Jeremy Corbyn - fecked?

[TDYER63]

10 hours ago, Parklife said:

It is, of course, an excellent policy that chimes exactly with what the Labour Party should stand for. 

However, everyone has been told endlessly by the men on the telly that Corbyn is an idiot/can't lead/doesn't have a clue, so they'll obviously criticise it because that's what they've been trained to do. 

We live in an age where being an idiot and listening to and believing everything the man on the telly says is seen as intelligence. Intelligence no longer seems to be actually knowing things, it's merely believing what everyone else believes. Folk are scared to think differently, to believe different things from what the masses do. I'm not quite sure why that is? Maybe being lazy and unthinking is a sign of our lifestyles, where time is often at a premium or where there are too many other distractions, so keeping focused on something and actually learning about it isn't a priority? 

I do wonder why so many folk are so happy to believe exactly what News International and the BBC want them to? Who knows?

Anyway, i digress... Great policy idea.  

It is certainly easier for the media to pour derision on a proposal to tax private schools by a 'loon ball leftie ' than if it would be if  a centre right Labour leader was proposing this, so in that respect the image of JC that has been created has worked perfectly. I would imagine though he will find as much criticism of this proposal within his own party as it currently stands. Private schools do not seem to be regarded as a playground for the elitist in the way they once were. I do struggle to understand their charitable status though. 

With regards to folk just running with the herd . I think it is more to do with complete lack of interest in politics by a large part of society. I think people are easily influenced cos they just dont give a fook, not because they strongly agree with what is being said. Politics bores the pants off folk and its easier for them to listen to the knowlegable  man on the BBC than plough through the glut of news sources out there when they could be catching up on Broadchurch. I am in no way meaning to be condescending here, I watch Coronation st which is infinitely inferior to Boradhcurch ?

[thplinth]

22 hours ago, exile said:

Corbyn seems to be getting a lot of publicity for this free school meals scheme - could it work? To be paid by taxing private schools?

Just tracking this thread back to the reinvigorating original post... why should this be paid for by private schools that seems weird.

 

[thplinth]

Hmmm Corbyn was rocking on Syria... but anyway.

'Progressive taxation' man that boils my pish.

If I earn 10,000 at 20% tax I pay 2,000 pounds,

If I earn 100,000 at 20% tax I pay 20,000 pounds,

That is pretty progressive. 10 times more tax 10 times more earnings. That is progression...

But suddenly ramping it up after a certain amount to 50% or whatever. I am curious socialists... how do you justify that?

[sbcmfc]

2 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Hmmm Corbyn was rocking on Syria... but anyway.

'Progressive taxation' man that boils my pish.

If I earn 10,000 at 20% tax I pay 2,000 pounds,

If I earn 100,000 at 20% tax I pay 20,000 pounds,

That is pretty progressive. 10 times more tax 10 times more earnings. That is progression...

But suddenly ramping it up after a certain amount to 50% or whatever. I am curious socialists... how do you justify that?

If you earn 10,000 you don't pay any tax.

You also pay tax on almost everything you buy, so if you've got more money, chances are you're spending more too...

[thplinth]

Aye lets not be mixin me taxes bright eyes.

Edited April 7, 2017 by thplinth

[phart]

10 minutes ago, thplinth said:

But suddenly ramping it up after a certain amount to 50% or whatever. I am curious socialists... how do you justify that?

Because you wouldn't be able to make it without using the services built by the people. Money sitting and not mobile negatively effects the economy. Income Tax wasn't a thing in the days of Marx etc, so not really accounted for in textbooks on socialism.

 

[thplinth]

If I pay 10 times the tax of you because I make 10 times more profit than you is that right or not?

But why at some arbitrary point do you say naw... lets just start helping ourselves to a shit load more, 15 times more or whatever and upwards?

It is like a 'let's just rob the rich because we can gang up on them' moment? It seems like that. What is your justification for increasing the percentage just because some one earns much more? It is totally bizarre logic.

Immediately you have fhucked the inherent fairness of a pure % progression ... so why do it?

Edited April 7, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

The logic of taxing private schools... oh wow. Another idea that will appeal to many SNP'rs but which is appallingly stupid.

[Guest flumax]

23 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Hmmm Corbyn was rocking on Syria... but anyway.

'Progressive taxation' man that boils my pish.

If I earn 10,000 at 20% tax I pay 2,000 pounds,

If I earn 100,000 at 20% tax I pay 20,000 pounds,

That is pretty progressive. 10 times more tax 10 times more earnings. That is progression...

But suddenly ramping it up after a certain amount to 50% or whatever. I am curious socialists... how do you justify that?

Look at it another way. A flat rate system would need,  to say for arguments sake,   need  25%  across the board, having a progressive system enables 0%,20% 40%, 45% Letting  the least well off in society  a break,  seeing that they have less disposable income and pay more on simply getting by, subsidised by those who can. Like me. 

As a hrtp who was born in a state hospital, educated for 27 years on the public purse, uses an amazing array of state agencies and facilities... It is only fair that I pay more than a fixed share as a measure of "thanks"  to the support of the state and society helping get to my position where I can live a comfortable life. 

 

[phart]

11 minutes ago, thplinth said:

If I pay 10 times the tax of you because I make 10 times more profit than you is that right or not?

But why at some arbitrary point do you say naw... lets just start helping ourselves to a shit load more, 15 times more or whatever and upwards?

It is like a 'let's just rob the rich because we can gang up on them' moment? It seems like that. What is your justification for increasing the percentage just because some one earns much more? It is totally bizarre logic.

Immediately you have fhucked the inherent fairness of a pure % progression ... so why do it?

Fairness, in this world?

If fairness was the goal, we'd have to do a lot more than just progressive tax.

If you're going to let governments tax your income in the first place and also have fractional reserve lending then you need to find the money somewhere.

[Guest flumax]

6 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The logic of taxing private schools... oh wow. Another idea that will appeal to many SNP'rs but which is appallingly stupid.

What's wrong with taxing a particular business transaction? Do it with insurance (Inc medical),  booze, cigarettes  for example. what's so different to those choosing private schools? 

[thplinth]

6 minutes ago, phart said:

Fairness, in this world?

If fairness was the goal, we'd have to do a lot more than just progressive tax.

If you're going to let governments tax your income in the first place and also have fractional reserve lending then you need to find the money somewhere.

Tax people fairly on one percentage.... you'll get more tax revenue.

Percentage taxation is progressive.

Take out the first $50k with a healthy tax free personal allowance... and after that it is flat field.

Who could complain about that?

[thplinth]

13 minutes ago, flumax said:

What's wrong with taxing a particular business transaction? Do it with insurance (Inc medical),  booze, cigarettes  for example. what's so different to those choosing private schools? 

Are you equating educating ones child with fags or booze?

[Guest flumax]

Just now, thplinth said:

Are you equating educating ones child with fags or booze?

One doesn't need   fags booze insurance flights cars fuel....So you pay specific taxes, just like you don't need private schools.  They are choices, luxuries, nonessentials. Why should these other nonessential businesses incur a specialised tax and private education not?

[Grim Jim]

Incomes don't go up linearly (e.g by flat percentage).   They increase exponentially.  So Tax rates should do so too ...at least.   (They don't.)

Plus fixed taxes on purchases (e.g. VAT) obviously hit lower income folks hardest as they run out of non-disposable income soonest.

[thplinth]

What? Every tax payer has paid for their kid's education including rich people. They then pay pay twice to send their kids at their own choice to a private school. It is not tax deductible.

The government however recognizes that these parents many of who are not actually 'rich' deserve some relief (by granting the schools charitable status etc) as it is effectively a form of double taxation on them.

When I see the spiteful attitude of the SNP members on here to private schools it is very enlightening. I get the strong impression you would happily close down these schools in some effort to make us all as equally stupid rather than raise us up to being equally smart at their 'private' level. 

These schools are better.  

And you want to close them down. (sorry disincentive therm?)

Is this going to help Scotland?

Edited April 7, 2017 by thplinth

[phart]

40 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Tax people fairly on one percentage.... you'll get more tax revenue.

Percentage taxation is progressive.

Take out the first $50k with a healthy tax free personal allowance... and after that it is flat field.

Who could complain about that?

I'd set the percentage at what produced the most yield with least complaints.

It shouldn't be used as a way to garner votes, used politically, efficiency should be the key.

On Private schools, the Eton-oxbridge-westminster conveyor belt clique has stripped trillions of pounds out of the public purse as they work in cahoots with each other with relationships built upon that particular educational route. Class size is the number one variable in education. Address that and you solve most problems.

As a species we're too imperfect with too many distractions to create anything of great worth i think. I've sort of stopped worrying about it.

[exile]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

The logic of taxing private schools... oh wow. Another idea that will appeal to many SNP'rs but which is appallingly stupid.

What is this argument to do with the SNP? Have they proposed taxing public schools?

I thought it was an eye-catching policy by the labour party but which might not be attempted by a party close to grasping power...

 

[Guest flumax]

41 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

When I see the spiteful attitude of the SNP members on here to private schools it is very enlightening. I get the strong impression you would happily close down these schools in some effort to make us all as equally stupid rather than raise us up to being equally smart at their 'private' level. 

 

I'm Not an snp member. BTW it is a labour planned policy for goodness sake. 

[TDYER63]

You cwn argue forever about tax bands but how much money does a person need to survive comfortably and be happy in this life? Never enough it would seem for some people. 

 I have no problem with people earning megabucks  but at top salary paybands you are experiencing a lifestyle that only a small percentage of people in this entire world will experience. Yet  it still never seems to be enough. 

Greed is ugly and greed is everywhere. From the megabucks folk who would sell their granny to avoid paying more tax to the normal family who will never speak to each other again as mum and dad died leaving an upset in the Will.

Let people send their children to private schools if they want. I have no issue with that. But let's not pretend there is any real reason for private schools to have a charitable status. 

And for the avoidance of doubt, my comments are not politically motivated nor am I a socialist. 

 

[Topcat]

Private schools should be taxed to the hilt - they've been hamming up their charitable status for decades - saying that they'll educate a certain % of kids and give them assistance with fees alongside letting the local community & state schools access to their facilities -(all complete bullsh*t) - with some independent schools even offering the richer parents who can pay the annual fee up front a means to avoid paying tax on their savings by allowing the    interest to accrue in a school account on their behalf.

A 20% VAT tax hike in fees (equating to about £2.5k per year up here) will not cripple Jacintha & Tarquin's parents - maybe they could buy a Clio instead of driving a BMW X5 up to the school gates.

 

 

[exile]

By the way I hadn't expressed an opinion on private schools but since we're on the topic, I'd throw in this. It's partly about the bigger picture of society as a whole that we want to be. Maybe even the brightest, best-educated (e.g. private school) children would rather live in a happier fairer Scandinavian-style society: but they can't do that, if that society doesn't exist in their own country, because it is so unequal with kids so divided by wealth and life chances from the kindergarten?

Put another way, what if we applied the same logic of private schools to universities? What if the most ancient highest ranking universities charged private fees, so only the richest (parents') students went to Edinburgh St Andrews Glasgow universities etc, while only the 'newer' universities were free. So if you were a low income student from say Paisley, you'd simply naturally go to your local University of West of Scotland, if you had average income you might get into Strathclyde but only private school kids would get into Glasgow? Would that be fair? And would it be good for Scottish society as a whole? Just asking...

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by exile

[Grim Jim]

We could say, bring in student loans

[Grim Jim]

Money goes to money.   A bit of wealth distribution is right and fair.

[thplinth]

It is about choice. These schools exist because they are perceived by some to be better. It is a similar argument for Catholic schools. They perform well.

I don't see the value in taking away choice and competition in education. If the state schools were better then both private and catholic schools would naturally wane. But they are not.  The post above about "Jacintha & Tarquin" is very representative of this spiteful attitude I am talking about.

Fair play if this is not SNP policy but I was talking about some SNP supporters on here. It concerns me that would bleed in the party itself over time if not already. Tax the rich tax the rich... this is the solution to all our problems.