Finally, Corbyn is right about something

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to say that he is a wealthy man – despite earning more than £137,000.
The 67-year-old was quizzed on a variety of topics including immigration, Trident, the future of the Labour party and his pay.
But when asked about his earnings, he refused to acknowledge that he is wealthy when speaking to Julie Etchingham on ITV’s Tonight programme which airs tonight.
He said: ‘I’m not wealthy because of where I put the money, but I’m not going into that.’

He has a high income, sure. Top 2% or so? Summat like that. But we’ve seen his tax return – albeit wrongly filled in. There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. He’s not wealthy, he’s high income.

44 comments on “Finally, Corbyn is right about something

  1. “There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. ”

    Doesn’t that just tell you he’s not someone who has planned for tomorrow.

  2. “There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. ”

    A spendthrift who wants to manage the economy: all one needs to know.

  3. My guess is that he’s donated to what he considers worthy causes e.g. Hamas, which is why he’s a bit coy about it.

    He doesn’t really need to save, he’s been an MP since ’83 and before that worked for the Srare on it various guises so has probably racked up a fairly impressive series of DB pensions.

  4. He does not believe in private investment or really in Private property (except obviously for the Senior echelons of the Party)- a characteristic of Bevanite ideology. The ‘rentier’ is a particularly despised class of person singled out for criticism in such a worldview. That is why although Private Markets are permissible in the only example of a Corbynite state they are subject to the whims of officialdom and extreme levels of surveillance. Oddly their natural replacement in such a state, the Black Marketeer, seldom gets mentioned in Corbynite circles….

  5. Perhaps, but his “soak the rich” policy is based on taxing all those with an income of over £80K, not just those with taxing interest and investment incomes.

  6. Doh. Good income. Own home in Islington. Gold plated pension. And in all likelihood a transfer to the Lords when it all ends in tears. Tough being an MP!

  7. Don’t the expenses of running his constituency office come out of that salary or is this £137k in addition to that? If the former, it’s as senseless as looking at a schedule D tax-payer’s gross. If the latter, then he should admit that he is wealthy but chooses not to accumulate assets

  8. “Don’t the expenses of running his constituency office come out of that salary or is this £137k in addition to that? ”

    MPs get quite considerable expenses to run their constituency offices, thats what the expenses scandal was all about, plus expenses to run an extra house if the constituency is a long way from Parliament. The salary is just that, salary. Nothing they do in relation to being an MP has a call on it. Plus the expenses are quite generous, even now after the scandals have tightened the rules. You used to be able to employ family members as staff, which might have been stopped now?

    If you can’t build up a decent bit of wealth while being an MP for 30 years you’re either an idiot or a spendthrift.

  9. “My guess is that he’s donated to what he considers worthy causes e.g. Hamas, which is why he’s a bit coy about it.”

    I think so too.

  10. As BinND says, he’ll be retiring with 35-odd years in the MPs final salary pension scheme and if he’s paid off his mortgage property plus pension will make him much wealthier than most people – even those with more savings and investments.

  11. — “There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. ”

    Can you image the state the economy would be in if everyone following his selfish, hedonistic example and just spent all their money.

    Not for him self-control and delayed consumption.

    He’s like a child. A dirty, disgusting child.

  12. If he has such an income which, as I would infer from what he says, gives him the ability to donate large amounts money to organisations of his choice (which I presume not to be charities if they don’t qualify for gift aid which would be seen on his tax returns) and live in his own un-mortgaged gaff in Islington, he’s very, very wealthy indeed.

    Cvnt

  13. “There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. ”

    So no taxable investment income. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a lot of assets, although I doubt it.

  14. The Telegraph reports:

    The Labour leader bought his home in North London in 2007 for £363,000 and this has since risen in value to over £600,000 according to property experts.

    His pensions, however, are worth some £3m.

  15. Earning more than £137,000? Don’t make me laugh. He may be ***PAID*** more than £137,000 but there’s absolutely no evidence that he earns it.

  16. The high income is a recent thing. A back bench MP with limited extras (due to being a party outsider), and likely not taking the piss with expenses, doesn’t earn a massive salary by London standards. If he rented a home before buying (did he?) then he didn’t realise any big capital gains there either.

    He’s got some cushy pension assets, which he seems not to appreciate, but other than that maybe he’s just a guy who lived close to his principles (like them or not) and so hasn’t built up wealth.. just like lots of other people. Personally I have more respect for his perception of wealth than that of most of the silver-spoon nobodies in parliament.

  17. Bear in mind that he has only been on that salary for last couple of years. Prior to that, he was just an ordinary MP on ~£70k or so (?) – not exactly scrooge mcduck type cash if you live in London.

  18. Ben S said:
    “Doesn’t he give a lot of it away?”

    Not to registered charities, or else the gift aid would show up on his tax return. Could be giving it to political or non-charitable causes though.

    Hasn’t he got a couple of ex wives as well? Could be alimony payments.

  19. A guy Corbyn’s age with a steady income over the years should have been able to accumulate an impressive nest egg via PEPs, ISAs and other tax exempt savings plans, none of which would feature in his tax returns.

  20. If he has no interest of note, then that’s very sensible because – as we all know – deposit interest is negligible.

    Having no investment income is equally sensible for people who pay the highest level of tax. It’s far better placing your surplus into roll-up funds. That way you only get nailed on capital appreciation when you cash them in.

    At his age any investment adviser will take the cautious approach, with capital preservation uppermost in his/her mind.

    The house next to Corbyn sold last year for close on £1 million, so he’d be batshit mad to not have that protected for his offspring via some sort of trust.

    I make nothing of the claim that he’s not rich; he almost certainly compares himself with those he associates himself with – and Union leaders are notorious for being very generous in payments and perks to themselves, some are on £200k pa basic salary.

    Of course he is a high income earner, but he seems to be able to avoid paying the taxman – and that perhaps more than anything indicates he’s looking out after number one.

    In that sense he’s no different to any other politician.

    Donald Dewar was never paid anything like Corbyn, however when he dropped dead he left an estate worth in excess of £2 million – and that was in 2001.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1332575/2m-legacy-of-Dewar-the-canniest-of-Scots.html

  21. “t’s far better placing your surplus into roll-up funds.” If by that you mean accumulation funds, nope! You still have to pay tax on the income, it’s just more of a balls-ache to find out what it was, and eventually more of a balls-ache to do the CGT calculation.

  22. “The house next to Corbyn sold last year for close on £1 million”

    Underpriced because of the neighbours, probably.

  23. Why am I assailed by the vision of lifting a rather grubby stained mattress to reveal copious bundles of used fifties compressed to half their usual thickness, by a massive weight and smelling faintly of stale wee?

  24. “The Thought Gang

    …maybe he’s just a guy who lived close to his principles”

    I’ve often heard his supporters talk of how principled he is.

    For 30 odd years he stayed as an MP within a party that he wholeheartedly disagreed with. When there were parties much closer to his political beliefs. Even in 2015 there was the ‘Trade Union and Socialist Alliance’ (or whatever it was called). who put up dozens of candidates.

    Why didn’t Corbyn’s principles lead him to leave the Labour party and join one whose policies he supported?

    Can’t have had anything to do with a cushy safe seat, MPs salary and pension rights, can it?

    Some principles.

  25. But we’ve seen his tax return – albeit wrongly filled in. There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income.

    He needs to watch his step, or the Murf will be on to him….

  26. The cost of a woman will cut into your wealth.
    As well as school fees. Or maybe not in Corbyn’s case.

  27. Net assets of £1m (including property) puts you in the top 10% in the UK: http://uk.businessinsider.com/ons-chart-on-wealth-inequality-in-britain-2015-12), and an income of just over £50K puts you in the top 10% by income https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax)

    So given the location of Corbyns house and the level of his income merely as an MP I’d say its nailed on that he is in the top 10% by wealth AND income, and thats without even considering his pension wealth.

  28. Talking of wealth and The Left, is their any mainstream socialist literature dealing seriously with the question of wealth creation, or is it 100% about redistributing wealth that someone else has already created?

    I mean, have they ever gone past waving it away with “wealth creation is a myth” or similar?

  29. Why does English have no word to distinguish people with high income from people with lots of capital?

  30. @ AndrewC

    Fair enough criticism.. don’t mistake me for a fan. But he’s not a million miles away from a chunk of the party and it’s traditional support.. certainly close enough to think it’s better to shout at it from the inside. There are equivalents on the other side.

    Is he so much further away from the empty shirts in the middle than, say, Phillip Davies is from the Cameron set?

    With ‘split and undermine’ being a major tactic of the left, it’s almost refreshing to see people who’ve stuck it out… even if it is only because he was possibly scared shitless of having to get a real job. It’s only recently that pretend universities have started giving out pretend professorships to pretend political mavericks.

  31. @AndrewC
    “Why didn’t Corbyn’s principles lead him to leave the Labour party and join one whose policies he supported?

    Can’t have had anything to do with a cushy safe seat, MPs salary and pension rights, can it?”
    I think you have nailed it.

  32. Jim,
    Small point, but the bottom 1% of households actually have negative wealth. I’d have thought there would be quite a few more, what with all those student loans.

  33. ‘I’m not wealthy because of where I put the money, but I’m not going into that.’

    Maybe the Abbotopotamus has photos and is blackmailing him?

  34. @ dearieme
    There is/was “well-paid” (although that can apply to a job as well as to an individual); “well-off” is (or, at least, was) used to denote people with a more-than-adequate income. “wealthy” indicates someone with substantial capital, whether or not they have an income.
    “Rich” means that the person doesn’t need to worry about how much they spend on something as in when someone says “if you have to ask the price you can’t afford it” – they can afford it.

  35. There’s going to be a lame joke about Labour’s London based core after June – how does a Labour MP double her income – commute from Wakefield. On privatised Grand Central.

  36. jgh – I don’t think it violates the principle that you’re paid what you’re worth. I’d assert that the Tory party would happily pony up 137k/year out of their funds to keep Jezza in his current role.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.