Jeremy Corbyn Is Not Rich (According To Jeremy Corbyn).

[Deskdiary]

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://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20160827/281509340610047

Does Labour's definition of rich only apply to those earning over £80k who are not part of their front bench?

[youngmafbog]

It would appear so.

No surprise really Labour are, and always have been of the mantra "Do as I say not as I do"

[dannyk13]

It would appear so. I watched the Labour Party advert on tv last night and was surprised to hear a woman's voice-over state that Corbyn was an ex-serviceman who had served in Afghanistan.(not true)

[naomi24]

He's away with the fairies.

[Old_Geezer]

Like many rich folk, he's in denial of being rich; possibly because he's used to it and thinks it's normal.

[naomi24]

I don't think he's 'rich' - but the point is he's denying he is whilst claiming that those earning considerably less than him are. Clearly logic isn't his strong point.

[Trawlerman]

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.

[cassa333]

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.

[ToraToraTora]

standard socialism, do as I say not as I do and I am exempt from socialism myself.

[ToraToraTora]

ask Arthur Scargill why he was still taking his salary whist he was driving the miners off a cliff.

[anneasquith]

Who cares ?

[Old_Geezer]

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.

[Old_Geezer]

AT !!!!!

[Quizmonster]

"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.

[Deskdiary]

I was not suggesting the Labour front bench would/could excuse themselves from the higher tax. Of course they could not.

The thrust of my question was, as picked up by Naomi, how can Corbyn describe himself as not rich while at the same time describing those earning £57k less than him as 'rich'.

[Old_Geezer]

Different definitions in different circumstances. Rich enough to pay more tax. Not rich compared to billionaires.

[Quizmonster]

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.

[Quizmonster]

Sorry, OG, your latest response wasn't there when I started typing mine.

[youngmafbog]

Maybe we do, maybe we dont but it remains unwise to use inflammatory soundbite terms such as "tax the rich" to get the WSS ets on board, defining that level as 80K, and then for the leader on 57K more than that to say he is not rich.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

[Deskdiary]

"...there is no definition of what the word [rich] means..."

Except there is as far as Labour are concerned.

[youngmafbog]

Well labour have two definitions clearly

For the public it is 80K, for the labour party it is greater than 137K !

Personally I think JC is right. 137K in London is not rich, it is comfortable. Perhaps he should let the rest of the party readjust the 80k figure?