|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
Labour Politician Jeremy Corbyn Provokes Criticism In Britain With His Wage Cap Proposals And Unfettered Immigration Policies January 11. 2017
Jeremy Corbyn's expression, particularly the look in his eyes, gives the impression he is worried and troubled, as he has taken on too much The head of the British Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, has sparked controversy in the United Kingdom, over his proposed political policies, suggesting wage caps and uncontrolled immigration. From the moment Corbyn became head of the Labour Party, I was alarmed at his proposed policies on trade, defense and immigration. I remember watching a television interview when he was voted Labour leader and thinking to myself, his views are too radical. The views he espoused regarding his potential political policies sent up a number of red flags, as they are incompatible with Britain. The United Kingdom is a democracy. Corbyn's political ideals and proposals are socialist and communist in nature. Once again, it is incompatible with Britain. While, Corbyn undoubtedly seeks to improve his country, respectfully I state, his political vision will plunge Britain into poverty, if he ascends to the top office in the nation, which is that of Prime Minister. Therefore, I'm sounding the alarm on this matter, as what he is attempting to do is not going to work and would unintentionally financially collapse Britain. The Telegraph newspaper slammed Corbyn's assertions of gross income disparities in Britain, "This is part of the Labour leader’s tale of Britain as an unequal and unfair country, where the rich prosper and the poor suffer. That story is a tissue of falsehoods, as official figures have proved again: income inequality in Britain has fallen to its lowest in more than 30 years. And while most households have now seen their incomes exceed to the levels they were at before the financial crisis began in 2007, those in the highest income band are still worse off." First let's address the wage cap issue. To tell a democratic nation of dreamers, who aspire to the best life they can live, that one can only earn so much money, is to cap not only taxable revenues, but to dampen, then destroy entrepreneurial creativity. The wage cap would bar people from legitimately earning as much money as they can make lawfully. This would kill entrepreneurship in Britain. British entrepreneurs pay billions in taxes per year that help to keep the nation going. They do pay taxes (not as much as some would like), they buy many taxable products (particularly luxury goods), they pay council tax and employ workers for their businesses and staff to take care of their homes. There's nothing wrong with being rich. It's how you spend the money that can create problems. As the Judiciary Report has stated for the past several years, the rich should pay their fair share in taxes. Tax dodgers are a problem for many world governments, hampering societal progress via less taxable revenue. However, once they pay a reasonable sum in taxes, the rest of their income should be their money to do with as they wish. Corbyn's wage cap proposal would equate to 80-100% taxation on the middle class and the rich. They are not going to stand for that. Not for one minute. The rich would simply leave Britain and move to Switzerland for a similar lifestyle to what they are used to living. The footballers and managers would go to foreign leagues, creating massive problems for British favorite, the Premier League. Inventors such as James Dyson would leave, because any hit products they come up with would be subject to restrictive and excessive taxation, stifling creativity, growth and working capital. Britain would lose many billions of pounds each year in taxes, due to Corbyn's proposed policy regarding a wage cap. The GDP/GNP would decrease. The NHS would collapse, as it is funded by taxpayer money and already stretched. National security would also collapse, as there would be far less taxpayer money for defense and policing. That's another thing, Corbyn is in favor of scrapping the nuclear deterrent system Trident (but the majority vote in Parliament resulted in its renewal last year). Britain needs an airtight missile shield/nuclear deterrent that the government controls in-house. Nuclear and biohazard detectors are also important. There are some crazies in this world who would love to blow London off the map, as it is a top center of culture and wealth. I'm an optimist, but I'm also a realist. The country needs to be protected. The government owes the people of London (and Britain as a whole) protection (which they are currently receiving, but Corbyn is seeking the prime-ministership and expressing the intent to terminate the missile shield and all nuclear deterrents). Britain is one of the most prosperous nations on earth. There are a number of high value companies and wealthy citizens on its shores. Britain has friends...and enemies in the world (the latter Corbyn is severely underestimating). Britain needs proper protection and planning for its financial future. Last week I read an article regarding a "ring of steel" being placed around London. It's not a literal ring of steel. It deals with increased security measures, police presence and advanced weaponry to protect the city. I think it is a good idea. Corbyn would probably scrap that as well in favor of his "social programs." I am all for helping the poor progress in society. However, you do not accomplish said goal by punishing or scaring away the rich from Britain's shores. Fair taxation is also important. It is also beneficial to make a nation inviting for business, trade and vacations, as it means investments, revenues and jobs. You simplify and streamline the visa process. You simplify and streamline the investment and business process. The NHS is also another matter of contention. It's great that the NHS provides free healthcare, drawing upon taxpayer funds. I understand resources are stretched at this point in time (uncontrolled immigration, which Corbyn favors, is a part of the problem, regarding a nation that swelled from 20,000,000 people to 60,000,000 in a relativity short space of time, by population growth standards). A small tax increase on purchases/transactions, equaling 5-20 pence per purchase, would generate more revenue to help the NHS. Those pence would add up fast, but consumers would not really feel it at the cash register or online. One could think of it as doing something good for one's nation, in giving the gift of good health, via a few pence extra on purchases. The Judiciary Report has repeatedly stated uncontrolled immigration is not a good idea. Any world government needs to know who is in their country, why they are there and whether they can support themselves. The situation with Brexit, regarding Britain voting to leave the EU was due to extraordinarily high immigration levels. Anyone could leave any EU member state and go to Britain and get financial benefits, housing and healthcare. No nation can afford to do that indefinitely without breaking. If the EU had yearly immigration quotas and benefits restrictions (requiring years of residency before receiving benefits), Brexit would not have transpired. "Freedom of movement" is great, but when it becomes disproportionate, largely heading to one state, Britain, one nation is shouldering too much of the traffic, leading to overcrowding and stretched resources. Additionally, if you immigrate to a nation it should be to build a new life via working and contributing to society in a positive way. Many EU immigrants did that, becoming gainfully employed and paying their taxes. However, some did not, opting to live off benefits and not work, though they are able to do so. This created problems and a strain on resources. Britain and the European Union need to remain on good terms and actively trade with each other. Britain and the European Union have products and services they should continue to sell to each other, as both are great financial markets that can only benefit from mutual trade. Trying to punish each other for the split is counter productive and financially imprudent. The EU is leading the charge to financially penalize Britain for leaving, but in doing so you would lock yourself out of a market of 60,000,000 paying British consumers and that's not good for European business. Britain and Europe have many great products and services and should continue to trade with each other. It would be great if Britain were able to retain access to the single market and EU citizens already permanent residents in the United Kingdom for the past few years be allowed to stay. Some EU citizens have children who were born in Britain and that is the only life their kids have known. Under United Nations laws the British government is signatory to, those children are British citizens. They cannot be rendered stateless, as UN law does not permit said status for any human being in this world. If the Labour Party's management is honest with itself, it will look to world history, where policies similar to the items espoused by Corbyn have failed and did a significant amount of financial damage. I do believe he is trying to help his country and means well, but what he is proposing in not practical, but financially toxic. Hippy politics don't work. Being a prime minister is not a Utopian dream, where you get to rearrange the public's money in a redistribution of wealth you see fit that punishes people for being financially successful. It is a hard, thankless job that requires balance, careful thought and proper reasoning. Impulsive ideas and political policies given to whimsy, have no place in office, because if you put them into practice and they fail, it leads to the public suffering in many ways. Inevitably, control of Parliament and Downing Street will vacillate from the political left to right in a repeated pattern, as it has throughout modern history. The Labour Party needs to seriously reconsider what Corbyn is proposing and those who now share his views in political office. Once again, a friendly word of warning, if Corbyn or one of his protégés is elected and implements these policies he has been speaking of for the past year-and-a half, it will greatly damage Britain via financial disaster that negatively changes the standard of living in the nation. STORY SOURCE Leading member of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour shadow cabinet refuses to back his national pay cap 20 minutes ago - Mr Corbyn's former advisers have branded the idea 'lunatic', 'idiotic' and 'incoherent.' One of Jeremy Corbyn’s most senior shadow ministers has refused to endorse her leader’s idea of introducing a maximum pay cap, while former expert advisers have publicly branded it "idiotic", "lunatic" and "incoherent". Shadow work and pensions secretary Debbie Abrahams responded to a question on whether she would support a move to impose a cap on maximum earnings in the UK by saying, "it isn’t a policy". Former advisers to Mr Corbyn also shot the idea down, with expert Danny Blanchflower branding it "a totally idiotic unworkable idea" and a "lunatic idea". Jeremy Corbyn calls for cap on pay for highest earners to create 'fairer' society 10 January 2017 at 10:15am - Jeremy Corbyn has called for a cap on pay for the UK's highest earners in order to create a more "equal society." The Labour leader said action was needed to counter the growing levels of income disparity in Britain. He said he did not want to see the UK become a "bargain-basement economy" on the fringes of Europe in the wake of the vote to leave the EU. "We have worse levels of income disparity than most of the OECD countries in this country. It is getting worse," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme... Labour does not rule out backing freedom of movement after Brexit, says Corbyn 10 January 2017 at 4:10pm - Labour does not rule out backing continued freedom of movement when Britain quits the European Union, Jeremy Corbyn has said. Mr Corbyn made the comments during a speech just hours after it was briefed that he was "not wedded" to the principle. The Opposition leader set out plans to prevent cheap migrant labour from the EU undercutting British workers... Jeremy Corbyn's utter failure on immigration and the economy are a huge opportunity for Theresa May 10 January 2017 • 10:00pm - On one hand, a disaster on immigration. On the other, a disaster on the economy. Even by his own embarrassingly low standards, Jeremy Corbyn had a shambolic day. The Labour leader, his aides had suggested, intended to give a speech changing his party’s position on European immigration. Mr Corbyn, long an advocate of uncontrolled migration and open borders, was prepared to accept political reality (and the wishes of many former Labour voters) by saying that he was no longer committed to unrestricted freedom of movement inherent in EU membership. To most, this would appear uncontroversial. After all, Britain has voted to leave the EU, meaning British participation in EU immigration policies must surely end too. Yet Mr Corbyn’s ideological commitment to open borders is such that he felt compelled to distance himself from the policy his own office had announced on his behalf. Deepening the farce, when he finally delivered his much-anticipated speech, its text was altered to imply that Labour had never considered the change in policy that his aides had promised. It has long been clear that Mr Corbyn is not up to the task of running a government, but he has now confirmed he cannot even manage the rudimentary tasks of political life either. Not content with clinging to an immigration policy that puts him at odds with the British public, Mr Corbyn also reminded voters about his commitment to a ruinous policy of capping salaries. RELATED ARTICLES Scotland Considering Second Referendum To Leave Britain After Brexit Succeeded But Is It A Good Idea British And American Journalists Call President Obama A ‘Hypocrite’ For Meddling In Brexit British Government Addressing Affordable Housing Requests In London |
.
|
|
© Copyright 2007 - 2016 Aisha. All Rights Reserved. Web site design by Aisha for Sonustar Interactive Aisha | Aisha Blog | Aisha Blog Archive | Goodison Trust | Sonustar | Sonustar News | Judiciary Report | Sound Off Column | Celluloid Film Review | Consumer News Reviews | Compendius | United Peace Initiative | Justice And Truth |
