Corbynomics: A Dystopia

steampowered

Cakeguts wrote: »

Communist countries tended not to allow musicians to own their own instruments. The state provided them with rubbish ones bought as cheaply as possible.

Throwing around statements like this makes you look ridiculous. The level of exaggeration is just incredible. You seem to have lost any concept of perspective.

By your standards, countries like Germany and Singapore must be full-on Stalinist Gulags.

Fella wrote: »

That's why he goes extremely quiet on the subject of taxing footballers (& the exodus of talented premiership players that would ensue under a Corbyn Govt).

I don't understand. Footballers would be caught by the increase of income tax on those earning more than £80k. Are you suggesting a separate footballer tax?

Cakeguts

steampowered wrote: »

Throwing around statements like this makes you look ridiculous. The level of exaggeration is just incredible. You seem to have lost any concept of perspective.

By your standards, countries like Germany and Singapore must be full-on Stalinist Gulags.


I don't understand. Footballers would be caught by the increase of income tax on those earning more than £80k. Are you suggesting a separate footballer tax?

I don't exagerate about the musical instruments. We had a group of musicians from a communist country that visited to play some concerts where I used to live years ago. One of the instruments got damaged and had to be repaired. It was of such poor quality and sound that if it had been bought in the UK it would not have been considered worth repairing. All the instruments were like that and they were all owned by the state. So you see this comment was based on fact not imagination.

I would suggest that people also consider the lives of the Russian athletes. The state said that they had to succeed so how did they go about making sure that the athletes did succeed?

What about the secret police whose job it was to make sure that all citizens supported the state in all its mad decision making? Do we really want this in the UK? (Sounds a bit the like the EU)

It starts by someone in power seizing holiday homes and handing them over to others. It might start with people from tower blocks that have burnt down but it could easily be extended to all holiday homes and it could easily extend to anyone who wants a holiday home but doesn't currently have one. Then a law can be passed that anyone who complains about having their holiday home seized and given to someone else is going to be arrested?

Cakeguts

steampowered wrote: »

Throwing around statements like this makes you look ridiculous. The level of exaggeration is just incredible. You seem to have lost any concept of perspective.

By your standards, countries like Germany and Singapore must be full-on Stalinist Gulags.


I don't understand. Footballers would be caught by the increase of income tax on those earning more than £80k. Are you suggesting a separate footballer tax?

Regarding the footballers it seemed more likely that footballers and football clubs would be exempt from paying more tax and money would be put into football. It seemed that the only wealthy who counted in having to pay more tax were people who owned businesses that didn't involve football and high earners in business or banking. Very selective it was. If you were a footballer you were quite entitled to be a multimillionaire but if owned a successful company that employed a lot of the people who bought football tickets you were not entitled and you would have to pay higher tax even if you actually earned less than the footballers.

It wasn't tax all the weatlthy it was tax some of the wealthy Some of the extremely wealthy were allowed to keep their wealth presumably on the basis that unlike big business and bankers they had exploited anyone unlike Wembley where the tickets started at £45 and went up to £116. If that isn't exploitation I don't know what is?

TrickyTree83

Socialism never worked unless it's a facade built upon a free market capitalist society where some are poor and some are rich but most are ok. Anything other than this facade and the system comes crashing down. Every time it's been attempted the system either collapses or makes everyone but a select few poor.

Raising taxes to redistribute wealth, raising minimum wages (price control of labour), etc.. are tentative steps on the road to erasing the foundation that pays for your education, health and welfare. If you don't understand that then I'm sorry for you. Because you're stupid. High earners are also high rate tax payers. They are also the most likely to easily emigrate or game the tax system. Once this tax base is eroded where will the money come from for all Jeremy's free services and nationalisation? Raise taxes on middle earners and on those on minimum wage? Kind of negates the point of raising the minimum wage then.

Bloody idiots the left. Well meaning but ultimately idiots.

Fella

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Bloody idiots the left. Well meaning but ultimately idiots.

Although that's true of some Labour incarnations, I don't think there is anything well-meaning about the Corbynistas. As far as I can see, they're motivated by envy & the desire to see the "rich" punished, far more than any actual desire to see the poor enriched.

This was illustrated with Grenfell. Corbyn's suggestion to seize the houses of "the rich" was met with much applause by the Momentum types. When instead, 68 NEW expensive flats were found, it went down with them like a damp squib & Corbyn didn't utter a word of approval.

Clearly what appealed to the Corbynistas about seizing properties, was nothing to do with wanting to see the Grenfell families rehomed. What they liked was the idea of seeing the rich home-owners having their properties seized.

Spidernick

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Next week the polls will change again. Just like the weather. People are fickle. I suspect that many are underestimating May. Simply judging her on an X Factor basis. Rather than ability to do the job and deliver. Already strikes me she's on the front foot with the unelected EU elite. Attack being the best form of defence. David vs Goliath.

Time will of course tell, but I think that is very much a minority view and 'on the front foot' is not an analogy most of us would make with regards to May in recent weeks!

Cakeguts

Fella wrote: »

Although that's true of some Labour incarnations, I don't think there is anything well-meaning about the Corbynistas. As far as I can see, they're motivated by envy & the desire to see the "rich" punished, far more than any actual desire to see the poor enriched.

This was illustrated with Grenfell. Corbyn's suggestion to seize the houses of "the rich" was met with much applause by the Momentum types. When instead, 68 NEW expensive flats were found, it went down with them like a damp squib & Corbyn didn't utter a word of approval.

Clearly what appealed to the Corbynistas about seizing properties, was nothing to do with wanting to see the Grenfell families rehomed. What they liked was the idea of seeing the rich home-owners having their properties seized.

I agree. The selections of victims to attack seems to be all about attacking certain people who are thought of as rich. The Labour leader is one of the "wealthy" yet I have not heard anything about him not being suitable as a leader of the Labour party because he is "wealthy" himself. This is nothing to do with helping others and all about scoring points against selective members of the population.

Sapphire

Cakeguts wrote: »

It starts by someone in power seizing holiday homes and handing them over to others. It might start with people from tower blocks that have burnt down but it could easily be extended to all holiday homes and it could easily extend to anyone who wants a holiday home but doesn't currently have one. Then a law can be passed that anyone who complains about having their holiday home seized and given to someone else is going to be arrested?

Yes – relatives of mine who had the delight of living under communism had their apartment (which they owned) split in two at the state's orders, with the other half being given to someone else. This wasn't even in a capital city…

steampowered

Cakeguts wrote: »

It starts by someone in power seizing holiday homes and handing them over to others. It might start with people from tower blocks that have burnt down but it could easily be extended to all holiday homes and it could easily extend to anyone who wants a holiday home but doesn't currently have one. Then a law can be passed that anyone who complains about having their holiday home seized and given to someone else is going to be arrested?

The level of hyperbole and exaggeration in your post is just ridiculous. You
need to apply a bit of common sense.

You could apply your reasoning to pretty much anything done by any government anywhere in the world. For example compulsory purchase orders were used to acquire land for HS2, and some time ago to acquire land to build the motorways and railways. By your logic that could be extended and we end up in communism.

Do you really believe that other countries which sit slightly to the left of the UK (such as Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Japan etc. etc.) are all one step away from communism?

There is a sensible place somewhere in the middle somewhere between "totalitarian state" and "libertarian state".

steampowered

Cakeguts wrote: »

Regarding the footballers it seemed more likely that footballers and football clubs would be exempt from paying more tax and money would be put into football.

Why do you think footballers and football clubs are exempt from paying tax? They are not. They pay tax just like everybody else.

If you were a footballer you were quite entitled to be a multimillionaire but if owned a successful company that employed a lot of the people who bought football tickets you were not entitled and you would have to pay higher tax even if you actually earned less than the footballers.

I can see why you might think that, but it isn't true.

Footballers pay income tax and national insurance on their salaries.

Multi millionaire enterpreneurs get most of their benefits through capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate. Particularly if they are able to benefit from enterpreneurs' relief and hence pay 10%. Also note that payments to people who run their own businesses tend to be paid as directors service fees without the same level of national insurance applicable to salaries.