Obelix   11 #133 Posted January 11, 2017 I accept your apology for your ignorant comment.  Deluded as well as a sockpuppet then  Wheres the ignore button. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jacktari   10 #134 Posted January 11, 2017 Deluded as well as a sockpuppet then  Wheres the ignore button.  We shall get on I can see. However I think Jeremy has his good points. At least he resembles Alec Guinness, and not Cruella de Ville. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
the_bloke   17 #135 Posted January 11, 2017 no...he smashed her into the long grass  Not really, even the Guardian only considered it a score draw. I wouldn't consider him smashing anything apart from unpopularity contests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jacktari   10 #136 Posted January 11, 2017 Not really, even the Guardian only considered it a score draw. I wouldn't consider him smashing anything apart from unpopularity contests.  I think his heart is in fairness and decency. These things however are not required in modern politics. Load-mouthed self assertion , without ability, seems to be all that is required. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
banjodeano   31 #137 Posted January 11, 2017 Not really, even the Guardian only considered it a score draw. I wouldn't consider him smashing anything apart from unpopularity contests.  please tell me which media outlet would ever give Corbyn the edge? but did you actually watch it? she was well and truly out batted today, she was totally on the defensive and even had to lower herself to attack the Red Cross... i wonder if she is also going to attack all the other academics who are putting the boot into her over her handling of the NHS... Even one of her own MP's is putting the knife in... http://www.thecanary.co/2017/01/04/theresa-may-just-savaged-nhs-tory-health-chair/ and its only going to get worse for her... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hopkins   10 #138 Posted January 11, 2017 To achieve what? If it's to get more tax then you'll need to look very carefully at how best to do that as it's diminishing returns. If it's simply to make a point then go ahead but you might end up reducing tax returns which I don't think benefits anyone. They were there before until Maggie cut them for her fat cat mates weren't they. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Robin-H Â Â 11 #139 Posted January 11, 2017 They were there before until Maggie cut them for her fat cat mates weren't they. Â Yes and they were a disaster at the time. The richest are paying a higher percentage of total tax revenue than they ever have before. Â Increasing tax rates doesn't mean they will pay more - tax revenues dropped when the 50% rate was introduced. Â Read up on the Laffer Curve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #140 Posted January 11, 2017 But the Laffer curve is not an excuse to abandon any pretence at controlling C level salaries and the number of times greater than the average that they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Robin-H Â Â 11 #141 Posted January 11, 2017 But the Laffer curve is not an excuse to abandon any pretence at controlling C level salaries and the number of times greater than the average that they are. Â I didn't say it was. I was responding to a poster who wanted to bring back higher tax rates and so was suggesting they look up the research which shows why that wouldn't be beneficial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #142 Posted January 12, 2017 But the Laffer curve is not an excuse to abandon any pretence at controlling C level salaries and the number of times greater than the average that they are.  It really is. The goal is to make the poor better off. If the reality is that limiting top pay effects the reverse of this goal of making the poor better off then it would be wrong to do it. It's really that simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #143 Posted January 12, 2017 No, it's an argument not to have very high tax rates. It's not an argument to give up any pretence at controlling executive salary. The two things are very different.  Oh, and the goal is not to "make the poor better off", it's to reduce income inequality.  ---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 09:01 ----------  I didn't say it was. I was responding to a poster who wanted to bring back higher tax rates and so was suggesting they look up the research which shows why that wouldn't be beneficial.  Clearly some people think that it is though (see post after yours). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #144 Posted January 12, 2017 No, it's an argument not to have very high tax rates. It's not an argument to give up any pretence at controlling executive salary. The two things are very different. Oh, and the goal is not to "make the poor better off", it's to reduce income inequality.   I'm going to focus on the last bit of your post:  You're pulling my leg right? By that argument you'd be happy to have the poor starving as long as everybody else is starving too. Tell me that's not what you actually think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...