A corbyn government would impose a limit to what you can earn

While the idea of limiting how much people can earn is incredibly unlikely to ever come into real life - even the likes of Myleene Klass and Sol Campbell were given a voice to attack Ed Milliband's economic principles - there may be some merit to the idea.

Our public services are underfunded, this government has made it worse and has tried to push some of the most vulnerable onto charitable services instead. At the same time there are many people who earn more money than they know what to do with and some who use this to have undue influence in the political landscape and/or evade paying their due tax. The problem gets worse.

I watched a repeat of "Louis Theroux Goes Gambling" recently where one well off lady said she lost 4 million dollars in 7 years. This is absolutely her choice but the idea that she can somewhat happily lose that amount when there will be people within a 15 minute walk of her house struggling for food is tragic.

The problem of such wide income disparity and the impact this has on society is not easy to resolve but it should be taken seriously. At least more seriously than those defending the chance to inherit non-dom status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

Strange I do this "in every thread", as I am simply responding to a question you asked. What do I do anyway?.

And I haven't linked you to anything at all have I? :sherlock: You assumed I am totally against taxing the rich, as you brought up the 1%, CEO's etc. Then I explained my position, that is all.

https://www.ft.com/content/394b82da-...b-e7eb37a6aa8e

---

You are paranoid, the bit on bold doesn't imply you are in favour or against it at all. It wasn't directed at you, more a general question.

Unlike...

Quote:

---

I am defending small/medium size businesses and other people who are deemed "rich", when really they are not.

How can you comment when you have 0 idea how much these people pay in tax?.

---

On small/medium businesses owners? I never did comment on them.

You assumed TOBW was a rich hater simply because he said the rich don't pay the tax they are supposed to. My immediate guess is that he is referring to people whose money does more air miles than Justin Bieber and suspiciously ends up somewhere sunny with a 1% tax rate (sometimes in someone else's name).

The taxation system is all one big pantomime and your little dance just adds to it. No one here mentioned anyone who earns 50k, except for you. No one here mentioned small/medium business owners, except for you. If you hear someone criticising people for living a nice life, take it up with them. I am talking about the FACT that people on PAYE are forced to pay the rate of tax that they are 'supposed to' while the very wealthiest can dodge and swerve (and still complain about the top rate being too high when they aren't even paying it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

Do you know when wage inequality first appeared and why ?

Well according to Radio 4 this lunchtime - it came from when Bill Clinton put a limit of 1million dollars on earned income. So what happened was that all the CEOs in the USA started getting performance related pay instead - which got around the law. So based on share price, and hitting easy targets - their wages sky rocketed - all thanks to a well meaning act by a known philanderer.

I think Corbyn's idea would go the same way.

---

I'm pretty sure there was a teensy bit of inequality before that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

You are paranoid, the bit on bold doesn't imply you are in favour or against it at all. It wasn't directed at you, more a general question.

Unlike...



On small/medium businesses owners? I never did comment on them.

You assumed TOBW was a rich hater simply because he said the rich don't pay the tax they are supposed to. My immediate guess is that he is referring to people whose money does more air miles than Justin Bieber and suspiciously ends up somewhere sunny with a 1% tax rate (sometimes in someone else's name).

The taxation system is all one big pantomime and your little dance just adds to it. No one here mentioned anyone who earns 50k, except for you. No one here mentioned small/medium business owners, except for you. If you hear someone criticising people for living a nice life, take it up with them. I am talking about the FACT that people on PAYE are forced to pay the rate of tax that they are 'supposed to' while the very wealthiest can dodge and swerve (and still complain about the top rate being too high when they aren't even paying it).

---

Read the thread back and see where I said that people generalise about the rich, when they have no idea whatsoever what each individual pays.

You have't a clue, so don't generalise.

The tories have done more than labour ever did to cut down on tax avoidance.

You hate the 1% so much that you discredit the entire system. When most well off people pay far more than you ever will.

Pass it off as you simply disliking the 1%, I think you dislike more judging by your comments on the entire system.

Read momentums latest release and they say employers are basically scumbags. That is the sort of crass comment from people that will never experience running a business.

The rich get criticised for passing judgement on the poor. I guess the working classes can judge anyone without restraint.

At no point in this thread have I been aggressive, so save your OTT language :wave:

Cap is probably an impractical idea, but all elements of Gov't should be looking to implement a reliable system of obtaining transparency regards earnings (I don't necessarily mean full public knowledge) so that those above a certain threshold are made to pay every penny of tax that they owe to the state - like the majority of us 'ordinary' people do.
Those who already earn a very comfortable amount, but are found to be attempting to defraud the country of more on the sly should be marched off to jail like the crooks that they are.

Utopia I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

The rich get criticised for passing judgement on the poor. I guess the working classes can judge anyone without restraint.

---

Society has always, and still does operate that way - there always a perceived 'underdog' who can openly criticise a perceived 'overmaster', but unacceptable the other way round.
In return they get / get to feel downtrodden.

Does not solely relate to wealth / status.

There have a been a few on here over the years who have been openly contemptuous of the 'great unwashwed' as I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vimana.

Cap is probably an impractical idea, but all elements of Gov't should be looking to implement a reliable system of obtaining transparency regards earnings (I don't necessarily mean full public knowledge) so that those above a certain threshold are made to pay every penny of tax that they owe to the state - like the majority of us 'ordinary' people do.
Those who already earn a very comfortable amount, but are found to be attempting to defraud the country of more on the sly should be marched off to jail like the crooks that they are.

Utopia I know.

---

The gov are going through old accounts off shore, demanding people give explanations as to why money has passed through or been stored there. It could've been twenty years ago, they don't care.

I don't really understand how it all works.

I am unsure if they are targeting the big boys who avoid paying millions upon millions but small fry people are getting taken to the cleaners.

[QUOTE=LordKenwyne;4709183]This myth that the rich do not pay their "fair share" will always win some votes, but this sort of punishment of financial success will never win in the modern world, I don't think.

We are allowed to earn what ever father jeremy tells us we can....

When you think he is building momentum he throws a spanner in the works and you realise why electing him would be a huge risk.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with you about him building momentum. The way a rolling stone gathers moss as it careers downhill is the type.

The most ineffective dreadful leader of the opposition of all time, well done the team Cult Corbyn who voted for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

Read the thread back and see where I said that people generalise about the rich, when they have no idea whatsoever what each individual pays.

You have't a clue, so don't generalise.

The tories have done more than labour ever did to cut down on tax avoidance.

You hate the 1% so much that you discredit the entire system. When most well off people pay far more than you ever will.

Pass it off as you simply disliking the 1%, I think you dislike more judging by your comments on the entire system.

---

Childish, desperate and wrong.

Both my siblings are higher rate tax payers, as are their partners. I see an unfair system where they pay a huge portion of their income while far richer people and massive companies can manipulate it to pay sod all.

Inequality grew under labour, grew under the coalition and is growing under the Tories = the definition of a rigged system. We see ideological diatribe against the union's from this government daily and yesterday we saw stories suggesting 'record bonus payouts since the financial crisis', the only possibl result of these two things is even greater inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

Read momentums latest release and they say employers are basically scumbags. That is the sort of crass comment from people that will never experience running a business.

The rich get criticised for passing judgement on the poor. I guess the working classes can judge anyone without restraint.

At no point in this thread have I been aggressive, so save your OTT language :wave:

---

You aren't debating with momentum, you are debating with the people in this thread, my views don't align with theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Childish, desperate and wrong.

Both my siblings are higher rate tax payers, as are their partners. I see an unfair system where they pay a huge portion of their income while far richer people and massive companies can manipulate it to pay sod all.

Inequality grew under labour, grew under the coalition and is growing under the Tories = the definition of a rigged system. We see ideological diatribe against the union's from this government daily and yesterday we saw stories suggesting 'record bonus payouts since the financial crisis', the only possibl result of these two things is even greater inequality.

---

I am childish and you come steamrolling into the thread.

I am defending the high earners who get lampooned on social media every minute of every day. I am not defending the ultra rich in their ivory towers.

I've said "generalise" more times than I can remember in this thread. But people do generalise about the wealthy and rich. You separate them, most do not.

You have misinterpreted what I meant. There is no reason to even argue, as we agree!.

I saw a headline today which suggested the proposed limit was for those with government contracts and set at 20x the wage of the lowest paid employer. If your lowest paid employer earns £5,000 per year then you can earn £100,000 per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

Currently they would not be able to do that I believe as it would break competition rules re competitive tenders etc etc.

Did Corbyn actually think any of this through ?

It seems to me Corbyn is great at complaining and demanding that the Govt do something etc - we can all do that . BUT when it comes to providing a solution - he seems all over the place. Which is a pity - as you would hope as the leader of the opposition - he would actually provide some alternative opposition ideas :sherlock:

---

I have already said that it's likely to be unworkable. My point here was that a cap on earnings is factually accurate but perhaps not telling: 20x the lowest wage is likely to be an incredible amount of money still.

There seems to be few really good ideas currently and even fewer that have been properly organised. When the odd one does come along (not placing those diagnosed with mental health issues in police cells as a last resort for example) it seems to be a fight to claim it. Ms. May recently tried but go back to when it was announced and she was nowhere to be seen.

The ideas which are properly organised (snoopers charter) seem to be an absolutely terrible candidate to be worked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

Currently they would not be able to do that I believe as it would break competition rules re competitive tenders etc etc.

Did Corbyn actually think any of this through ?

It seems to me Corbyn is great at complaining and demanding that the Govt do something etc - we can all do that . BUT when it comes to providing a solution - he seems all over the place. Which is a pity - as you would hope as the leader of the opposition - he would actually provide some alternative opposition ideas :sherlock:

---

It is a tragedy. This government is lurching from ****up to ****up and yet they are 15 points ahead in the polls - Corbyn surely must read something from that - i.e. Go.

I don't hate him or like him really but this is pathetic - Labour are delaying the by-election in Copeland because they are worried that a low turnout might see them lose a seat that they have held for something like 90 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I'm a normal person and I don't class anyone earning over 50k as rich.

---

Spot on , and that where this will fall down, all these cap will just result in people becoming self employed , and paying less tax ,try another idea JC.

Let grab another sound bite ,or talk about the strikes, and how its best they weren't happening in an age where folk are paid reasonably well ,compared to the 70's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Spot on , and that where this will fall down, all these cap will just result in people becoming self employed , and paying less tax ,try another idea JC.

Let grab another sound bite ,or talk about the strikes, and how its best they weren't happening in an age where folk are paid reasonably well ,compared to the 70's

---

It may come as a surprise to some people but things cost more than they did in the 70's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Spot on , and that where this will fall down, all these cap will just result in people becoming self employed , and paying less tax ,try another idea JC.

Let grab another sound bite ,or talk about the strikes, and how its best they weren't happening in an age where folk are paid reasonably well ,compared to the 70's

---

If the people in the background at labour were to elect someone, they'd choose a man or women who could kill the image of economic mismanagement that was created during the previous efforts.

But the public get the vote and here we are.

Umunna must be biding his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

It may come as a surprise to some people but things cost more than they did in the 70's

---

I was earning , buying and supporting a family in the 70 's and it was poor pay , and tough , commodities were way more expensive, then due to no real less competition on the high street .

School uniforms were pricey from specialist shops or M&S , now you have bigger supermarkets driving those prices down including M&S

TV'S were a premium,had to bust a gut to get one on HP , now everyone has one , plus many more in bedrooms ,plus cable TV costs , never-mind, I pads, tablets, mobile phones , PC'S , folk now have a lot more .


Myself and my colleagues cycled, walked , or got a bus to work , now the same car parks are rammed with cars some very top end , with some having more than one on the driveway, its all so much attainable and rightly so.

Holidays back then were a luxury , we had to settle for home based breaks at Butlins, Trecco Bay , now with a bit of saving you can fly your family to Spain within modest income earning families.

Things are way better now for the working person , in terms of wages and rights, and I'm only talking about factory workers, posties and rail worker type jobs .who were lower paid back then,not many having to walk to work now ,thank god .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

I was earning , buying and supporting a family in the 70 's and it was poor pay , and tough , commodities were way more expensive, then due to no real less competition on the high street .

School uniforms were pricey from specialist shops or M&S , now you have bigger supermarkets driving those prices down including M&S

TV'S were a premium,had to bust a gut to get one on HP , now everyone has one , plus many more in bedrooms ,plus cable TV costs , never-mind, I pads, tablets, mobile phones , PC'S , folk now have a lot more .


Myself and my colleagues cycled, walked , or got a bus to work , now the same car parks are rammed with cars some very top end , with some having more than one on the driveway, its all so much attainable and rightly so.

Holidays back then were a luxury , we had to settle for home based breaks at Butlins, Trecco Bay , now with a bit of saving you can fly your family to Spain within modest income earning families.

Things are way better now for the working person , in terms of wages and rights, and I'm only talking about factory workers, posties and rail worker type jobs .who were lower paid back then,not many having to walk to work now ,thank god .

---

I read the other day that to obtain the same standard of living as the average person at the beginning of the 20th century (can't remember when exactly but between 1900-1910 I think) we would only need to work 17 weeks of the year. I am sure you are right, the average standard of living is significantly higher now than the 70's but it is also true that people born in the 80's and 90's will find it hard to create financial security for themselves. House prices are absurd, the average house price in my area was 4x average salary at the end of the 70's, now we are talking well over 10x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I read the other day that to obtain the same standard of living as the average person at the beginning of the 20th century (can't remember when exactly but between 1900-1910 I think) we would only need to work 17 weeks of the year. I am sure you are right, the average standard of living is significantly higher now than the 70's but it is also true that people born in the 80's and 90's will find it hard to create financial security for themselves. House prices are absurd, the average house price in my area was 4x average salary at the end of the 70's, now we are talking well over 10x.

---

Yes your are right life's new standards are tough to reach ,however the alleged new poor or hard up , seem still to have cars , mobiles and take holidays.

I think the difference now is about exclusiveness and expectation, back in the 70' and 80's folk could not or would not step deep into the world of debt,which takes us back to the clever and derisive financial world whcih has allowed that to happen , which consequently has enabled the property price boom, you can bet your bottom dollar if the extended freely handed out loans were not there ,no one could afford these silly house prices and the prices would drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Yes your are right life's new standards are tough to reach ,however the alleged new poor or hard up , seem still to have cars , mobiles and take holidays.

I think the difference now is about exclusiveness and expectation, back in the 70' and 80's folk could not or would not step deep into the world of debt,which takes us back to the clever and derisive financial world whcih has allowed that to happen , which consequently has enabled the property price boom, you can bet your bottom dollar if the extended freely handed out loans were not there ,no one could afford these silly house prices and the prices would drop.

---

In my area proximity to London is the problem. No one who works in London can afford to live there, commuting takes an hour. Perfect for them but it pushes house prices up sufficiently that lower paid people can't afford to live here, but those jobs are still vital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surge

While the idea of limiting how much people can earn is incredibly unlikely to ever come into real life - even the likes of Myleene Klass and Sol Campbell were given a voice to attack Ed Milliband's economic principles - there may be some merit to the idea.

Our public services are underfunded, this government has made it worse and has tried to push some of the most vulnerable onto charitable services instead. At the same time there are many people who earn more money than they know what to do with and some who use this to have undue influence in the political landscape and/or evade paying their due tax. The problem gets worse.

I watched a repeat of "Louis Theroux Goes Gambling" recently where one well off lady said she lost 4 million dollars in 7 years. This is absolutely her choice but the idea that she can somewhat happily lose that amount when there will be people within a 15 minute walk of her house struggling for food is tragic.

The problem of such wide income disparity and the impact this has on society is not easy to resolve but it should be taken seriously. At least more seriously than those defending the chance to inherit non-dom status.

---

Great post Surge. Well said.

Corbyn's maximum wage is unworkable but at least it brings to the table the disparity in wealth between rich and poor. The gap continues to widen. That is unhealthy for our society and it needs addressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearcey3

Corbyn's maximum wage is unworkable but at least it brings to the table the disparity in wealth between rich and poor. The gap continues to widen. That is unhealthy for our society and it needs addressing.

---

I am not a Corbyn basher per se but unfortunately I think his policy does the opposite. It allows people to ridicule the possibility of tackling wealth inequality and inequality in general.