Crosswords0 min ago
Why Do Labour Despise The Middle Earners So Much?
The left of Trotsky, Mad John McDonnell, has said the 'rich' earning over £80,000 will be taxed at a higher rate than others - John Ashworth this morning said we are asking (as if it would be a choice) that those with the broadest shoulders in society contribute more.
The broadest shoulders comment really irritated me because those with a broadest shoulders already proportionally contribute more to society as it is, and those with the broadest shoulders will in the most part take less out of society, so why do they want to squeeze them even more?
I would not describe somebody earning £80,000 as rich - and I find it interesting that McDonnell has chosen a threshold that is just above most MPs salaries!
The broadest shoulders comment really irritated me because those with a broadest shoulders already proportionally contribute more to society as it is, and those with the broadest shoulders will in the most part take less out of society, so why do they want to squeeze them even more?
I would not describe somebody earning £80,000 as rich - and I find it interesting that McDonnell has chosen a threshold that is just above most MPs salaries!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have never understood this hatred Labour has for prosperity. 80k is far from rich and this whole tax the "rich" mantra seems to ignore the fact that they already pay more that's how percentages work. It was demonstrated in the Wilson days that even 97% tax did not bring in much for the treasury because so few pay it, it just means they leave the country.Labour never learn do they.
this got a good going over Sunday
The beeb hacks presumably get more than £80k
and were saying that in London that aint much
also made the point that 1p in pound more tax raises £6bn but taxing the rich at a much higher rate brings in less
( but make the Labour Party feel good)
and the reason for that is that every one pays basic tax but only a few of da filty rich would pay the higher rate ( = larger tax base on a technical note)
The beeb hacks presumably get more than £80k
and were saying that in London that aint much
also made the point that 1p in pound more tax raises £6bn but taxing the rich at a much higher rate brings in less
( but make the Labour Party feel good)
and the reason for that is that every one pays basic tax but only a few of da filty rich would pay the higher rate ( = larger tax base on a technical note)
It is gesture politics.
I find it fundamentally wrong for middle earners to be targeted. They are higher rate tax payers already, so in addition to proportionally paying more if the tax rate was the same for everybody, they are being penalised by also paying tax at a higher rate.
Those earning between £100k and £122k lose part of their personal allowance. Over £122k they lose it all. Over £150k the tax increases to 45%.
My point is, middle earners are already paying plenty in tax - so on what planet is it just that they should be required to pay even more.
Labour's plan is simply a tax on having the temerity to do well in life.
I find it fundamentally wrong for middle earners to be targeted. They are higher rate tax payers already, so in addition to proportionally paying more if the tax rate was the same for everybody, they are being penalised by also paying tax at a higher rate.
Those earning between £100k and £122k lose part of their personal allowance. Over £122k they lose it all. Over £150k the tax increases to 45%.
My point is, middle earners are already paying plenty in tax - so on what planet is it just that they should be required to pay even more.
Labour's plan is simply a tax on having the temerity to do well in life.
There isn't really a fairer method for them to increase revenue though. They can't promise to raise VAT or tax the poor - it's completely inconsistent with their message. They can't commit to scrapping Trident because the party is too divided over it and the public won't stand for it. They can't commit to cutting public services because a) they've already been severely cut despite what people think and b) it's inconsistent with what they want to achieve. What else is left?
Prison system is in serious fiscal crisis which staff cuts (up to about 25% now) have contributed enormously to, while prison population has not significantly increased since the Conservative govt came in in 2010 - in fact they are slightly lower than they were in 2015.
NHS is billions in debt as discussed on another thread. Majority of trusts were in surplus in 2010, now nearly all of them are over £50m in debt - a process costing the taxpayer billions.
Councils are frequently running out of money for adult social care, meanwhile many local councils across the country are running at below operating costs and simply cannot cut anymore.
The govt has to its credit been successful in cutting inefficiency, but has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Public services have been cut so severely they are borderline dysfunctional - it does not make sense to cut them more. There is no point in paying for public services at all if they are so crippled. This idea that "inefficiency" is a bottomless reservoir from which we can solve all our fiscal problems is a simplistic fantasy peddled by people who are either dishonest or haven't done their research. It's also a good deal less realistic than being honest about the problem and making plans for raising more revenue.
NHS is billions in debt as discussed on another thread. Majority of trusts were in surplus in 2010, now nearly all of them are over £50m in debt - a process costing the taxpayer billions.
Councils are frequently running out of money for adult social care, meanwhile many local councils across the country are running at below operating costs and simply cannot cut anymore.
The govt has to its credit been successful in cutting inefficiency, but has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Public services have been cut so severely they are borderline dysfunctional - it does not make sense to cut them more. There is no point in paying for public services at all if they are so crippled. This idea that "inefficiency" is a bottomless reservoir from which we can solve all our fiscal problems is a simplistic fantasy peddled by people who are either dishonest or haven't done their research. It's also a good deal less realistic than being honest about the problem and making plans for raising more revenue.
Labour have said that 95% of us won't pay a penny more in income tax, VAT, or NICs. So the 5% that will see a modest increase will be contributing to paying more into our public services, like Schools, NHS and Police Force.
Can't see what on earth is wrong with that, especially as our Police have swinging cuts to their budgets and personal, and Nurses haven't had a real pay rise for years.
The choice in June is quite clear to me....if you want better funds for our public services, don't vote Tory.
Can't see what on earth is wrong with that, especially as our Police have swinging cuts to their budgets and personal, and Nurses haven't had a real pay rise for years.
The choice in June is quite clear to me....if you want better funds for our public services, don't vote Tory.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.