you see - i said there was one policy that was praiseworthy, not all- I am not a supporter of communist dicators and neither is Jeremy Corbyn. Look, you and Rob just say what you like, you wear me out!
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Now come on RL - your moving into Kentaddick fantasy land here mate. Alowing for Guardi-exaggeration, there's no way these people are worse off by any criteria in the world.
So believing millions were killed in the pogroms and in gulags in Russia and millions killed in the cultural revolution was something to be justifiably feared by your grandparents generation is living in a fantasy land. Ok mate..
Seriously all you have done is respond with facts with personal attacks and claiming I'm living in a fantasy land. Ridiculous.
But those examples have as much to do with Labour policy past and present as The Nazis have to do with Conservatism.
It's an irrelevancy when considering choices made in British politics.
you see - i said there was one policy that was praiseworthy, not all- I am not a supporter of communist dicators and neither is Jeremy Corbyn. Look, you and Rob just say what you like, you wear me out!
So the earnings of the poorest have decreased in real terms while the earnings of the richest have increased in real terms. Not sure that can be argued. The gulf is big and it's only been getting bigger.
Have a read of my post above, I assume I'd be one of the rich you'd refer to as getting richer, so how do you explain I'm probably 15% worse off, maybe 25% in real terms?
On the flip side my wife on £12k would be one of the poor yet is 15% better off or roughly neutral in real terms.
Your wife would be in the demographic that has seen a fall in real terms. It is not the number you have at the end of the month but what that number is worth, ie how many chocolate biscuits you can buy or gallons of petrol. While your wife might be better off in take home pay, she now has to pay 20% VAT, inflation that has out paced wage rises and whole other list of influences that mean she can now buy less biscuits or petrol even though she has more money.
To put it in to household terms for example, the data shows you would have received a greater pay rise than that of your wife since the financial crash and that pay increase is worth more because a greater percentage of it is disposable and you would therefore be effected less by things like regressive taxes such as VAT and petrol duty.
@mcgrandall I do understand your point on the value of the money, in that using your example despite my wife having 'more' cash each month she can now only buy 4 packets of biscuits whereas in 2010 she could buy 5 etc. But that applies to almost everyone I would think. Using the same example I used to be able to buy 20 but can now only buy 15. So I think everyone has seen a decrease in real terms, the richer more so than the poor. It's all relative of course and I can still buy more biscuits than my wife, just not as many as I once could and I have seen a greater reduction than her so the gap has closed.
However, my response here was around the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer (think it was specifically stated as 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich'). I would say that in fact the opposite has happened.
If you are saying 'so what you still have more biscuits than her' then fair enough, but lets not kid ourselves or listen to the rhetoric that we've some how been robbing the poor and giving it to the rich these past 7 years. I don't think the government have necessarily done enough but nor do I agree that they have done the opposite.
Now come on RL - your moving into Kentaddick fantasy land here mate. Alowing for Guardi-exaggeration, there's no way these people are worse off by any criteria in the world.
So believing millions were killed in the pogroms and in gulags in Russia and millions killed in the cultural revolution was something to be justifiably feared by your grandparents generation is living in a fantasy land. Ok mate..
Seriously all you have done is respond with facts with personal attacks and claiming I'm living in a fantasy land. Ridiculous.
Them pesky old facts eh? They'll get you every time, fantasy is so much more reliable (that is sarcasm, just in case you get confused).
As others have been at pains to explain, and you have studiously ignored (probably because they contain facts) comparing Mao, Stalin etc to Jeremy Corbyn is utter bollocks. You claim our forefathers fought against this - they fought against right wing extremists, as has also been pointed out to you. Calling you a fantasist isn't a personal attack, it's an observation backed up by evidence.
Have you heard of Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, Mugabe and Videla (among others)? Even I wouldn't dream of comparing them to the Tory party. Even if Thatcher did love Pinochet, it didn't reflect Tory party policy.
Maybe they could promise to right off people's loans , seems to work for Corbyn.
The student loan book is a fiasco waiting to happen. The deal with student loans is that you start paying them off once you earn a certain amount. Many students don't and won't ever earn enough.
I thought you start repaying the loan back when you start earning 17.5k+?
You're saying many students never earn that amount? Who goes to university to never earn more than 17k!!?
It depended when you started Uni, the earlier years are at 17,775, the other 21k. If we move to a living wage of £10 per hour you'll exceed the £17,775 immediately (assuming a full time role).
I'd at least hope that the majority of graduates, within a fairly short period (say 5 years) would be exceeding £21k.
Cordoban Addick said: » show previous quotes Where on the poor (0) - rich (10) scale do you think this would put a person?
I'd say 4/5. I'm sure though you'll say 9+ as 70k+ puts you (I think) in the top roughly 5% of earners?
You are on a wind up now, aren't you?
Lol, no! As I said, if you work on percentage of the population earning that figure OR ABOVE (assuming my 5% was right) you'd put them in 9.
Splitting everyone from someone on the minimum wage to someone earning £1bn+ a year and everyone in-between into 0-10 isn't a very wide band.
If I put the £1bn+ earner in 10, should I also put the £5m earner in the same band despite being only 0.5% of the £1bn? Or would they go in 9? Where would I then put the £1m earner? 8? or are they all in 10? Despite only having 20% of the £5m or 0.1% of the billion? then someone earning £500k, where would they go, still in 10? 9? 8?
As I say, if you purely work on % of the population you'd probably have everyone earning £50k or above in 10, but the gulf in that band would be huge. You may then end up with someone on £20k in 3, someone on £22k in 4 and someone on £25k in 5 and so on.
However trying to group people, I'd still put £70k somewhere in the middle. They aren't up there with the ones in the millions, but equally they aren't in the same band as those on £20k. Middle feels about right to me in pure wealth numbers rather than % of the population where it would sit more at 8/9.
I think we are going to have to majorly disagree on this one. A £5m pa earner is a 10. £70k pa has to be a 7.
Cordoban Addick said: » show previous quotes Where on the poor (0) - rich (10) scale do you think this would put a person?
I'd say 4/5. I'm sure though you'll say 9+ as 70k+ puts you (I think) in the top roughly 5% of earners?
You are on a wind up now, aren't you?
Lol, no! As I said, if you work on percentage of the population earning that figure OR ABOVE (assuming my 5% was right) you'd put them in 9.
Splitting everyone from someone on the minimum wage to someone earning £1bn+ a year and everyone in-between into 0-10 isn't a very wide band.
If I put the £1bn+ earner in 10, should I also put the £5m earner in the same band despite being only 0.5% of the £1bn? Or would they go in 9? Where would I then put the £1m earner? 8? or are they all in 10? Despite only having 20% of the £5m or 0.1% of the billion? then someone earning £500k, where would they go, still in 10? 9? 8?
As I say, if you purely work on % of the population you'd probably have everyone earning £50k or above in 10, but the gulf in that band would be huge. You may then end up with someone on £20k in 3, someone on £22k in 4 and someone on £25k in 5 and so on.
However trying to group people, I'd still put £70k somewhere in the middle. They aren't up there with the ones in the millions, but equally they aren't in the same band as those on £20k. Middle feels about right to me in pure wealth numbers rather than % of the population where it would sit more at 8/9.
I think we are going to have to majorly disagree on this one. A £5m pa earner is a 10. £70k pa has to be a 7.
We aren't that far out! and I can see your logic with the 7. It was a pretty open question (to interpretation), out of interest what would you put in each band then assuming salary alone? (say as a starting amount up to the next band); without too much scientific thought I'd go something like:
Is someone on 70k a year rich? Depends how you define the term. But then how do you define poor? The main argument that some people present on here that poor people aren't really poor because they have Sky Sports, iPads, holidays, broadband and other so called luxuries. I assume those in 70k a year also enjoy luxuries, perhaps even more than those on 15k? I imagine if someone on 70k made the kind of sacrifices someone on 15k living in the same area made then they would have a huge surplus each year. Except they don't, because like most people they like to spend their disposable income. Someone boasted that they shouldn't be taxed any more because they like to take their son to Disneyworld twice a year. I imagine most British children don't even go to Disneyworld more than once in their life. You could piss and moan about who is really rich and who is really poor all day long and not get anywhere, but at the end of the day there is a level where you would need to be to survive (varying from area to area depending on cost of living) plus a bit extra each month to allow for saving/a few luxuries and it is closer to 20k than it is to 70k. What I tend to notice is that as people's incomes go up then their standards for what they consider to be necessities goes up as well. If it didn't then there wouldn't be a market for upmarket brands as these rely on people with higher incomes to actually turn a profit.
Is someone on 70k a year rich? Depends how you define the term. But then how do you define poor? The main argument that some people present on here that poor people aren't really poor because they have Sky Sports, iPads, holidays, broadband and other so called luxuries. I assume those in 70k a year also enjoy luxuries, perhaps even more than those on 15k? I imagine if someone on 70k made the kind of sacrifices someone on 15k living in the same area made then they would have a huge surplus each year. Except they don't, because like most people they like to spend their disposable income. Someone boasted that they shouldn't be taxed any more because they like to take their son to Disneyworld twice a year. I imagine most British children don't even go to Disneyworld more than once in their life. You could piss and moan about who is really rich and who is really poor all day long and not get anywhere, but at the end of the day there is a level where you would need to be to survive (varying from area to area depending on cost of living) plus a bit extra each month to allow for saving/a few luxuries and it is closer to 20k than it is to 70k. What I tend to notice is that as people's incomes go up then their standards for what they consider to be necessities goes up as well. If it didn't then there would be a market for upmarket brands as these rely on people with higher incomes to actually turn a profit.
Is someone on 70k a year rich? Depends how you define the term. But then how do you define poor? The main argument that some people present on here that poor people aren't really poor because they have Sky Sports, iPads, holidays, broadband and other so called luxuries. I assume those in 70k a year also enjoy luxuries, perhaps even more than those on 15k? I imagine if someone on 70k made the kind of sacrifices someone on 15k living in the same area made then they would have a huge surplus each year. Except they don't, because like most people they like to spend their disposable income. Someone boasted that they shouldn't be taxed any more because they like to take their son to Disneyworld twice a year. I imagine most British children don't even go to Disneyworld more than once in their life. You could piss and moan about who is really rich and who is really poor all day long and not get anywhere, but at the end of the day there is a level where you would need to be to survive (varying from area to area depending on cost of living) plus a bit extra each month to allow for saving/a few luxuries and it is closer to 20k than it is to 70k. What I tend to notice is that as people's incomes go up then their standards for what they consider to be necessities goes up as well. If it didn't then there would be a market for upmarket brands as these rely on people with higher incomes to actually turn a profit.
£70k for an individual I'd say is rich.....£70k for a single earner who is supporting a mother and child isn't rich (but not poor either)
@Fiiish broadly agree with some of that, also we are talking of a single salary not who that has to support.
I suspect someone on £70k that is supporting a family of 4 'feels' poorer than someone on £40k with just themselves to support.
As you rightly indicate it's also how and on what you spend it on. Someone earning £250k, living in a £1m house with a £750k mortgage, with a non working partner and 4 children might not be able to afford the luxuries that someone else on £100k with no children, a partner that works and earns £25k and lives in a £400k flat with a £250k mortgage could.
Yet the one on £250k earns more than twice as much, are they richer?
Some of the figures being referred to on here with discussions about whether they constitute being 'rich' or not are so far removed from most people's reality.
They are all much richer than a family of four living in a rented flat with one earner on 18k.
Those people chose to take on those debts and are able to do so because they already had massive deposits to put on their houses and the banks already classed them as wealthy enough that they wouldn't be a risk to default. If tax changes mean they have to find a cheaper house or go rent then so be it, at least they won't starve or fall ill, which is the problem we are seeing at the other end of the scale.
I think you also have to factor what opportunities are available to someone on this figure of £70k
I would imagine, although I can't be sure, if you're on such a figure, you may have access to things to increase your wealth, such as an IFA or wealth manager.
All this is of course very black and white. £70k a year for me would be mint because I've got no dependents, need only enough money to cover rent, bills, pension and debts, the rest of course go on dj coaches and league 1 football, but that is my choice
Would £70k to the sole provider to a family of 4 be a good wage? I imagine it's still decent as I think it's getting in the top of end of salaries when you consider the national average (in London anyway) is £36k a year, but I have no idea because I'm not that person
@Fiiish broadly agree with some of that, also we are talking of a single salary not who that has to support.
I suspect someone on £70k that is supporting a family of 4 'feels' poorer than someone on £40k with just themselves to support.
As you rightly indicate it's also how and on what you spend it on. Someone earning £250k, living in a £1m house with a £750k mortgage, with a non working partner and 4 children might not be able to afford the luxuries that someone else on £100k with no children, a partner that works and earns £25k and lives in a £400k flat with a £250k mortgage could.
Yet the one on £250k earns more than twice as much, are they richer?
Playing devils advocate, The bloke in the £1m house has the option to downsize, and his wife can go to work. He also has that asset to cash in and use as part of his pension one day. The other bloke wont have that. This is what I was getting at in saying you didn't answer my questions mate. As you said you actually did mostly, but you dismissed fairly briefly parts you actually agreed with but had no solution to, and explained at length (and did so well) the bits you could. You are good to debate with though.
They are all much richer than a family of four living in a rented flat with one earner on 18k.
Those people chose to take on those debts and are able to do so because they already had massive deposits to put on their houses and the banks already classed them as wealthy enough that they wouldn't be a risk to default. If tax changes mean they have to find a cheaper house or go rent then so be it, at least they won't starve or fall ill, which is the problem we are seeing at the other end of the scale.
I'm not saying they aren't. Only that a single salary doesn't tell the whole picture, equally applies on 20k and 40k or 15k and 30k, London v Sunderland etc etc.
On your second point, that will be true (choice of debt, deposit etc) but how did they get this 'massive' deposit? Not everyone inherits wealth or falls out of bed one morning into a highly paid job and expensive house.
Just maybe they were initially homeless for a period at aged 16, lived in a bedsit and had hula hoop sandwiches (on mouldy bread) for their Christmas lunch, maybe they then worked 3 jobs to get a deposit on a rental flat to get out of the drug ridden hostel. Continued with numerous jobs to save a deposit to buy a property in a cheap area, maybe continued in that vain to move up to the 2 bed, 3 bed and maybe 20 years later with their career having progressed been careful with whatever money they had they are now in a position to take a large mortgage and had built up a 'massive' deposit.
Now you'd like them to have to sell up and move to a smaller/cheaper place or even have to rent due to the extra tax?
Not everyone with money, or a well paid job started that way, far from it (although a fair few MP's did and no doubt others), have a read if you haven't already of a book called Wasted by Mark Johnson.
Would £70k to the sole provider to a family of 4 be a good wage? I imagine it's still decent as I think it's getting in the top of end of salaries when you consider the national average (in London anyway) is £36k a year, but I have no idea because I'm not that person
A sole provider to a family of 4 would on £70k net around £48k, £4k a month, not aware of any benefit (i.e. child allowance or housing benefit) they would receive at that level. So yes it's still decent, but I wouldn't say rich. Clearly richer than some, poorer than others. Don't think they'll be going to Disney twice a year anyway (probably more likely A haven in Weymouth for a week).
@Fiiish broadly agree with some of that, also we are talking of a single salary not who that has to support.
I suspect someone on £70k that is supporting a family of 4 'feels' poorer than someone on £40k with just themselves to support.
As you rightly indicate it's also how and on what you spend it on. Someone earning £250k, living in a £1m house with a £750k mortgage, with a non working partner and 4 children might not be able to afford the luxuries that someone else on £100k with no children, a partner that works and earns £25k and lives in a £400k flat with a £250k mortgage could.
Yet the one on £250k earns more than twice as much, are they richer?
Playing devils advocate, The bloke in the £1m house has the option to downsize, and his wife can go to work. He also has that asset to cash in and use as part of his pension one day. The other bloke wont have that. This is what I was getting at in saying you didn't answer my questions mate. As you said you actually did mostly, but you dismissed fairly briefly parts you actually agreed with but had no solution to, and explained at length (and did so well) the bits you could. You are good to debate with though.
Maybe the non working wife can't work............
Yes he could cash in the asset one day, the £1m one that he paid about £1.6m for... as for the other bloke, he could also downsize (it's a 2 bed, he doesn't really need the 2nd bedroom), if he was clever the extra spare he has each month over the other guy he should invest then he'll over take him in no time!
Still not sure what I didn't answer, let me know and i'll give it a go
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
Living within your means, that's so last year, it's all about borrow now and invest that for the future surely?
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
Living within your means, that's so last year, it's all about borrow now and invest that for the future surely?
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
You are doing it again mate - taking extremes and presenting them as if they are the norm...
I think you also have to factor what opportunities are available to someone on this figure of £70k
I would imagine, although I can't be sure, if you're on such a figure, you may have access to things to increase your wealth, such as an IFA or wealth manager.
All this is of course very black and white. £70k a year for me would be mint because I've got no dependents, need only enough money to cover rent, bills, pension and debts, the rest of course go on dj coaches and league 1 football, but that is my choice
Would £70k to the sole provider to a family of 4 be a good wage? I imagine it's still decent as I think it's getting in the top of end of salaries when you consider the national average (in London anyway) is £36k a year, but I have no idea because I'm not that person
When you find an IFA or wealth manager who can increase your wealth by more than he charges in fees let me know. I will ask him why he wastes his time increasing his own wealth by selling people stuff instead of buying what he's flogging everyone else.
If he's good, more likely he can help you save some tax and avoid you making reckless or illogical financial decisions.
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
Living within your means, that's so last year, it's all about borrow now and invest that for the future surely?
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
Not what I suggested at all. I support a tax system where people do not pay any tax until they are earning a living wage.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy that someone who can afford a mortgage on a million pound property isn't really rich. I'm pretty sure that's rich regardless of circumstances in most people's books.
Yes circumstances widely impact how much disposable income someone will have and how many dependants they have.
What we need is a wholesale change of the tax and benefits system. It isn't going to happen overnight, but a good place to start would be taxing higher earners more, as opposed to cutting welfare and services at the bottom. Over a million families now using food banks; surely you'd rather those on more than modest incomes paid even a tiny bit more tax to helps those millions, even if a handful of people would need to reassess their lifestyle affordability.
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
Living within your means, that's so last year, it's all about borrow now and invest that for the future surely?
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
You are doing it again mate - taking extremes and presenting them as if they are the norm...
How's that extreme?! @Fiiish made a valid point that if you have to downsize due to having maxed out on a mortgage and then the government put up your tax then tuff. I was just saying that shouldn't be restricted to a certain income level. If it's ok to do that to a £1m property owner why not a 500k property owner or a £200k property owner. Same principle applies.
People have to downsize all the time, whether due to losing a job, retiring, not making as much money, partner leaves full-time work, having to become a carer. Why shouldn't it be the same for paying a little extra tax? My wife and I could have purchased a property much more expensive than the one we are in but we made a decision not to take out a maxed out mortgage because we want to save for the future and also we do not know what will happen in the coming years in regards to our finances. If you max out your mortgage then in a couple of years time you cannot afford the repayments then you need to adapt. That's the truth, regardless of what causes your disposable income to be hit. The government isn't there to bail out people who take out a million pound mortgage then cannot afford it.
Living within your means, that's so last year, it's all about borrow now and invest that for the future surely?
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
You are doing it again mate - taking extremes and presenting them as if they are the norm...
How's that extreme?! @Fiiish made a valid point that if you have to downsize due to having maxed out on a mortgage and then the government put up your tax then tuff. I was just saying that shouldn't be restricted to a certain income level. If it's ok to do that to a £1m property owner why not a 500k property owner or a £200k property owner. Same principle applies.
You're confusing equality for equity. There is a difference between downsizing from a £1m property to a £900k property and having to choose between heating or food. The former is a choice only a handful of people would need to make if they needed to pay a bit more tax, and would not cause any harm. The latter is currently affecting millions of families and is causing real harm.
@Fiiish broadly agree with some of that, also we are talking of a single salary not who that has to support.
I suspect someone on £70k that is supporting a family of 4 'feels' poorer than someone on £40k with just themselves to support.
As you rightly indicate it's also how and on what you spend it on. Someone earning £250k, living in a £1m house with a £750k mortgage, with a non working partner and 4 children might not be able to afford the luxuries that someone else on £100k with no children, a partner that works and earns £25k and lives in a £400k flat with a £250k mortgage could.
Yet the one on £250k earns more than twice as much, are they richer?
Playing devils advocate, The bloke in the £1m house has the option to downsize, and his wife can go to work. He also has that asset to cash in and use as part of his pension one day. The other bloke wont have that. This is what I was getting at in saying you didn't answer my questions mate. As you said you actually did mostly, but you dismissed fairly briefly parts you actually agreed with but had no solution to, and explained at length (and did so well) the bits you could. You are good to debate with though.
Maybe the non working wife can't work............
Yes he could cash in the asset one day, the £1m one that he paid about £1.6m for... as for the other bloke, he could also downsize (it's a 2 bed, he doesn't really need the 2nd bedroom), if he was clever the extra spare he has each month over the other guy he should invest then he'll over take him in no time!
Still not sure what I didn't answer, let me know and i'll give it a go
I asked about people dying as a result of ATOS tests and the increase in food banks (you didn't mention either), as well as homelessness - which you agreed was a problem, but like the Tories, didn't have any suggestions to combat. I am sure that some of them (but not all, I am convinced there are some that really don't give a shit) tut at it over their caviar and then say "it's such a shame" before launching into their lobster thermidor...
I mentioned the railways and the subsidies the UK government pay to keep them "profitable" for the private sector owners, and that Labour would re-nationalise them. The one that was in public hands was doing fine, until the Tories sold it off on the cheap.
You used the ease of your company moving abroad as an example, but most companies wont have that luxury, the vast majority will stay and get on with it, and you didn't really answer why your company, or any other hadn't done it already if the corporation tax thing is of such importance? I still maintain there are a lot of other factors that would keep companies in the UK that over-ride a higher tax rate. You state that leaving the EU will cause your company to open up in Europe - there's only one party ultimately to blame for that situation, and whatever has occurred post referendum, it ain't Labour...
I asked you which labour policies you consider to be 100 miles to the left (5x more left than the Tories are right, by your reckoning).
On the point of cabinet ministers, and Corbyn's alternatives, well I can only repeat that the incumbents are incompetent, the alternatives may be incompetent (with the exception of Diane Abbott, who is in the "will be" camp for certain, should Jezza actually pick her when push comes to shove - he certainly wont make her Chancellor, which would match Johnson as foreign secretary)....
I'm not aware of people dying due to the ATOS test (I assume here you mean the Work Capability assessment?), nor do I know an awful lot about it TBF, ill have to have a read up. But I am for there being assessments in some form, somehow my wife's uncle manages to pass his test every time despite there being nothing wrong with him ( by his own admission) since he fell off a ladder in 2005.
Foodbanks is a difficult one, usage has clearly risen massively but there seems very little factual information around as to the inner detail. If the usage of foodbanks has increased by 200% (making up a number) is that 200% more people or a similar amount of people using it more often. There are now more food banks, so is it a greater poverty in the country or are people now able to obtain where as previously they went with out. What are the reasons behind the usage, we famously heard in the press about nurses using it, yet the only three examples I've ever seen given weren't actually anything to do with being a nurse (or a nurses salary) but other external factors. I'd want to understand more around it before trying to work out how I would go about solving it, but solving it is massively needed.
Homelessness (as in living on the street), this is one I did avoid to be fair, namely as I tend to get quite emotional about it.
I could write for a week on the subject. However in a nutshell, you won't solve homelessness by providing homes. It's a little generic but most homelessness is as a result of other issues, whether that be a poor care service for teenagers, drug or other substance addiction, you need to solve them to attempt to solve homelessness.
Not sure I agree the railways were great before privatisation, my memory says otherwise. But I don't disagree that in certain places and railways could well be one, privatisation hasn't worked as well as it could (whereas BT seems a lot better!), will making them public owned again solve that, I'm not convinced.
Company abroad, I thought I had, but (and was only referring to my industry) currently although there are tax advantages in Bermuda they are mostly outweighed by other non tax factors (staffing levels for one, cost of housing etc) making it only slightly more profitable, that said there are about 75 reinsurers out there to varying degrees. Post Labour that pendulum would have made it far more profitable to be in Bermuda. Now without giving away my trade secrets of the solution I've come up with within a week I could move 80% of the business out there and almost 100% of the profit (I could actually make the UK side a loss quite easily), although it would take slightly longer to move the key 6/7 staff out, need a 2 month lead in time.
Banking will be similar as we are already seeing.
I agree most companies outside of my industry may well just get on with it, but I don't honestly know each industry.
I'll have to dig out the manifesto again but fair cop that 100 miles v 10 may have been an exaggeration. Will revert shortly as all that springs to mind are the taking over of private companies (either forced or overtly).
On the last point I don't think we really disagree maybe where we do is my comment that Corbyn has a much smaller merky pond to fish (as in those prepared to stand behind him). It is in my view one oh his major weaknesses, he has the support of the wider Labour Party members but IMHO not a huge number of serving MP's.
Well we see things from different sides RL - yours does seem to be coming from the Tory side very much, even though you are a floating voter by inclination, but just to take one point of your reply "...could write for a week on the subject. However in a nutshell, you won't solve homelessness by providing homes. It's a little generic but most homelessness is as a result of other issues, whether that be a poor care service for teenagers, drug or other substance addiction, you need to solve them to attempt to solve homelessness." I think there is absolutely no question as to which of the major parties is more likely to try to deliver that kind of solution to that problem though, is there? The Tories have never shown any kind of bent towards solving either the causes or the problem. It's not somewhere they can make a profit...
Anyway, good to discuss with someone sensible mate!
I think you also have to factor what opportunities are available to someone on this figure of £70k
I would imagine, although I can't be sure, if you're on such a figure, you may have access to things to increase your wealth, such as an IFA or wealth manager.
All this is of course very black and white. £70k a year for me would be mint because I've got no dependents, need only enough money to cover rent, bills, pension and debts, the rest of course go on dj coaches and league 1 football, but that is my choice
Would £70k to the sole provider to a family of 4 be a good wage? I imagine it's still decent as I think it's getting in the top of end of salaries when you consider the national average (in London anyway) is £36k a year, but I have no idea because I'm not that person
When you find an IFA or wealth manager who can increase your wealth by more than he charges in fees let me know. I will ask him why he wastes his time increasing his own wealth by selling people stuff instead of buying what he's flogging everyone else.
If he's good, more likely he can help you save some tax and avoid you making reckless or illogical financial decisions.
Either or I guess. I just think you've probably got better access/knowledge of that sort of help if you're on a higher income
Someone on 70k probably also has health insurance, contributory pension, life insurance, savings etc. That puts you in a whole different boat to someone on 18k
Well we see things from different sides RL - yours does seem to be coming from the Tory side very much, even though you are a floating voter by inclination, but just to take one point of your reply "...could write for a week on the subject. However in a nutshell, you won't solve homelessness by providing homes. It's a little generic but most homelessness is as a result of other issues, whether that be a poor care service for teenagers, drug or other substance addiction, you need to solve them to attempt to solve homelessness." I think there is absolutely no question as to which of the major parties is more likely to try to deliver that kind of solution to that problem though, is there? The Tories have never shown any kind of bent towards solving either the causes or the problem. It's not somewhere they can make a profit...
Anyway, good to discuss with someone sensible mate!
I don't think any party has shown any bent towards solving in my lifetime and I know 1st hand it's a very complex and changing matter. Drugs whether that be glue in the 70's, heroin in the 80's or cocaine in the 90's. A massive driver now is gambling although it is generally easier to help those in that category.
In my limited experience the best people to help the homeless are those who have walked a mile in their shoes......
After reading many posts on the hypocrisy of Corbyn asking for discipline within his own party, I wish it was a surprise to me that I haven't seen a single one about the hypocrisy of May telling her cabinet to stop briefing against each other. I can't really remember an argument as public as the one that occurred between her and Gove.
I had a morbid fascination with the old How does Labour need to change? thread, it was pretty grim reading being a Labour supporter, but I couldn't stop reading or posting in it. I thought this thread was going to be a lot more fun than it has but I suppose watching the Tories tearing themselves apart makes up for it.
Comments
It's an irrelevancy when considering choices made in British politics.
As others have been at pains to explain, and you have studiously ignored (probably because they contain facts) comparing Mao, Stalin etc to Jeremy Corbyn is utter bollocks. You claim our forefathers fought against this - they fought against right wing extremists, as has also been pointed out to you. Calling you a fantasist isn't a personal attack, it's an observation backed up by evidence.
Have you heard of Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, Mugabe and Videla (among others)? Even I wouldn't dream of comparing them to the Tory party. Even if Thatcher did love Pinochet, it didn't reflect Tory party policy.
I'd at least hope that the majority of graduates, within a fairly short period (say 5 years) would be exceeding £21k.
0 - Less than £12k
1 - 12k+
2 - £20k+
3 - £35k+
4 - £50k+
5 - £75k+
6 - £100k+
7 - £250K+
8 - £500K+
9 - £1M+
10- £5m+
Even that I'd like to split out further really as I don't see someone earning £5m in the same band as someone earning £100m.
I suspect someone on £70k that is supporting a family of 4 'feels' poorer than someone on £40k with just themselves to support.
As you rightly indicate it's also how and on what you spend it on. Someone earning £250k, living in a £1m house with a £750k mortgage, with a non working partner and 4 children might not be able to afford the luxuries that someone else on £100k with no children, a partner that works and earns £25k and lives in a £400k flat with a £250k mortgage could.
Yet the one on £250k earns more than twice as much, are they richer?
Those people chose to take on those debts and are able to do so because they already had massive deposits to put on their houses and the banks already classed them as wealthy enough that they wouldn't be a risk to default. If tax changes mean they have to find a cheaper house or go rent then so be it, at least they won't starve or fall ill, which is the problem we are seeing at the other end of the scale.
I would imagine, although I can't be sure, if you're on such a figure, you may have access to things to increase your wealth, such as an IFA or wealth manager.
All this is of course very black and white. £70k a year for me would be mint because I've got no dependents, need only enough money to cover rent, bills, pension and debts, the rest of course go on dj coaches and league 1 football, but that is my choice
Would £70k to the sole provider to a family of 4 be a good wage? I imagine it's still decent as I think it's getting in the top of end of salaries when you consider the national average (in London anyway) is £36k a year, but I have no idea because I'm not that person
On your second point, that will be true (choice of debt, deposit etc) but how did they get this 'massive' deposit? Not everyone inherits wealth or falls out of bed one morning into a highly paid job and expensive house.
Just maybe they were initially homeless for a period at aged 16, lived in a bedsit and had hula hoop sandwiches (on mouldy bread) for their Christmas lunch, maybe they then worked 3 jobs to get a deposit on a rental flat to get out of the drug ridden hostel. Continued with numerous jobs to save a deposit to buy a property in a cheap area, maybe continued in that vain to move up to the 2 bed, 3 bed and maybe 20 years later with their career having progressed been careful with whatever money they had they are now in a position to take a large mortgage and had built up a 'massive' deposit.
Now you'd like them to have to sell up and move to a smaller/cheaper place or even have to rent due to the extra tax?
Not everyone with money, or a well paid job started that way, far from it (although a fair few MP's did and no doubt others), have a read if you haven't already of a book called Wasted by Mark Johnson.
A sole provider to a family of 4 would on £70k net around £48k, £4k a month, not aware of any benefit (i.e. child allowance or housing benefit) they would receive at that level. So yes it's still decent, but I wouldn't say rich. Clearly richer than some, poorer than others. Don't think they'll be going to Disney twice a year anyway
Yes he could cash in the asset one day, the £1m one that he paid about £1.6m for... as for the other bloke, he could also downsize (it's a 2 bed, he doesn't really need the 2nd bedroom), if he was clever the extra spare he has each month over the other guy he should invest then he'll over take him in no time!
Still not sure what I didn't answer, let me know and i'll give it a go
On a serious note I partly agree, in that you could need to downsize etc for many reasons such as you indicate.
So on your basis to make it fair across society (as we all want a fairer society) shall we remove the personal allowance for all and increase all tax bands by 10p then we can all be forced to downsize, that'll be fair won't it?
After all if someone on £50k is stupid enough to max out on a mortgage surely they should be prepared to adapt as well?
If he's good, more likely he can help you save some tax and avoid you making reckless or illogical financial decisions.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy that someone who can afford a mortgage on a million pound property isn't really rich. I'm pretty sure that's rich regardless of circumstances in most people's books.
Yes circumstances widely impact how much disposable income someone will have and how many dependants they have.
What we need is a wholesale change of the tax and benefits system. It isn't going to happen overnight, but a good place to start would be taxing higher earners more, as opposed to cutting welfare and services at the bottom. Over a million families now using food banks; surely you'd rather those on more than modest incomes paid even a tiny bit more tax to helps those millions, even if a handful of people would need to reassess their lifestyle affordability.
I mentioned the railways and the subsidies the UK government pay to keep them "profitable" for the private sector owners, and that Labour would re-nationalise them. The one that was in public hands was doing fine, until the Tories sold it off on the cheap.
You used the ease of your company moving abroad as an example, but most companies wont have that luxury, the vast majority will stay and get on with it, and you didn't really answer why your company, or any other hadn't done it already if the corporation tax thing is of such importance? I still maintain there are a lot of other factors that would keep companies in the UK that over-ride a higher tax rate. You state that leaving the EU will cause your company to open up in Europe - there's only one party ultimately to blame for that situation, and whatever has occurred post referendum, it ain't Labour...
I asked you which labour policies you consider to be 100 miles to the left (5x more left than the Tories are right, by your reckoning).
On the point of cabinet ministers, and Corbyn's alternatives, well I can only repeat that the incumbents are incompetent, the alternatives may be incompetent (with the exception of Diane Abbott, who is in the "will be" camp for certain, should Jezza actually pick her when push comes to shove - he certainly wont make her Chancellor, which would match Johnson as foreign secretary)....
But I am for there being assessments in some form, somehow my wife's uncle manages to pass his test every time despite there being nothing wrong with him ( by his own admission) since he fell off a ladder in 2005.
Foodbanks is a difficult one, usage has clearly risen massively but there seems very little factual information around as to the inner detail. If the usage of foodbanks has increased by 200% (making up a number) is that 200% more people or a similar amount of people using it more often. There are now more food banks, so is it a greater poverty in the country or are people now able to obtain where as previously they went with out. What are the reasons behind the usage, we famously heard in the press about nurses using it, yet the only three examples I've ever seen given weren't actually anything to do with being a nurse (or a nurses salary) but other external factors. I'd want to understand more around it before trying to work out how I would go about solving it, but solving it is massively needed.
Homelessness (as in living on the street), this is one I did avoid to be fair, namely as I tend to get quite emotional about it.
I could write for a week on the subject. However in a nutshell, you won't solve homelessness by providing homes. It's a little generic but most homelessness is as a result of other issues, whether that be a poor care service for teenagers, drug or other substance addiction, you need to solve them to attempt to solve homelessness.
Not sure I agree the railways were great before privatisation, my memory says otherwise. But I don't disagree that in certain places and railways could well be one, privatisation hasn't worked as well as it could (whereas BT seems a lot better!), will making them public owned again solve that, I'm not convinced.
Company abroad, I thought I had, but (and was only referring to my industry) currently although there are tax advantages in Bermuda they are mostly outweighed by other non tax factors (staffing levels for one, cost of housing etc) making it only slightly more profitable, that said there are about 75 reinsurers out there to varying degrees. Post Labour that pendulum would have made it far more profitable to be in Bermuda. Now without giving away my trade secrets of the solution I've come up with within a week I could move 80% of the business out there and almost 100% of the profit (I could actually make the UK side a loss quite easily), although it would take slightly longer to move the key 6/7 staff out, need a 2 month lead in time.
Banking will be similar as we are already seeing.
I agree most companies outside of my industry may well just get on with it, but I don't honestly know each industry.
I'll have to dig out the manifesto again but fair cop that 100 miles v 10 may have been an exaggeration. Will revert shortly as all that springs to mind are the taking over of private companies (either forced or overtly).
On the last point I don't think we really disagree maybe where we do is my comment that Corbyn has a much smaller merky pond to fish (as in those prepared to stand behind him). It is in my view one oh his major weaknesses, he has the support of the wider Labour Party members but IMHO not a huge number of serving MP's.
Anyway, good to discuss with someone sensible mate!
In my limited experience the best people to help the homeless are those who have walked a mile in their shoes......
Cheers mate.
I had a morbid fascination with the old How does Labour need to change? thread, it was pretty grim reading being a Labour supporter, but I couldn't stop reading or posting in it. I thought this thread was going to be a lot more fun than it has but I suppose watching the Tories tearing themselves apart makes up for it.
"The choice is between me and Jeremy Cornyn and no one wants that."
Agreed, no one wants you.