Support NeoGAF

[Ianan]

The Orange marches are scum and its disgusting that what is a hate group in all but legal classification is allowed to continue like that.


Shockingly, its different people who complain about Thatcherism than vote for Tories.

I used to see these lodges around when I was a kid.
Pardon my ignorance, but what are they even about? I've always paid them no attention or been interested to care until I seen this post.

 

[TimmmV]

Not letting it in is for the best, I don't approve of mixing politics and football.

Spoiler

Why? I've never really understood this sentiment, they seem fairly intertwined to me. Especially if you look at something like the Hillsborough disaster

 

[travisbickle]

And let us not forget, when the trots were bankrupting the city one of the few people to stand up for them, even when they were handing out redundancies in taxis, was Jeremy Corbyn.

You're telling people here not to forget something that may or may not have happened over 30 years ago?

It's an interesting part of political history but no one gives a shit and definitely don't view it as relevant today. It's only bought up because the journalists are all Oxbridge grads and want to show of their knowledge. People give a shit about the crash, maybe the Iraq war, and a "strong and stable" economy.

 

[TeddyBoy]

Why? I've never really understood this sentiment, they seem fairly intertwined to me. Especially if you look at something like the Hillsborough disaster

One of the things I dislike about modern politics is how people tend to always vote for the same party because they feel it's their team.

I look at Italy with their association of politics and football, a certain football club in particular is associated with the Italian Fascist party and believe that's dangerous.

Once you combine politics and football then you just harden that stance.

 

[Spaghetti]

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

 

[Chinner]

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

Everyone likes to think they're going to be rich and that we're all paying our due. We have been trained to defend the rich and one say we will become one of them.

We are a tory nation.

 

[RenditMan]

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

 

[twofoldd]

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

£80k outside of London is rich - inside it's not. Feels too low to me.

Also - it seems Corbyn thinks this tax raise will pay for everything he's promised - that feels unrealistic. I want to see the costings.

Edit - Just checked and people earning £80k are already paying £25k in tax + NI and they get charged in other ways too. These people are paying a ton already - how much more do Labour expect them to pay?

 

[travisbickle]

Everyone works hard.

The worst part is, when you're earning 80k plus you are definitely living in an area that gets preferential treatment form the council. The financing for roads, parks, public services like libraries is disproportionately spent in upper middle-class areas.

 

[Jackpot]

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

You realise you just told 90% of this forum that they're lazy slobs.

 

[Moosichu]

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

Ahhh, the "money people earn is proportional to the work they put in" fallacy.

No one is denying that people in that position had to work hard to get there, but they are denying the fact that they aren't the only people that work hard.

Don't forget, taxes are not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits from a society with lower crime rates, solid infrastructure, good healthcare, and decent education. People who earn a lot are standing on the shoulders of a pile people.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

What about the people that just have millions on their bank accounts and get 80000 as interest? With the low interest rates nowadays its a bit "harder " to do i guess but those people exist as well and they dont work a bit themselves for the proceeds

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Everyone works hard.

Citation needed!

 

[travisbickle]

Citation needed!

We still going to go down this road when nurses are going to food banks?

It's the economic system that isn't working, not the people.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Citation needed!

Disgusting.

 

[Spaghetti]

£80k outside of London is rich - inside it's not. Feels too low to me.

Also - it seems Corbyn thinks this tax raise will pay for everything he's promised - that feels unrealistic. I want to see the costings.

Edit - Just checked and people earning £80k are already paying £25k in tax + NI and they get charged in other ways too. These people are paying a ton already - how much more do Labour expect to pay?

Hm... I know London is expensive but I have a hard time swallowing that £80K is suddenly nothing if you live there, or on the outskirts. If the person earning £80K is the sole income of the house and has dependents like a family, and ambitions on home-ownership (which is another kettle of fish entirely), then sure, it won't go far.

Putting up taxes is a bit of a fool's game at the minute anyway. On the gradient scale of wealth you're mostly stuck with people who'll dodge the tax anyway, people who'll vote you out for putting their taxes up, and those who can't financially bare any increases. There's no acceptable way to do it.

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

Uh... is this the bootstraps argument? Because there are people who do difficult and vital work for far less than £80K, pal. My mom was a midwife for nearly 15 years, and "early starts, long days, hard work" were basically the job description with the added caveat of having to cope with increasing stresses on the NHS to make do with less.

Everyone likes to think they're going to be rich and that we're all paying our due. We have been trained to defend the rich and one say we will become one of them.

We are a tory nation.

Given some of the stuff in the posts above, I think you've pretty much got it.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

We still going to go down this road when nurses are going to food banks?

It's the economic system that isn't working, not the people.

There's plenty of lazy sods, both with and without jobs. The statement "everyone works hard" is just flat out wrong, and not really a legitimate way to dismiss the idea that some high earners worked hard (or just harder than their contemporaries) to get where they are.

 

[RenditMan]

You realise you just told 90% of this forum that they're lazy slobs.

I'm not calling anyone lazy, I'm sure everyone does their job well. This forum should have a good idea how difficult it is to get to that kind of level and it's not usually offered on a plate. High earnings require some form of sacrifice to get there, whether it is committing to further education, going above and beyond or maybe a mixture of two and a little bit of luck.

Non the less, it's a difficult journey for those who aspire to get there. 80k is too low for tax hikes in my opinion. There's plenty further up the chain.

There's currently very little wage inflation in the UK, yet we have large corporations shouting that there's a Labour shortage. This does not make sense to me as supply and demand does not work like that.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Disgusting.

Don't tell me you seriously think everyone works hard lol
What kind of make believe world do you live in.

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

Against. Bands should only increase someway above £100k.

 

[Empty]

millions of people live in london and even support families earning a fraction of 80k a year from insecure, low paid service jobs.

everyone defines rich as starting slightly to the right of them. if you ask people even on objectively absurd salaries in the hundreds of thousands a year they'll say that they don't feel rich. they'll point to how many financial pressures they feel under, the high cost of private schooling, going on the right holidays, rising property prices in the right areas, being seen at the right events etc.

 

[Jezbollah]

Dan Hodges: "I’m told an analysis of the results shows Lib Dem leader Tim Farron’s Cumbrian seat of Westmorland and Lonsdale may now be in play."

Woof.

 

[nekkid]

Not sure if we've been over it, but what's the consensus on Labour suggesting raising tax on those earning £80,000?

I was a bit surprised to see the pushback even in the Guardian comments. Maybe this is just me speaking as someone who has never really reliably earned more than £12,000 per year.

If work have a good year, my bonus might take me close to this. However, I think that's a reasonable place to set a tax rise, or even a little lower.

Much higher and there's little point in doing it for the returns they'd get.

 

[travisbickle]

I'm not calling anyone lazy, I'm sure everyone does their job well. This forum should have a good idea how difficult it is to get to that kind of level and it's not usually offered on a plate. High earnings require some form of sacrifice to get there, whether it is committing to further education, going above and beyond or maybe a mixture of two and a little bit of luck.

Non the less, it's a difficult journey for those who aspire to get there. 80k is too low for tax hikes in my opinion. There's plenty further up the chain.

To be fair this is a bit more nuanced than I first thought. It was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to what appeared like a "work hard earn more money" bullshit.

The problem we have now is young people from poorer backgrounds are being blocked from accessing further education or don't receive the support to go above and beyond.

 

[Monty Mole]

Everyone likes to think they're going to be rich and that we're all paying our due. We have been trained to defend the rich and one say we will become one of them.

We are a tory nation.

The 'rich' (I'd rather say very high earners) are already contributing significantly more to our public services than you or I are. They're also contributing more to our economy, and many contribute to the creation of jobs too. Perhaps we should defend them a little as we'd be pretty fucked if they all decided to leave the UK, or if we disincentivise people in future from the same aspirations.

 

[slider]

80k a year's standing perhaps depends on when (if) you bought your property.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

If work have a good year, my bonus might take me close to this. However, I think that's a reasonable place to set a tax rise, or even a little lower.

Much higher and there's little point in doing it for the returns they'd get.

It would feel like a reasonable place to set a tax rise if taxes were lower. But as of now all income in excess if £45k gets taxed at 40%, which is very high already.
If you wanna tax the rich, introduce more progressiveness in the tax brackets, with taxes rising to above the current cap for high incomes, grouping together everything above £45k makes little sense to me.
(If we're talking fairness, a flat rate for all would be the only fair system in my view, but that's beside the point)

 

[Jackpot]

I'm not calling anyone lazy, I'm sure everyone does their job well. This forum should have a good idea how difficult it is to get to that kind of level and it's not usually offered on a plate. High earnings require some form of sacrifice to get there, whether it is committing to further education, going above and beyond or maybe a mixture of two and a little bit of luck.

Because earnings below £80000 don't require sacrifice, clearly. You said:

"Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth."

ergo anyone who doesn't earn £80000+ hasn't worked hard, hasn't sacrificed, doesn't do early starts, long days, higher education or any of the rest of it.

Empirical data proves your parent's earnings are the biggest factor in what you end up earning. But we still get idiots claiming "bootstraps".

 

[Roberto Larcos]

I'm not calling anyone lazy, I'm sure everyone does their job well. This forum should have a good idea how difficult it is to get to that kind of level and it's not usually offered on a plate. High earnings require some form of sacrifice to get there, whether it is committing to further education, going above and beyond or maybe a mixture of two and a little bit of luck.

Non the less, it's a difficult journey for those who aspire to get there. 80k is too low for tax hikes in my opinion. There's plenty further up the chain.

Ah, I forget that nurses and teaching assistants don't have to make any such sacrifices. Nurses don't need a university degree, right? So they deserve to get shit pay, shit hours, and shat on by the government.

And what of those that can never make £80k. You won't like to hear it, but lower taxes for you means less income in benefits for my severely autistic brother. He can work as hard as he likes, he'll never get anyone paying him £12k a year, never mind £80k. Then there's the carers of the disabled and infirm - how are they supposed to climb this ladder without more help themselves?

Your biggest mistake is assuming everyone has the same opportunities as you. They do not.

(If we're talking fairness, a flat rate for all would be the only fair system in my view, but that's beside the point)

Shoot me now.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Because earnings below £80000 don't require sacrifice, clearly. You said:

"Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth."

ergo anyone who doesn't earn £80000+ hasn't worked hard, hasn't sacrificed, doesn't do early starts, long days, higher education or any of the rest of it.

Empirical data proves your parent's earnings are the biggest factor in what you end up earning. But we still get idiots claiming "bootstraps".

Ergo? I don't really think that follows from what he said.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

Shoot me now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate that and I don't think it'd be viable in Britain (even though it's in place in many countries and in some cases it appears to have been a success- see Estonia), but it does on paper seem like the only fair system: people with higher income contribute more, but proportionally the same.

 

[RenditMan]

Because earnings below £80000 don't require sacrifice, clearly. You said:

"Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth."

ergo anyone who doesn't earn £80000+ hasn't worked hard, hasn't sacrificed, doesn't do early starts, long days, higher education or any of the rest of it.

Empirical data proves your parent's earnings are the biggest factor in what you end up earning. But we still get idiots claiming "bootstraps".

I'm sure there's plenty under 80k doing all they can to get to that kind of level, as I said it's not offered on a plate and it doesn't happen overnight generally. It took me 12 years of 6 day weeks and 10 hour days to get to £65k a year and I ended changing jobs for less money so I didn't need to do that grind anymore. I'm not sure I would have tried that hard in the first place if I was working my way to a tax slap.

I'm sure those same people are feeling a bit more deflated about those aspirations today when considering voting labour.

Try not to look at this as a us and them debate its far more nuanced than that.

 

[PowderedToast]

Because the vast majority of people who earn 80000 a year will have worked hard to prove they have that value in the labour market. This may be in the form of sacrifice of early starts, long days, hard work, whatever, but in order for someone to pay £80k you better well prove your worth.

Labour wants to punish you for that dedication more than you are punished already. It'll go down like a fart in lift amongst the left or right minded population.

Not everyone is in a union and works to rule, people actually have to go above and beyond to get where they want to be sometimes.

ah, the 'worked hard' argument

because the single mother in the call centre just isn't working 'hard' enough

 

[Moosichu]

I'm sure there's plenty under 80k doing all they can to get to that kind of level, as I said it's not offered on a plate and it doesn't happen overnight generally.

I'm sure those same people are feeling a bit more deflated about those aspirations today when considering voting labour.

Try not to look at this as a us and them debate its far more nuanced than that.

There is a lot of evidence to show that it is though - one of the biggest indicators of how much you will earn in life is what your parents earned.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562416300038

Personally, I am set up to live a very comfortable life and earn a lot. I have worked extremely hard to get here - but I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the opportunities I was offered. Not everyone gets those.

 

[RenditMan]

ah, the 'worked hard' argument

because the single mother in the call centre just isn't working 'hard' enough

If she wins promotion on the back of said hard work I'm sure she'd take it.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

ah, the 'worked hard' argument

because the single mother in the call centre just isn't working 'hard' enough

Exactly, the undeserving poor.

It's like they choose to be impoverished. I guess that's why you could reason that there are many, complex reasons as to why such a person would use food banks.

 

[Moosichu]

If she wins promotion on the back of said hard work I'm sure she'd take it.

Exactly, not everyone gets offered those. Luck and background play a large part in how much you earn. So progressive taxation makes sense.

Again, it's also not a zero sum game - people at the top of the earnings pole benefit from the universal healthcare, solid infrastructure, stable society, more productivity, basic research, education and lower crime rates that government investment enables just as much as anyone else.

Therefore, higher taxation to fund an NHS is something that has merit, and not merely taking away from you.

However, the government really should have been borrowing to invest a lot more over the past few years, the opportunity cost of which will be extremely high.

 

[*Splinter]

£80k outside of London is rich - inside it's not. Feels too low to me.

I think we just had this same argument with a ~£50k figure...

millions of people live in london and even support families earning a fraction of 80k a year from insecure, low paid service jobs.

everyone defines rich as starting slightly to the right of them. if you ask people even on objectively absurd salaries in the hundreds of thousands a year they'll say that they don't feel rich. they'll point to how many financial pressures they feel under, the high cost of private schooling, going on the right holidays, rising property prices in the right areas, being seen at the right events etc.

Basically this. I wonder how often you can guess someone's salary from them making this argument.

Also fuck this "hard work = more pay" argument. Absolutely flabbergasted there are still people that believe this nonsense.

 

[RenditMan]

Exactly, not everyone gets offered those. Luck and background play a large part in how much you earn. So progressive taxation makes sense.

Again, it's also not a zero sum game - people at the top of the earnings pole benefit from the universal healthcare, solid infrastructure, stable society, more productivity, basic research, education and lower crime rates that government investment enables just as much as anyone else.

Therefore, higher taxation to fund an NHS is something that has merit, and not merely taking away from you.

However, the government really should have been borrowing to invest a lot more over the past few years, the opportunity cost of which will be extremely high.

I think that they should be focusing on wage inflation, there's simply not enough of it. GDP is growing currently which shows that there's increasing demand overall in the economy but wages aren't growing with it which suggests fundamentally that the supply of labour in the economy is still larger than the demand for it and the growth of that supply is quicker than the growth of the demand.

 

[Moral Panic]

80K is almost 3 times the median London salary. An extra 1% tax is fair. You benefit from the economy which allows you to earn that much, and that economy is propped up by people below you. And you know that if this tax is especially earmarked for the nhs that it is going towards something that is a worthwhile expense.

 

[satriales]

The important part of the £80k policy is the guarantee of no tax increase for everyone earning less than that.

 

[Kotetsu534]

I think that they should be focusing on wage inflation, there's simply not enough of it. GDP is growing currently which shows that there's increasing demand overall in the economy but wages aren't growing with it which suggests fundamentally that the supply of labour in the economy is still larger than the demand for it and the growth of that supply is quicker than the growth of the demand.

Larry Elliott in the Guardian would agree with you. He puts the blame on the fact that most of the rise in employment is a result of overseas workers moving to the UK (i.e. our unemployment is low, but there's still a strong supply of more labour).

 

[HaloRose]

http://uk.isidewith.com/results/3133394845 I don't understand how i got side with plaid cymru least labour is second with 63%

 

[Kotetsu534]

80k a year's standing perhaps depends on when (if) you bought your property.

Yep. There's a big need to move this debate on to wealth taxes, which is what any "left-wing" party worth their salt would be trying to force. Good discussion here of the potential for a wealth tax to help resolve the housing crisis at CapX (hardly a left-wing site).

 

[Pandy]

Obviously at odds with some of you here, but as someone who earns roughly £30,000 a year I definitely feel I should be paying more tax. I'm not all that comfortable really, but I know I must have a very easy life compared to those earning below average wages.

If I had my way everyone would get a tax-free living wage, and then a flat-tax of 50% on everything they earn above that. It's the only 'fair' system I can think of.

 

[Audioboxer]

Obviously at odds with some of you here, but as someone who earns roughly £30,000 a year I definitely feel I should be paying more tax. I'm not all that comfortable really, but I know I must have a very easy life compared to those earning below average wages.

If I had my way everyone would get a tax-free living wage, and then a flat-tax of 50% on everything they earn above that. It's the only 'fair' system I can think of.

The 'average' is actually a bit lower anyway

http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S5/SB_16-92_Earnings_in_Scotland_2016.pdf

I think some people live around wealth/other people similar to them for so long and then drift away a bit from reality. I tried to put that forward earlier in the topic.

50k or 80k is certainly more than the majority will ever see, even if many of them are working really hard. Even with promotions to management in many retail/customer service jobs, it is still probably high 20's on average. Maybe approaching/into 30s with bonuses. Then, of course, you need far more frontline staff than you'll ever need managers.

edit: I should point out full/part-time makes a difference

 

[Randy Lanzarote]

Lib Dems pledge to keep triple lock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39831522

Wealthier retired people would lose their annual winter fuel payment under Liberal Democrat proposals to protect the "triple lock" on state pensions

The election manifesto vow would see those on incomes in the 40% tax bracket lose the allowance - worth up to £300.

Obligatory:

"The real risk to pensions comes from Jeremy Corbyn propped up in a coalition of chaos by the Lib Dems and the SNP."

 

[Maledict]

Fuck the triple lock, and the lib dems are dumb for agreeing to keep it. They aren't getting the votes of the old thanks to Brexit anyway!

 

[RenditMan]

Larry Elliott in the Guardian would agree with you. He puts the blame on the fact that most of the rise in employment is a result of overseas workers moving to the UK (i.e. our unemployment is low, but there's still a strong supply of more labour).

You can't get away from the fundamental laws of supply and demand no matter how much Macro economics you try to apply to a problem.

We ain't going to brute force our way out of this issue by just whacking taxes up we need to look at specific issues and the reasons behind them. Get wage inflation to a reasonable level (just above general inflation.) and everything starts to click together.

 

[RenditMan]

Larry Elliott in the Guardian would agree with you. He puts the blame on the fact that most of the rise in employment is a result of overseas workers moving to the UK (i.e. our unemployment is low, but there's still a strong supply of more labour).

"Labour shortage" is now code for put more ferries on companies are starting to have to pay staff a little more to keep them.

 

[Pandy]

The 'average' is actually a bit lower anyway

I'm fully aware. Really makes me wonder how people cope.