Without more houses, tomorrow belongs to Labour

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Very clever.  They should pay more, as a percentage.  They do pay less if you consider NI is a tax, as I do.

They pay more as a percentage according to http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

On £80K you take home £54,179.68 you keep 67% (pay 33% tax in total)

On £150K you take home £90,067.20 you keep 60% (pay 40% tax in total).

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Normally people back up things with evidence rather than saying look harder.  If you look hard on google there is evidence that Corbyn is the anti christ.  If you haven't found it you are lazy - don't expect to find it for you.

I have read many articles, I don't need you working for me, I am merely saying it's out there if you can be bothered to look.  It isn't my job to find evidence, I disagree wholeheartedly with you and your assertions he had nothing to do with it, and have read evidence that supports my view.

Look if you want, don't if you don't want to; your validation of anything I have said mounts to 10% of very little indeed to me.

 

[jonb2]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

Normally people back up things with evidence rather than saying look harder.  If you look hard on google there is evidence that Corbyn is the anti christ.  If you haven't found it you are lazy - don't expect to find it for you.

IAM, people change when in power. Recent history shows they tend to swing more to the right for some reason. If true in Corbyn's case, it could be a Goldilock's breakfast. Personally I just want someone who is less controlled by the VIs that have pulled the strings things since Thatcher. The corporations and banksters.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

I have read many articles, I don't need you working for me, I am merely saying it's out there if you can be bothered to look.  It isn't my job to find evidence, I disagree wholeheartedly with you and your assertions he had nothing to do with it, and have read evidence that supports my view.

Look if you want, don't if you don't want to; your validation of anything I have said mounts to 10% of very little indeed to me.

 

You're concentrating on me and not the evidence of whether he did it or not.  Give that up and we can get somewhere.

[spyguy]

45 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I don't really care, what he did help was start a peace process which ultimately led to the IRA stopping bombing and brought a start to lasting peace in NI, which is what we all wanted, no?

Seeing that the benefit cap is £20k outside of London, including HB, I think he's right to scrap it and start taxing those who earn a lot, a lot more.  Most of the folk on benefits need them and I am not one for putting people either on the streets or in the food banks and that's the alternative.

We disagree completely, I think he's a breath of fresh air that would induce change, or at least shake shit up and it needs to happen.

No.

Corbyn was nowhere near the peace process.

He's a dick who gets a stiffy from supporting armed terrosits groups and dictators.

The SDLP were pursuing peace thru the deomcractic process. They never saw Corbyn.

Id give him a pass on NI as it was/is a UK civil war. However, the likes of Iran's theocracy, Venzelua Chavez and the dictatorship. Nah. Corbyn is a bellend.

 

[Unbowed]

26 minutes ago, EUBanana said:

If you just give tenants more money across the board, then the landlord will bag it all.  You will actually screw all the poor who actually work, because their rents will go up too even if they aren't on benefits.  If you want to help the poor rather than handing out bennies then the catastrophic cost of living needs to be tackled.

  I know people game the system, to be frank if I was offered a role at £25k pre tax and worked out I could earn £20k post tax without working, I'd not work, i'd study, grow vegetables, make use of the free time and less stress.  However, I am educated and motivated to earn an awful lot more than that, so I don't.  Don't call me naive, but for every one gaming it, there is someone who needs the safety blanket of benefits, so that's ok with me.

So you're frankly mad then.  You actually know it's a crazy idea, and you're supporting it anyway.  It sounds like you have absolutely no empathy for what's going on at all - a typical champagne socialist. 

Leninism, no it's not hyperbolae.  Corbyn is surrounded with actual, bona fide, Leninists.  You are just in flat denial. 

This is spot on, paying people effectively 25K to sit on their hands is nuts.

Yes, some may think its not a lot to live on, but that is because of the mad cost of housing. We need to turn back to council houses (without right to buy). Then gradually as you move people from private housing to the new public accommodation, those left in the private sector; whether working or on benefits will see their rents come down. This also requires us to control our borders and/or restrict in-work benefits to UK nationals.

The Left however doesn't want to limit immigration, its wallows in creating poverty.. as it means more votes.

The current benefits system props up housing costs, lines the pockets of the landlords and acts as a magnet for migrants to come here to join the gravy train

Edited June 15, 2017 by Unbowed

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

They pay more as a percentage according to http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

On £80K you take home £54,179.68 you keep 67% (pay 33% tax in total)

On £150K you take home £90,067.20 you keep 60% (pay 40% tax in total).

But people only pay 1% NI after a certain amount (I think around £50k).  That's a 10% saving...

I also said as a percentage they should pay more.  You do understand that don't you?

 

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

IAM, people change when in power. Recent history shows they tend to swing more to the right for some reason. If true in Corbyn's case, it could be a Goldilock's breakfast. Personally I just want someone who is less controlled by the VIs that have pulled the strings things since Thatcher. The corporations and banksters.

Voting for someone on the grounds you hope they will be different from what they say is a bit risky.

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

You're concentrating on me and not the evidence of whether he did it or not.  Give that up and we can get somewhere.

Ah, nice try, but I am not, I am simply saying it's out there if you want to look for it, that I wasn't looking for it for you.

Different, completely, but nice try

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

But people only pay 1% NI after a certain amount (I think around £50k).  That's a 10% saving...

I also said as a percentage they should pay more.  You do understand that don't you?

 

They do pay more in total don't you understand that.  40% total tax is more than 33%.

[spyguy]

21 minutes ago, EUBanana said:

Price controls don't work, they have never worked.    And if it's ad hominem I stand by it.  You are totally without empathy or sense on the subject.  The only thing that seems to matter to you is that public policy makes you feel better about yourself, not whether it will actually do any good at all.  

And he is surrounded by Leninists.  I would say someone who has been in the Communist Party for 40 years is a Leninist, no?  It is called the "Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist-Leninist" after all, so I assume it does what it says on the tin, and that guy is his #1 man, who ran his campaign. 

Corbyn is a loon end of Labour.

He's surrounded by Leninists, Marxists, Trotskiist.

Corbyn, McDonnell are loons.

I say this as a blue collary labour type who has met them a long time ago. They are a5sewipes.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

Ah, nice try, but I am not, I am simply saying it's out there if you want to look for it, that I wasn't looking for it for you.

Different, completely, but nice try

There is also evidence out there that he is the anti christ, if you want to look for it. 

[HairyOb1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

They do pay more in total don't you understand that.  40% total tax is more than 33%.

Oh I understand that, in fact I agreed with you, but I am saying I want them paying more as a 'physical' percentage as in not 40% on all earnings above 80k, but more.  Once you earn £150, pay 60%, £1m 70% (arbitrary figures, but I am labouring a point for you).

Is that simply enough put for you?

[iamnumerate]

Evidence that McDonnell had links to the IRA

https://order-order.com/2016/06/09/mcdonnell-nicknamed-the-quartermaster/

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/why-labours-next-great-battle-could-be-corbyn-vs-mcdonnell/

 

Quote

McDonnell’s opposition to the peace process was troubling even for Sinn Fein.

 

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

There is also evidence out there that he is the anti christ, if you want to look for it. 

That's twice you've put that.

I'm sure there's not, but it doesn't really bother me that much.

[HairyOb1]

You've also not addressed the fact that over £44k you only pay 1% NI, which is a tax in al but name...

[iamnumerate]

Just now, HairyOb1 said:

Oh I understand that, in fact I agreed with you, but I am saying I want them paying more as a 'physical' percentage as in not 40% on all earnings above 80k, but more.  Once you earn £150, pay 60%, £1m 70% (arbitrary figures, but I am labouring a point for you).

Is that simply enough put for you?

You should have been clearer.  My figures point out that they are paying quite a lot - there is a big de facto rise between 80k to 150k.

Personally I would want to look at the evidence at when it becomes counter productive, although I would say 50% is a good maximum rate.

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

That's twice you've put that.

I'm sure there's not, but it doesn't really bother me that much.

Look if you want, don't if you don't want to; your validation of anything I have said mounts to 10% of very little indeed to me.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by iamnumerate

[jonb2]

6 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Voting for someone on the grounds you hope they will be different from what they say is a bit risky.

No more risky than knowing most Tories will end up working for someone like Blackrock or extend their clammy hands into property and bend the law to their advantage.

[HairyOb1]

They are, but if you look at the economy, more money is filtered in at the lower ends as it has to be; if you only earn £25k, you're very likely to spend in all.  However, if you earn 80k - £150k, you're more likely to be spending money on foreign items, holidays abroad, high end items that are not often made in the UK.  I think folk should be taxed more on that basis.

As for the uber wealthy, they should genuinely be paying  a lot more as they rarely given anything to the economy and keep most only outside of the UK. Generalising I know, but I am sure you get my point.

There's got to be a sweet spot that allows for this.  I'd get poorer people to pay less tax, by having a higher tax threshold too.

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Look if you want, don't if you don't want to; your validation of anything I have said mounts to 10% of very little indeed to me.

 

This is all getting rather odd don't you think?

I am also not asking you to show me anything.  Different, no?

Edited June 15, 2017 by HairyOb1

[spyguy]

3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

You've also not addressed the fact that over £44k you only pay 1% NI, which is a tax in al but name...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

'SUMMARY

Earn £44,000 in 2017/2018 and you'll take home £33,201. This means £2,767 in your pocket a month.

Over the year you'll pay £6,498 income tax and £4,300 in National Insurance.'

Bit more than 1%.

And there's the employer's NI tax too, which you dont see.

The problem is no that people working pay too much tax. Its that htere's too many people not working and paying tax.

The UK's tax base is way too narrow and the benefits pay out too much, for too little. for too long.

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

They are, but if you look at the economy, more money is filtered in at the lower ends as it has to be; if you only earn £25k, you're very likely to spend in all.  However, if you earn 80k - £150k, you're more likely to be spending money on foreign items, holidays abroad, high end items that are not often made in the UK.  I think folk should be taxed more on that basis.

As for the uber wealthy, they should genuinely be paying  a lot more as they rarely given anything to the economy and keep most only outside of the UK. Generalising I know, but I am sure you get my point.

There's got to be a sweet spot that allows for this.  I'd get poorer people to pay less tax, by having a higher tax threshold too.

The UK has a very high tax threshhold - 12k.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

No more risky than knowing most Tories will end up working for someone like Blackrock or extend their clammy hands into property and bend the law to their advantage.

You do know Labour did that as well don't you?  Unlike some people I back up things with evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1575247/Tony-Blair-to-earn-2m-as-JP-Morgan-adviser.html

[HairyOb1]

Just now, spyguy said:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

'SUMMARY

Earn £44,000 in 2017/2018 and you'll take home £33,201. This means £2,767 in your pocket a month.

Over the year you'll pay £6,498 income tax and £4,300 in National Insurance.'

Bit more than 1%.

And there's the employer's NI tax too, which you dont see.

The problem is no that people working pay too much tax. Its that htere's too many people not working and paying tax.

The UK's tax base is way too narrow and the benefits pay out too much, for too little. for too long.

If you read what I said, you'd have seen what I said

'Over 44k you only pay 1% NI'...