-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BBC: Corbyn suggests max limit to what people can earn, "somewhat higher than £138K"
- Thread starter Chittagong
- Start date
- Status
OP seems to be implying this applies to all services/companies and not just under the public umbrella?
As per https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-maximum-wage-for-all-government-contractors (not sure why BBC left this out... or if they did but I wouldn't be surpised).
As per https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-maximum-wage-for-all-government-contractors (not sure why BBC left this out... or if they did but I wouldn't be surpised).
It's called equality. But equality tends to feel like oppression to the privileged. I would probably feel pretty bad if I had to split my earnings and share them with some dude who makes a dollar a day. But then, if the people who made 100k+ were splitting their earnings with me too, it wouldn't hurt so much for me to share my stuff with poorer people.
Judging from your reply, you're one of those people who would lose some money from a maximum wage. But think about it, all the millionaires and billionaires would also get taxed, and the government could funnel all those funds into projects which might benefit you. Do you think the millionaires and billionaires really act in your interests? Do they invest in public healthcare or affordable housing? Maybe some do, but I think a lot of rich people just invest in their ego, build big towers and put their name on it and other stupid shit. Governments tend to do a lot of dumb stuff too though, so I can see why you wouldn't trust them to act in your interests either. But Corbyn is a dude who seems to be in favour of straight up redistribution, take from the rich and give to the poor or whatever
Jezbollah
Member
That's because Corbyn has literally changed his mind between the OP and now and has gone to say it'll at first be for public sector government contracts at a ratio of (20/1)
kavanf1
Member
Unfortunately these kinds of discussions invariably boil down to "fairness" which is about as arbitrary a thing as can be. Everyone wants fairness but nobody can agree what that actually means. Minor tweaks to the system can have unintended and far reaching consequences, so the tendency of politicians is to do a bit of tweaking at the edges, because making wholesale changes to the system is so risky. A lot of the perceived unfairness that exists is down to loopholes (created via these unintended consequences) being exploited, and if they were easy to close, it would already have been done.
With corporation tax, when calling for change, people tend to think of the large multinationals who employ teams of accountants to manage their books as efficiently as possible. What they don't usually consider is that changes that they want to hit the big companies are actually likely to be far more punitive to small and medium sized businesses. Further, while a multinational can simply shut up shop and pull out of a country if its tax regime becomes too oppressive (thereby depriving the country of millions/billions in tax receipts), small and medium sized businesses are unable to do so. Instead they must stay, and face the brunt of the changes and potentially go under because they can no longer afford to operate at a profit.
That's all hypotheticals of course but it illustrates why it's so difficult to change things.
while this guy might be coming from a good place you can't ignore the fact that international markets would steal those high skill labours, or soccer players. In the end you'll be left with low skill workers who don't provide a high stream of tax revenue, and those who have little to gain from moving.
You know you're basically a walking example of why people hate the usage of the word "neoliberal".
First off, everyone in the first world, save a few fringe left parties is pro-free market. Even the "socialist" (really socially democratic) states of Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. are pro-free market. There is no serious proposals anywhere in the 1st world to have a socialist government, where all private enterprise is given to, and run by, the government.
Secondly, you're comparing Clinton to the GOP, really? Clinton, who ran on the most liberal, farthest left economic platform ever, is being compared to the fuckers trying to gut Obamacare right this very second? Clinton, who started nuclear talks with Iran, is being compared with the fuckers who want to invade it and re-start sanctions? Clinton, who was viciously attacked by 90's Republicans for her healthcare plan, who's plan was considered socialism (incorrectly) by large parts of this country? Clinton, who is further to the left of Obama, and who was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her tenure? That's who you're comparing to the GOP? Pa-FUCKING-lease dude, get real.
No, I don't want you using smear labels one people just because you dislike them personally, despite scores of evidence to the contrary. Nobody calls themselves a neoliberal. Nobody. Nor is it used in any modern political academia, largely due to the bullshit purity tests that have been going on in the left for too long. No, neoliberal is only ever used by those who see someone as "not left enough", and has lost all meaning because of it. If you have a problem with a politicians positions, bring them up and I'd be happy to debate you. But don't start bringing out BS terms to slander politicians because of some crazy, impossibly high standards you hold them to. I'm going to call that out every time, and if you see me doing that shit, I recommend you call me out too.
He specifically mentioned football player as an example, though.
Remember when Trump made all those grandiose, unworkable claims and then scheduled a press conference for six hours later where the media and his enemies could tear him apart?
Remember when Hillary criticised his policies in the debates and he tripped over himself mentally as he rode them back until he exposed himself as an unelectable fraud?
No. Nobody does. And that's why Jeremy Corbyn is not cut out for post truth rabble rousing.
The NHS crisis and the lack of Brexit strategy is a fucking open goal for him and he's just squandered it to concentrate on this utter fucking nonsense. We don't want our bosses to earn less. We want more for ourselves you cretin.
Remember when Hillary criticised his policies in the debates and he tripped over himself mentally as he rode them back until he exposed himself as an unelectable fraud?
No. Nobody does. And that's why Jeremy Corbyn is not cut out for post truth rabble rousing.
The NHS crisis and the lack of Brexit strategy is a fucking open goal for him and he's just squandered it to concentrate on this utter fucking nonsense. We don't want our bosses to earn less. We want more for ourselves you cretin.
Yep. The fact that Labor, and especially Corbyn aren't all over the NHS crisis, and blaming it on the Tories (as they should be), is really telling.
Night Angel
Member
I don't look down on people for making less money. I look down on people who want others to be lowered to their quality of life because it's not "fair".
That poster made a stupid post and I expressed my disagreement via derision.
No, he's saying that his own salary shouldn't be used as a benchmark, it should be a limit way higher. It doesn't do much to mitigate it but he didn't even directly reference "£138,000".
Nicktendo86
Member
That was pretty much a given, will probably win the one after that too.
It is literally not fair though, but okay. That is the definition of fair.
But your saying is quite strong. The poor can do whatever they want as long as they do not affect your enjoyment of life. That is EXACTLY the wrong side of capitalism.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I admire his honesty and the idea that there should be more income equality, though I disagree with this statement of his unequivocally.
The poor and working-class can be given a better standard of living, not as good as the middle and upper-class of course, but slightly fairer and more comfortable. For a period post-1945 but pre-Thatcher this was done to an extent. There isn't exactly amazing class mobility in the UK and there are a lot of poverty, especially in rural communities. Austerity isn't helping.
If you make quite a lot of money, you should pay a somewhat higher percentage of your income (than you do) in taxes to lead to a fairer society. That's not controversial on this forum, but his solution to income inequality is rather radical.
I admire that he at least cares about income inequality, and that he's an honest man.
The poor and working-class can be given a better standard of living, not as good as the middle and upper-class of course, but slightly fairer and more comfortable. For a period post-1945 but pre-Thatcher this was done to an extent. There isn't exactly amazing class mobility in the UK and there are a lot of poverty, especially in rural communities. Austerity isn't helping.
If you make quite a lot of money, you should pay a somewhat higher percentage of your income (than you do) in taxes to lead to a fairer society. That's not controversial on this forum, but his solution to income inequality is rather radical.
I admire that he at least cares about income inequality, and that he's an honest man.
wumster3000
Member
It's alright to disagree because that's what makes us grow to understand each other's insight. I do think that most people will get paid well if they are excellent at their craft. Where I am, we have hired coders right out of high school that display the ability to excel at programming.
We can agree that 100% of people don't get paid what they are worth, but I think a good portion do. A lot are over paid as well.
31GhostsIV
Banned
Oh jesus fucking christ.
Will an errant asteroid please strike parliament and save us from whatever the fuck has happened to our political system? We could start all over again, it would be great.
We're stuck with the Tories until the end of days, aren't we?
Will an errant asteroid please strike parliament and save us from whatever the fuck has happened to our political system? We could start all over again, it would be great.
We're stuck with the Tories until the end of days, aren't we?
bigedole
Member
Why do you believe that the lowest paid employee does work that contributes value to a company equal to half the CEO's work?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
He cares about it as much that it personally doesn't affect him, truly admirable. Income equality has never been about the rich having lots of money. It's the insane proportion that comes at the expense of the rest of society. The gap should be lower not that the standard of living across the country in general substantially decrease. Do you really think people would give a shit about changing the status quo of the income landscape if everyone like they were in a third world country? it's a moronic idea.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Raise the minimum wage to a more livable standard (£9-10 an hour), not this. Progressive taxation as well. Not like this. Fucking idiot. The Tories will be in power till I'm 45, and I will have to live under this for most of my working life unless I emigrate. Fucking depressing.
Most people don't choose their salary, but they certainly can pick and choose jobs based on salary, MPs are given a set salary depending on their duties.
Because its possible to believe there should be a cap on salaries, but that it should be >£135k? Obviously that's a very nice salary, but not hugely unheard of in the UK. If someone was going to argue for a salary cap, it makes sense that they would argue for it to be a higher figure, its arguing for a salary cap in the first place which is dumb.
And he shouldn't lead by example, because your example isn't what he was arguing for
bitbydeath
Gold Member
That doesn't fix the issue he is looking at.
That's just it though. Far-left economics are all about bringing others down. None of it is about what actually works or theory that actually describes the world, it's completely about envy. (Similarly, far-right economics are all about resentment to those you think are your "lessers" mooching off of you.)
Corbyn spouting off this toxic nonsense should not come as a surprise to anyone. This is who he is.
'Pro free market' is a relative term. Hillary Clinton would be on the lassiez-faire side of pro-free-market policy in any of the other first world countries you alluded to.
I'm sorry that the Overton window in your country has shifted so far too the right, but Clinton's partisan problems with the GOP don't somehow invalidate the overall political framework she exists in. You brought up Obamacare - a health care system designed not to piss off health insurers too much. We're not talking about single payer here.
Nobody calls themselves an oligarch, or an autocrat. Nobody calls themself 'pro-abortion'. Are those terms meaningless? I don't see how the term neoliberalism is somehow unutterable just because people don't self-describe as neoliberals.
Let's say you were an American politician who wanted the American economy to look more like, say, Canada's. To you, the Democrats and Republicans are BOTH too far too the right for you. Is there any term you're allowed to use for that phenomenon?
Edit - I should add that I don't personally consider 'neoliberal' to be a slur. I'm actually a fan of market economics, within reason. There are lots of Communists and anarchists who would call me a neoliberal, and that's fine. But let's not just stick our fingers in our ears and pretend like the current D/R divide represents the entirety of political possibility.
killer rin
Member
Why not just tax high earners more... Or make it so that the top salary at a company can not be higher than x% of the lowest persons salary
1)Rich people just avoid tax.
2)Any low paid jobs would be shipped out to an agency
whyamihere
Banned
People (and a lot of people who don't live in the US) have a very strange idea of what Democrats are like. It's not a party full of Evan Bayhs.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
The biggest negative is the housing prices dropping down ridiculously which would suck for those who worked hard to pay the enormous mortgage costs.
Brightside, our kids and there kids could then afford houses and will not be forced to live with us as prices would otherwise continue to skyrocket due to further inflation.
Positives -
Cost of living drops massively as cost of labour does.
Exports will provide greater return for the country due to costing less to make and more countries will be interested if the country decides to be more competitive with prices.
That money you have in the bank will stretch a lot further.
Many more i'm sure but you do gotta break some eggs to make a giant ass omelette.
The fuck is this nonsense?
Capping salaries/income is all negative.
If someone is making a lot of money- GREAT! They're being productive!
If someone's being productive, you don't stop feeding them, you strap a harness on them (aka TAX THEM) and leverage their productivity for the good of society as a whole!
Do you know what THE cause of income inequalty skyrocketing in the US has been? It's the Reagan Tax Code changes. Straight up. Nothing else, it's that. Fix the tax structure and suddenly you'll see things getting much better in 10-20 years.
I think most people around the English-speaking world have a decent idea of where Obama and Clinton were at.
Facts can't be allowed to get in the way of displaying how pure and virtuous one is!
They'll always avoid some of it, regardless of what the tax level is. That argument doesn't make any sense.
Capping the top job as a proportion is awkward, especially when the person in charge owns the whole company.
What is the next plan once everyone who makes 138k or more decides to leave the UK? Surely earners can earn elsewhere in a country that is less hostile.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I just listed a bunch of positives so you're obviously wrong.
If corporatist Democrats are going to get super huffy when they get called neoliberals then maybe those of us father to the left can start pushing back on this 'purity test' bullshit. Nobody is testing anybody. The mainstream Democrats aren't the entirety of leftist political thought.
You (and many others) need to actually take economics courses in school
Salary caps do not work. Period. The US's screwed up health care system is actually the accidental result of them during WWII. People will just get around them, whether by being paid under the table, or in the UK's case, by just leaving that train wreck of a country.
Your list is nonsense, based on nothing but your personal imagination, instead of the mountains of evidence and history we have about how people actually react to them.
No, mainstream Democrats don't include leftist thought. Because when we invite you into the tent, you try to burn it down. And then you're surprised when we have the bouncers remove you from the party.
Being pro-good-economics is not being "corporatism". When you call us all "Lassez-Faire" for not believing in your know-nothing self-destructive economic ideology, yes, we get fucking pissed off.
Ravensmash
Member
We need an actual opposition party.
Just so we're completely clear about who is the one conducting purity tests.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Next election? At this point they'll be in power for the next decade...
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
trust me, I am
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I said as much. I unequivocally disagree with what he actually said, his questionable ties, or his crazy idea about ignoring the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders. However, my issue is not with his actual intention in just this one instance here. He does care deeply about income inequality, I'll give him that.
Trust us, we are.
I do not think you understand what a "purity test" is.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
It's a competency test, not a purity test.
- Status