'Jeremy Corbyn's £3million state salary'

[Dis86]

Utltimately, we're not talking about morals, we are talking about state finances. This is measured in pounds not happy thoughts.

The morality comes from believing it is a good thing to give money to the state, how does recycling money from the state achieve anything?

But we are talking about morals. This is a thread based upon an article trying to say it's morally wrong for JC to complain about people earning x, y or z when he's apparently earned an inordinate sum. It's not about being a net contributor to the state, it's about paying what is due.

Evidence to date suggests that he has paid what is owed. Unlike others who have profited from avoiding paying what is owed.

 

[Safetytrousers]

Corbyn has as much chance of being PM as Pete Bennett.

Corbyn being leader will enable a number of people on the left who don't normally vote (or vote Green and somesuch), to vote for Labour for the first time since the olden days.
He is the first politician in my whole life I have been able to fully stand behind.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Corbyn being leader will enable a number of people on the left who don't normally vote (or vote Green and somesuch), to vote for Labour for the first time since the olden days. He got to be leader through the swell of support for him amongst the labour mass.
He is the first politician in my whole life I have been able to fully stand behind.

Bizarrely and weirdly, I'm tempted to vote Labour for the first time ever. And that's not because I'm too Left wing, it's because I'm too Right. I don't really like most of Labour's policies but Corbyn is the only leader who is genuinely anti-war, is genuinely against the surveillance state, against selling off the NHS. And similar. Honestly, I don't think Labour has the best policies economically, but for me, these things are larger issues than short term economic policy. The best government we've probably had in living memory, for me, was the Tories trapped in a coalition with the LibDems. It was basically a Tory government but with the LibDems acting as a limiter on their grosser corruptions. All I've really wanted from a governing party is basically Tory but without the nastier bits (like Theresa May trying to read my emails). Corbyn might actually redress the balance on the big ethical issues.

 

[EdGey]

This is actually beyond laughable.

 

[Raikiri]

So the same as any MP that's been in a job for 30 years then?

 

[Skeeter]

I am a bit surprised, there must be more to the figures, as very few politicians are on that amount, certainly not backbenchers and opposition politicians.

Did it explain the breakdown in the 100K a year salary?
Or does that included expenses?

Rest of the article is basically bladder water. Poorly written.

Only half of it is salary. It averages to £50k a year.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

Corbyn being leader will enable a number of people on the left who don't normally vote (or vote Green and somesuch), to vote for Labour for the first time since the olden days.
He is the first politician in my whole life I have been able to fully stand behind.

Whilst the millions of middle class voters who were persuaded to back Labour by Blair recoil in horror. I'm sorry, but the hard reality is that Labour lost votes in 2015 campaigning on the most left-wing manifesto since 1997. Of those who didn't vote, the reason for most will be sheer laziness, not that Ed Miliband wasn't left-wing enough.

Back OT, this Telegraph article (its pretty standard imitation Mail stuff that the Telegraph likes to churn out these days) does at least show that Jeremy Corbyn, like all career politicians, is no more "one of us" than any of them. Though he may hate to admit it he has the wealth of the so-called upper middle class. In Corbyn's world-view however this wealth is virtuous since it derives from the public purse, unlike private wealth which is sinful and must therefore be taxed to the hilt.

 

[holymonk]

 

[Nix]

Whilst the millions of middle class voters who were persuaded to back Labour by Blair recoil in horror. I'm sorry, but the hard reality is that Labour lost votes in 2015 campaigning on the most left-wing manifesto since 1997. Of those who didn't vote, the reason for most will be sheer laziness, not that Ed Miliband wasn't left-wing enough.

Maybe you could do with brushing up a little more on your history?

Labour were historically far more left during the post-war consensus. It was only during the 80s and the shift towards neo-liberal policies and the smashing of the trade unions by Thatcher did the traditional left lose ground.

The rise of Nu-Labour and Blair represented a shift in the Overton window. Nu-Labour have been nothing but Tory-lite since their inception. Let's not forget that until the recession hit, the Tories were promising to actually spend more than Labour in the coming government. The shift to austerity was a quick about turn and capitalising on misfortune to push their own ideology. It was opportunism.

Corbyn isn't bad for Labour. It is a return to its traditional values which is what the supporters clearly wanted. It's a move back towards pre-Thatcherism. It's giving people an actual choice again as opposed to six of one and half a dozen of the other. This is why there's been a resurgence for Labour and this is why people (especially younger people) are becoming interested in politics again. Corbyn represents a legitimate choice and a legitimate voice for those who otherwise were unrepresented or disillusioned with our current political system. The media's scaremongering is based on vested interests, nothing more. Other people's mocking of Corbyn only represents being unable to think outside of the Overton window.

Whatsmore, the right hasn't exactly been helping itself lately. Having a strong left to challenge their awfulness is exactly what this country needs right now.

EDIT:

Ed Milliband was actually lambasted by the media for being too left when he was only proposing policies which surveys have suggested the majority of the populace actually wanted. The media labelled him 'Red Ed' in a smear tactic relating to his father being a Marxist academic. What Ed was proposing was hardly left-wing at all, but because it dared to push the boundary of the Overton window and thus threaten powerful vested interests, everyone (namely the media) went crazy to discredit him.

 

[Tunney]

No, I just don't expect people to claim the moral highground on taxation when they are not actually contributing at all.

A wealth creator who avoids 90% of the maximum tax they could be liable for will contribute more to the state coffers than corbyn paying 100% of what is due.

What bizarre logic. Whether Corbyn pays his taxes in 'recycled' cash or not, he contributes to the state through his *ahem* labour.

 

[Tefal]

and last but not least 'Nearly every penny he [Mr Corbyn] has earned has come from taxes raised either from business or hard-working people.' It's as if he works for a publicly funded body or something.

Thats a good thing isnt it?

I'm more more trusting of a polititan who is paid by the country than the others who are all paid far more by companies etc.

 

[RaohNS]

My goodness, the press really are scraping the excrement from the barrel. The "journalist" who wrote this should be sacked.

At least he isn't claiming absurd expenses for a duck pond and is actually a man of principle. They are very few and far between in the political climate lately. Even Labour are beset with the corruption that is big money.

Maybe the Torygraph should run a story about the wealth of the cabinet which exceeds £250,000,000 (and its a good jobs zac isn't in the cabinet or else that figure would go up a few hundred million) and that's just what we are aware of. Who knows how much will/could come to light in the affair of legalized tax evasion?

It would be interesting to see what the Tories have failed on, lied about and also accomplished that is at least beneficial and without controversy

 

[Tefal]

The morality comes from believing it is a good thing to give money to the state, how does recycling money from the state achieve anything?

it lets you have government employees.



So effectively it achives a running nation a somewhat vital thing to have.

 

[wesimmo]

Utltimately, we're not talking about morals, we are talking about state finances. This is measured in pounds not happy thoughts.

The morality comes from believing it is a good thing to give money to the state, how does recycling money from the state achieve anything?

So, we need a government to, well, govern.

So how do you propose that works if taxes aren't partly used to fund the wages of those who govern? I'm sure privatisation of the government would work out just fine....

And anyway, recycling of cash is a good thing, liquidity is key to a healthy economy, we pay taxes, they pay him, he uses that to pay for stuff, we make money from him, we pay taxes, ad infinitum.

And I don't understand how you see his job as any different to that of a fireman or policeman, they're ultimately jobs that need doing but that no one would actually want to pay for directly.

"Hello, emergency services? I'd like a fire engine please, my children are in a burning house."

"Can you please provide the long number across the front of your card, the expiry date and the security code. Then I need to read out the T&Cs before I can despatch anyone to help, sorry they're so long but for legal reasons I need to do this......

OK that's all gone through OK, but as we have to make a profit for our shareholders we don't just have people sitting around, I can get an appliance out on Monday morning."

 

[Arazi]

The thing is that if any of the politicians etc that have released their so called tax returns it doesn't really prove anything, if anyone evades paying any tax it isn't going to be on their tax return is it.

I hope the Panama papers show what is really going on and that it does not get covered up, at the moment we are having the wool pulled over our eye's to hide bigger dodgy dealings.

 

[Scania]

Corbin & co are going to milk this for all its worth, it's a great way from distracting the media from their ineptitude and lack of credibility as an opposition, we need strong opposition to keep the government in check, instead we're stuck with Corbyn's outdated leftist politics of envy, quite pathetic really.

 

[Aldav]

It doesn't matter whether he's a net contributor or not if he pays everything he's due to pay. He's squeaky clean. The same can't be said for those who avoid and evade.

Cameron, and even Google paid everything they were "due" to pay. As do tax avoiders.

The argument used by many is not that it's illegal but that it's not "fair".

 

[Dis86]

Cameron, and even Google paid everything they were "due" to pay. As do tax avoiders.

The argument used by many is not that it's illegal but that it's not "fair".

No. They payed what they could legally get away with. Allegedly. Not what was due. The two are different.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Corbin & co are going to milk this for all its worth, it's a great way from distracting the media from their ineptitude and lack of credibility as an opposition, we need strong opposition to keep the government in check, instead we're stuck with Corbyn's outdated leftist politics of envy, quite pathetic really.

Corbyn is going to milk being attacked by the media?

 

[Tefal]

Cameron, and even Google paid everything they were "due" to pay. As do tax avoiders.

The argument used by many is not that it's illegal but that it's not "fair".

Cameron actually paid more as he waived his discount for number 10