To think it is clear where Corbyn will get the money from?

[malificent7]

Taxes of course... especially the rich.
Which is how it should be.

The more people earn/ recieve in welfare, the more people spend which is great for the econoy

WHAT???

How can it possibly be a good thing to make people think they can earn/receive a lot in welfare?! That's the daftest thing I've ever heard.

If those who are quite capable of working get jobs and don't claim benefits, there will be a bigger pot of money for those who cannot.

OhCrepe's post also shows the way some people think on this point, when she says: "The tories took money from the needy as soon as they got in power. Why take money from those who have the least?"

No. They didn't take money away. They reduced what was being paid out. Those are two very different things, and it shows the sense of entitlement that is so prevalent. In fact, there is no automatic entitlement to be given anything. In lots of countries all over the world, you'd get nothing.

A well functioning and civilised society must support those in need, whether that's a bit of extra support or full time care. But the vast majority of people aren't in that position, and are quite capable of contributing. It gives the wrong mindset to talk about it as an entitlement and "taking away money" in my opinion. Even ice blooded robot TM hasn't come to your house and actually confiscated things!

Corbyns figures don't add up

For two main reasons.

Firstly, if it was so easy to stop illegal tax evasion (i.e. the black economy etc), then Brown and the last Labour government would have done it. In fact, the "tax gap" i.e. black economy etc got bigger during Labour's 13 years.

Secondly, a lot of the so-called clamp downs on tax avoidance (i.e. offshoring, foreign owned companies, licence fees to tax havens etc), is already happening. The UK (under the Tories) is one of the early adopters of the OECD worldwide plan forcing global companies to pay fair amounts of tax in the countries in which they operate. It's not a "new" Corbyn initiative at all - it's already being done. The Amazon, Starbucks, etc global tax scams are already happening. It's old news! Don't forget that the old Channel Islands DVD tax scam loophole was closed down years ago. The Philip Green/BHS tax dodge of paying huge amounts of interest artificially has already been legislated against so can't happen in the future!

The coalition and the current Tory govt have been clamping down on various unfair loopholes and tax dodges. So, Corbyn can't claim this is extra money for his money tree!

Anyway, why should we trust a Labour govt to be tough on tax evasion/avoidance. Brown was the guy at the helm when HMRC were doing "sweetheart" deals with Vodafone and other global companies. It wasn't Brown who stopped the Channel Islands DVD wheeze. It wasn't Brown who was a founding adopter of the OECD fair global tax scheme.

I completely agree with the PP that it is the principles I'm voting for. I don't care if he doesn't manage to achieve 70% of what he's claiming he will, at least he's trying to address the obscene differences in money between the rich and the poor. And if you've never been at the lower end then you have no fucking idea. I live in one of the poorest communities in Wales and if you've only lived in some leafy London suburb and gone to private school then I'm sorry but you can't be expected to understand the hope that people have from these Labour proposals.

Rinkydinkypink
You say you work your bollocks off but can't afford a holiday but that you would "find money" for tutors if state education worsens. Everyone finds money according to their priorities. I spend about £30-40 a week on food for a family of four and choose to save for a holiday over two years (my husband and I both work in case anyone is judging that decision). If you had to visit a food bank regularly or if you lived on a street watching drug deals and prostitutes working outside every night I certainly wouldn't begrudge you a holiday.

The issue is the media is owned by the very people who don't want the masses to be educated on these matters. They spout bullshit inciting hatred and racism amongst the "lower classes" and sit in their ivory towers counting their profits watching us turn on each other. How can anyone have a problem with food bank users who earn less than the UK average or are shock horror on benefits whilst the rich avoid paying what they should.

A basic MPs salary is £74,962 a year, so any that are higher up etc it's more.
£22,760 pounds rent allowance In London and £15,850 outside London
And even more crazy is allowed £8,850 allowance if live in own home.
And that's the beginning of the never ending list if allowances and costs there allowed to claim.
For Instance office rent ,staffing costs you name it

Labour's growth-based budget will help the economy.

Tory's austerity strangles growth.

Oh crap, who switched on the makebot this morning?

You can increase personal and corporate taxation. You can do so massively. But you then provide a disincentive for people to work

Which is exactly why lots of experienced doctors and dentists have cut back on their hours to ensure they earn under £100k. On earnings over £100k, they pay a marginal tax rate (inc NIC) of a whopping 62%!!!! Under Labour's plans to hit the rich (i.e. those earning over £80k!), an experienced doctor or dentist will be paying nearly 70% tax/nic on their wages between £100-£123k. That will just mean even more cut back to a 3 or 4 day week and refuse to do extra shifts, thus not only reducing total tax take, but also worsening the shortage of doctors and dentists. That's just one example of the negative financial and social aspects of a punitive tax policy. There are many more!!!!

Carrollocking
Thanks for that. My assumption is that these second homes they get allowances for aren't just shitty one bedroom flats that they spend the bare minimum on...

if you've only lived in some leafy London suburb and gone to private school

A tiny proportion of those not voting Labour will have "lived in some leafy London suburb and gone to private school". Most of them will have normal jobs, living in normal housing, in normal places, with kids in normal schools. You have a very strange view of a Tory voter!!!

It will take a lot of work to clear the mountain of Tory Debt.

We begin that work today!

dan c'mon you love make really

i don't understand why people think anyone would want to work for 27% of the money. Would they? Or would they rather have some extra free time with family or to study or just chill out of that time were taken off to avoid falling into that tax bracket?!

Even labour voters were fed up with his repetitive shite yesterday, rufus!

yep

I just read that 70K puts you in the top 5% of the population. That seems loads if you live in e.g. Liverpool (my hometown) where the average house price for a 3 bed semi is around £160K. If you Iive in central London that house would be £633K. In my commuter town to London, that house price would be about £350K. So, how do you define rich? Not all of the top 5% are living in stately homes and have pads in Antigua. Most of these 70K people in the SE have a bit left over at the end of the month, but not that much after paying 50-60% of their net salary in mortgage on top of the highest council tax in the country. If they live in a commuter town they will pay around £4K a year train fares.

Taxing these people is a false economy. The only thing it does is make other people feel better that those rich bastards have got what they deserve.

Within this 5% the very, very rich will get their accountants to fudge numbers and move stuff so you can't tax it. The others will stop spending money to balance the effect of the tax rises. Usually someone who works in London works a 9-11 hour day then has at least an hours commute. To make up for the long hours they pay people to iron shirts, do their gardens and clean their pads. At best these people will drop these luxuries, curtail weekends away and holidays and stop spending money in the shops. Some will have to stop sending their DC to private school, may move to a grammar area and spend some money on tutors for maths and english. They will stop paying for DC's private dental because they can't be arsed to wait for an appointment and suck it up to save money.

At worst they will look for jobs overseas. I used to live overseas where I paid 15-17% tax with no other taxes on top. My job was to relocate expats from around the world into top jobs. The no. 1 reason why Brits left the UK (young, 30 something professional people, mainly working in finance, but also engineers, Doctors and IT) was because of taxes. They felt that they were working really long hours and had nothing left at the end of the month. Moving abroad = better quality of life and savings. In my first year I moved 250 Brits earning 100K over to one city. Some of you mentioned where are they going to go? You can add to your list HK, Singapore, Jakarta. Dubai, Abu Dhabi, KL, Australia, Bangkok where our loss is their gain and they are welcomed with open arms. Their economies have been greatly helped by our "talent".

Be careful what you wish for as it may not pan out the way we expect.

dan

Depends whether the job will allow that though

So yes self employed can amend what they do

As they always have been

PAYE not so much

dan

Do you really think its a bot though?

Quick ask it a siri question

make what is 0 divided by 0?

(Its the most awesome Siri question ever)

No Malificent7 - the more people earn and have to spend the better for the economy. Welfare spending may be necessary but is never the way to prosperity.

Dandan money has been taken away from the children I've worked with who needed it, through cuts to the NHS and schools' budgets.
Why set the bar low and basically say they should be grateful because they have more than they would in a much poorer country? And this while the rich are getting richer? You ok with that then?

Calmshambala. You talk about some rich people leaving the country to have more money.
Can you tell me how the poor are cared for in Dubai etc?

Ohcrepe - did they earn that money? Was it theirs and it has been taken away. Or was it given to them and the amount has been reduced?

You've totally missed my point.

If people stopped seeing benefits as an entitlement (people like my own cousin who whinges when "his" money hasn't come through quickly enough), there might be more to give to children who definitely need it.

You only need to look to France to see what happens under a high tax, socialist government. People flocked to London and unemployment soared.

There is no magic money tree.

It has been proved more than once that putting up tax rates can reduce tax take once you get above a certain level. For every high earner who takes steps to minimise his tax bill there are many more who are on paye just like everybody else and pay huge sums in tax. Alan Sugar personally paid over £58 million pounds in tax last year.

Of course the rich should pay more than the poor, but will someone please tell me what they think is a "fair" %? Most are paying 45% and have no personal allowance, child benefit etc. Do you think 50% 60, 70% ? At 60% that means you would work from Jan 1st till the middle of August just for the government. That is a nonsense. In Russia the tax rate is a universal 30%.

Perhaps we should all pay a flat rate of 45%?

They're children of course they didn't earn it. I'm not talking benefits I'm talking aids for disabled children and yes they are entitled to it or are these children not deserving of help???
I know what you meant and when money is given then taken away it is to all intents and purposes the same as taking away.

Lots of businesses are already being hit since the value of the pound dropped and it's affected the cost of anything bought overseas. I think increasing corporation tax is a bad idea.