Jump to content

Corbyn suggests earnings limit

Recommended Posts

Left wing odd ball Jeremy Corbyn has suggested today that there should be an arbitrary earnings limit, conveniently in excess of his six figure salary.

 

This is dangerously naive in economic terms. Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? This is the kind of rhetoric that drunk students spout.

 

Does anyone on here think Corbyn is right on this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Left wing odd ball Jeremy Corbyn has suggested today that there should be an arbitrary earnings limit, conveniently in excess of his six figure salary.

 

This is dangerously naive in economic terms. Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? This is the kind of rhetoric that drunk students spout.

 

Does anyone on here think Corbyn is right on this one?

 

 

He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals.

The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy.

Socialism makes everybody equally poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. I can totally understand the logic behind this, however putting it into practice would be impossible I think.

 

So love the idea, but have no delusions about it's feasibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals.

The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy.

Socialism makes everybody equally poor.

 

It would be completely unworkable anyway. Hopefully nobody is deluded enough to think that it is remotely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals.

The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy.

Socialism makes everybody equally poor.

 

However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality. I'd say that once our basic needs are dealt with so shelter, food, relationships (friends or sexual etc) then everything else between that and the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fluff that we convince ourselves makes us happy. If we are going to go into philosophical economics, then everything from the basic needs right up to self-fulfilment are hygiene factors. Take them away and we are sad, but never have them in the first place and it has no impact. So if you or I suddenly had our salaries slashed and our TVs taken away we'd be bloody upset and miserable, but if we'd never had a TV or never had a salary above a level that allowed us to meet needs and have certain freedom and everyone else around us was exactly the same then we'd be just as happy if not more so.

 

Use of the term poor is often used to simply mean financial whereas it should be looked at far more holistically. I'd rather be financially poor but happy than rich and miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He must think he's more powerful than his job role entails. Does he really think he can stop football clubs paying outrageous salaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<...> Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? <...>
Not for much longer: he single-handedly handed the LibDems a massive electoral boost this morning :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality. I'd say that once our basic needs are dealt with so shelter, food, relationships (friends or sexual etc) then everything else between that and the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fluff that we convince ourselves makes us happy. If we are going to go into philosophical economics, then everything from the basic needs right up to self-fulfilment are hygiene factors. Take them away and we are sad, but never have them in the first place and it has no impact. So if you or I suddenly had our salaries slashed and our TVs taken away we'd be bloody upset and miserable, but if we'd never had a TV or never had a salary above a level that allowed us to meet needs and have certain freedom and everyone else around us was exactly the same then we'd be just as happy if not more so.

 

Use of the term poor is often used to simply mean financial whereas it should be looked at far more holistically. I'd rather be financially poor but happy than rich and miserable.

 

 

And if you or somebody you love gets sick and there's not enough money to help them?

This is very common. Been through it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you or somebody you love gets sick and there's not enough money to help them?

This is very common. Been through it myself.

 

That's a horrible situation and you have my fullest sympathy. And yes in some of those poor countries I mentioned they probably encounter that situation more than we do, but that's because we have the NHS which I accept is funded by money from taxes from wages and company profits. But if you put a cap on earnings then doctors and nurses would be paid less too so the relative costs of the NHS would fall and therefore would need less tax to pay for it. Simplistic I know, and doesn't take into account the cost of drugs from outside the UK etc.

 

As I said, I love the idea but I love the idea of absolute full socialism as well where there is not money at all, but I can't see either as being realistic unless we find a way to reboot humanity and start over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality.

 

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

The evidence I have seen (world happiness reort 2016)highlights a strong postie correlation between wealth and happiness.

 

All of the top 10 countries are European, save Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The highest country that falls below the average GDP of the world is Guatemala, in poisition 39. The only countries in the bottom 50 of average or better GDP is South Africa, Bulgaria and Gabon (none of which are wealthy). The bottom "rich" country is Greece at number 99.

 

Corbyn is dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a horrible situation and you have my fullest sympathy. And yes in some of those poor countries I mentioned they probably encounter that situation more than we do, but that's because we have the NHS which I accept is funded by money from taxes from wages and company profits. But if you put a cap on earnings then doctors and nurses would be paid less too so the relative costs of the NHS would fall and therefore would need less tax to pay for it. Simplistic I know, and doesn't take into account the cost of drugs from outside the UK etc.

 

As I said, I love the idea but I love the idea of absolute full socialism as well where there is not money at all, but I can't see either as being realistic unless we find a way to reboot humanity and start over again.

 

 

 

These 2 things do not cancel.

If you cut GDP you cut tax revenue. If you cut tax revenue you cut NHS spending far more than you save on reduced NHS salaries.

 

We need money to take care of the least amongst us. Rich people help us make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a horrible situation and you have my fullest sympathy. And yes in some of those poor countries I mentioned they probably encounter that situation more than we do, but that's because we have the NHS which I accept is funded by money from taxes from wages and company profits. But if you put a cap on earnings then doctors and nurses would be paid less too so the relative costs of the NHS would fall and therefore would need less tax to pay for it. Simplistic I know, and doesn't take into account the cost of drugs from outside the UK etc.

 

As I said, I love the idea but I love the idea of absolute full socialism as well where there is not money at all, but I can't see either as being realistic unless we find a way to reboot humanity and start over again.

 

I don't think the cap that Corbyn proposes would be anywhere near the level to affect workers in the NHS. When questioned on what the cap would be he couldn't name a figure, but said footballers shouldn't be paid £50million a year.

 

He said it would be in excess of his salary of £140,000 a year or so, which would rule out the vast majority of people working for the NHS.

 

He probably has in mind something like in excess of £1million a year or so - so way beyond what anybody earns in the NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.