Skip to main content

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7
Annual Income from Parliament74,962
Specifically for her book51,250
Other media income etc5,322.82
Total declared income131,534.82


Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of deaths at the time". This demonstrates that a percentage yield of 10% is used to determine the equivalence of a capital amount which is how a 10% yield on £1,000,000 means that the equivalence is an income of £100,000.

The fact is, however, that as a result of inflation and other changes there are a lot of people who have an income over £100,000. It should be remembered that it is a small minority of the population, however. Hence people should think carefully about how others are impacted.

According to the article: "Prof John Van Reenen, director of the Centre for Economic Performance, says you need to be making more than £140,000 a year to be among the top 1% of UK earners. (See the entry below on the 1%.)".

Hence the Labour candidate's income would have been just outside enough to be in the 1% top earners on the 2011 figure.


My fundamental point on this, however, is that with an income of £131,534.82 the Labour Candidate should not criticise me for being wealthy.

This is an extract from one of Labour's 2015 leaflets criticising me for having an (admittedly) high income.

Comments

Unknown said…
John Your definition of miklionaire dates back to the the 1970's shurely - why don't Try this amazing website its called Google and it says a person whose assets are worth one million pounds or dollars or more.
John Hemming said…
Which ever way you look at it, £131K pa is a high income. Not the top 1%, but probably the top 2%. Hence according to her leaflets in 2015 you should not elect her.

Popular posts from this blog

Trudiagnostic change PACE leaderboard algorithm - was in position 40, now position 44 - does it matter?

Trudiagnostic have changed the way they handle the Rejuvenation Olympics Leaderboard algorithm. The result of this initially was that I was globally no 40 and have now dropped to 44. Trudiagnostic are a US company that get samples of blood and they look at the DNA to see which parts of the DNA have methyl groups (CH3) attached to them. These modifications to DNA are called methylation markers. DunedinPACE is an algorithm which uses DNA methylation markers in white blood cells to work out how quickly or slowly someone is aging. I had three results on this. The odd thing about the results was that whilst my epigenetic age calculated from the same methylation markers was going down, the speed at which I was aging was going up. I find this somewhat counterintuitive. It is, however, I think relevant that in a global contest my approach on biochemistry which is quite different to many other people's does seem to keep up with others working in the same area. To that extent it...