UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s Gullible Young Followers
26 June, 2017
I just watched a news item showing the British Labour party leader in front of an adoring and chanting crowd at the Glastonbury music festival. I know the crowd at that festival are hardly representative of all young people, but no political leader should be ‘adored’ in that way. It was reminiscent of the shows of emotion we see in North Korea for their supreme leader Kim Jong-un.
Unlike many people, I don’t believe most of the North Koreans are just putting on a show. They really have swallowed the State propaganda which tells them that the US would attack any day now, if it wasn’t for their fearless leader protecting them.
In a similar way, these young people at Glastonbury have accepted the propaganda. One of Corbyn’s points which got the most positive response went something like this:
“You got sick of being told you would have to pay more to get less in education, health, housing…..”
Of course everyone loves a person who effectively says I can give you more of what you want, and it will cost you less. But can Corbyn actually do that? Almost certainly not. His answer when asked about funding his many promises is that “We will get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, and make big corporations pay more tax”.
Most people love that line, because they aren’t rich. Especially young people, who haven’t yet worked for decades to build a career or a business while paying high taxes and slowly building the wealth that the young are so jealous of.
The gullible young are led to believe by Corbyn that there are all these people out there paying little or no tax — but that is what most of these young people are in fact doing! They likely have no idea of the personal tax rates. On income between £45,001 and £150,000, UK taxpayers hand over 40% of what they earn. On income above that they pay 45%.
1. Labour proposes to increase income tax for the 1.3 million people with taxable income exceeding £80,000 per year. Currently this small group receive more than 20% of all taxable income but pay more than 40% of all income tax.
By that reckoning, aren’t they already paying more than their ‘fair’ share? Even more, if you look at the fewer services and costs they get from government. And more still, if you consider the 20% VAT they pay on expenditure. (VAT – value added tax – is the biggest misnomer ever. It doesn’t add any ‘value’, it adds a direct cost. So it should simply be called a sales tax, or ‘cost’ added tax, CAT.)
This is sheer identity politics, making lower income earners the ‘victims’ who are being ripped off by the ‘greedy’ rich — who in reality are grossly over-subsidizing the whole system.
The wealthy in the UK are also paying massive inheritance taxes. So while they have paid high taxes all their life on what they have earned, they also pay tax on the wealth they have built with their after-tax money. The current inheritance tax (IHT) threshold is £325,000 per person, or £650,000 for a married couple. Anything over this limit is subject to a 40% tax bill.
In 2013-14 only 7.2% of deceased estates were wealthy enough to pay the 40% tax. These ‘rich’ people were called upon after their deaths to again pay more than their fair share. On average they paid almost £244,000 each.
2. Labour’s plan to raise taxes on the higher income earners is highly unlikely to raise as much as they are planning on: the targets will change their behavior.
If no one changed their behavior, it would raise around £7 billion per year. But some of those affected would respond by reducing their taxable incomes. Labour expects the policy to raise in the region of £4.5 billion per year. Based on the available evidence this looks a little on the optimistic side, but it is entirely possible. However, based on experience and the Laffer curve, it is also possible that the policy would raise less than is raised now.
3. Labor plans to nationalize some industries and increase taxes on ‘the big corporates’.
Oh please. Like his idol Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela. Marxist policies were among the reasons why one of South America’s most wealthy countries is now in economic crisis, has massive debt and a scarcity of professionals, goods and services.
Why would a company stay employing people, and making and selling products, in a country that taxes them more than in other jurisdictions? They don’t. Once the cost of relocating become less than the cost of staying in the country, the big corporate outfits pull the plug. If they don’t, they run the risk of growing broke because they can’t compete with companies operating in lower tax regimes.
Labour’s simplistic calculations on how much they will increase revenue by taxing companies more is worthless, like Hugo Chavez’s.
But the gullible voters at Glastonbury have an irrational adoration for Jeremy Corbyn, who would literally bring the UK to its knees. It would be like 1970s Britain all over again, a stagnation so bad that Margaret Thatcher was warm relief.
History tells us that such idealistic ‘movements’ either end up sending a country into an economic crisis, or causes civil wars where the outcome is an authoritarian government. Think Lennin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Franco, or Hugo Chavez, to name just the more successful ones. They all claimed that they wanted to bring down the ‘rich’ and make everyone better off.
Yeah, right on: