So people earning over £80k are wealthy, unless they are JC??(322 Posts)
In an interview with Julie Etchingham, JC apparently said he's not wealthy, despite earning over £130k p/a, because of WHERE HE PUTS HIS MONEY (but he's not going in to that!). AIBU to think this is the most ridiculous statement he has managed to put out in recent weeks?
Given that Labour want the wealthiest in our society (earning over £80k) to pay more taxes, what Good Reason could he possibly have to not include himself in that bracket? Discuss :-)
I was also wondering - as a side-point - aren't (Labour) MPs shooting themselves in the foot a bit, because most of them will probably already earn at least £80k a year (given that the basic annual salary for an MP is £74,000?
Disclaimer: this isn't a rant against Labour. I'm just quite surprised, as this tax for £80k+ earners would work against MPs.
And good point OP about JC apparently saying he's 'not wealthy enough' really, Jezza? Although I have to say I did think he was very principled.
Until seeing this thread.
They'll find out who's wealthy when the truly wealthy fuck off, the economy tanks, and their number of people earning over £80k plummets.
Clue: there won't be enough of them!
I heard the exact same from someone on Netmums, claiming that 60k a year is hardly wealthy, especially if you have a high mortgage and other outgoings. But you choose to have higher outgoings as your money goes up, so if that leaves you skint then that's your own issue. 60k is nearly triple what most people earn, so yes it's wealthy.
120k a year? Don't get me started on how stupid and arrogant his claim is.
Did he mean through that he wasn't wealthy personally?
Say you earnt 100k but gave 99k away you wouldn't be wealthy. I'm not suggesting that's what he does, bits it how it could be read
Surely he wouldn't be an exception to those changes though? He would also be paying more tax.
Agree with Mariposa
For me £80k means you are wealthy. But you may not feel wealthy if your household has a high turnover.
I thought this post was going to be about Jesus Christ.
But, I'm failing to see the point here. I think he is wealthy, but hes entitled to disagree, however I don't think hes saying that he won't pay the extra tax is he? so whats the disparity?
Nobody cares how you spend your money. If over £80k is wealthy according to corbyn then he's a bloody hypocrite if he claims not to be wealthy himself!
A millionaire who gives millions away to charity and lives in a cave is still wealthy!
Sorry I'm having trouble believing anyone could be that thick....
Surely he didn't really say that did he???
I'll reserve judgement until I've actually seen the interview tonight. But I can't see that it's unreasonable to say that you don't live a wealthy lifestyle because of where your money goes, whilst still acknowledging that the amount you earn puts you into the wealthiest 5% of the population.
As for the comment about labour MPs 'shooting themselves in the foot' if they increase income tax for those earning over £80k, it very much depends on your attitude towards tax doesn't it? That makes the assumption that their primary aim is to protect their own income. FWIW, I'm a basic rate tax payer and would gladly support a policy to increase the tax I pay if I thought the benefits for the country were worth it, I wouldn't see that as shooting myself in the foot.
Pamplemousse Pricipled wealthy Labour MPs, or indeed voters, aren't going to worry about shooting themselves in the foot because decent wealthy people don't mind paying more tax if necessary. Not everyone votes purely in their own self interest.
There's a difference between 'wealthy' and 'wealthiest'. The average salary in the U.K. £27,600. I don't think that it is unreasonable to think more than THREE TIMES the average salary is among the wealthiest and therefore should pay more tax. FWIW Ido not earn £80k but my household income is about that. I'm not 'wealthy' but I'm pretty fucking far from being down the mines and suffer no financial hardship. I'd happily pay a few more percentage points in tax.
I know when there was a whipround to buy him a particular bike, it raised £000s & he gave it to charity. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his leader's salary (on top of MP's salary) goes the same way but he's not going to brag about it.
Also he generally makes one of the smallest expenses claims, so he's buying his own breakfast etc, unlike people like IDS
A salary like that doesn't make anybody wealthy - it means they can live better than they would otherwise, but that's not the same thing. He owns one house in London, which happens to be worth over £500k, but so do millions of other Londoners thanks to the property market.
I've seen him described as a champagne socialist today - it's ridiculous - like that the DM headlines about Labour planning to tax "workers" earning more than £80,000
he is an utter fool. no idea why he is still heading the party.
The country is getting its knickers in a twist over this issue of who is rich and who is wealthy etc. Some people forget how much tax and national insurance and student loan is taken off the higher salaries and that you may not get a single person allowance etc so it is not as simple as saying as £80k is double £40k. However it is more, without doubt.
Corbyn presumably has ex wives and children to pay for or perhaps he meant he donates a lot to charities. He is certainly not someone who is likely to be wasting money. I am a May supporter, but I think Corbyn is a good man too from a personal point of view.
No party represents my views - of wanting a much much smaller state and much lower taxes sadly.
Jack Dromey refused to admit to Andrew Neil that he was one of the 'rich' a few weeks ago. At the time Labour were saying the 'rich' were those earning GBP70,000, Neil pointed out that as an MPs salary is GBP74,000, Dromey was rich. Of course he couldn't sit there, as a champion of the working people, and say yes I am rich. The following week suddenly GBP80,000 was 'rich' according to Labour. How, er, convenient.
It would be quite wealthy to me! But I live in a cheap
shit area with a small mortgage. But It is not wealthy for those with massive mortgages / and / or living in the South esp London
And I say this as a Labour member
IMO yes it does mean you are wealthy, extremely so compared to most people
I'm so fucked off at the Labour Party. I don't to vote for the tories but this sort of shit makes me think labour are a bunch of hypocrites and don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. There's literally no viable option in my opinion.
squid but I think OP means it's not the amount, or the context, it's more the hypocrisy of Labour in that if you earn GBP80k (and esp if you vote Tory), YOU are wealthy. If I am the Labour leader (or even just an MP) and earn more than GBP80K, I am NOT wealthy. God no, you are, I'm not. A bit like JC can send HIS DS to Grammar, but you can't. Dianne Abbot can send hers to private school but if you do you're evil and rich. Principles are just for the little people.
It's always the same from the "principled":-
>People who are higher rate taxpayers are "rich" until you become one yourself.
>People who earn more than £80k are "rich" until you become one yourself.
>People who earn more than £50k and lose their child benefit are "rich" until you become one yourself.
I agree with the PP who said that so long as JC is not in any way claiming that he should personally be exempt from any tax increases, then there is absolutely no issue.
Maybe he isn't personally rich. We have no idea where his money goes - maybe he does give lots away or maybe he has very high outgoings. How would we know? You can earn £10k per month, but if your outgoings are £11k each month are you still rich? Certainly not in terms of money in the bank, no. In assets - maybe.
Some people feel comfortably off with £25k per year, others won't feel comfortable with less than £100k. He personally doesn't consider himself as rich - so what? He obviously does acknowledge that his income is higher than average, as he will be in the bracket to pay more tax.
Nothing to get anyone's knickers in a knot about.
Over £70,000 is top 10% of earners isn't it?
So yeah, MP'S are rich.
Not the richest. But rich enough to expect to pay more tax.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.