Its the labour party for me.

[truman]

I have read the report, but more importantly I saw the interview. He was pressed and pressed again on what was a minor point, while the big stuff was ignored. It's once again made a mountain out of an unimportant molehill. He said he was well paid for the job he does.

 

He lives a modest, relatively frugal life. He doesn't spend lavishly, he gives it away. What's the problem?

 

Ah..so some people can be wealthy and get no criticism from you but not others? I'd have thought someone on his salary would have been right in your firing line Anna.. Especially as he doesn't consider himself wealthy..

[Obelix]

I have read the report, but more importantly I saw the interview. He was pressed and pressed again on what was a minor point, while the big stuff was ignored. It's once again made a mountain out of an unimportant molehill. He said he was well paid for the job he does.

 

He lives a modest, relatively frugal life. He doesn't spend lavishly, he gives it away. What's the problem?

 

Your incredibly two faced double standards are the problem Anna.

 

You have repeatedly and unapologetically castigated me for earning money on this forum. Comments like (and I paraphrase but you get the idea) "some people are driven by money" "you only care about the money" "I guess some want as much as they can get" "Money isn't it the only thing you want"

 

I earn less than Corbyn does at the moment. Are you going to turn that vitriol of yours on him? Or apologise to me for your incessant sniping?

[Anna B]

Your incredibly two faced double standards are the problem Anna.

 

You have repeatedly and unapologetically castigated me for earning money on this forum. Comments like (and I paraphrase but you get the idea) "some people are driven by money" "you only care about the money" "I guess some want as much as they can get" "Money isn't it the only thing you want"

 

I earn less than Corbyn does at the moment. Are you going to turn that vitriol of yours on him? Or apologise to me for your incessant sniping?

 

Carry on. While you're attacking me, you're not attacking Corbyn....

[Obelix]

That's not an attack Anna - it is simply stating the truth.

 

I await your reply with interest - why is it one rule for Corbyn and one rule for me?

[banjodeano]

It's inevitable, just who will take over is anyone question. One thing appears to be certain, an energetic and passionate candidate has the ability to invigorate the electorate and could easily swing it for Labour come 2022.

 

Chuka Umunna could well be this person.

 

No its not, Corbyn will not be going anywhere, even if he loses the election, he will just get voted in again by the labour party members, that is unless the plp change their own rules and go against their own democratic process

 

---------- Post added 17-05-2017 at 14:55 ----------

 

Your incredibly two faced double standards are the problem Anna.

 

You have repeatedly and unapologetically castigated me for earning money on this forum. Comments like (and I paraphrase but you get the idea) "some people are driven by money" "you only care about the money" "I guess some want as much as they can get" "Money isn't it the only thing you want"

 

I earn less than Corbyn does at the moment. Are you going to turn that vitriol of yours on him? Or apologise to me for your incessant sniping?

oh dear, thats not good to see

[Anna B]

That's not an attack Anna - it is simply stating the truth.

 

I await your reply with interest - why is it one rule for Corbyn and one rule for me?

 

Calling me two faced is clearly a personal attack.

 

I think you'll find my objections are more to do with the non payment of tax. And that includes complex tax avoidance schemes that are barely this side of legal. A properly managed tax collection system is the best wealth distribution system there is at present, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Asking those over £80,000 to pay a bit more tax seems fair to me. Jeremy Corbyn will be in this category, and you can be sure he will pay it willingly.

 

I think the disparity in the average wage and £100,000 is too much and should be reduced in most cases, particularly where the money is coming from the public purse. I would make an exception for the Prime Minister and Leader of the opposition, arguably the most important public positions in the land. CEOs in general used to earn 5 x the average workers wage, and that's about right. The PM and opposition PM reflect this.

 

However, now most CEO's salaries are many times more than that and in some cases are in the £millions, and they avoid tax. Let them pay minimum of 30% on all their wealth and I would be happy.

Unfortunately the disproportionate salaries in the private sector have pushed up the expectations in the public sector to silly amounts. This also affects prices for everyone. Those on ordinary salaries feel left behind and even though working just as hard if not harder than most, are struggling.

 

I have said all this before, many times. So personal insults are unfair and unwarranted thankyou very much.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Anna B

[Obelix]

Accuratly characterising your stands is not a personal attack Anna as it's germaine to the issue. If I called your comments about X unwarranted because you had an unrelated personal attribute then that would be a personal attack.

 

Im still waiting you to address your personal attacks on me as detailed in post #322 Anna. Please cease the gish galloping and address that point.

[L00b]

<...> Asking those over £80,000 to pay a bit more tax seems fair to me. <...>

Can I just ask you why does that £80k threshold look fair to you? (with or without reference to my earlier example in the other Labour thread).

 

The high rate of tax kicks in at £45k or thereabouts, so statutorily speaking, this is the income level at which 'wealth' is deemed to start.

 

So why not ask those over £45k to pay a bit more tax? That's still about £20k above the national average, and you still catch the wealthy bad guys north of it just the same, you know.

<...> I think the disparity in the average wage and £100,000 is too much and should be reduced in most cases <...>

So, higher tax and wage controls?

 

Comrade Corbyn wouldn't happen to be looking at capital controls as well, would he?

[sgtkate]

Can I just ask you why does that £80k threshold look fair to you? (with or without reference to my earlier example in the other Labour thread).

 

The high rate of tax kicks in at £45k or thereabouts, so statutorily speaking, this is the income level at which 'wealth' is deemed to start.

 

So why not ask those over £45k to pay a bit more tax? That's still about £20k above the national average, and you still catch the wealthy bad guys north of it just the same, you know.

So, higher tax and wage controls?

 

Comrade Corbyn wouldn't happen to be looking at capital controls as well, would he?

 

To be honest Loob, I think that's the best way of raising more income tax is by applying small increases starting with anyone earning double the national average. Gotta start somewhere and that seems a reasonable cut off point to me. I mean no more than 1% for those earners, rising to a max of 5% more than now for the highest earners who earn 10 times the average wage.

However, as stated earlier the people we should really be targeting aren't going to be affect by tax rises as they will already be using every legal and potential illegal method to keep their tax payments as low as they can possibly screw. Increasing tax on income isn't going to affect them in the slightest, whereas increasing VAT most definitely would as long as the VAT cannot be reclaimed as a business expense without some serious tightening of the VAT rules. Anything you buy including houses should be added to the VAT scope and it's name probably changed as it won't just be value added tax anymore!

[Obelix]

Comrade Corbyn wouldn't happen to be looking at capital controls as well, would he?

 

Guess why most of mine is not in the UK any more.

 

Just In Case.....