O/T Is this Millersmad or is it Corbynsmad?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Aren’t labour proposing to increase taxation for those earning £85k or over?

I earn less than £85k so in theory shouldn’t be any worse off.

So why do I think that Corybn is a complete loony and it will be an unmitigated disaster if he gets in?

No because there will be an increase in vat rate also.

The maths is simple whether it’s £1 or £1 million, you can only spend the tax revenue once ( without excessive borrowing) and that’s Labours way they spend the same money three times over.

Said it before, get a Corbyn administration and the financial crash that follows will make the last crisis look like a tea party.

[one_a_day]

Labour have stated no increase in personal NI or VAT rates.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Labour haven’t stated anything about anything apart from the meaningless mantra of tax the rich, whatever that means.

Beware what you wish for.

Once in power (which won’t happen under Corbyn) they will realise that promises are easy, delivery is more difficult

[one_a_day]

Under Labour’s plans, 95 per cent of taxpayers will be guaranteed
no increase in their income tax contributions, and everyone will
be protected from any increase
in personal National Insurance contributions and VAT. Only the
top 5 per cent of earners will be asked to contribute more in tax to help fund our public services. We renew our pledge not to extend VAT to food, children’s clothes, books and newspapers, and public transport fares.

[one_a_day]

Straight from their 2017 manifesto.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Straight from their 2017 manifesto.

To be fair, other forms of fiction are available.

[one_a_day]

That made me chuckle. 👍🤣

[millmoormagic]

@Millmoormagic.

I confess that I tend to stop reading your posts after a few lines, usually just after you start with the inevitable abuse for anyone who disagrees with you. If you can calmly point me in the direction of an unanswered question and can stay polite for more than a second or two (a big ask for you, I know), I’ll gladly try to assist you.

If it’s unanswered questions that you are interested in, have ago at these, which I asked you a few weeks ago and you have failed to respond to:

If you don’t consider [profit] to be generally immoral, why do you feel that profits from the railways and the utilities are different? And why is paying interest on the loans used to purchase the utilities different?

If Labour really wanted to do something about people on low incomes, why aren't they promising to lift the benefits cap as opposed to planning to provide free university education for the kids of mostly middle class families and spunk vast amounts nationalising the utilities? Isn’t that a funny sense of priority?

The better question though, is what is Labour offering to do. I’ll answer some questions for you on their flagship policies

Will borrowing money to privatise utilities help foodbank users and the homeless? No

Will borrowing money to bribe middle class voters with the end of tuition fees help foodbank users and the homeless? No.

Would Labour have ended benefit cuts had the electorate voted them in in June? No

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-foundation

Would increasing Corporate Tax rates cut foodbank usage? No – it’ll simply encourage companies to adopt avoidance strategies, cut investment levels and shed staff.

On my education, my first degree was paid for by the state, the second one was paid for by me with some assistance from an employer and my third, which I am planning to undertake when I retire, will be paid for solely by me.

Here’s why tuition fees were introduced:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...3/uk.education

The vast increase in the number of people going to University started by the Tories and continued by Labour means that the state can no longer afford to pay. It’s as simple as that. With that being the case, the options are for the students who benefit from a University education to pay some of the cost back, to stop sending so many people into higher education or to starve the universities of cash and dumb them down, just when the country needs to be pushing innovative and high-tec business. You’ll see that the last option appears to have been the one adopted by Labour in the 70s.

And if it’s unfairness that is troubling you, what of the students with historical loans which The Great Leader said he would sort only to later say, in terms, that he hasn’t got a clue about what he intends to do?

What is really funny is that Tuition Fee loans are a form of progressive taxation – the sort of thing that Labour is supposed to be in favour of. Students who fail to take any real benefit from their education and become high earners are unlikely to pay much of it back before it is written off.

I note your comments about your daughters £42k of debt. You do realise that it is only tuition fees that Labour is offering their bribe on? They are currently £9250 per year, so that’s £27750 for a three year degree. And the options are either for your daughter to owe that money and make repayments when she is earning well or for it to be added to this country’s mountain of debt so that every tax payer in the country both now and in the future has a share of it, irrespective of whether they benefit from her education.

I'll tell you what, your first degree must've been in condescension, distinction, abuse, really, turns out it's the neoliberals who are the snowflakes eh.

As said, i don't consider profit immoral, until it turns to absolute greed in the place of service, check out most private rail firms customer reviews as opposed to the profits they make......it's not difficult, provide a decent service, make a decent profit, don't take the p*ss, can i add the utilities onto this, instead of repeating, making billions hand over fist and continuing to slap prices up, lovely jubbly, so glad you agree with blatant profiteering, and guess where those profits go, back into infrastructure?? do they f*ck, straight into an offshore account, that's whats immoral, and if you agree with that, then the same applies, like it or lump it.

You talk of what Labour would do for people on low incomes, firstly what are the tories doing for them, once again you're blind to it, you don't give two sh*ts about that, back to what Labour would do, how about increasing the living wage to £10 per hour for a start.....

I don't require you to try and answer anything for me, you might be well educated, but you're lacking in a little bit of humility, who do you think you are, really?

I think you meant nationalise the utilities, anyway, well, shall we go back to the £10 ph eh, or are you just cherry picking again, you see everything links to each and all, what nationalising will do is stop billions of pounds being SPUNKED out of the country and not going back into the infrastructure, quite a simple concept that high brow intellects like you just don't get.

Bribie the middle class?, your words, your opinion..

Benefit cuts?, i think you'll find that the Labour party actually agrees in principle with universal credit, it's just that becuse there's a heart beating in the labour party it would NEVER cause deliberate harm in implementing the system, the way your boys have, you know people are dying through this?, oh, forgot, you don't give a shyte do you Jack?

Corporate tax, it will mean companies will use avoidance tactics....more than they are already? don't make me laugh, loopholes closing as soon as labour get in and rightly so, do you think avoidance schemes are immoral Kerr?

Done for now...

[millmoormagic]

It’s importan to remember how we got here, years of labour mismanaging the economy

Since records began, i think you will find that when the Labour party has been in power they've paid more debt off, and created more growth than the tories have, and all to the good of the country, your blinkers get bigger and bigger.

[KerrAvon]

I'll tell you what, your first degree must've been in condescension, distinction, abuse, really, turns out it's the neoliberals who are the snowflakes eh.

As said, i don't consider profit immoral, until it turns to absolute greed in the place of service, check out most private rail firms customer reviews as opposed to the profits they make......it's not difficult, provide a decent service, make a decent profit, don't take the p*ss, can i add the utilities onto this, instead of repeating, making billions hand over fist and continuing to slap prices up, lovely jubbly, so glad you agree with blatant profiteering, and guess where those profits go, back into infrastructure?? do they f*ck, straight into an offshore account, that's whats immoral, and if you agree with that, then the same applies, like it or lump it.

You talk of what Labour would do for people on low incomes, firstly what are the tories doing for them, once again you're blind to it, you don't give two sh*ts about that, back to what Labour would do, how about increasing the living wage to £10 per hour for a start.....

I don't require you to try and answer anything for me, you might be well educated, but you're lacking in a little bit of humility, who do you think you are, really?

I think you meant nationalise the utilities, anyway, well, shall we go back to the £10 ph eh, or are you just cherry picking again, you see everything links to each and all, what nationalising will do is stop billions of pounds being SPUNKED out of the country and not going back into the infrastructure, quite a simple concept that high brow intellects like you just don't get.

Bribie the middle class?, your words, your opinion..

Benefit cuts?, i think you'll find that the Labour party actually agrees in principle with universal credit, it's just that becuse there's a heart beating in the labour party it would NEVER cause deliberate harm in implementing the system, the way your boys have, you know people are dying through this?, oh, forgot, you don't give a shyte do you Jack?

Corporate tax, it will mean companies will use avoidance tactics....more than they are already? don't make me laugh, loopholes closing as soon as labour get in and rightly so, do you think avoidance schemes are immoral Kerr?

Done for now...

Is there any chance that you could answer my questions? You appear to set great store by that sort of thing.

Let's try again:

If you don’t consider [profit] to be generally immoral, why do you feel that profits from the railways and the utilities are different? And why is paying interest on the loans used to purchase the utilities different?

Note that this question invites you to address why you feel that profits from the railways and the utilities are different to other profits? And why is paying interest on the loans used to purchase the utilities different?

If Labour really wanted to do something about people on low incomes, why aren't they promising to lift the benefits cap as opposed to planning to provide free university education for the kids of mostly middle class families and spunk vast amounts nationalising the utilities? Isn’t that a funny sense of priority? I don't think you addressed this one at all.