Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[monkeybarry]

Ok. Once again, your anecdotal viewpoint of what constitutes rich and normal is irrelevant. Can you tell me what percentile people earning £80k are in the UK? Also, have you worked out how much extra you will pay in tax per month if Labour come into power?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

I think is the point.
80k is not rich in London/SE.
It is, however, very affluent most places outside of London.

The Labour policy is a good one - however, it relies on their being alot closer parity in wages nationwide. London is such an outlier.
Labour are trying to link this in with improving the rest of country, but what happens in the meantime? Londoners get penalised? That just doesn't work. Although, labour are so strong in London, maybe they think this won't hurt them enough on London to lose seats but will gain elsewhere.

My salary is nowhere near the 80k, but speaks volumes that could get onto the property ladder if I moved to Manchester (arguably the second best city on England), but can only houseshare in London.
Londoners may earn more - but that isn't reflected in spending power, which is why 80k is not rich in London, even though it puts you in the top 5% of earners in the UK.

 

[SpurMeUp]

@scaramanga what do people who work in a London McDonalds earn? Nowhere near 80k. How do they do it?

This raises some ideological question on taxation https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics

Personally I think everyone could pay less tax, but the rich need to give back more, and governments need to create 'wealth' outside of money. Promoting quality of life etc.

 

[SpurMeUp]

@scaramanga

“Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb … And the genie says to them: ‘One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be born in the United States?’ … The people who say: ‘I did it all myself’ … believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh.”

 

[scaramanga]

@scaramanga

“Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb … And the genie says to them: ‘One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be born in the United States?’ … The people who say: ‘I did it all myself’ … believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh.”

What if the choice were the US with less tax and the US with lots of tax? Because that's the equivalent of what we're voting for.

 

[scaramanga]

@scaramanga what do people who work in a London McDonalds earn? Nowhere near 80k. How do they do it?

This raises some ideological question on taxation https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics

Personally I think everyone could pay less tax, but the rich need to give back more, and governments need to create 'wealth' outside of money. Promoting quality of life etc.

I don't know what the fudge people in McDonalds earn, why would that ever be of interest to me?

As for the second part of your post, you're still looking at it all wrong. You're still working under the assumptions it's the government's place to do these things but it's not. The government should do the absolute minimum required of it and no more or less.

 

[scaramanga]

Ok. Once again, your anecdotal viewpoint of what constitutes rich and normal is irrelevant. Can you tell me what percentile people earning £80k are in the UK? Also, have you worked out how much extra you will pay in tax per month if Labour come into power?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

I've heard anything between about 5 and 10 percent and I have no reason to doubt that.

Being a high earner still does not make one rich though. The cost of a fairly simple life in the South East is high, and unless someone really dislikes their children private healthcare and education are not optional. £80k goes nowhere towards covering all of those costs.

I have a rough idea how much worse off I'll be - Corbyn is likely to cost me a couple of decent bottles of wine a month. Simply unacceptable.

 

[monkeybarry]

I would recommend everyone to look at the percentile split of wages nationally, it makes very interesting reading
I think it's HRMC data - I'll try and share it tomorrow, it's on my laptop I think.

I think it came out with a mean appx £26k and was all very tight until you got to £76k (top 7% I think). The lower end was very interesting.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I don't know what the fudge people in McDonalds earn, why would that ever be of interest to me?

As for the second part of your post, you're still looking at it all wrong. You're still working under the assumptions it's the government's place to do these things but it's not. The government should do the absolute minimum required of it and no more or less.

The government provides the legal, logistical and economic infrastructure for you to make money within. Going back to the Bangladesh example, would you prefer no government or a nation with little infrastructure? Which would you choose, no tax and working in Bangladesh or the UK and paying high taxes? You can not separate taxation from providing a legal system, and national infrastructure, and who would look after that, if not the government? I'm not sure your point stacks up.

What I do think will happen - but not in our lifetime - is a form of state ownership of commercial enterprise which can pay for government upkeep and allow taxes to reduce or disappear.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The Tories provide tax cuts to big corporations and / or do not make them pay their way and who benefits? Share holders who don't even live in Britain. People are mugs I tell yer.

 

[AuroRaman]

I think is the point.
80k is not rich in London/SE.
It is, however, very affluent most places outside of London.

The Labour policy is a good one - however, it relies on their being alot closer parity in wages nationwide. London is such an outlier.
Labour are trying to link this in with improving the rest of country, but what happens in the meantime? Londoners get penalised? That just doesn't work. Although, labour are so strong in London, maybe they think this won't hurt them enough on London to lose seats but will gain elsewhere.

My salary is nowhere near the 80k, but speaks volumes that could get onto the property ladder if I moved to Manchester (arguably the second best city on England), but can only houseshare in London.
Londoners may earn more - but that isn't reflected in spending power, which is why 80k is not rich in London, even though it puts you in the top 5% of earners in the UK.

Thanks MB. £80k in any country on the planet is a rich salary. I appreciate what your saying in terms of spending power of us in London but I also feel we have such a large emphasis on buying property in the UK and having ‘things’ or ‘assets’ which constitute a richness of life. I certainly won’t feel penalised for living in London if my taxes go up by a pretty insignificant amount each month.

I am fortunate to earn well and therefore pay more tax. I’m happy to pay an extra £20 per month or whatever it is so myself and those around me have better access to decent services and improve our overall quality of life. Decent education and health services can and should be affordable to all in this country.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[AuroRaman]

I've heard anything between about 5 and 10 percent and I have no reason to doubt that.

Being a high earner still does not make one rich though. The cost of a fairly simple life in the South East is high, and unless someone really dislikes their children private healthcare and education are not optional. £80k goes nowhere towards covering all of those costs.

I have a rough idea how much worse off I'll be - Corbyn is likely to cost me a couple of decent bottles of wine a month. Simply unacceptable.

I thought you had expensive taste in wine


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[Baleforce]

I've heard anything between about 5 and 10 percent and I have no reason to doubt that.

Being a high earner still does not make one rich though. The cost of a fairly simple life in the South East is high, and unless someone really dislikes their children private healthcare and education are not optional. £80k goes nowhere towards covering all of those costs.

I have a rough idea how much worse off I'll be - Corbyn is likely to cost me a couple of decent bottles of wine a month. Simply unacceptable.

I certainly feel like it’s targeting the wrong people, as you say in certain areas it’s not a wage that allows affluence, but it’s a group which are more likely to have private healthcare/education/etc, lessening their “take” from public services. It feels like a punishment for being successful.

Yes there are advantages provided by the system, but working harder and/or being smarter should still count for something, or where is the incentive?

 

[scaramanga]

I thought you had expensive taste in wine


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

I do - one of us is probably calculating the increases incorrectly.

 

[scaramanga]

The government provides the legal, logistical and economic infrastructure for you to make money within. Going back to the Bangladesh example, would you prefer no government or a nation with little infrastructure? Which would you choose, no tax and working in Bangladesh or the UK and paying high taxes? You can not separate taxation from providing a legal system, and national infrastructure, and who would look after that, if not the government? I'm not sure your point stacks up.

What I do think will happen - but not in our lifetime - is a form of state ownership of commercial enterprise which can pay for government upkeep and allow taxes to reduce or disappear.

I'd prefer a country where only the absolutely necessary was provided by the government.

Not being Bangladesh doesn't mean having an extortionate minimum wage on top of a welfare bill that's beyond ridiculous. It doesn't mean state ownership of anything - especially not healthcare.

It doesn't mean punitive levels of taxation, both in a personal and corporate sense. The financial sector in London and the tech sector in Luxembourg/Ireland lis proof that reducing tax and red tape brings in far more than trying to steal from them.

 

[Rorschach]

Lower corporate tax rates are only one of the prerequisites to a flourishing sector. Well educated and healthy workforce, high-quality infrastructure, and market access (being in the EU) are all part of the equation. A less well regulated, low wage, low tax economy where the market decides all only serves the few. Unfettered capitalism has brought the planet to the brink and has utterly failed us.

 

[scaramanga]

Lower corporate tax rates is only one of the prerequisites to a flourishing sector. Well educated and healthy workforce, high-quality infrastructure, and market access (being in the EU) are all part of the equation. A less well regulated, low wage, low tax economy where the market decides all only serves the few. Unfettered capitalism has bought the planet to the brink and has utterly failed us.

What failure? The private sector is doing very well, it's the massively inflated public sector that continually fails.

As for the planet being on the brink. People speak louder with their actions than their words, and I'm seeing a very firm preference for cheap tat from China right now.

 

[Parklaner81]

Ok. Once again, your anecdotal viewpoint of what constitutes rich and normal is irrelevant. Can you tell me what percentile people earning £80k are in the UK? Also, have you worked out how much extra you will pay in tax per month if Labour come into power?

There's a good chance I'll pay less, for a while at least - as a result of them bankrupting my employer with their insane minimum wage proposals.

 

[scaramanga]

There's a good chance I'll pay less, for a while at least - as a result of them bankrupting my employer with their insane minimum wage proposals.

I think our company in CZ will have to start selling the UK some very expensive IP under a Corbyn government.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'd prefer a country where only the absolutely necessary was provided by the government.

Not being Bangladesh doesn't mean having an extortionate minimum wage on top of a welfare bill that's beyond ridiculous. It doesn't mean state ownership of anything - especially not healthcare.

It doesn't mean punitive levels of taxation, both in a personal and corporate sense. The financial sector in London and the tech sector in Luxembourg/Ireland lis proof that reducing tax and red tape brings in far more than trying to steal from them.

I agree with your first point. Who would want people to pay more tax than absolutely necessary!? That should be a given. And there is horrible waste in government spending that could be addressed (another discussion).

But @Rorschach sums it up, low taxes are less important than government 'investment' in things like education, a fair legal system, transport infrastructure etc. Simply imposing low taxes without investment would be foolhardy. And if it was a successful model Bangladesh would be surging ahead of us. It isn't. And that is why your argument is limited!

The more interesting question is how should the government 1. best invest all our money and 2. work to make that spending more efficient? The Tory's answer to #2 has traditionally been introducing competition and private enterprise. While misguided for state monopolies (which can only have a fake form of competition) there is still a lot to take from this approach. Private enterprise - with people running enterprises who care about making a profit for themselves - helps to sort out waste. But if Thames Water makes £500m to £1b a year in profit, why is our government not seeing any of that? We have services in electricity, water, telecoms not just in London, but all over the country generating money, which is not going back into the UK Exchequer.

That makes no sense either. Corbyn is onto something. Sadly, he doesn't have the business background, respect, national confidence, or detail on how to nationalise such assets to make it work. Instead of simply running things like Thame Water as they are now, and using the profits to 1. invest and 2. cut taxes, socialism has a habit of creating inefficiencies and turning profitable enterprises into organisations that lack direction and don't put profit first. THe happy medium is obvious tho. One day we'll get there, and Scara will pay less taxes because we'll generate billions from such service that we already pay for now!

 

[Rorschach]

What failure? The private sector is doing very well, it's the massively inflated public sector that continually fails.

As for the planet being on the brink. People speak louder with their actions than their words, and I'm seeing a very firm preference for cheap tat from China right now.

Private sector growth is not a good measurement for well being of a population. It is more an indication of how fast we are barrelling down the road to oligarchy. If we keep going the way we are going with excessive and mostly pointless consumption of resources (and especially Chinese tat) we are all fudged. I firmly believe we have about 10 years to change course and chart a different direction to a more sustainable and equitable system or we are looking at systemic collapse on a global scale.