Corbyn suggests earnings limit

[Obelix]

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.

 

Seeing that Labour generally inherit a working economy from the Conservatives that's not surprising TBH.

[sgtkate]

Seeing that Labour generally inherit a working economy from the Conservatives that's not surprising TBH.

 

If you'd looked at the links that is taken fully into account.

[unbeliever]

The problem with economics in a democracy is that there's generally a lag of a couple of election cycles between major decisions being taken and their full effects.

Look back in 10 years and see who's getting the credit/blame (don't want to derail the thread) for the economic effect of Brexit.

[Obelix]

If you'd looked at the links that is taken fully into account.

 

they don't say that at all. In particular the first one which shows that the Conservatives borrow more supports the view that they have to borrow more, and get to pay less purely because they have a basket case of an economy to deal with. Borrowing is not at all a good measure on it's own of how well someone is doing - to suggest otherwise is simply cherry picking the data.

 

At the moment there is still no money. That's the consequence of Labour piddling it up the wall some ten years back. The only reason that Labour had the money to piddle was the mid 1990's improvement in the economy which was the fruit of years of pain sorting out stagflation (another Labour gift to the Conservatives) and unemployment etc through the 1980's. Then just as the economy gets back on a sensible track, Labour promise the earth, get given control and spend everything and then sit around gormlessly wondering what went wrong - but hey no matter. It's now not up to them to fix it....

Edited January 12, 2017 by Obelix

[sgtkate]

they don't say that at all. In particular the first one which shows that the Conservatives borrow more supports the view that they have to borrow more, and get to pay less purely because they have a basket case of an economy to deal with. Borrowing is not at all a good measure on it's own of how well someone is doing - to suggest otherwise is simply cherry picking the data.

 

 

Both articles look quite closely at whether the economy was better or worse at the end of that government taking into account relevant economic factors that might have affected things that were not in control of the government at all...and both find that in general Labour have left the economy in a better place than when they started compared to the Tories. Therefore both do clearly take into account the state of play at the start.

 

However, I do agree that Gordon Brown in particular was an utter liability with the economy and did considerable damage with things that really should have been obviously foolish at the time (such as selling off lots of gold). However, the global financial crash was not Brown's fault, we can look to the US for that one, but things could have been done to reduce the impact of it here. He did some good though, removing BoE control from the government was an excellent decision and it's only being talked about bringing it back in house because now rightly so the government can't coerce the BoE into making the government look better though manipulation of interest rates.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 14:07 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

No I totally agree. Clearly CEOs are paid too much, I doubt you'll find many who don't think they are. I do support the idea of wage caps but I can't see how they'd work without the inevitable 'brain drain' poorly because of greed and back-slapping. Although based on how awful many of the CEOs on mega-salaries seem to be perhaps losing a few of them wouldn't be a bad thing, although we'd likely end up with the good ones leaving and us being left with Mr Flowers.

Edited January 12, 2017 by sgtkate

[Mister M]

A brain drain can occur for many reasons. Some cite Brexit as reason why scientists may desert UK academia in favour of universities abroad. Others cite the high living costs living in London as compared to some other European cities.

It was similarly argued here, and abroad, for many years, that financial experts needed to be paid a lot of money to keep the 'best and the brightest'. If the recent financial crisis, and the many associated banking crises are anything to go by, their over inflated salaries are unwarranted.

Unfortunately, IMO, politics and finance are entwined, and politicians are in awe of a system where to make the rich work hard you need to pay more, but to make the poor work hard you've got to threaten them with redundancy or pay cuts.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Mister M

[Cyclone]

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.

 

In terms of happiness it's income equality which increases it. Not overall level of wealth.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 15:07 ----------

 

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'm not sure I actually said that. Just that the goal (if it's to do with increasing the happiness of the electorate) is to decrease income inequality, NOT to increase the pay of the lowest paid. If you could magically overnight double the pay of all the poor (however you define it), but triple the pay of the rich, the result (after the honeymoon period ended, and ignoring the hyper inflation that would be triggered) would be decreased happiness.

[3 Tuns]

A brain drain can occur for many reasons. Some cite Brexit as reason why scientists may desert UK academia in favour of universities abroad. Others cite the high living costs living in London as compared to some other European cities.

It was similarly argued here, and abroad, for many years, that financial experts needed to be paid a lot of money to keep the 'best and the brightest'. If the recent financial crisis, and the many associated banking crises are anything to go by, their over inflated salaries are unwarranted.

Unfortunately, IMO, politics and finance are entwined, and politicians are in awe of a system where to make the rich work hard you need to pay more, but to make the poor work hard you've got to threaten them with redundancy or pay cuts.

 

As a matter of interest how would you get an international footballer to play for Chelsea for £300K when he was being offered £30 million by Real Madrid?

Edited January 12, 2017 by 3 Tuns

[Cyclone]

JC never actually stated the reason he thought wage caps were a good idea.

 

But the only plausible reason I can think of (and thus the aim) is that high income inequality begets high levels of unhappiness.

So HIS aim is to decrease unhappiness amongst the population (this seems like a reasonable aim to be fair).

The solution to that is not to increase the pay of the poor IF the pay of the rich increases more. The aim to increase happiness HAS to be to decrease income inequality.

And since I agree that the happiness of the electorate is important, I have to agree that decreasing income inequality is good.

It can be done in at least 2 ways though, increase the pay of ONLY the poorer, or decrease the pay of ONLY the richer. (Poor/Rich based on income, not wealth).

[Robin-H]

In terms of happiness it's income equality which increases it. Not overall level of wealth.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 15:07 ----------

 

 

I'm not sure I actually said that. Just that the goal (if it's to do with increasing the happiness of the electorate) is to decrease income inequality, NOT to increase the pay of the lowest paid. If you could magically overnight double the pay of all the poor (however you define it), but triple the pay of the rich, the result (after the honeymoon period ended, and ignoring the hyper inflation that would be triggered) would be decreased happiness.

 

Going by the Gini coefficients for the countries with the most equal income distribution they are (top 10)

 

1) Ukraine

2) Slovenia

3) Norway

4) Belarus

5) Czech Republic

6) Slovakia

7) Kazakhstan

8 ) Iceland

9) Finland

10) Romania

 

The happiest countries in the world (according to the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network) are (top 10)

 

1) Denmark

2) Switzerland

3) Iceland

4) Norway

5) Finland

6) Canada

7) The Netherlands

8 ) New Zealand

9) Australia

10) Sweden

 

There is some overlap (Norway, Iceland and Finland) but it suggests there is more than just equality of income that makes a country happy or not.