tuition fees for exactly 125 students for a single year. Just to cover the University of Sheffield's tuition fees would be £151.8 million.

Then you get people at the extreme, who don't care that the money needs to come from somewhere, just that people have a right to it and therefore it should be found. They're usually the same people who go on and on about their "right" to more money, and are then surprised by the layoffs or their employer going bust because there simply wasn't enough of the stuff to go round.

lloyd

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

digitalscream

lloyd said:

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that (and nearly 10 times the amount of tax that somebody earning £12k would pay).

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

lloyd

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that.

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

I'm aware of how %'s and tax rates/codes work.

If it's going up then I applaud it

digitalscream

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that.

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

I'm aware of how %'s and tax rates/codes work.

If it's going up then I applaud it

It's going up in line with the minimum wage - the idea being that you don't pay tax if you're working up to full-time on the minimum wage, but if you earn more than that then you get taxed on the difference.

As for the percentages...it's not like the tax burden on somebody earning £12k/year (which works out as £16.67 a month) is particularly onerous.

Axe_meister

Personally I think duty and VAT are the most unfair taxes.
Say a pair of work shoes costs £100.
For somebody on a low wage £20 in tax is a much higher proportion of their income compared to somebody on a higher wage.
We should scrap VAT and make up the difference with income tax.

lloyd

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that.

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

I'm aware of how %'s and tax rates/codes work.

If it's going up then I applaud it

As for the percentages...it's not like the tax burden on somebody earning £12k/year (which works out as £16.67 a month) is particularly onerous.

I'm not sure I agree with that to be honest. Where I live I reckon it costs about 9k a year (after tax) to pay for all your basic needs-rent, food/shopping, tv licence, electric/gas, council tax. Could you do it on less? Yeah sure, but not lots less.

Everything beyond that is the gravy that makes life more bearable. 12k a year would leave you about £250 a month, to buy all your other stuff, including clothes, white goods, electronic items, decorating, transport etc etc etc. You're taking about 6% of somebody who is fucking struggling to get bys disposable income....It's pretty cruel IMO

Personally I'd rather pay an extra 1% tax or whatever I'd need to for these poor fuckers to get a break and I'm no lover of tax payment nor particularly high earning.

CabbageCat

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that.

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

I'm aware of how %'s and tax rates/codes work.

I'll take your word for it but it really doesn't sounds like it when you say "Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+". They aren't even close to the same.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

The fault lies with us as we are like kids in a sweet shop and we always want candy. Tax cuts, more spent on the NHS, no uni fees ..

The trouble here is that most people can't think in terms of the sums of money involved. I've had so many conversations with people where they think that a couple of million would solve the uni fees problem, or ten times that would fix the NHS etc.

People think in terms of what difference it'd make to their life, so millions = huge numbers. There's a massive cognitive rupture that occurs when you point out that £1 million is enough to cover the tuition fees for exactly 125 students for a single year. Just to cover the University of Sheffield's tuition fees would be £151.8 million.

Then you get people at the extreme, who don't care that the money needs to come from somewhere, just that people have a right to it and therefore it should be found. They're usually the same people who go on and on about their "right" to more money, and are then surprised by the layoffs or their employer going bust because there simply wasn't enough of the stuff to go round.

But it's also the fault of the electorate who think the government can fix everything .. "I want the NHS to fund my gastric band" says woman who ate all the pies ... did she take any responsibility for her diet .. no. She just expects the tax payer to pick up the bill. And the current poster girl of 38 degrees is a woman who is 60 and wants her pension. A bit of digging and you find she had a decent job, holidays etc and hasn't saved much. The fact she's fit and could live another 30 plus years passes her by - she has a right to her pension at 60 and now the government has changed the rules and she'll get her state pension at 66. Pensions could bankrupt the whole country as people live longer ...

lloyd

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

They're paying the same tax rate, not the same amount of tax. Somebody earning £14k pays £50/month tax, but somebody on £20k pays three times that.

In any case, it's due to increase to £14k over the next few years anyway IIRC.

I'm aware of how %'s and tax rates/codes work.

I'll take your word for it but it really doesn't sounds like it when you say "Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+". They aren't even close to the same.

Semantics, Jesus. 

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Fretwired said:

The fault lies with us as we are like kids in a sweet shop and we always want candy. Tax cuts, more spent on the NHS, no uni fees ..

The trouble here is that most people can't think in terms of the sums of money involved. I've had so many conversations with people where they think that a couple of million would solve the uni fees problem, or ten times that would fix the NHS etc.

People think in terms of what difference it'd make to their life, so millions = huge numbers. There's a massive cognitive rupture that occurs when you point out that £1 million is enough to cover the tuition fees for exactly 125 students for a single year. Just to cover the University of Sheffield's tuition fees would be £151.8 million.

Then you get people at the extreme, who don't care that the money needs to come from somewhere, just that people have a right to it and therefore it should be found. They're usually the same people who go on and on about their "right" to more money, and are then surprised by the layoffs or their employer going bust because there simply wasn't enough of the stuff to go round.

But it's also the fault of the electorate who think the government can fix everything .. "I want the NHS to fund my gastric band" says woman who ate all the pies ... did she take any responsibility for her diet .. no. She just expects the tax payer to pick up the bill. And the current poster girl of 38 degrees is a woman who is 60 and wants her pension. A bit of digging and you find she had a decent job, holidays etc and hasn't saved much. The fact she's fit and could live another 30 plus years passes her by - she has a right to her pension at 60 and now the government has changed the rules and she'll get her state pension at 66. Pensions could bankrupt the whole country as people live longer ...

Using quick back-of-a-fag-packet calculations, I've just been correlating the student tuition burden with other parts of the budget. With 1.5 million undergrad students, it's equivalent to:

- 12.5% of the entire NHS budget

- 27.8% of our defence budget

- 14% of the education budget

- 65.8% of the transport budget

- 11% of the social security budget

I wonder if people who are asking for free university tuition realise how big the numbers actually are. I certainly didn't.

Jalapeno

Fretwired said:

the current poster girl of 38 degrees is a woman who is 60 and wants her pension. A bit of digging and you find she had a decent job, holidays etc and hasn't saved much. The fact she's fit and could live another 30 plus years passes her by - she has a right to her pension at 60 and now the government has changed the rules and she'll get her state pension at 66. Pensions could bankrupt the whole country as people live longer ...

I just reply to whoever puts it in my face on FB - "ain't equality of rights and treatment a bitch !"