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 It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date.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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.