FlyTheNest

Alberto Nardelli
‏
Verified account

@AlbertoNardelli
10h10 hours ago
More
“The Mail understands that in early 2016 the then home secretary Theresa May declined a request by one of the security services to investigate Banks”

Mollie Goodfellow
‏
Verified account

@hansmollman
11h11 hours ago
More
why don’t they make David Cameron the editor of the Waitrose magazine and that will tie up this week nicely

HindleA wrote:Further to previous

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/11/unive ... more-woes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Govt’s stated view at the time only confirms that everyone should have a housing lawyer with them at all times

frog222 wrote:" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.

Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.

Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before

frog222 wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Party.html

More good news for labour , it had all gone rather quiet on the A-S front .

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:A nice by-election win for Labour up here in marginal Denby Dale

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

frog222 wrote:" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.
Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.
Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before

The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

frog222 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

frog222 wrote:" The revolt was led by Lisa Nandy, a respected former shadow minister, who had warned the Labour leadership that the cut was “unacceptable” to many of the party’s backbenchers.
Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, Alison McGovern and Liz Kendall were among other prominent Labour MPs who joined the rebellion – a hike in the threshold before the 40p income tax rate kicks in to £50,000.
Mr McDonnell said he would not oppose the change because Labour is “not going to take money out of people’s pockets” "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 13271.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Not one of his better moments. If he really wants to join the Tories in a race to the bottom on taxation he could have told us before

The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

I thought it was a hasty misjudgement by J McD, interesting that some quite centrist Labour are to the left of him on this
It has been pointed out all over the press that the better-off gain far more than the less well-paid. So is the 'frosty response' a sincere widespread one or just loyalty to the party line ?

frog222 wrote:

A bit more bio on the Bad Boy -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... monds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ANDREW PIERCE: Minutes after I first met Arron Banks he produced a pouch of diamonds. Keep them, he said, I've a whole mountain full

frog222 wrote:

A bit more bio on the Bad Boy -- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... monds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ANDREW PIERCE: Minutes after I first met Arron Banks he produced a pouch of diamonds. Keep them, he said, I've a whole mountain full

His parents decided to name him after the Scottish island of Arran but got the spelling wrong.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

frog222 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: The identity of most (not all) of the "rebels" tells its own story. This was largely driven by opportunism and has thus met a rather frosty response.
(must admit I don't mind Nandy though, her heart is in the right place at least)

I thought it was a hasty misjudgement by J McD, interesting that some quite centrist Labour are to the left of him on this
It has been pointed out all over the press that the better-off gain far more than the less well-paid. So is the 'frosty response' a sincere widespread one or just loyalty to the party line ?

Except that they aren't really, that's the whole point.

A few not only went along with the welfare cuts abstention in mid-2015, but actually wanted Labour to support them (I'm looking at a former leadership hopeful in particular)

Some of them (I would include Nandy) have repented of that episode. Others, it is fair to say, have not.

People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Given that Ministers are responsible for policy and therefore expected to know what it is, the timing of a report saying that Rudd was let down by officials for being somewhat confused in public about her own government's policy, is interesting to say the least.

Willow904 wrote: it's just so depressing that Labour still, even under Corbyn, feels it can't oppose such blatant transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest.

HindleA wrote:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... ssion=true

Paris bus driver hailed a hero for kicking off ALL passengers after they refused to make room for wheelchair user
Ban the bastards.If you deny others travel you should be able to yourself.

gilsey wrote:Labour's Tax Bombshell

This is the first comment btl which I don't entirely agree with but I'd say it's a good summary of McDonnell's position.

People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.

HindleA wrote:Sorry,regression is regression there is no justifiable gloss on it.

HindleA wrote:---
Until it is accepted that taxes need to go up beyond applicable to a particular targeted section we are screwed.IMHO.The relative well off majority need to take responsibility rather than bemoan/ rely on the rich.

BBC Politics
@BBCPolitics
On #marr on Sunday Arron Banks will respond to National Crime Agency investigation into campaign funding during Brexit referendum
@Arron_banks


BBC One, 10am

Willow904 wrote:

gilsey wrote:Labour's Tax Bombshell

This is the first comment btl which I don't entirely agree with but I'd say it's a good summary of McDonnell's position.

People earning £50,000 a year, or even £100,000 a year are not rich, or even to use the correct terminology (rich refers to stock of wealth, not flow of income) affluent. They are generally people who have to sell their labour-power, albeit they get a bit of a higher price for their labour-power than many other workers.

The problem with social-democracy, has always been that in order to pay for the welfare state, it has taxed this group of workers increasingly heavily in order to pay for benefits to be paid to the rest, which become necessary, because a large number of inefficient small capitalists pay poor wages, whilst the cost of living for things like housing rises. This transfer of income also requires a huge state bureaucracy to implement, which is also very inefficient, compared to workers simply having high enough incomes to begin with.

So Labour is right to say a) it does not want to penalise these slightly higher paid workers, so as to subsidise lower wage paying employers, and b) that its main means of reducing public spending will be to reduce the amount of benefits it has to pay out, by raising the minimum wage, and restoring union collective bargaining power. Of course, the Blair-rights don't like this latter approach, because it implies encouraging direct working-class self-activity, which they fear getting out of hand.

All of the tax redistributive stuff is so much nonsense, sa Marx described over 150 years ago. The Tories, for example, and Liberals, boast about having reduced taxes on millions, but fail to mention about the massive rise in VAT they imposed on them, which had a more dramatic negative effective, or the increased costs imposed upon those who now have to pay for local government services no longer provided.

The rich are not those who have to work to earn a living, but those with sufficient capital to be able to live comfortably without working. If you have, say £1 billion, then even if you just got 1% a year on it, that is £10 million, which shows how paltry an income of £50,000 really is. But the truly rich, of course get far more than that on their capital, and in recent years, their main form of increase in wealth has come not in the form of revenues, but in the form of capital gains, as their shares, bonds and property have soared in value, by 10, 20 and more percent a year. That is why central banks and governments have been prepared to wreck the real economy with QE and austerity, so as to keep those asset prices high.

Its against that parasitic wealth, that Labour should focus its attention.

It's because of arguments like this that I accompanied my first comment on this subject with a link to an article which shows just how little tax people on middle to higher incomes were already paying in this country compared to other comparable countries. These are the same people who were protected from austerity by Osborne who are now reaping the benefits of the austerity suffered by those on far, far lower incomes than themselves. And here's the rub, everything above suggests these people need to be bribed to vote Labour with money taken from poor people when I would argue that a lot of these people are already happy to vote Labour without promises of Labour protecting a couple of hundred pounds in their pockets because they see the need for radical reform of everything from the housing market and social care and, yes, how we deal with the very wealthy and corporation and tax havens that are threatening our welfare state and standard of living.
£50,000 a year is not "paltry". It's well above the median full time wage of £29,500. It's also a high enough wage that a few hundred pounds per annum either way will make little difference to someone's overall standard of living while the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, per annum being cut from working age benefits is the difference between just about managing (remember them?) and full blown crisis.
People who support austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the rich will never vote Labour so can we please stop pandering to such people and can we also have a bit more faith in people on slightly better incomes choosing to support Labour in creating a fairer society and investing in better public services for the benefit of everyone and being willing to pay a little bit more (though certainly no more than people on comparable incomes in many other countries) to do so.

HindleA wrote:Pure self interest in wanting to pay more tax,collective miniscule amounts saves countless,a responsible Government puts that to good use.First,we have to relentlessly get people to see/accept that if you want a decent Society and inure against the vagaries and inevitabilities of life you have to put your hand in your own pocket rather than expecting everybody but you to pay for it.

citizenJA wrote:beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

frog222 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

Same here, so much so that I went for a dip in the sea . It may well be the last for the year tho
Now to catch up !

PS EDIT -- are people always taxed as individuals... or households ?

Two median incomes is £50k odd ...

Willow904 wrote:

frog222 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:beautiful day here
Good afternoon, everyone

Same here, so much so that I went for a dip in the sea . It may well be the last for the year tho
Now to catch up !

PS EDIT -- are people always taxed as individuals... or households ?

Two median incomes is £50k odd ...

I think average household income may actually be less than the median full time wage. I'll check.

Average disposable household income is £27,200.

I'm not actually sure what disposable income is, mind.

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

I tend to agree with you and would always have done so. But I do find Corbyn and McDonnell make me think again about things I've always taken as read. McDonnell essentially says why would you ever want to tax what people are paid for their labour. And it makes me ponder.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Of course a rider to that is that salaries should be sensible and proportionate. But I think they do have a policy around reducing the multiplier between top and bottom salary in an organisation.

Asa Winstanley
✔
@AsaWinstanley

Video: Met police commissioner - NO investigation into Labour Party https://skwawkbox.org/2018/11/02/video- ... our-party/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … via @skwawkbox

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

For me there's a difference between what you would put in a manifesto as part of a cohesive tax policy and long term economic reform (taxing wealth in preference to income, as you say) and what you do in opposition. I just don't see how Labour can separate the Tories tax cut from the continued cuts to the public sector and working age benefits because the latter are funding the former. Support for Tory tax cuts then risks becoming an endorsement of Tory overall tax and spend policy (slash taxes, slash the state) in the minds of voters.

I tend to agree with you and would always have done so. But I do find Corbyn and McDonnell make me think again about things I've always taken as read. McDonnell essentially says why would you ever want to tax what people are paid for their labour. And it makes me ponder.

Well, a lot of people only have the proceeds of their labour to contribute from, and everyone contributing according to their means and receiving according to their needs is kind of the cornerstone of the idea of a welfare state. It's the pooling of resources to achieve more than we can as individuals which I think is one of the most important functions of government. The point about asset wealth isn't that it should be taxed more to replace tax on earnings but that assets shouldn't be so over-inflated in the first place. Taxing wealth is a measure among others that can help curb asset bubbles but if successful will lead to less asset wealth to tax. Therefore some type of income tax is always going to be necessary to fund decent public services and social security. Although not perfect it's more progressive than VAT or council tax, which is precisely why the Tories choose to cut it.