Labour kiss goodbye to any chance of being elected

Corbyn declares there should be a maximum earnings limit

But doesn't declare what it should be, naturally.

(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Of course he doesn't want to specify, he's in the top 1% of earners isn't he?

Surely even he would realise that a maximum income limit would only affect those at the bottom - if the wealth creators don't move their money to somewhere without such rubbish, they would limit how much they pay their workers.

Reply 2

Good bloke

Original post by Drewski

Corbyn declares there should be a maximum earnings limit

But doesn't declare what it should be, naturally.

It doesn't matter what the limit is, the fact remains it would be the most inane and damaging economic policy ever implemented in a western country.

Our most talented would be encouraged to move away, there would be no incentive for talented outsiders to move in and, most importantly, our masses would be given the destructive message there are limits to what you can achieve, and those limits are in the hands of the wilfully destructive jealous.

Corbyn's credibility was non-existent anyway, but this must demonstrate it to even the most idiotic of his fanboys.

Reply 3

Aj12

Right problem wrong solution. This is supposed to be corbyn tappingn into popular anger. Still I think until labour can put forward a coherent and palatable policy on immigration they will never gain major traction with voters.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Asolare

I think they kissed goodbye when they actually elected Corbyn in the first place.

Well here's to another 10+ years of conservative power. :cheers:

Reply 5

Dez

Wealth disparity is a problem, but a national maximum wage is not the solution. It's completely unenforceable, it would lead to a ton more loopholes being exploited and reduce tax revenue. And it wouldn't even stop the wage gap from growing.

Reply 6

Good bloke

Original post by Aj12

until labour can put forward a coherent and palatable policy on immigration they will never gain major traction with voters.

He has also said that he doesn't think immigration (at a net 335,000) is too high. The mind boggles at where he thinks our infrastructure will be in twenty years time.

Reply 7

username2053059

A better idea would be putting a cap on the highest earners in a company vs the lowest. So they would have to pay people above a certain amount before they can pay out millions to top executives.

Reply 8

Good bloke

Original post by Mathemagicien

Historically, many Western nations (the colonies that grew to be the US, Australia,...) have dealt with similar or even larger scales of immigration (in proportion to their population) with no issues

Historically. Now we live in a world of heightened political and, especially, religious tension; a world of water crises; a world in which the available land area has not kept pace with the population; a world with too many people.

In Britain we have a long thin island that does not easily or effectively allow change to its transport infrastructure in order to cope with the massive traffic increases, and our housing and healthcare needs are far in excess of our physical, logistical or economic abilities to meet them. To make matters worse, the entire economy is based on London, a situation which cannot easily change and which immigration is exacerbating.

Reply 9

yudothis

I love how people think income inequality is ok.

Saying that, this is a pretty daft suggestion to tackle it.

Reply 10

ManiaMuse

And he's just said that he doesn't think immigration is too high despite it being seen by the public as the joint biggest issue facing the UK (tied with the NHS) as recently as October...
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3799/Immigration-and-NHS-tied-as-the-most-important-issues-facing-Britain.aspx

Say what you like about his policies and his having 'being a good man', he simply isn't capable of winning an election because he has absolutely no idea how to play the media and the voting public. It's all a game and at the moment he is being a stubborn child, stood in the corner of the playground refusing to play British Bulldog with the other kids because he wants to play with a skipping rope instead.

Reply 11

Good bloke

Original post by Mathemagicien

In other words, we could theoretically increase our population hugely and still not increase population density in the most dense areas, thus avoiding many of the issues associated with it. But for an example of a country and city much more densely populated than the UK, Japan's infrastructure copes even better than the UK's.

Yes. Theoretically. Unfortunately this world is the real one. You'd be the first to complain of draconian measures that forced masses of people (including you) to move into the spacious land of cold, wind, isolation and rain that is Scotland.

I, for one, am glad we don't have Japan's land problems, but at least they aren't making them worse by encouraging massive immigration.

Reply 12

nutz99

Corbyn's brain, if there is one, is either very devious or very under-worked. If he ever got to a position where he could implement this (realistically there is more chance of Peter Sutcliffe getting a knighthood) he would probably ring-fence certain salaries - MPs for example. There would be a huge drain of talent out of the UK and Corbyn would then implement his plan to bring in migrants to replace the outgoing Brits. Corbyn openly wants more immigration into the UK. This would give him that opportunity.

Reply 13

username2053059

Original post by Good bloke

Have you ever been to Scotland mate? It's not that different to England :biggrin:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 14

yudothis

Original post by Mathemagicien

It is "okay"; not every human is equally deserving, or capable of wisely using, the same amount of income.

Large-scale income inequality is undesirable for society, but morally it is understandable.

"morally understandable"? You jest.

Reply 15

Good bloke

Original post by cbreef

Have you ever been to Scotland mate? It's not that different to England

Have you ever studied the weather statistics? :biggrin:

The Inverness average temperature in July is 14C. Brrr.

Reply 16

BusyStarGazing

Original post by Mathemagicien

It is "okay"; not every human is equally deserving, or capable of wisely using, the same amount of income.

Large-scale income inequality is undesirable for society, but morally it is understandable.

So you'd happily let some people have more income because they are more deserving? Deserving of what exactly? Nurses and Doctors should earn the most since they help preserve life. A banker or stock broker make money from playing the system...might make them smart, but morally to allow people to suffer inequality for reasons you haven't justifiably put forward.

Reply 17

username2053059

Original post by Good bloke

Have you ever studied the weather statistics? :biggrin:

The Inverness average temperature in July is 14C. Brrr.

That's not that bad lol.

Reply 18

Fadel

Original post by Good bloke

So your main glance is set on the "talented rich", but you ignore the majority which is far from rich. That money could go into the economy rather than into pockets of the rich so they can buy supercars and live in luxury. The problem is indeed adressed with the wrong solution, but showing care only for the rich minority is a problem by itself. Your views are the reason for the existance of a labour party.