Corbynomics: A Dystopia

westernpromise

If anybody still doubts that Labour sees expropriating high earners as a good in itself, here are the Dear Leader's thoughts on the matter:

Corbyn: Britain needs a national maximum wage
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/13611699.Corbyn__Britain_needs_a_national_maximum_wage/

QED.

MobileSaver

Jason74 wrote: »

The description of large sections of the population as parasites is simply unacceptable imho,

You've never been to Merthyr Tydfil then?

My girlfriend is acutely embarrassed that large sections of her Welsh family (across several generations) have never worked a day in their lives; they're all in receipt of one benefit or another and have no interest whatsoever of having to put any effort into either feeding themselves or their children or keeping a roof over their heads.

Alan_Brown

westernpromise wrote: »

This post is a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post ("The Labour voter's mentality is usually that high earners should be expropriated by the state...because impoverishing them is a worthwhile end in itself").

Alan here thinks that there should be higher taxes on "the rich" (= anyone who earns more than Alan).

I don't think people who earn more than I do are 'rich', well not as you are implying it - as though there is some sort of inherent jealousy. That's the whole point of the post, that most people aren't rich but fall into the delusion that they are, or can be one day. The reality is that the working and middle classes have gotten increasingly poorer in relation to the super rich.

To dispel any more nonsense about income jealousy, I'm paid just over £80k a year and I think this is an adequate income to be comfortable in the UK. However, I don't fool myself that I'm wealthy.

westernpromise

MobileSaver wrote: »

You've never been to Merthyr Tydfil then?

My girlfriend is acutely embarrassed that large sections of her Welsh family (across several generations) have never worked a day in their lives; they're all in receipt of one benefit or another and have no interest whatsoever of having to put any effort into either feeding themselves or their children or keeping a roof over their heads.

What I always say is, if someone doesn't like being called a parasite, they could try not being one.

Alan_Brown

westernpromise wrote: »

What I always say is, if someone doesn't like being called a parasite, they could try not being one.

I assume you're saying that these people are parasites because they take money out of the system, but do not produce anything? Would you use the same term to stock market traders who make millions of pounds speculating on the movement of company prices?

MobileSaver

Alan_Brown wrote: »

but do not produce anything? Would you use the same term to stock market traders who make millions of pounds speculating on the movement of company prices?

You have contradicted yourself; "who make millions of pounds." The stock market traders produce millions of pounds of profit.

Alan_Brown

MobileSaver wrote: »

You have contradicted yourself; "who make millions of pounds." The stock market traders produce millions of pounds of profit.

No contradiction. They don't produce anything, they just make money. This is especially the case with dividends were a company profits are distributed externally instead of being re-invested in the business.

MobileSaver

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I assume you're saying that these people are parasites because they take money out of the system, but do not produce anything?

Alan_Brown wrote: »

No contradiction. They don't produce anything, they just make money.

What nonsense! By your ridiculous definition, most shopkeepers are parasites too then? They don't produce anything just buy goods at one price and sell at a higher price, all they do is make money so they are parasites?!??! :rotfl:

Alan_Brown

MobileSaver wrote: »

What nonsense! By your ridiculous definition, most shopkeepers are parasites too then? They don't produce anything just buy goods at one price and sell at a higher price, all they do is make money so they are parasites?!??! :rotfl:

There is certainly an element of parasitic behavior when supermarkets use their financial might to drive down the price they pay to farmers and to then increase the price they charge the consumer.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/02/british-farmers-supermarket-price-wars

In this case, the parasite risked killing the host (i.e. the dairy farmer)

westernpromise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

No contradiction. They don't produce anything, they just make money. This is especially the case with dividends were a company profits are distributed externally instead of being re-invested in the business.

Of course they produce something. By making it possible for people who fund companies to sell that stake on, they make it likelier that such people will back businesses to begin with. If you couldn't sell your equity stake in a company or sell on its debt, you wouldn't fund the company. Equity traders are essential.

There are, in contrast, constituencies in which over 70% of the population quite literally live off the state in the form of either benefits or the public sector.