Jeremy Corbyn

[salcombebabe]

I see so many posters saying they won’t vote for Labour as they don’t like Jeremy Corbyn - why? If the Labour policies are good then why not vote for those rather than the leader?

Ffs unless you earn over 80k it has zero effect on you.

Ffs unless you earn over 80k it has zero effect on you.

It’s sweet how you take the promises of rapacious socialists on faith...

‘...anti-Semitism and misogyny hidden behind the so-called equality of women (which meant that they were supposed to do double work, at home and at work and less paid), I would like to believe that I recognise a Stalinist when I hear one.
And I hate Tories with passion unseen so I a think it's a real tragedy to see Labour going down the bolshevik drain.’

This.

I have been around for some time, now getting quite grizzled. My formative political youth saw far more deprivation than we have now - although most poverty now is well hidden & there is far more shaming of the poor now than when industries were left to rot & areas of this country were economically blighted ( & some still are).

To my point, I come from a long tradition of Labour activists, & have always voted Labour even though I did not take always to the leadership e.g. Blair.But I could bear that as the fundamental thrust & energy of the Labour Party was heading the right direction.

But now, no.

Corbyn is not trustworthy. He was just about tolerable as a grumpy self-righteous back bencher, but he was a good enough constituency MP & Tony Benn gave him air cover, so he was not deselected long ago. He says all the right things, but it is just words.

If any of this were funny, I could jest that he got the job because he shagged Diane Abbott. But there’s no humour in that.

Apart from his lacklustre leadership, tacit support for the growth of anti-semitism, bullying & misogyny in the ranks of the Labour Party, & dodgy affiliations, topped by comments such as Jews not getting English irony that reveal the real man.
He is there in plain sight.
Momentum is Militant out of rehabilitation with a wash & brush up.
FFS they resurrected & reinstated Derek Hatton.
I have sat in meetings, been in trade unions & through the cycle of the ultra hard left gunning for power through the Labour Party & the labour movement, & most people can see them a mile off. Through Corbyn, the hard left are closer to power than for over a generation.

Unless Labour has better leadership, I’m going to struggle to cast my vote for Labour.

Is the notion of 10% of a UK owned company with more than 250 employees being given to the workers through the setting up of a inclusive ownership fund where workers would be given a dividend of up to £500 annually each and any surplus going into the public purse so bad if it helps spread wealth and prosperity more widely than currently where the CEO’s and share holders get the vast wedge of it?

The problem, as ever, is that the 10% is owned by someone (quite possibly a pension fund). You can't just take it because you think hedge fund guys have too much money.

Ffs unless you earn over 80k it has zero effect on you.

That's really not true - they plan to tax wealth i.e. houses.

Ffs unless you earn over 80k it has zero effect on you.

That's really not true - they plan to tax wealth i.e. houses.

This is what I’m worried about - I’m not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do own my own home (bought during better times) and have managed to continue making the mortgage payments despite my now lower income.

If Corbyn gets in will I be taxed on my property in addition to everything else? I really couldn’t afford to pay much extra and am worried I could lose my home.

This is what I’m worried about - I’m not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do own my own home (bought during better times) and have managed to continue making the mortgage payments despite my now lower income.

Well, yes!

Even the 'rich' people in a £1M London 3BR terraced houses will have already paid the Inland Revenue handsomely for the privilege of handing over their after-tax money, by way of stamp duty.

I like Jeremy Corbyn and will be voting labour. Even if you don't like Jeremy, why would you vote tory unless you're one of the mega- rich that will benefit from a tory government? Spoil your ballot paper... anything but vote tory or we're screwed.

I’m surprised (not!) to see such outrage over the taxing of people earning over £80,000 a year, yet not a murmur about the tax breaks and incentives those same people have enjoyed at the expense of public services.

I’ve got more chance of winning rear of the year than Corbyn has of becoming PM.

I’m a previous Labour voter but, can not vote for a party with a leader like him

“That's really not true - they plan to tax wealth i.e. houses.“

Could you say more about this?

Wha are thgese tax breaks and incentives PAYE earners on ay £100k get? They pay 40% tax - 42% if you include national insurance on their upper earnings. Many of them have no "spare " income to pay into a pension fund so to not even get tax relief on that. I am struggling to see what the tax breaks are. Once they earn over 150K or so they get no single personal tax allowance even and upper tax rates are 45% (plus 2% NI so 47%).

This is what is so frustrating for higher earners who never in British history have paid so much of the tax burden, that peopel think we all evade tax or pay 10% of our income on it or something. There are very very very few international billionaires in the UK and many more people who earn well but pay heaps of tax . I am self employed so not under PAYE but my tax rates are equally as high and I have no tax breaks. I don't own a limited company and even those that do now pay tax the same as if they don't because of changes in tax law on dividends.

@Xenia, if people on salaries of more than £100k don’t have the spare cash to put tax free money into a pension, there’s something badly wrong with their financial priorities. There’s no reason why high earners should get tax breaks, if you don’t earn the money you can’t pay tax on it.

The other problem with this 10% going to employees is that most companies of any size already have employee participation through share options and the like. Many tech investors, for example, make employee participation a condition of their investing. So this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. And if a company reached the 250 employee mark and wanted to avoid this, they would just move abroad or insert a German holding company, for example.

Because Corbyn and most of his entourage have never had a job in the private sector, their views on evil capitalist owners seem to reflect the Soviet Union around 1925 rather than Britain today.

If the problem doesn’t exist and it’s already happening, why all the angst?

“ Because Corbyn and most of his entourage have never had a job in the private sector, their views on evil capitalist owners seem to reflect the Soviet Union around 1925 rather than Britain today.”
But the fact that Johnson and most of his entourage have never had a job in the public sector, or any experience of living the sort of lives working class, and most middle class people live doesn’t disqualify them from policy making and legislation for those groups?

alsohuman - because the employees often already potentially own 10-15% of a company, they will suffer, if another 10% is expropriated, and it will also make it much more difficult to get investment. Who would want to invest in a company that might be subject to this ridiculous rule.

Bertrand - I don't think the comparison is valid - Boris and the tories understand there has to be a public sector. Corbyn and his mates come from a Marxist background that believes all profits are made at the expense of workers. In the Soviet Union there was officially no private sector at all.

If Corbyn gets in will I be taxed on my property in addition to everything else? I really couldn’t afford to pay much extra and am worried I could lose my home.

For Corbyn and the cult, that’s not the bug of their policy, it’s the feature!

Labour have gone very quiet on their tax on shoe box sized homes in the SE because it is quite unpopular with home owners so it is hard to work out what they will do but they have certainly been supportive of taxes on capital

(Slighty off topic on this point - "@Xenia, if people on salaries of more than £100k don’t have the spare cash to put tax free money into a pension, there’s something badly wrong with their financial priorities". We didn't! Do you know who much full time childcare for a baby costs in London and rents and how much of that £100k goes in tax?

Your take home is £5444 a month. Loads. (Let us assume we have a single mother as I am and no other salary just to keep it simple) chidcare in a decent London nursery is about £22k per baby. Let us say she has a baby and a 2 year olds that is £44k with I think £4k state subsidy under the £2k per child thing so £40k childcare. If she had a nanny or 2 full time childminder places it might be more like £30k afer she has paid the nanny's NI and employer NI and pension etc. so about £3333 a month in childcare off the 5444 a month leaves her £2111 for rent - her rent might well be £2k. So yes absolutely £100k gross £5400 a month net does not leave enough for some people to pay into a pension. Add on a 9% graduate tax on the earnings from £25k to £100k that is 6750 a year student loan replayment of £562 a month )

because the employees often already potentially own 10-15% of a company, they will suffer, if another 10% is expropriated

Which wouldn’t happen because those companies are already meeting the proposed requirement.

@Xenia, you live in a different world. The childcare argument only holds for parents of preschool children and if they prioritise school fees over a pension, quite frankly they’re bonkers.

because the employees often already potentially own 10-15% of a company, they will suffer, if another 10% is expropriated

Which wouldn’t happen because those companies are already meeting the proposed requirement.

Assuming this is true, isn't this a substantial incentive for existing shareholder-employees to move to a different employer, so they can partake of this windfall at the expense of other shareholders? They'd obviously feel shortchanged that their pre-existing compensation is effectively double-counted.

Of course, this also assumes that this scheme does't have a super-chilling effect on hiring across the board, while also forcing companies to hover at 249 employees and so on.

I'm sure some clever accountants are dreaming up an outsourcing/consultancy scheme right now to sidestep this requirement. Much like how the NHS can't find any medics to work when they're idling in the £130 and £180K range and their effective tax rate is something like 90% once pensions are taken into account, so they outsource to a third party agencies and pay 4x the cost.

Which wouldn’t happen because those companies are already meeting the proposed requirement.

I’m not sure that’s the case.

Under current rules the employees who buy shares in their employer’s company actually own the shares. If those shares have been ‘given’ by the company (in some sort of matched purchase scheme - you put in 3% and the company puts in 2%) then they are ‘frozen’ for a period of 3 years before they can be sold. After this time they are the employees’ shares and can be sold as usual. The employee receives all the dividends.

Under the proposed scheme the employee will never be able to sell the shares and dividends will be capped - the rest going to the government. In effect, the capped dividend is the only benefit the employee will receive.

I don’t think existing company employee share schemes would meet the requirements of the proposed system.

If the problem doesn’t exist and it’s already happening, why all the angst?

The angst is about the fact that this is not a scheme for employee share ownership - it is about forced government ownership.

Yes, the state will steal basically 10% of your permission in a sense (as penson funds invest in those shares) and those employees will get at most £500 a year but will not own the shares.

Does the employee take any relevant gain or loss upon departing the company?

If not, this is really just the government taking 10% of all 250+ companies under the guise of employee ownership. £500 a year represents a drop in the bucket to the overall equity raid.

Odds of a Corbyn government are dropping by the day.

6/1 now from 11/2 earlier in the week.

I don't feel good about the odds, to be honest. I have a sick feeling that he's going to somehow land in number 10.