Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Red post-its.
newbie
undisambiguated
Your abilities with numbers are legendary so I'm sure you're right but I can't find mention of 83,000 anywhere in their manifesto or funding doc. They say 80,000.
No criticism, but as with almost all other snapshots, your figures don't take account of NI, which is 12% for income between £8,160 & £45,000 but only 2% above that. I've always thought that utterly wrong and I'm slightly baffled why the LP manifesto not only doesn't take such an obvious opportunity to make a fairer arrangement but actually guarantees there will be no increase.
What is essentially a hypothecated tax for the NHS, pensions and other welfare state benefits ought not to be subsidised by the less well off, particularly given the greater opportunities higher rate taxpayers have to offset income tax against pension contributions. Either increasing NI above 45k or reducing the pension offset for high earners to the basic rate of tax would get broad public support, I'd have thought.no you're right -- 83k was just a brain fart because of 123k. It happens!
Also completely fair, and it isn't like me to ignore NI, actually. I was responding to a post about income tax and just forgot about it, which is no excuse.No criticism, but as with almost all other snapshots, your figures don't take account of NI, which is 12% for income between £8,160 & £45,000 but only 2% above that. I've always thought that utterly wrong and I'm slightly baffled why the LP manifesto not only doesn't take such an obvious opportunity to make a fairer arrangement but actually guarantees there will be no increase.
So the total charge on income is proposed to be
0 - 8,160: 0%
8,161 - 11,500: 12%
11,501 - 45,000: 32%
45,001 - 80,000: 42%
80,001 - 100,000: 47%
100,001 - 123,000: 69.5%
123,001+ : 52%
The things that stand out on that list to me are that 32% is very high for 11,501 up to at least 30,000ish, 52% is low for the top end and 69.5% is a bizarre anomaly for the penultimate band.
Reducing the tax rebate on pensions for high earners was discussed a lot in the last few years. I think the reduction in tax-free allowance for those earning over 150k to its end point of 10k for those earning over 180k (IIRC) was what they did instead, basically.
newbie
undisambiguated
thankyou.
While I have no problem with those on 100-123 grand paying almost 70% tax it seems a little unfair on them that people 'earning' even more pay only 52%. However, as a lot of MPs will fall into that area I guess chancellor McDonnell will have to tweak it a bit.
SInce that's Labour's proposal, it's also worth stating the current total charge on income and noting that it's not THAT different -- the proposal just pushes the top end up 5% and a bit more in the 100-150 band (up to 10%):
Churrent charges
0 - 8,160: 0%
8,161 - 11,500: 12%
11,501 - 45,000: 32%
45,001 - 100,000: 42%
100,001 - 123,000: 62%
123,001 - 150,000: 42%
150,001+ : 47%
The focus is always on the initial boundary -- "What about somebody earning £80k, hey? HEY?" -- but of course somebody on £80k won't pay ANY additional tax, because they will be charged an extra 5% on precisely nothing. Somebody £90k will pay an extra 5% on £10k, which is only £500 -- hardly bank-breaking stuff.
Somebody on £100k will be paying an extra £1,000 (i.e. an extra 1% in total), somebody on £125k an extra £3,275 (i.e. an extra 2.6% in total) and somebody on £150k an extra £5,775 (i.e. an extra 3.9% in total). Above £150,000, there will be a slow, asymptotic approach to the extra tax being worth 5% of total pay. These are not dramatic increases, proportionally speaking.
Churrent charges
0 - 8,160: 0%
8,161 - 11,500: 12%
11,501 - 45,000: 32%
45,001 - 100,000: 42%
100,001 - 123,000: 62%
123,001 - 150,000: 42%
150,001+ : 47%
The focus is always on the initial boundary -- "What about somebody earning £80k, hey? HEY?" -- but of course somebody on £80k won't pay ANY additional tax, because they will be charged an extra 5% on precisely nothing. Somebody £90k will pay an extra 5% on £10k, which is only £500 -- hardly bank-breaking stuff.
Somebody on £100k will be paying an extra £1,000 (i.e. an extra 1% in total), somebody on £125k an extra £3,275 (i.e. an extra 2.6% in total) and somebody on £150k an extra £5,775 (i.e. an extra 3.9% in total). Above £150,000, there will be a slow, asymptotic approach to the extra tax being worth 5% of total pay. These are not dramatic increases, proportionally speaking.
19force8
For the avoidance of faith
From memory, top tax rate was 83% plus a surcharge of 15% for unearned income.
A curious side effect of this was a mate's dad who worked security "airside" at Speke airport once got to spend an evening chinwagging with the Stones as they waited to enter the country. There was a limit to how many days they could spend in the UK before they had to start paying tax.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
True, but "I'm being picked on by several independent individuals who all think I'm a cunt with shit politics" doesn't have the same ring to it.
mikey mikey
Active Member
Not gang. Let me correct myself: "bunch cowards that pile insults on one poster together then threaten to report when one of them gets flamed in return"
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Never under estimate the importance of intelligence gathering for the revolution, comrade
(makes a note of stethoscope's views on intelligence-gathering)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The List is kept separate from The Files though, for internal security purposes.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, how many people have threatened to report you, hmm? A whole bunch?
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Much less opportunity for coordinated, up-tempo dancing as well.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh. you said you were going to correct yourself. but you haven't, you've continued vomiting bollocks.
mikey mikey
Active Member
Fuck off VP and stop dereailing the thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck off yourself, you whiny goatcunt.
mikey mikey
Active Member
But if I insult you back
, your little friend will threaten to report me. Not a gang then.
, your little friend will threaten to report me. Not a gang then.
19force8
For the avoidance of faith
Bloody hell! There are rules? Why did nobody tell me?
*Reads rules...*
Well, Rule 8 outlaws "endless personal attacks," but no rule against personal insults as such. Can't think why not
But if I insult you back
More a suggestion than a threat. IMO.
Pull yourself together m m
Last edited:
mikey mikey
Active Member
Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.
Meanwhile kebabking said that he has put me on ignore until election night. Just what resullt he's hoping for is anybody's guess I wonder if his schadenfreude from my disappointement will be enough to ameliorate for him the next five years of Tory rule.
It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.
Meanwhile kebabking said that he has put me on ignore until election night. Just what resullt he's hoping for is anybody's guess I wonder if his schadenfreude from my disappointement will be enough to ameliorate for him the next five years of Tory rule.
It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.
bi0boy
Power User
It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.
If Corbyn losing means you stop posting, I'm all for it, although I don't hold out much hope.
mikey mikey
Active Member
How about you:
1) Put me on ignore
2) STFU
That way you can hope for a Labour victory as much as you like.
mikey mikey
Active Member
More derailing from the "not a a gang" gang.
Back on topic...
Back on topic...
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Interesting that VP insults me because, among other things "my politics" are "shit". My politics expressed here are pro-Corbyn. That's it.
Meanwhile kebabking said that he has put me on ignore until election night. Just what resullt he's hoping for is anybody's guess I wonder if his schadenfreude from my disappointement will be enough to ameliorate for him the next five years of Tory rule.
It does make me wonder just what result some people would prefer.
It's unreasonable to assume that just because kebabking has been critical of Corbyn that he wants a Tory victory. I don't think there have been many big criticisms of Labour's manifesto, merely that it will never get a chance of being realised, because of a combination of the perception of JC and his leadership deficits.
I'd be very happy for Labour to do well, even if it means JC stays on. I think he has done ok in the campaign and hopefully he will have a protege to lead the party by 2022. Politics of all sorts carries on in the meantime.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
which woman do you think jc will propose as his successor?
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Your politics are completely one-dimensional and tedious. Shit.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
pro-corbyn. not pro-working class. not socialist. simply 'pro-corbyn'. that's shit politics, mikey mikey.
mikey mikey
Active Member
"Not pro-working class"? Really? Quote it.
"Not socialist" Really? Quote it.
"Not socialist" Really? Quote it.
mikey mikey
Active Member
What "dimension" do your posts have that mine lack?
Similar threads
