All things Labour Party

You are mixing up and conflating two separate things. The issue is not what the headline tax rates are but the number of tax breaks and loopholes which make paying tax optional. Some rich people pay tax, many dont. Creative accountants and tax advisors can shelter their money easily and the amount wealthy people choose to pay is down to them - most choose to pay a nominal amount to keep HMRC off their back.

 

Even middle class people can do it. Example I'm 52 and lucky enough to earn enough to pay tax at 40%. If I want to I can increase my mortgage and borrow £300,000 and pay that into my pension. The Government will then give me a tax credit for the past three years and the next three years meaning I pay no income tax - effectively they give me a free handout of almost £150,000 so £450,000 goes into my pension. When I get to 55 in three years time I can withdraw the £300,000 pay off the mortgage and keep the free £150,000.

 

There are so many deliberately legal scams like that. It isnt accidental - its a way of persuading the plebs we are all in it together while the rich pay next to nothing if they choose.

How can you withdraw the £150,000 without paying tax?

There's an annual limit on contributions of £40,000 and to get full relief from the 40% band all of that £40k would have to be above the 40% threshold, but you say that you'd pay effectively no income tax. How do you work that?

You'd have to pay interest on the mortgage in the meantime.

Even I know that trickle dowm economics was a big lie and still the gullible swallow all that nonsense despite it being discredited .those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid also.I prefer the German model of economics which has been successfully run since 1945;

The only people who believe that trickle down economics works are those at the top.

How can you withdraw the £150,000 without paying tax?

There's an annual limit on contributions of £40,000 and to get full relief from the 40% band all of that £40k would have to be above the 40% threshold, but you say that you'd pay effectively no income tax. How do you work that?

You'd have to pay interest on the mortgage in the meantime.

You're wasting your breath. You have to ask yourself that if these lefties are so smart, why aren't they rich?

The only people who believe that trickle down economics works are those at the top.

does it not work?

the UK seems a pretty decent place to live

we have almost zero poverty in real terms, free health care for anyone who turns up and a very fair minded society.

all provided from the broken system to complain about. it aint really going to change any time soon.

as someone said above. when was the last time we witnessed ghettos in dover, waiting to get into france?....almost never

So let me get this straight....Being a uber right-wing, Burlington club, Thatcherite bully-boy millionaire will make you electable in this day and age but being a popularist left-winger wont....I see no sense in this unless you've been bought like the right wing media.

Being a populist left-winger won't.

Thank Christ you're not in the work force any more...although the worry is that you get a vote.

Somehow, so do you.

The only people who believe that trickle down economics works are those at the top.

They don't believe it. They try and convince those at the bottom though.

Somehow, so do you.

I know and it only cost me £3.

Jezbollah all the way...

How can you withdraw the £150,000 without paying tax?

There's an annual limit on contributions of £40,000 and to get full relief from the 40% band all of that £40k would have to be above the 40% threshold, but you say that you'd pay effectively no income tax. How do you work that?

You'd have to pay interest on the mortgage in the meantime.

The limit was £50,000pa up to and including 2013/14 and you can take 25% of your pension pot tax free. Mortgage interest is 1.64%

I know and it only cost me £3.

 

Jezbollah all the way...

I'm suprised your working with all the wealth you have [emoji2]

The limit was £50,000pa up to and including 2013/14 and you can take 25% of your pension pot tax free. Mortgage interest is 1.64%

I'm assuming that when you get this £150k from the taxpayer, you'll be donating it to those worse off than you...

The limit was £50,000pa up to and including 2013/14 and you can take 25% of your pension pot tax free. Mortgage interest is 1.64%

He should have got himself a creative accountant.

I'm suprised your working with all the wealth you have

You can never be too rich. Now, haven't you got an allotment to look after?

You can never be too rich. Now, haven't you got an allotment to look after?

Don't you mean my vineyard.lol

I'm assuming that when you get this £150k from the taxpayer, you'll be donating it to those worse off than you...

Im not doing it, I think its unethical.

I'm not disagreeing but the mess they are now in was totally predictable when Ed won and David didn't. Big election defeat, the battle between traditional and Blairite etc, lurches to the left, members wanting to reclaim what they view as a radical position to separate their identity from that of the tories.

I predicted the opposite - shows f**k all I know. Thought the election defeat, the worst since 1992, would convince activists that even Ed Miliband's soft left position had few takers in the country at large. Maybe that position didn't go far enough to the left to ram the point home; maybe the sheer scale of the defeat has freed activists to indulge their prejudices, because they know Labour doesn't stand a chance of winning the next election, even if everyone gets behind a disciplined, electable policy agenda. What seems clear is that Blair, Mandelson and even David M's election postmortem, before the body was even cold, was a massive boon to the likes of Corbyn.

Im not doing it, I think its unethical.

Don't you mean my vineyard.lol

Pity Tony Blair doesn't have your ethics...worth over £60M at the last count and much of it off the backs of impoverished third world countries, like South Sudan. Don't you just love these champagne socialists?

I dont know much about how Blair got his worth - but assume much of it is through speaking engagements. The Charity I work for held an event in New York which was sponsored by Merril Lynch - they paid Clinton $400,000 to give a 20 minute speech at the event. Clinton donated the money to his foundation. Perhaps Blair doesnt.

I dont know much about how Blair got his worth - but assume much of it is through speaking engagements. The Charity I work for held an event in New York which was sponsored by Merril Lynch - they paid Clinton $400,000 to give a 20 minute speech at the event. Clinton donated the money to his foundation. Perhaps Blair doesnt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11337856/How-Tony-Blair-Inc-spent-57-million-in-four-years.html

Seems Our Tone has a taste for the high life, particularly when conducting his international business affairs which should not be subject to too much scrutiny in case they throw up examples of backhanders or favourable contract awards within the realms of Tony Blair plc, allegedly. He could be said to make Hairy ****flapps look like Mother Teresa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11547808/Revealed-how-Tony-Blair-makes-his-millions.html

I wonder how much Tax he has avoided since leaving No 10?

You're wasting your breath. You have to ask yourself that if these lefties are so smart, why aren't they rich?

I'm leftie, have a comfortable life and have no wish to be rich but the wealthiest man I know by far, who posts on here, is far more left wing than me.

.......

 

I wonder how much Tax he has avoided since leaving No 10?

As much as Cameron's family? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

Maybe he could learn a trick or two from the Chancellor as well? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154098073834358&set=a.256571124357.183644.629524357&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

I predicted the opposite - shows f**k all I know. Thought the election defeat, the worst since 1992, would convince activists that even Ed Miliband's soft left position had few takers in the country at large. Maybe that position didn't go far enough to the left to ram the point home; maybe the sheer scale of the defeat has freed activists to indulge their prejudices, because they know Labour doesn't stand a chance of winning the next election, even if everyone gets behind a disciplined, electable policy agenda. What seems clear is that Blair, Mandelson and even David M's election postmortem, before the body was even cold, was a massive boon to the likes of Corbyn.

I'm of the opinion that many activists, especially in the heartlands, tolerated the tory lite Labour party when it was winning but underneath they never really wanted it or agreed with it. Now that they are in a proper opposition position they can throw off the shackles and move the party where they really want it, back to the left.

This of course alienates swathes of the electorate whose natural position is centre or left of centre but I get the impression from those I know what they see it as a cathartic cleansing of the party and a return to its roots.

I'm leftie, have a comfortable life and have no wish to be rich but the wealthiest man I know by far, who posts on here, is far more left wing than me.

Exactly that. We all make different choices - I kow I'm far happier doing what I do than I would be in much better paid careers. Somebody who supports my charity made £110m, kept £3m of it and is giving the rest of it away. The giving it away part is far more fun than the making it part.

I'm leftie, have a comfortable life and have no wish to be rich but the wealthiest man I know by far, who posts on here, is far more left wing than me.

I'm leftwing on social issues but right wing on business hence why I voted for the consertives .its sad to think that I found Cameron's Torys more left wing then the present labour party.

I'm leftwing on social issues but right wing on business hence why I voted for the consertives .its sad to think that I found Cameron's Torys more left wing then the present labour party.

Its one of the reasons I wish we had PR elections - you'd get a much greater spread of views in parliament and more conviction politicians. I wouldn't want Corbyn to lead the Labour party, but would love him to lead a smaller party in a coalition.

As much as Cameron's family? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

 

Maybe he could learn a trick or two from the Chancellor as well? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154098073834358&set=a.256571124357.183644.629524357&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

Wow, two wrongs making a right actually in action.

Wow, two wrongs making a right actually in action.

But we don't actually KNOW that Blair has avoided tax, do we?

I'm leftie, have a comfortable life and have no wish to be rich but the wealthiest man I know by far, who posts on here, is far more left wing than me.

Oooh, a champagne socialist...a vanishing breed as most of them can't live with the hypocrisy, any more. Socialists in this country will slowly morph into Democrats, as they have in the US, where self made wealth is something to be admired, not resented and envied, and their politics are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. Socialist politics isn't dying, just the politics of envy.

Good article in the Indy

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-last-thing-labour-needs-is-a-leader-like-jeremy-corbyn-who-people-want-to-vote-for-10411466.html

Oooh, a champagne socialist...a vanishing breed as most of them can't live with the hypocrisy, any more. Socialists in this country will slowly morph into Democrats, as they have in the US, where self made wealth is something to be admired, not resented and envied, and their politics are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. Socialist politics isn't dying, just the politics of envy.

Do you ridicule impoverished Tories in the same way? You know, the ones who aren't true to their 'class'?

The Charity I work for held an event in New York which was sponsored by Merril Lynch - they paid Clinton $400,000 to give a 20 minute speech at the event. Clinton donated the money to his foundation. Perhaps Blair doesnt.

Oooh, a champagne socialist...a vanishing breed as most of them can't live with the hypocrisy, any more. Socialists in this country will slowly morph into Democrats, as they have in the US, where self made wealth is something to be admired, not resented and envied, and their politics are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. Socialist politics isn't dying, just the politics of envy.

IPA actually.

It was a combination of the Tories' failings in the '90s and Blair being a master of manipulation.

 

He played a blinder in the lead up to the '97 general election but the reason he won 3 elections was because he ultimately sold the party out to convince enough of the middle class to vote for them. "New Labour" was just another Tory party. By the time Gordon "no more boom and bust" Brown and Allistair "The money will be borrowed" Darling were in charge they were even coming up with Thatcherite policies like scrapping the 10p tax band.

 

Even the timing of Blair's departure was carefully calculated. It was conveniently about 2 months before the 2007-08 financial crisis reared its ugly head, he even did Gordon up like a kipper.

 

Blair sold the party out, and it hasn't had an identity ever since.

You really couldn't have less of a clue, could you?

Do you ridicule impoverished Tories in the same way? You know, the ones who aren't true to their 'class'?

IPA actually.

I'm leftwing on social issues but right wing on business hence why I voted for the consertives .its sad to think that I found Cameron's Torys more left wing then the present labour party.

Me too.

You really couldn't have less of a clue, could you?

It was his opinion, which seems valid enough. Instead of your usual snide sniping in an attempt to make yourself look clever by denigrating the opinions of others as clueless, why don't you respond by saying why you think JF doesn't have a clue?

The limit was £50,000pa up to and including 2013/14 and you can take 25% of your pension pot tax free. Mortgage interest is 1.64%

You can't contribute more than you earn in any year so to benefit from a contribution of £150k and get the full 40% allowance you would need to earn £150k over the 40% threshold. Also there would be a charge to be taken off the cash contribution.

Also, in order to withdraw £150k tax free you would need a pot of £600k

Just a quick heads up. You may not have noticed, but the "class" system is finally dead in the UK. Apart from dinosaurs like you, no one gives a sh! t about it any more. It's been replaced by the social mobility the Tories offered voters at the last election. The only mobility offered by Labour was of the downward variety.

Hence the ' '

And what's that noise I hear? Whoosh? Oh it's all the upwardly mobile people on their journeys to paradise!

A real working class hero, then...

If that makes you feel warm and fuzzy then feel your boots.

Oooh, a champagne socialist...a vanishing breed as most of them can't live with the hypocrisy, any more. Socialists in this country will slowly morph into Democrats, as they have in the US, where self made wealth is something to be admired, not resented and envied, and their politics are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. Socialist politics isn't dying, just the politics of envy.

There's some truth in this - and as professional doing quite well who has voted LD at the last 3 elections I'm probably an example of what you are talking about - but if you think there aren't some massive differences between the Democrats and Republicans you are a misguided missile. There are huge, often bitter, chasms over healthcare, gun control (which Obama has just expressed regret on not doing more on), Federal/State relationships, foreign policy and plenty more. The Democrats are essentially like the reasonable One Nation UK Conservatives (and if the party went back to this position I'd start voting for it again) and the centre right Tories and even the more pragmatic Thatcherites. The Republicans are lunatic, Laissez Faire and socially backward extremists for the most part, Romney as a more progressive conservative had to totally change his outlook to stand last time but the far right still alienated the electorate at large. Look at the crazies standing now, Trump is leading the early polls and he's even more extreme than Corbyn is for Labour, both are very scary. The Tories' Monday Club is the only domestic party grouping that comes close plus the likes of John Redwood and Liam Fox, two more extremists on the fringes.

My hope is that the UK votes to stay in the EU and that destroys the worst excesses of the Thatcherite wing so we can have a centre right government without undue influence from the crazies. As for Labour, they'd be mad to vote for Corbyn, might as well not bother contesting the next election if they do.

Its one of the reasons I wish we had PR elections - you'd get a much greater spread of views in parliament and more conviction politicians. I wouldn't want Corbyn to lead the Labour party, but would love him to lead a smaller party in a coalition.

I agree I despair when you see the single minded party loyalists on here with there dogmà support one party all there life.I think it's disgraceful how the media and labour right belittle a decent guy even if you disagree with his views.we need people in all parties who think outside the box for a better society for everyone and not just a few at the top.

My hope is that the UK votes to stay in the EU...

There are huge, often bitter, chasms over healthcare, gun control (which Obama has just expressed regret on not doing more on), Federal/State relationships, foreign policy and plenty more. The Democrats are essentially like the reasonable One Nation UK Conservatives (and if the party went back to this position I'd start voting for it again) and the centre right Tories and even the more pragmatic Thatcherites. The Republicans are lunatic, Laissez Faire and socially backward extremists for the most part

those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid ;

I think you've hit the nail on the head . I keep trying to tell my kids not to work hard in life , otherwise they'll end up with **** all.

The Tories' Monday Club is the only domestic party grouping that comes close plus the likes of John Redwood and Liam Fox, two more extremists on the fringes.

 

My hope is that the UK votes to stay in the EU and that destroys the worst excesses of the Thatcherite wing so we can have a centre right government without undue influence from the crazies. As for Labour, they'd be mad to vote for Corbyn, might as well not bother contesting the next election if they do.

I'd be interested to hear why you consider these two to be "extremists". They might be of the right wing of the Conservative Party, but I fail to see what particular policy positions they hold which could be deemed to be extreme. Presumably as you hope that by staying in the EU the worst excesses of the Thatcherite wing will be destroyed, the main thrust of your labelling them as extremists is based on their wish for us to leave the EU. In which case, they are in accord with the extreme half of the electorate, the other half obviously being the more sensible ones to your mind. Interesting as an aside to note that these two are both from a council house background, who have pulled themselves up in life from striving educationally and through hard work.

But I agree with your assessment of Labour's chances of getting elected under Corbyn. I do hope that Labour elect him as their leader.

As much as Cameron's family? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

 

Maybe he could learn a trick or two from the Chancellor as well? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154098073834358&set=a.256571124357.183644.629524357&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

I'm sure they have traded tips on that very subject, although on those figures, Blair is in another league altogether, a paltry 100k is mere shrapnel in his pocket. His hugely lavish business expenses reduce his declared profit and his subsequent contribution to HM Treasury through Corporation Tax. Well played Tony.

does it not work?

the UK seems a pretty decent place to live

we have almost zero poverty in real terms, free health care for anyone who turns up and a very fair minded society.

 

all provided from the broken system to complain about. it aint really going to change any time soon.

 

as someone said above. when was the last time we witnessed ghettos in dover, waiting to get into france?....almost never

It certainly doesn't seem that fair to a lot of people. Ok, if we compare it to, say, India then yes, we live in a reasonably comfortable society but unless you do that, then it's not that particularly comfortable.

Either way, I think Corbyn or Burnham should be leader. I think Labour supporters would prefer to just have Labour back as it were. There is a good blog where someone suggest that the 1997 Tory party were not "particularly good" Tories (namely, they were kinda headed by the people who ousted the arch tory, Maggie) and that they just weren't...well....c%ntish enough....so when a Labour party parading as a bunch of Tory-wannabes tried, they got in. But now, since we've a league of Maggie Thatcher's "lovely" boys, who are superb products of her teachings, total tories as it were who know how to use their mates in the media to their advantage.....why would labour ever want to go back to trying to be them? They'd lose and I agree with it that this is probably their only option.

(as for the ex-labour supporter on here who says he was once one and left.....then you weren't a very good one were you?)

It certainly doesn't seem that fair to a lot of people. Ok, if we compare it to, say, India then yes, we live in a reasonably comfortable society but unless you do that, then it's not that particularly comfortable.

 

Either way, I think Corbyn or Burnham should be leader. I think Labour would prefer to just have Labour back as it were. There is a good blog where someone suggest that the 1997 Tory party were not "particularly good" Tories (namely, they were kinda headed by the people who ousted the arch tory, Maggie) and that they just weren't...well....c%ntish enough....so when a Labour party parading as a bunch of Tory-wannabes tried, they got in. But now, since we've a league of Maggie Thatcher's "lovely" boys, who are superb products of her teachings, total tories as it were who know how to use their mates in the media to their advantage.....why would labour ever want to go back to trying to be them? They'd lose and I agree with it that this is probably their only option.

who do we compare it to?

the definition of poverty in this country is weirdly skewed.

very few are in real poverty. yet so many are said to be in just that

also, you are just a bit odd