Corbyn suggests earnings limit

[Robin-H]

But the Laffer curve is not an excuse to abandon any pretence at controlling C level salaries and the number of times greater than the average that they are.

 

I didn't say it was. I was responding to a poster who wanted to bring back higher tax rates and so was suggesting they look up the research which shows why that wouldn't be beneficial.

[unbeliever]

But the Laffer curve is not an excuse to abandon any pretence at controlling C level salaries and the number of times greater than the average that they are.

 

It really is.

The goal is to make the poor better off. If the reality is that limiting top pay effects the reverse of this goal of making the poor better off then it would be wrong to do it.

It's really that simple.

[Cyclone]

No, it's an argument not to have very high tax rates. It's not an argument to give up any pretence at controlling executive salary. The two things are very different.

 

Oh, and the goal is not to "make the poor better off", it's to reduce income inequality.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 09:01 ----------

 

I didn't say it was. I was responding to a poster who wanted to bring back higher tax rates and so was suggesting they look up the research which shows why that wouldn't be beneficial.

 

Clearly some people think that it is though (see post after yours).

[unbeliever]

No, it's an argument not to have very high tax rates. It's not an argument to give up any pretence at controlling executive salary. The two things are very different.

 

Oh, and the goal is not to "make the poor better off", it's to reduce income inequality.

 

 

I'm going to focus on the last bit of your post:

 

You're pulling my leg right? By that argument you'd be happy to have the poor starving as long as everybody else is starving too. Tell me that's not what you actually think.

[3 Tuns]

I'm going to focus on the last bit of your post:

 

You're pulling my leg right? By that argument you'd be happy to have the poor starving as long as everybody else is starving too. Tell me that's not what you actually think.

 

That's the system they have in Cuba and North Korea, unless your name is Castro or Kim.

[Obelix]

I'm going to focus on the last bit of your post:

 

You're pulling my leg right? By that argument you'd be happy to have the poor starving as long as everybody else is starving too. Tell me that's not what you actually think.

 

I don't think Cyclone actually wants that. But from what I've seen of Labour over a long period, they want social and especially income equality. Sometimes their ideological desire to punish the bosses and "tax the rich till the pips squeak" lead them down the route that means eventually everyone gets an equal sharing of misery.

 

Generally speaking it's as this processes is followed that the electorate wise up and vote in someone - anyone - who can manage the economy better. That's why invariably it s the Conservatives that have to rescue the country from itself, get slapped with the crap economy and as soon as it gets better, Labour wrest the reins from them and have another go at screwing it up....

[unbeliever]

I don't think Cyclone actually wants that. But from what I've seen of Labour over a long period, they want social and especially income equality. Sometimes their ideological desire to punish the bosses and "tax the rich till the pips squeak" lead them down the route that means eventually everyone gets an equal sharing of misery.

 

Generally speaking it's as this processes is followed that the electorate wise up and vote in someone - anyone - who can manage the economy better. That's why invariably it s the Conservatives that have to rescue the country from itself, get slapped with the crap economy and as soon as it gets better, Labour wrest the reins from them and have another go at screwing it up....

 

 

Yes but to have somebody who's clearly not a moron come right out and say that basically it's okay for the poor to be poor as long as nobody is rich is still rather shocking.

I expect people like Corbyn to say such things, but he's a complete muppet.

[Obelix]

Yes but to have somebody who's clearly not a moron come right out and say that basically it's okay for the poor to be poor as long as nobody is rich is still rather shocking.

I expect people like Corbyn to say such things, but he's a complete muppet.

 

I don't think Cyclone was saying that. He was illustrating what Corbyn wants. Unlike the bearded wonder, Cyclone isn't a muppet

[unbeliever]

I don't think Cyclone was saying that. He was illustrating what Corbyn wants. Unlike the bearded wonder, Cyclone isn't a muppet

 

I shall feel better if and when Cyclone confirms that he was referring to Cornyn's thoughts and not his own. It's not clear from the text of the post.

[sgtkate]

I don't think Cyclone actually wants that. But from what I've seen of Labour over a long period, they want social and especially income equality. Sometimes their ideological desire to punish the bosses and "tax the rich till the pips squeak" lead them down the route that means eventually everyone gets an equal sharing of misery.

 

Generally speaking it's as this processes is followed that the electorate wise up and vote in someone - anyone - who can manage the economy better. That's why invariably it s the Conservatives that have to rescue the country from itself, get slapped with the crap economy and as soon as it gets better, Labour wrest the reins from them and have another go at screwing it up....

 

Except there are quite a few economists who say that since WW2 Labour have handled the economy far better than the Tories.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

 

The first article might have political bias, I'm not sure though, whereas I don't think the second one has any. Either way both say similar things and are fully referenced and researched.