Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance0 min ago
Jeremy Corbyn Is Not Rich (According To Jeremy Corbyn).
Jeremy Corbyn has said he is not rich, even though he earns £137k a year and has a pension pot of £1.6m, and yet Labour plan to increase the tax on the "rich" earning over £80k a year.
https:/
Does Labour's definition of rich only apply to those earning over £80k who are not part of their front bench?
https:/
Does Labour's definition of rich only apply to those earning over £80k who are not part of their front bench?
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.
The Labour Party cannot understand wealth, all their front bench earn considerable amounts of money so will be taxed unless they have an offshore fiddle. Look at the salaries the trade union leaders receive, do they forgo their salaries when members are on strike, l think not.
Anyway mcClusky is the real leader of the Labour Party, let's see what happens when Corbyn gets trounced at the election I do hope he loses his seat along with Abbott.
Anyway mcClusky is the real leader of the Labour Party, let's see what happens when Corbyn gets trounced at the election I do hope he loses his seat along with Abbott.
Oh is it Turkeys calling for Christmas?
Mind you doesn't his salary come in two pots? One as an MP and one as leader of the opposition?
Perhaps he has a cunning plan to make out he doesn't have to pay the higher tax on one of them?
I think he is saying he isn't rich because he gives some of his money away to charitable causes. Oh ar a good tax dodge that as well.
Mind you doesn't his salary come in two pots? One as an MP and one as leader of the opposition?
Perhaps he has a cunning plan to make out he doesn't have to pay the higher tax on one of them?
I think he is saying he isn't rich because he gives some of his money away to charitable causes. Oh ar a good tax dodge that as well.
Taking the opportunity for the tradition side swipes st politicians may be fun, but isn't really tackling the question.
The fact is that there is no clear cut definition of "rich", and folk can split the range into however many categories they wish, and define them as they like. One can insist one is not rich but simply comfortable, for example. Whilst still admitting they are rich enough to contribute more to the public purse.
The problem is a lack of definitions and of clarity in the statements made.
The fact is that there is no clear cut definition of "rich", and folk can split the range into however many categories they wish, and define them as they like. One can insist one is not rich but simply comfortable, for example. Whilst still admitting they are rich enough to contribute more to the public purse.
The problem is a lack of definitions and of clarity in the statements made.
"Does Labour's definition of rich only apply to those earning over £80k who are not part of their front bench?"
TTT, You...and the rest who have just followed you...are the only ones suggesting that Mr Corbyn and his cabinet colleagues would somehow "excuse" themselves from paying whatever additional tax might be levied on their income over £80k.
A moment's thought, surely, would ensure you grasped the impossibility of any such deal being possible! So, just "Fake News", as your American hero might call it.
TTT, You...and the rest who have just followed you...are the only ones suggesting that Mr Corbyn and his cabinet colleagues would somehow "excuse" themselves from paying whatever additional tax might be levied on their income over £80k.
A moment's thought, surely, would ensure you grasped the impossibility of any such deal being possible! So, just "Fake News", as your American hero might call it.
A person may have employment lasting two years which pays £80,000 annually but then loses that job and is unemployed for the next five years. IS he rich...WAS he ever rich?
As Old Geezer says above, there is no definition of what the word means, so there is no way of decrying any given person's chosen definition in particular circumstances.
We all know what Mr Corbyn means when he claims not to be 'rich', but we all consider people on that level of salary to be 'rich'...or at least 'rich enough'...as far as the payment of tax is concerned.
As Old Geezer says above, there is no definition of what the word means, so there is no way of decrying any given person's chosen definition in particular circumstances.
We all know what Mr Corbyn means when he claims not to be 'rich', but we all consider people on that level of salary to be 'rich'...or at least 'rich enough'...as far as the payment of tax is concerned.
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.