Basic Income
- Thread starter Fez909
- Start date
Happy with that — provided I can also work and get paid.
I see someone's reckoned that anyone in London on average income is likely to see their house making more than they do in a year...
Eventually, with automation, Capital will find itself with no consumers if all its workers are robots so it needs to deal with this contradiction. Unless the robots just produce for the ruling class in which case the rest of us aren't needed any more if we also require resources to live.
I admit I haven't fully thought this through but it isn't something I'd support as a mechanism of Capitalism because it won't be socialist.
I admit I haven't fully thought this through but it isn't something I'd support as a mechanism of Capitalism because it won't be socialist.
Unless house prices drop, in which case they may see their house cost them their entire year's income.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
and sooner or later the inconvenient useless mouths will have to be dealt with. Humanely of course. Look at the likes of that freak theil, it'd be sterilise the working class. They have become a burden.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
it could work under a socialist framework tho, bt, thats not who are speculating on it in the pink paper etc
Yes, but it would in most cases mean that the benefit of all this money goes straight to the landlord.
"Their house" as distinct from home that they rent. And yes, there are home owners on average salaries in London — probably just not any who have bought in the last decade...
"You poor take courage
you rich take care ...
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
What annoys me about those "by percentile" income charts is that the percentiles are too coarse. The distribution is logarithmic. If you split the right-most bar into 10, the right-most of those bars would be off the screen. Split that bar into ten and the right-most would be through the ceiling.
I'm not sure what it's showing either. I'm pretty sure that the top 1% all earn more than £100k, but that chart tops out at £100k. So it can't be the average income in the band. In which case, what is it?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
£150k was set as the band for the 50% tax rate when Gordon Brown introduced that in 2008 or 09, because that's where the 1% highest earnings start. Presumably would be a little higher now after 10 years of inflation and pay rises.
To be fair, it is post-tax income rather than pre-tax. But if you earn £150k, your take-home is £91,000 (interpreting "post-tax" as "post-tax and NI"). So it still seems really unlikely that the top 1% would average just a little over £100k. That top 1% includes those earning millions.
ETA: found it. It's the percentile points from 1 to 99. So it shows where the top 1% starts, not its average.
So yeah, really misleading. Most people would interpret it as being some kind of average wage in the band, not where the band starts. It implies the distribution of wealth is way more even than it actually is.
(It's also taxpayers only, so it ignores all the people not earning enough to pay tax on one side of the axis, as well as those siphoning all their income off to tax havens on the other side).
Last edited:
Most of the time, if you earn enough to get taxed 40% it's through hard work rather than luck or family. Like me.
It sounds like you lot want a whole bunch of money for doing nothing.
And that -- quite frankly -- is obscene.
It sounds like you lot want a whole bunch of money for doing nothing.
And that -- quite frankly -- is obscene.
Let it be.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
"New Member"
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
You never give me your money.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
post up your tax returns again
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
You only give me your funny papers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Only if you average out prices across London. If you take individual boroughs, then the story is more like "the majority would barely make a penny, some rich fucks in small enclaves across the capital, will make a killing".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So effectively we'll revisit the more vile practices of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe and the US. More neo-Victorianism than you can shake a shitty stick at.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Emphasis on "member".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"You lot"? Nice generalisation. You don't earn enough to pay 40% anyway, except in your Thatcher-sodomising fantasies.
Similar threads
