Sick Boy
Super Moderator
It's more likely that they are put off by condescending bores.
General Election (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Liquid Gold
- Start date
It's more likely that they are put off by condescending bores.
Anyone said what the Brexit ministry alone will cost? How many civil servants ( bureaucrats in Brexit language) will be employed in safe jobs in large buildings for years going through 40 years of legislation looking for the small percentage of things which we don't need or like? If we want to trade with anyone in the world we will always have to abide by someone's trading regulations. Most countries will have regulations the same as, or similar to, the EU require as they already have trade deals with the EU. How many other civil servants will be learning how to conduct, and then conducting trade negotiations with nations all over the world? How long will it all take?
In the meantime will our economy be better off? No-one can answer that, but we are involving ourselves in a huge costly experiment and people are telling us we won't be looking back. It seems more like a question of faith rather than a well thought out sensible decision to leave the EU.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how many sub-£100k earners seem to be personally offended by the idea that higher earners will be taxed more. THIS is the embodiment of establishment mentality setting in, people feeling the need to vote against themselves to avoid upsetting the upper tranche of hierarchy.
And this myth that big businesses will up sticks and leave if tax increases/actually gets claimed gets me. If businesses were genuine about avoiding tax, there's plenty of tax havens they'd have already run to. There won't be a mass exodus as the British market is too big and developed.
And this myth that big businesses will up sticks and leave if tax increases/actually gets claimed gets me. If businesses were genuine about avoiding tax, there's plenty of tax havens they'd have already run to. There won't be a mass exodus as the British market is too big and developed.
The proportion of income tax revenue that the wealthiest contribute has increased notably under the Tories. They have also continued to raise personal tax allowance so that almost half the population pay no income tax at all. The highest earning 1% pay more than a quarter of the total income tax take (this figure was just 11% in the late 70s - at a time when Labour had rates of tax up to 98%) - and the top earning 25% pay more than 75%. The bottom half of earners pay 10%. Diverting money from public services to top eraners? Total myth. Actually, the tax burden on the wealthiest is very high in historical terms. But I guess people just stick their fingers in their ears and make loud noises when they hear this because it doesn't fit with their agenda.
Of course, income tax is just one part of the equation - there are other forms of taxation and I'm not saying there shouldn't be a little tweaking here and there.
This grossly simplistic idea that you raise tax on the rich and it results in a big pot of gold for the treasury is just nonsense. Many economists will tell you that raising the top rate of tax by 5% won't generate any extra revenues - in fact when the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p, income tax revenues actually increased.
The same applies to business. Some of the nonsense you hear about corporation tax is laughable. Corporation tax isn't being cut as some sort of reward for the old boys network, it is being done to give the country a competitive edge and encourage investment. The EU are actually concerned about the prospect of the UK cutting CT further, precisely because they see it diverting investment to the UK. Ireland don't have their low rates of CT for ideological reasons - they do it because it encourages investment. Apple and Google were unlikely to have based their European operations in Ireland if it were not for this policy. Those companies contribute massively to the Irish economy - because CT is just one part of a complex equation. PAYE revenues, employee and employer NI contributions, employer pension contributions; and then the mere fact they employ people (paying high salaries for the most part), giving people money in their pocket to spend on goods and services (VAT revenues), and also helping to reduce the welfare bill.
It is a fine balancing act - and you have to weigh CT against a host of other factors. This idea that a rise in CT will result in a defined increase in revenues with no impact on jobs and investment may play well to those with left-wing sensibilities but it doesn't really stack up in the real world.
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
"
This grossly simplistic idea that you raise tax on the rich and it results in a big pot of gold for the treasury is just nonsense. Many economists will tell you that raising the top rate of tax by 5% won't generate any extra revenues - in fact when the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p, income tax revenues actually increased."
That may be so. But that is a Labour policy and the money will be used to deliver some of the spending they have outlined.
You may not agree, you may not think it will work or can be delivered, but the policies laid out in the Labour manifesto have been costed.
Again, the figure for the tories new house building scheme don't add up but they, along with the undelivered policies from the last manifesto, seem to go unscrutinised
As for corporation tax, Germanys is nearly 18% higher than Irelands and nearly 10% higher than the UK yet it hasn't dented their competitive edge nor has the fact that earnings are on the up there whereas they are declining here.
Maybe that is a little bit of a simplistic way of looking at things as there are many other factors like you say but there is no doubt that the wealth in this country is not benefiting the many. In my opinion, we do not live in a progressive country any more.
This grossly simplistic idea that you raise tax on the rich and it results in a big pot of gold for the treasury is just nonsense. Many economists will tell you that raising the top rate of tax by 5% won't generate any extra revenues - in fact when the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p, income tax revenues actually increased."
That may be so. But that is a Labour policy and the money will be used to deliver some of the spending they have outlined.
You may not agree, you may not think it will work or can be delivered, but the policies laid out in the Labour manifesto have been costed.
Again, the figure for the tories new house building scheme don't add up but they, along with the undelivered policies from the last manifesto, seem to go unscrutinised
As for corporation tax, Germanys is nearly 18% higher than Irelands and nearly 10% higher than the UK yet it hasn't dented their competitive edge nor has the fact that earnings are on the up there whereas they are declining here.
Maybe that is a little bit of a simplistic way of looking at things as there are many other factors like you say but there is no doubt that the wealth in this country is not benefiting the many. In my opinion, we do not live in a progressive country any more.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Maybe I'm more left wing than I thought(!) but I read the Labour manifesto (I am that dull) and, well... it seemed quite moderate really!
The frustrationg thing is it's a social democrat manifesto, and most of that the entire Labour Party could get behind. Forget who's in charge for a moment, and instead of fighting each other, it's surely something the party can unite behind as being indicative of the Labour movement as a whole?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I think that shows how far the country has swung to the right.
I read somewhere the other day, (it may have been on this board), that in Scandanavia Corbyn would be considered left of centre.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Someone should probably send him the link to the Labour website. He can read it on there.
It does seem like turkeys voting for Xmas.
Was an interesting interview on the news last night in between snide comments from Kuenssberg. They interview a couple of chaps in the gym. One was a police man, perfectly happy to pay more tax if it meant improving services for all. His mate was against it, when asked why it was because he was in a higher tax bracket and would have to pay more.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Agree with this. The fact that Labour policies are being presented as some sort of communist extreme left thinking is bizarre when you look at how many of those policies are in place elsewhere in countries we wouldn't consider left wing at all let alone on the extreme side.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'd be happy to pay more tax if it was spent correctly, education, the NHS.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I detest that woman... never seen her speak a single balanced sentence in her life.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
How about we weigh the cuts in CT against the levels of child poverty in one of the most developed countries in the 21st Century??
It would just be easier and clearer all round if the Tories came out and said they don't give a fuck. Let them eat cake and all that.....
Depends how you define progressive. If we view it simply in terms of income tax, then we have a system that you could argue is very progressive and weighted in favour of low and middle earners - even in comparison to Germany (which is itself quite progressive when compared to other EU nations):
UK income tax
£0 £11,500 0%
£11,500 £45,000 20%
£45,000 £150,000 40%
£150,000 - 45%
Germany
€0 €8,354 0%
€8,355 €13,469 14% − 23.97%
€13,470 €52,881 23.97% − 42%
€52,882 €250,730 42%
€250,731 - 45%
I have lived in an EU country (under a socialist government) where both the tax and welfare systems were decidedly less 'progressive' and where austerity measures cut deeper than anything we experienced in the UK.
You say the Labour manifesto is 'fully costed', but that costing doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny. The fact they are proposing up to one quarter of a trillion pounds in additional borrowing has to raise alarm bells.
You can pick holes in the record of the Tories in government. There is no escaping the fact that they inherited a mess. Since then we have seen sustained growth, falling unemployment and a reducing deficit. They may have missed their targets in a number of areas, but show me a government that hasn't.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Except it will quite possibly reduce the tax income; simple human nature - you tax someone so much that they decide it's no longer worth working or move abroad. Remember that the people who earn the most are typically the most ambitious and most dynamic and if they feel that the government is taking the piss they'll be off. Even if they stay, they will reduce investment - so fewer new initiatives and companies that get funded and create jobs. I also know at least one person who will retire if Labour's tax plans were implemented.
Further, you won't be able to count the companies that leave the UK or never come in the first place if corporation tax rates rocket. It's not just an incentive for companies to move, it will also be a deterrent for new start ups.
But it doesn't really matter because they can borrow even more: interest rates are low and as long as they say "borrowing to invest" it'll be OK, right?
I know as I type this is futile. The religious Left won't believe the above, or won't care as long as they perceive that "the rich" are being punished. And the Labour front bench are not intelligent enough to understand what would happen to the country. There is a reason why it's mostly kids that vote Labour (if they vote): it's because they don't have the experience or knowledge to understand the implications of a manifesto such as Corbyn's. Rhetorical question: how much tax did "the rich" pay during the 70s and the last time that tax rates were very high? Did they pay it or did they relocate?
Last edited:
This is just nonsense. Lazy soundbites. The UK has a tax system that has become more progressive in recent years, a system of tax credits that (although adjusted) remains unlike anything in place in other developed economies and a welfare system that is largely fair and generous.
You could say the same the other way. We could adopt policies that are accepted and established in other EU countries that would horrify many people here. In Spain, unemployment benefit lasts for a maximum of 24 months - at which point it just stops. Imagine if May introduced something like that here, she'd be likened to Hitler or something.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But no problem with the Conservatives borrowing double that amount while making deep cuts to public services and telling us 'we're all in this together'?
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
The things is, you already know the answer to this question. Why persist with nonsense when you understand the difference; I don't understand.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Such a shit argument to say the other side are simply stupid.
I'll be voting Labour, my degree was in politics and international relations and my Masters in political science and political economy. I now work in an international development NGO who has close ties with government departments. Do I lack the knowledge or experience to understand the manifesto?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why is it nonsense? If its being claimed Labour are dangerous for borrowing then its a perfectly valid question to ask why it is acceptable for the Conservatives to borrow far more than Labour are proposing and still be considered the safe option.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Your assertion that companies leave if corporate tax increases, (rockets as you provocatively put it), doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And it's absolutely nothing to do with punishing the rich it 's about living in a fair society, which in my opinion equals a safer society and a better environment to raise your family. In my book, there are more important facets to life than material wealth.
The NHS is collapsing, class sizes are increasing, working people are using food banks, homelessness has increased over 50% in 7 years.
Is this really the type of country you want to live in?
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. Borrowing peaked in 2009/10, at a time of economic strife, but the aim was always to bring that down and they are. In 2009 it peaked at 10% of GDP (153 billion), but this year will fall to between 2-3%. There will be some fluctuations but the trend is downwards. Getting here has been very painful, so the idea we go on another borrowing/spending spree in pursuit of some sort of Keynesian utopian vision is scary.
Because there had to be borrowing at that point to fill the black hole in the economy. Unless you think the cuts didn't go deep enough quick enough? We still had to pay the bills at that point and had to borrow to do so. Over time, borrowing has come down based on cuts in public expenditure and increased tax revenues. Don't see why you would want to turn back the clock and massively increase the level of borrowing again - and what Labour are proposing is in addition to government borrowing forecasts.
Last edited:
It does stand up to some scrutiny. The issue is less that companies will move away - although some might, financial institutions are notoriously nomadic (assuming any increase is modest it might not have much impact, but equally it's not likely to generate any extra revenue either). It's more about encouraging new investment. When Facebook, Apple and Google expanded UK operations recently the favourable rates of CT were mentioned a number of times. Would you rather they have gone somewhere else?
We all want a fair society. As a parent it's impossible not to be moved by child poverty. The question is how do we build the society we all want. Higher taxation (on business and individuals), more regulation, increased borrowing - I'm not sure this is the way to do it. That's not to say there is much that could be done that isn't being done, totally accept that. Labour won't achieve the society you crave with their current agenda. When they had a top rate of tax of 83% in the late 70s (98% on unearned income), did we have a Socialist utopia? The country was on its knees and the rich were paying far less as a proportion of total tax revenues than they are now. I know that Corbyn isn't proposing anything like this, but the idea that higher taxes on the rich equals more revenue and a fairer society doesn't stack up - but it might make some people feel better I suppose.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
So you're concerned about financial institutions moving but voted Brexit even though several have stated in the event of Brexit they will leave Britain which it appears some are going to.
And shouldn't we levy penalties against Facebook, Apple and Google if they don't pay the taxes we demand, isn't that what Brexiteers are saying we should do to the big German car manufacturers if we don't get the deal we want?
How do we get a fairer society, well I would suggest that instead of the majority of the wealth been held onto by a very small percentage of the population that more money finds it's way back into the public pot for vital services.
Of course the top rate tax of 83% that you hi-light would be unworkable, but there's enough money sloshing around this country to improve health, education and public transport. We shouldn't be making teachers and teaching assistants redundant or cutting vital health services.
And the knock on affect is a better educated, healthier more mobile work force which leads to better productivity. It just needs a change of attitude, both from big corporations and individuals who want to grab the biggest slice of the pie they can and fuck everybody else. As I said, I would quite happily pay more tax myself.
It's nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, it's just about making the country a better place to live
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
You must have posted about 100 times on the EU thread and on here, but The Ferret has hit the nail on the head in just one post here.
I'm not saying what you've said above is necessarily wrong, but you've only managed to pick out about 1% of what he's said in an attempt to dirty it.
I will watch Macron and Merkel spearheading Europe's future with a box of popcorn.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I don't think having a degree in politics really makes a difference if I'm honest. The one thing that is massively lacking in politics these days, voters and politicians, is common sense.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
The only reason things have swung slightly further to the right recently is due to the left alienating themselves really. As I've said before, in an ideal world it would be most successful if everyone was left wing, the sad thing is that is not a reality. Being left wing in a big bad wide world can often mean you get fucked in the ass.
Scandinavia is also quite strange in places, I've lived in Sweden and some of their feminist left wing government policies are completely ridiculous. Their recent reaction to the terror attack in Stockholm also reminded me a wife that defends her husband after he beats her.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Which from my POV I'd say is obvious, as people keep voting Conservative then wonder why cuts to services happen...
And then you'll disagree, and then circles begin.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
How are Greece getting on these days? Genuine question, I haven't heard them on the news for a while.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I agree, and I know full well they will keep cutting. You know the issue there though, where is sensible alternative?
There isn't really one. They are all fucking dog shit.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Reading the Labour manifesto, it's pretty sensible to my mind. I have some concerns (not sure targetting a limited set of people for tax rises is entirely productive, I'd make it more progressive full-stop for income tax. Am also concerned they commit to the triple-lock for pensions. Surely we're now in a position where linking it to inflation is sufficient? Also, why commit to building HS2? I need to be convinced HS2 is anything more than a vanity project that government can't back down from. Personally I'd rather policies encouraged decentralisation and encouraged business to move out from London, rather than just making it faster to get there!) but it's not bad.
I need to read the Liberal one to see if that agrees with me or not. tbf to them all I'll also read the Conservative one... although I suspect that won't agree with me
The financial institutions' point is an interesting one. It is amazing how many people who demonised these companies a few years ago now seem to have suddenly understood how much revenue they generate for the UK economy and seem upset at the idea they might move away.
There was always a risk of that of course, and some services will have to move, but I don't think there is any danger of a mass exodus - providing we don't hit them with punitive taxation. That's the dilemma really - they may represent a system that people dislike, but we stand to gain nothing if we impose punitive measures and they move to Paris or Frankfurt. 100% of nothing is still nothing.
The tax affairs of Google et al. is a difficult one and requires global cooperation to implement a fair system. In the meantime, what do we do? The deal HMRC did with Google was derided, but shortly after we learn that Google will create 3000 new jobs in the UK. How much is that worth in income tax, NI etc.? Corporation tax is just one part of a bigger picture - and we seem to forget it is a tax on profits not revenues.
I don't disagree with your aims which are laudable, I share them. My wife is a teacher, so I understand fully the pressure on that profession. I tried to book an appointment with my GP yesterday, and the first available appointment is in mid-June. These essential public services are under massive strain. Few people will complain about more money for the NHS; but the plan has to be sensible and be centred around a successful economy, not one that is failing (not matter how 'fair' it is). Some of the Labour policies would be ruinous imo, but that's just my opinion of course.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Reading the Labour manifesto, it's pretty sensible to my mind. I have some concerns (not sure targetting a limited set of people for tax rises is entirely productive, I'd make it more progressive full-stop for income tax. Am also concerned they commit to the triple-lock for pensions. Surely we're now in a position where linking it to inflation is sufficient? Also, why commit to building HS2? I need to be convinced HS2 is anything more than a vanity project that government can't back down from. Personally I'd rather policies encouraged decentralisation and encouraged business to move out from London, rather than just making it faster to get there!) but it's not bad.
I need to read the Liberal one to see if that agrees with me or not. tbf to them all I'll also read the Conservative one... although I suspect that won't agree with me
Don't get me started on HS2. A massive white elephant.
It isn't always a case of the manifesto either, it's whether what's included in them is actually realistic. I don't think I've ever been so disillusioned by politics.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
there is a sensible alternative, stop so much wealth finding it's way to such a small % of people and institutions. I'm not talking about punitive measures against the rich, just a more sensible distribution of wealth to improve public services and wages and standards of living for working people. I mean working families having to use food banks, that can't be right can it?
The greed is out of control, look at TTIP, that wasn't capitalism, that was greed for greeds sake and at all costs. That's the way we are heading.