Jpeters Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Left wing odd ball Jeremy Corbyn has suggested today that there should be an arbitrary earnings limit, conveniently in excess of his six figure salary. This is dangerously naive in economic terms. Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? This is the kind of rhetoric that drunk students spout. Does anyone on here think Corbyn is right on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Left wing odd ball Jeremy Corbyn has suggested today that there should be an arbitrary earnings limit, conveniently in excess of his six figure salary. This is dangerously naive in economic terms. Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? This is the kind of rhetoric that drunk students spout. Does anyone on here think Corbyn is right on this one? He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals. The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy. Socialism makes everybody equally poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Yes and no. I can totally understand the logic behind this, however putting it into practice would be impossible I think. So love the idea, but have no delusions about it's feasibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals. The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy. Socialism makes everybody equally poor. It would be completely unworkable anyway. Hopefully nobody is deluded enough to think that it is remotely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals. The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy. Socialism makes everybody equally poor. However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality. I'd say that once our basic needs are dealt with so shelter, food, relationships (friends or sexual etc) then everything else between that and the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fluff that we convince ourselves makes us happy. If we are going to go into philosophical economics, then everything from the basic needs right up to self-fulfilment are hygiene factors. Take them away and we are sad, but never have them in the first place and it has no impact. So if you or I suddenly had our salaries slashed and our TVs taken away we'd be bloody upset and miserable, but if we'd never had a TV or never had a salary above a level that allowed us to meet needs and have certain freedom and everyone else around us was exactly the same then we'd be just as happy if not more so. Use of the term poor is often used to simply mean financial whereas it should be looked at far more holistically. I'd rather be financially poor but happy than rich and miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 He must think he's more powerful than his job role entails. Does he really think he can stop football clubs paying outrageous salaries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 <...> Should this man be in control of the nation's opposition? <...>Not for much longer: he single-handedly handed the LibDems a massive electoral boost this morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality. I'd say that once our basic needs are dealt with so shelter, food, relationships (friends or sexual etc) then everything else between that and the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fluff that we convince ourselves makes us happy. If we are going to go into philosophical economics, then everything from the basic needs right up to self-fulfilment are hygiene factors. Take them away and we are sad, but never have them in the first place and it has no impact. So if you or I suddenly had our salaries slashed and our TVs taken away we'd be bloody upset and miserable, but if we'd never had a TV or never had a salary above a level that allowed us to meet needs and have certain freedom and everyone else around us was exactly the same then we'd be just as happy if not more so. Use of the term poor is often used to simply mean financial whereas it should be looked at far more holistically. I'd rather be financially poor but happy than rich and miserable. And if you or somebody you love gets sick and there's not enough money to help them? This is very common. Been through it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 And if you or somebody you love gets sick and there's not enough money to help them? This is very common. Been through it myself. That's a horrible situation and you have my fullest sympathy. And yes in some of those poor countries I mentioned they probably encounter that situation more than we do, but that's because we have the NHS which I accept is funded by money from taxes from wages and company profits. But if you put a cap on earnings then doctors and nurses would be paid less too so the relative costs of the NHS would fall and therefore would need less tax to pay for it. Simplistic I know, and doesn't take into account the cost of drugs from outside the UK etc. As I said, I love the idea but I love the idea of absolute full socialism as well where there is not money at all, but I can't see either as being realistic unless we find a way to reboot humanity and start over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpeters Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 However, lots of research and evidence showing that countries that are poor but have low wealth inequality are some of the happiest in the world, contrasting with rich countries with high wealth inequality. Do you have any evidence of this? The evidence I have seen (world happiness reort 2016)highlights a strong postie correlation between wealth and happiness. All of the top 10 countries are European, save Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The highest country that falls below the average GDP of the world is Guatemala, in poisition 39. The only countries in the bottom 50 of average or better GDP is South Africa, Bulgaria and Gabon (none of which are wealthy). The bottom "rich" country is Greece at number 99. Corbyn is dangerous, more dangerous than Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now