Comrade Corbyn

We need to increase our rates of income tax to fund the NHS and the armed forces and education. And I pay income tax at a marginal rate of 60% at the moment.

thebigfredc posted:

For 42% of anybody's earned income to go straight to the State should be cause enough for right-minded people to pick up their pitch-folks and lanterns and head to the Houses of Parliament for a cull of the ruling elite.

We are far too docile in the UK.

What’s the solution then? Decent services must be paid for, and at the moment they are already far from decent. If income tax is to be cut, what other taxes should rise, or which services should be cut further? If you are earning enough to pay tax at 40% you are doing pretty well, and better than the majority. 

Well as you asked HH.

We could start by not giving out free bus passes, heating allowances and TV licences to people who have more than sufficient economic means to need not be given patronising handouts by the State but just happen to have reached an arbitrary age.

Similarly,  universal child benefit is madness.

I wouldn't mind seeing the demise of that uniquely 20th century institution the BBC too.

Finally, a couple of hundred less MPs and giving out about 650 P45s to the denisens of the House of Lords would at least be a start.

Ray

THEBIGFREDC posted:

"We could start by not giving out free bus passes, heating allowances and TV licences to people who have more than sufficient economic means to need not be given patronising handouts by the State but just happen to have reached an arbitrary age".

"Similarly,  universal child benefit is madness".

I take it then that you would be in favour of moving to a means tested approach for these benefits, or would you simply take them away from everyone - even from those who do not have sufficient economic means for the benefit to be considered patronising?

And where would the money go? Would you allocate the money to the NHS and other necessary services, or would you give yourself a tax cut instead?   

I’d certainly means test the hearing allowance and TV licences for older people. I’d not scrap the bus pass though, particularly if it gets some older and incompetent drivers off the road - and I declare an interest there. Child benefit is more tricky, and I read something that the cost of means testing would exceed the saving from the means testing itself. 

I don’t agree that cutting the MPs is a good idea, as it reduces democratic accountability. I’m no fan of the House of Lords, but we do need a form of upper chamber to ensure checks and balances on the Commons. I’d happily scrap the Royal Family though.

In any event, these suggestions would save very little in the scheme of things. 

I think the country is finally going to have to face up to difficult choices between services and taxation. As the IFS has been saying for years, we cannot have European levels of service and American levels of taxation. 

Indeed Nigel, and the UK taxation is unstably dependent on a relatively small proportion of the population ... and that is going to be the painful part.. getting our taxation more progressive as well as more  evenly distributed. I think successive governments have encouraged a get something as long as somebody else pays for it culture... and we have got to the point where there isn’t really anybody else in any realistic significant sense to bank roll us.

Hmack

Answer 1

The phrase means test always conjures up lots of bureaucratic , intrusive forms in my mind but one would think that it would be easier with data kept on computers these days. But yes I am in favour of means testing all benefits.

Answer 2.

Yes I think a tax cut would be nice but I don't think I should be the sole beneficiary - I am willing to share the windfall with all those in work.

Ray

Coincidentally I’ve just finished reading David Laws account of the Coalition.   The LibDems argued in Government for either taxing or means testing the heating supplements and TV License.   As he said it was plainly ridiculous that both Vince Cable and Kenneth Xlarke as cabinet ministers on £130k PA were eligible but guess what? David Cameron argues for retention - scared of losing the grey vote!

I’d make contributions to pensions compulsory, and at a higher rate too. That would pave the way to scrapping state funded old age pensions, which will eventually cost so much that income and other taxes would need to rise hugely. It seems that it’s a can that will be forever kicked down the road - it’s just too big to deal with, regardless of political party. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Indeed Nigel, and the UK taxation is unstably dependent on a relatively small proportion of the population ... 

Only when it comes to Income Tax and National Insurance though.  Estimates (and they are admittedly estimates) suggest that the top 20% pay less tax (direct and indirect) as a proportion of their income than the lowest 20%.

We need to increase income tax, corporation tax, VAT and fuel duty. Stop piddling around with marginal taxation and means-testing trivial benefits.

Pension contributions should be mandatory and run by the government such that we all enjoy the equivalent pension to current Gov, LA and other Public Service pensions .

To be able to do the above we need to work smarter and until we are within (say) eight years of average life-expectancy.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, free education, free NHS, free transport, free infrastructure, free defence, free emergency services etc. IMHO all these things and a few others, are better paid for collectively.

But it should be a carefully controlled mix of Public Service and  Free Enterprise that delivers these and other products.

Dozey posted:

We need to increase our rates of income tax to fund the NHS and the armed forces and education. And I pay income tax at a marginal rate of 60% at the moment.

Which implies that your income is in the band where the personal allowance is tapered out, so you're not doing too badly, Dozey 

Eloise,

You have trotted this top 20% v bottom 20% line out before.

I have some sympathy with people on minimum wage who, although they don't pay much NI or income tax, then have to spend all their earnings on buying essentials which happen to attract VAT.

A lot of the people in the poorest fifth only derive money from the State though in benefits which makes the paying of VAT is more like an offset whereas the top fifths income is more likely to come from a private company engaged in some form of wealth production.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

You have trotted this top 20% v bottom 20% line out before.

I have ... because it’s true.  And I “trot it out” in response to the claptrap about how unfair it is that those on high earnings pay high amounts (even the majority) of income tax.

As for “money derived from the state” the way you say that suggests you mean the “unemployed” which ignores the fact that the largest portion of the welfare bill goes to pensioners, and the vast majority of the rest is spent on so called “in work benefits”.

Many of those in the top fifth may work in “wealth production” but much of that wealth goes to the top and is not spread amongst the essential but “lower” workers in that company and so requiring ever more in work benefits!

This has got me looking up Government figures. It seems that more than 25% of income from income tax is paid by the 1% on the highest salaries. I’ve also found calculators from the IFS and ONS where you input your income and it sells you which percentile you fall into. It’s rather interesting. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

This has got me looking up Government figures. It seems that more than 25% of income from income tax is paid by the 1% on the highest salaries. I’ve also found calculators from the IFS and ONS where you input your income and it sells you which percentile you fall into. It’s rather interesting. 

But to put in context (though not directly comparable figures)... those 1% also own around 24% of the UKs wealth (according to Credit Suisse estimates though ONS put it at more like 13%). 

The top 1% equates to earning around £162,000 a year.

You also need to remember that Income Tax only accounts for 25% of tax revenues.

I think we’ve lost sight of reality.  I remember during the tuition fee protests a lady screaming at the camera “I’ve a right to an education”; urn yes up to 18 after that you have a responsibility to earn a living and take responsibility for yourself.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I think we’ve lost sight of reality.  I remember during the tuition fee protests a lady screaming at the camera “I’ve a right to an education”; urn yes up to 18 after that you have a responsibility to earn a living and take responsibility for yourself.  

So you don’t see the value to the wider society in education?

Getting back to Corbyn and the frosty exchanges at PMQs, perhaps his plan for retaliatory action against Russia, which 'fits' with his policy agenda, will be to take Chelsea FC into public ownership 

MDS posted:

Getting back to Corbyn and the frosty exchanges at PMQs, perhaps his plan for retaliatory action against Russia, which 'fits' with his policy agenda, will be to take Chelsea FC into public ownership 

I guess you don’t see the value in bringing in OPCW into the investigation, inviting Russia to monitor (but not interfere in) the investigation and generally stick to the international laws which the U.K. have agreed to and would hold other nations to.

I guess Macron is also a Russian Stooge given his statement generally agreeing with Corbyn’s position?

PS. The briefing on Salisbury was actually following PMQs where Corbyn used his questions to press the PM on the state of the NHS.

It was intended as a light-hearted comment, Eloise, prompted in part by just watching Chelsea get knocked out of the Champions League.  

On the serious point about 'what to do about Russia', my take is that expelling a few diplomats might play well with the Press here but it will carry no weight with Putin's regime. Indeed he will likely use it domestically to 'prove' how anti-Russian the West has become.  I suspect HMG knows this this too.

For what it is worth, I'd be inclined to hit Putin and his cronies hard where it hurts i.e. going after the huge amount of money many of them have 'invested' in the UK.  I suspect a great deal of it is dirty money.  This has the benefit of hurting the rich individuals who support Putin while not being anti the Russian people.   Apart for expelling diplomats, the other lever often used is economic sanctions. I'm not sure these work. Look at how ineffective they have been in curbing Russian action in the Ukraine. These days Russia isn't much of a player economically, I think I read somewhere that the UK's economy is about twice that of Russia's, but it does supply an awful lot of gas to Germany and others, which gives it some leverage. As I say, best to go after individuals in the regime.  

The Corbyn story is a non story in my book.

Eloise posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I think we’ve lost sight of reality.  I remember during the tuition fee protests a lady screaming at the camera “I’ve a right to an education”; urn yes up to 18 after that you have a responsibility to earn a living and take responsibility for yourself.  

So you don’t see the value to the wider society in education?

It’s not worth the dialogue is it of course I do - I just happen to think we’ve arrived at a situation where some people expect everything for nothing - the state will provide and the guy next door will pay the tax to support me to the point where people can go through life almost devoid of any personal responsibility.  

It is implicit in your statement that something has changed and this free loader person is new/ more prevalent? I do not see that. 

MDS posted:

Dozey posted:

We need to increase our rates of income tax to fund the NHS and the armed forces and education. And I pay income tax at a marginal rate of 60% at the moment.

Which implies that your income is in the band where the personal allowance is tapered out, so you're not doing too badly, Dozey 

So is mine. I am with Dozey. Struggling to see your actual point.