Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

This cry of, "Where's the money going to come from?" is going to haunt Mr Corbyn. Just privatising utilities ex-telephones is a huge distance north of a hundred billion. Mr Osborne or Ms May will be looking at Mr Corbyn in a few years asking him where the several hundred billion pounds he has promised to pay is coming from...

Here's a big clue.:)

But this agenda for older people also means we have to talk about tax. The basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent a generation ago; now it’s 20 per cent. For most of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office, higher earners were paying 60 per cent; now even the super-rich only face a 45 per cent rate. After 18 years of Thatcher and Major’s Conservative governments corporation tax was 33 per cent. If George Osborne has his way it will be just 18 per cent by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11837965/Jeremy-Corbyn-Why-its-time-to-talk-about-our-ageing-society.html

Although even an extra 5p on the basic rate wouldn't go that far given the scale of Corbyn's spending ambitions; 10p would be more like it.

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

Here's a big clue.:)

But this agenda for older people also means we have to talk about tax. The basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent a generation ago; now it’s 20 per cent. For most of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office, higher earners were paying 60 per cent; now even the super-rich only face a 45 per cent rate. After 18 years of Thatcher and Major’s Conservative governments corporation tax was 33 per cent. If George Osborne has his way it will be just 18 per cent by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11837965/Jeremy-Corbyn-Why-its-time-to-talk-about-our-ageing-society.html

Although even an extra 5p on the basic rate wouldn't go that far given the scale of Corbyn's spending ambitions; 10p would be more like it.

Don't forget NI, an extra 10p on the £ for income tax would make the marginal tax rate for basic rate tax payers 41%

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Here's a big clue.:)

But this agenda for older people also means we have to talk about tax. The basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent a generation ago; now it’s 20 per cent. For most of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office, higher earners were paying 60 per cent; now even the super-rich only face a 45 per cent rate. After 18 years of Thatcher and Major’s Conservative governments corporation tax was 33 per cent. If George Osborne has his way it will be just 18 per cent by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11837965/Jeremy-Corbyn-Why-its-time-to-talk-about-our-ageing-society.html

Although even an extra 5p on the basic rate wouldn't go that far given the scale of Corbyn's spending ambitions; 10p would be more like it.

NI up from 9% to 12%
VAT up from 17.5% to 20%
fuel taxes up
insurance taxes
flight taxes
green taxes
tax licenses taxes up

and I'm sure lots more could be mentioned

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Here's a big clue.:)

But this agenda for older people also means we have to talk about tax. The basic rate of income tax was 25 per cent a generation ago; now it’s 20 per cent. For most of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office, higher earners were paying 60 per cent; now even the super-rich only face a 45 per cent rate. After 18 years of Thatcher and Major’s Conservative governments corporation tax was 33 per cent. If George Osborne has his way it will be just 18 per cent by 2020.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11837965/Jeremy-Corbyn-Why-its-time-to-talk-about-our-ageing-society.html

Although even an extra 5p on the basic rate wouldn't go that far given the scale of Corbyn's spending ambitions; 10p would be more like it.

I suspect that a pound in the pound wouldn't scratch the surface of Mr Corbyn's plans.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I suspect that a pound in the pound wouldn't scratch the surface of Mr Corbyn's plans.

That's not a problem. Mr Corbyn will simply print some money to make up the difference. Call it QE and no one will notice.:)

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

It's completely off topic but Syria shows how doing nothing has consequences. Tony Blair had this right - if we aren't willing to enforce foreign policy when diplomacy fails why do we maintain such large armed forces.

On the other hand I'm seeing an awful lot of fit young men fleeing war and less women and children. If these young, fit, resourceful Syrians aren't willing to fight to make their country a better place why should anyone else?

its not a war with one side wearing one uniform and another side wearing a different uniform with well defined lines of control. Its more like multiple civil wars mixed with terrorism. A crazy person comes to your city and leaves his van outside the market you shop at and ten minutes later two hundred people are dead and 500 are injured. How are they to fight that?

in kobane once the citizens fled what remained were the able kurds of the town fighting the isis fighters. before the citizens fled there was probably little to nothing they could do as they wouldn't know who was an enemy and who was a citizen

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

it would seem to me that the vast majority of the people are single young men
only a very small minority seem to be women or children
impossible to say which 'side' the single young men were on or whether they were combatants
certainly few seem poor and all have mobiles and well informed, money for fares etc so certainly aren't the poorest from their society.

they are all now safe and are in a western society : however the struggle is to find a way to the lands of free money rather than personal freedom from tyranny

I probably would do exactly the same in the same circumstsnces

presumably the men would go to Germany, or whichever destination, and find a home and maybe even job and then call their wives and kids. Thats more sane than all of them just turning up in a unknown city in germany with no housing or food/water/sanitation etc

Germany will probably find that more people will arrive next year and the year after because of this. The men once they have some stability will call their wives and kids brothers sisters parents etc

cells

Mistermeaner wrote: »

once syrians are in turkey they safe from rape and murder - why do they neeed to come to the uk?

if they know English and not Turkish that would be a reason. Also the turks are less civilised look at their Kurdish population they have discriminated against for hundreds of years

martinsurrey

cells wrote: »

presumably the men would go to Germany, or whichever destination, and find a home and maybe even job and then call their wives and kids. Thats more sane than all of them just turning up in a unknown city in germany with no housing or food/water/sanitation etc

Germany will probably find that more people will arrive next year and the year after because of this. The men once they have some stability will call their wives and kids brothers sisters parents etc

so you're saying that if you feared for the life of you, your wife and kids, you would leave them in fear of death until you had a job and some curtains up...

cells

martinsurrey wrote: »

so you're saying that if you feared for the life of you, your wife and kids, you would leave them in fear of death until you had a job and some curtains up...

I suspect very few have the option of flying from nowhereland to Heathrow they will go to another country nearby like Turkey and then move on once there

You can debate the rights or wrongs of moving on once in Turkey but I suspect the Turks would be a good deal less generous if they thought the 3-4-5 million coming to turkey would all have to stay there. As a guess there might be a 100,000 a month coming to turkey and 100,000 a month leaving to other European nations from turkey and thats just about acceptable enough for them to tolerate it.