/ 160 economists say vote Labour

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
Report
Lord_ash2000 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

I don't know exactly how many economists there are in the UK but I doubt 160 represents a very high percentage. This is a meaningless statement so I'm not even going to read the article.

Report
neilh 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Were they the ones who backed Brown with his no more boom or bust?

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Interesting, I've had a quick swatch on Google for 160 economists backing Brown's boom and bust comments but I can't find any so feel free to back up your statement as proof.

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There are 1,500 economists working in the UK and even more academics however the 160 that tell us we need to vote Labour are prominent economists and academics.

The group, which includes professor David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, and Victoria Chick, emeritus professor of economics at University College London, savaged the record of the Conservative and coalition governments.

Post edited at 10:24
Report
ClimberEd 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

hahahahah.

Bless. 

You believe them

Report
ScottTalbot 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Didn't these same economists say we would plunge into a recession the moment we invoked Article 50?

As far as I can tell, Economists are very much like Weathermen.

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> Didn't these same economists say we would plunge into a recession the moment we invoked Article 50?

If you can show me that they did then that would make it true but if you can't then that would make your statement false. So until you can back up your statement then it is just a statement of opinion not fact. 

Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Were they the ones who backed Brown with his no more boom or bust?

Or told him to sell gold. 

Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Former employees of the Venezuelan president? 

Report
DerwentDiluted 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

160 economists? By at least one basic law of economics that is 186 opinions.

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

Oh dear you Tories are rather triggered into child like trolling when faced with uncomfortable truths aren't you? 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

No its 160 prominent economists saying one thing -

We need to vote Labour on the 12th of December. 

Post edited at 10:53
Report
timjones 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> If you can show me that they did then that would make it true but if you can't then that would make your statement false. So until you can back up your statement then it is just a statement of opinion not fact. 

Opinions that you agree with aren't necessarily facts.

Report
ScottTalbot 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> If you can show me that they did then that would make it true but if you can't then that would make your statement false. So until you can back up your statement then it is just a statement of opinion not fact. 


I didn't make a statement. I asked a question and then gave my opinion. Take it as you will... 

Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Oh dear you Tories are rather triggered into child like trolling when faced with uncomfortable truths aren't you? 

Not a Tory. But I can still disagree with your view. 

The isf didn't share their view on Labour's manifesto. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

> Not a Tory. But I can still disagree with your view. 

But that defies practically every political comment you make on here so please forgive my scepticism but I find that extremely hard to believe for that reason, sorry. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to timjones:

> Opinions that you agree with aren't necessarily facts.

So show me where they all agreed with Brown. 

Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Just because someone thinks Corbyn is a Muppet, doesn't mean they think Boris is the messiah. This forum is full of people who'd be tempted to vote Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn. For every loyal corbynista, there are arguably two more who'd vote for Labour if it was him in charge (using charge in the loosest sense). 

Report
BnB 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Economists serious about their calculations and expecting those to be taken equally seriously don't write open letters mid-election exhorting the public to vote in a manner unsurprisingly co-incident with their own politics. Instead, like the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they express their view on, for example, Labour's manifesto and leave the journalists and politicos to make of their findings what they will.

I see on my social media that the fact that the FT covered this story has been blown up into "a full endorsement of Labour's manifesto by the FT" when in fact the FT editorial team has criticised the manifesto as a naive and incompetent waste of an opportunity to reset the economy. Indeed, not far from the IFS's view.

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

Thanks, I'm referring to your constant support of Tories and nothing to do with your attacks on JC. That in combination with your constant attacks on JC shows that you in deed behave just like Tory no matter what you say you profess. 

Report
planetmarshall 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Oh dear you Tories are rather triggered into child like trolling when faced with uncomfortable truths aren't you? 

Why do you do that? If your objective is to encourage people who might be sceptical of Labour's spending plans to look at them in more detail, then subsequently chucking your toys out of the pram and calling anyone who disagrees with you "Tories" is maybe not the best strategy.

Report
felt 29 Nov 2019
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> As far as I can tell, Economists are very much like Weathermen.

"You don't need an economist to know which way the pound is heading."

Doesn't really scan as well as the original, does it?

Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Thanks, I'm referring to your constant support of Tories and nothing to do with your attacks on JC. That in combination with your constant attacks on JC shows that you in deed behave just like Tory no matter what you say you profess. 

I think you are confusing my dslike of Corbyn for tory support. Apart from their eu stance I agree with pretty much everything the lib dems propose. Sadly their leader isn't much better than Labour's, but if they gain some seats this time, there might be a credible lib Dem leader amongst them for the future.  

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Why do you do that? 

I note that you don't ask the people who reacted childishly to my OP " Why do you do that?" but reserve your question for me only. The Tories that responded are highly unlikely to change their mind, its everyone else that might, if there is any sanity left in this country. 

Report
planetmarshall 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> I note that you don't ask the people who reacted childishly to my OP " Why do you do that?" but reserve your question for me only. The Tories that responded are highly unlikely to change their mind, its everyone else that might, if there is any sanity left in this country. 

Mostly because you authored the thread, but yes I acknowledge that there were some childish responses.

You despair of 'sanity left in this country', but for me the despairing point is the apparent refusal to recognize that our political spectrum has many shades of grey. Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily going to vote Tory, and not everyone who will vote Tory is doing so because they are the devil incarnate. It's this attitude, rather than an attempt to comprehend exactly why so many people are disaffected, that is pushing many people away from voting Labour. 

Report
mullermn 29 Nov 2019
In reply to planetmarshall:

> It's this attitude, rather than an attempt to comprehend exactly why so many people are disaffected, that is pushing many people away from voting Labour. 

Nonono.. I'm pretty sure it's a lack of hard left policies. JC and co seem to think so, anyway. Every time they get nervous about the election result they crank out yet another policy designed to appeal to the exact same demographic, who were already going to vote for them anyway.

Still, at least we know where they're planning to find 20 billion magic money trees now.

Post edited at 12:45
Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Mostly because you authored the thread, but yes I acknowledge that there were some childish responses.

Yes only after I called you out for it and not before. 

> You despair of 'sanity left in this country', but for me the despairing point is the apparent refusal to recognize that our political spectrum has many shades of grey. Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily going to vote Tory, and not everyone who will vote Tory is doing so because they are the devil incarnate. It's this attitude, rather than an attempt to comprehend exactly why so many people are disaffected, that is pushing many people away from voting Labour. 

" apparent refusal to recognize that our political spectrum has many shades of grey." 

" Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily going to vote Tory".

" and not everyone who will vote Tory is doing so because they are the devil incarnate"

That's 3 straw men you have built straight away do you want to carry on for a full team?

Or you could just scream anti-semite ffs like you did earlier. 

Post edited at 12:54
Report
summo 29 Nov 2019
In reply to mullermn:

> Nonono.. I'm pretty sure it's a lack of hard left policies. JC and co seem to think so, anyway. Every time they get nervous about the election result they crank out yet another policy designed to appeal to the exact same demographic, who were already going to vote for them anyway.

I heard a rumour they'll replace everyone's gas boiler with an air sourced heat pump for free....

Or a £10k trade in for your old diesel car..

The catch is they'll say by 2040, so never actually deliver on their promise. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

You Tories are funny, now trying to make out Labour are liars unlike your Tory liar-in-chief of the party-of-lies. 

Report
DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

The irony of 

> Oh dear you Tories are rather triggered into child like trolling when faced with uncomfortable truths aren't you? 

The irony of your post has not escaped me. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Show me where I do that. 

Or are just engaging in some yourself? 

Report
DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

“You Tories are funny, now trying to make out Labour are liars unlike your Tory liar-in-chief of the party-of-lies.”

Report
John2 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

So what would you do if 170 economists wrote a letter saying that the Labour spending plans were irresponsible and extravagant? Would you change your mind?

Report
timjones 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> So show me where they all agreed with Brown. 

I think you may have lost the plot ;)

I never said that they agreed with anyone.  I merely suggested that the fact that you agree with their opinion does not make it a fact.

Report
kirsten 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa: so  the question is are these economists left- or right- leaning and therefore are they saying what you'd expect them to say or something that is surprising? 

Report
neilh 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

It was an ironic post. There are a huge range of opinions amongst economists, 160 supporting one side of an economic argument does not mean it is right.

Report
planetmarshall 29 Nov 2019
In reply to John2:

> So what would you do if 170 economists wrote a letter saying that the Labour spending plans were irresponsible and extravagant?

I wonder if Boris could find 160 economists to endorse him now that he's apparently embracing protectionism. Probably...

Report
Mac fae Stirling 29 Nov 2019
In reply to summo:

> The isf didn't share their view on Labour's manifesto. 

Interesting piece here that argues that the ISF agrees with the broad principles of Labour's approach at least; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/ifs-manifesto-labour-economy-investment

Report
neilh 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Mac fae Stirling:

You miss an important point. The IFS have always talked about how much any govt needs to spend to cover issues such as social care and so on . Think the figure is about an extra £40 billion a year. They have then analysed where the tax revenue to do this should come from and the best way of doing it. The conclusion was whack up Vat to 28%.

the IFS have also said there is nothing g wrong with Labours plans. Just that tax increase on the top 5 % and raising corporation tax does not generate the tax revenue to be able to do them. 

Therein lies the crucial issue. 

Report
rj_townsend 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> They are the only game in town and a fantastic opportunity for this country. 

A fantastic opportunity for what exactly?

Report
Mac fae Stirling 29 Nov 2019
In reply to neilh:

Aye, I got that but like I said I thought it was an interesting piece.

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> “You Tories are funny, now trying to make out Labour are liars unlike your Tory liar-in-chief of the party-of-lies.”

But that is just the truth, no trolling. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to timjones:

> I think you may have lost the plot ;)

> I never said that they agreed with anyone.  I merely suggested that the fact that you agree with their opinion does not make it a fact.

But the reply was about someone saying it was the same economists who said something about A50 and me saying until you show proof of that then it has no validity. 

So it is you who is getting a bit muddled I'm afraid. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to John2:

> So what would you do if 170 economists wrote a letter saying that the Labour spending plans were irresponsible and extravagant? Would you change your mind?

What would you do if I told you brexit has been cancelled?

It doesn't matter as 160 prominent economists are not telling us to vote Tory but they are telling us to vote Labour. 

Report
Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to rj_townsend:

> A fantastic opportunity for what exactly?

The letter by the prominent economists is here and a full list of their positions to. 

It makes very interesting reading from the environment policies of a Labour Green revolution to the economy. It must be read to be appreciated. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-deserve-form-next-government-20965893

Post edited at 18:41
Report
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

'a fantastic opportunity for this country'.

If this country is Timbuktu. They may be economists second but they are communists first.

Post edited at 18:58
Report
kevin stephens 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Normalising corporation tax with other countries is not unreasonable

However relying on corporation tax £30bn of the 83bn is not guaranteed because corporation tax is a tax on profits rather than for example turnover.  If business's profits are reduced or replaced by losses (for example as a result of Brexit!) then the benefit will be a lot less than £30bn

Report
john arran 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

We appear to have a new troll in town. Welcome.

Report
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019
In reply to john arran:

I'm a troll? By that you must mean UkClimbing a leftwing website for lefty liberals only. News to me John. 

Report
Mac fae Stirling 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

So your comment about those economists being communists is actually for real? Seriously?

Report
Oceanrower 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> What would you do if I told you brexit has been cancelled?

Partaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!

Report
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Mac fae Stirling:

Yeah, for real, seriously.

Report
Mac fae Stirling 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

> Yeah, for real, seriously.

In which case I think you can be safely dismissed.

Report
DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Yep. Very childish. 

Report
Gordon Stainforth 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

It looks like a very respectable list of academics/experts. It wouldn't surprise me if none of them are communists. Or at the very most, one or two.

Report
BnB 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It looks like a very respectable list of academics/experts. It wouldn't surprise me if none of them are communists. Or at the very most, one or two.


That’s probably true. However, the vast majority of them happen to be employed by a state that they criticise for a lack of generosity. Or, to put it differently. Academic votes Labour shock!

Report
Mac fae Stirling 30 Nov 2019
In reply to BnB:

> That’s probably true. However, the vast majority of them happen to be employed by a state that they criticise for a lack of generosity. Or, to put it differently. Academic votes Labour shock!

I think that is a rather lame response to their case. As an academic discipline economics is not known for its left leanings. The most prominent signatory to the letter is probably David ‘Danny’ Blanchflower (based in the US, although he does have a  small part time position at Stirling Uni) and he can’t stand Corbyn. 

Report
BnB 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Mac fae Stirling:

Economics is having a “leftie” phase at the moment, what with MMT and UBI. And increasing government spending and widening deficits is a fashionable credo today. Fiscal stimulus is enjoying much discussion across Europe and beyond. But the Labour manifesto has taken it from a defensible shift in direction to an all out war on capitalism and common sense.

The FT, no friends of the Tories nowadays, captured the frustration when they wrote that Labour had very accurately identified the problems besetting society yet singularly failed to produce workable solutions in a bid to produce a full ideological overthrow of 50 years of progress and rising prosperity.

Report
summo 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It looks like a very respectable list of academics/experts. It wouldn't surprise me if none of them are communists. Or at the very most, one or two.

The question would be if Corbyn gained power would any of them benefit in their given sector.

It's no different from your stereotypical city bank ceo saying he thinks tory policy is better for the UK. 

There is very little that is truly impartial these days. 

Post edited at 11:45
Report
Mac fae Stirling 30 Nov 2019
In reply to BnB:

Ok, and yet 160 economists of a social democratic bent - absolutely not anti-capitalism - disagree.

Report
TobyA 30 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

> If this country is Timbuktu.

Just a bit of geography for you Paul: Timbuktu is a city in Mali. Mali is a country. Timbuktu is a town.

HTH.

Post edited at 13:49
Report
tripehound 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I don't know exactly how many economists there are in the UK but I doubt 160 represents a very high percentage. This is a meaningless statement so I'm not even going to read the article.

Stick with your bigoted preconceptions its probably safest

Report
Lord_ash2000 30 Nov 2019
In reply to tripehound:

Preconceptions about what? The abundance of economists?

I wonder how many economists think Labours spending plans are fantasy and totally undeliverable? Again I don't know how many there are but I reckon if you looked really hard you'd find more than 160. 

Report
Pefa 01 Dec 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

But it is prominent economists not just economists and 160 prominent economists say better vote Labour and I don't see a large group of prominent economists saying vote Tory. 

It's not difficult to grasp. 

Report
Pefa 01 Dec 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> >What would you do if I told you brexit has been cancelled?

> Partaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!

So vote Labour and tell everyone else to and you will get a chance to party. 

Report
Oceanrower 01 Dec 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Not where I live. Lib Dem have an outside chance but Labour? Not a hope.

Report
The New NickB 02 Dec 2019
In reply to TobyA:

To be fair Toby, Paul is struggling with the geography of his arse and his elbow, so the geography of West Africa is going to be a stretch.

Report
RomTheBear 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I don't know exactly how many economists there are in the UK but I doubt 160 represents a very high percentage. This is a meaningless statement so I'm not even going to read the article.

Economists represent only themselves. You can safely ignore all of them (except, and with a large pinch of salt, the very few that have stood the test of time, Smith, Schumpeter, Keynes...)

Post edited at 19:47
Report
RomTheBear 02 Dec 2019
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> Didn't these same economists say we would plunge into a recession the moment we invoked Article 50?

To be fair that not what they have said.

> As far as I can tell, Economists are very much like Weathermen.

No, no, no, weathermen are much better. In facts humans in general are much better than economists.

Report
johang 02 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

Absolutely, but that is because the game has changed. It's difficult to do much with monetary policy when there are no interest rates to cut. Fiscal stimulus is, whether we like it or not, pretty much the only game in town right now.

Well, either fiscal stimulus or crippling austerity...

Report
neilh 10:26 Tue
In reply to johang:

The game has not really changed. More that some people are just fed up and do not recognise you have to maintain things in the long haul and that nudges and minor changes for a mature economy are the way forward. 

Report
RomTheBear 14:37 Tue
In reply to BnB:

> Economists serious about their calculations and expecting those to be taken equally seriously don't write open letters mid-election exhorting the public to vote in a manner unsurprisingly co-incident with their own politics. Instead, like the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they express their view on, for example, Labour's manifesto and leave the journalists and politicos to make of their findings what they will.

IFS aren’t really economist they’re just essentially financial analysts, they just tell you if the sums add up or not. And it’s the same at every single election whether it’s labour or tories the fantastic promises don’t usually adds up.

To be fair it’s almost completely pointless to even do this exercise. We know the manifestos are piles of rubbish. 

Post edited at 14:43
Report
johang 16:27 Tue
In reply to neilh:

I think the game has changed, or more correctly did in 2008 but everybody pretended that it didn't. So I'll say this again:

The UK economy is now operating at the effective zero lower bound. Monetary policy has no wiggle room. Fiscal policy or crippling austerity are the only remaining options until, or if, the economy returns to pre-2008 behaviour.

Or, in other words, the game has changed.

And of course you have to maintain in the long haul, that we agree upon. I personally don't think that cutting funding to public services left right and centre is the way to maintain for the long haul though.

Your comment on minor changes rings hollow, given the B word and much else going on.

Report
summo 19:40 Tue
In reply to johang:

What has changed is the west is now past peak growth. We can't grow ourselves out of the debt. We have to either spend less on services or make standards of living sacrifices to fund them. Less fancy food, holidays, needlessly expensive gadgets, cars and so on. 

Report
Pefa 19:50 Tue
In reply to summo:

> We have to either spend less on services or make standards of living sacrifices to fund them. Less fancy food, holidays, needlessly expensive gadgets, cars and so on. 

Less NHS, less UK, less urgent green policies but increase the 4 million British people who are living in poverty and increase Dickensian food banks and no more extra taxation of the top earners and transnationals ? 

Report
summo 19:51 Tue
In reply to Pefa:

> Less NHS, less UK, less urgent green policies but increase the 4 million British people who are living in poverty and increase Dickensian food banks and no more extra taxation of the top earners and transnationals ? 

Taxing just the top 5% won't be sufficient to fund services properly. Everyone will need to pay more. 

Report
Pefa 21:06 Tue
In reply to summo:

But taxing the top earners more is necessary and a great place to start. 

Report
NorthernGrit 21:16 Tue
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I wonder how many economists think Labours spending plans are fantasy and totally undeliverable? 

Genuinely interested in why you think expenditure amounts (in percentage terms) that are comparable to Germany are "fantasy and totally unachievable"?

I'm not especially cheering for Labour here but I am confused about the performative incredulity regarding their plans. If you disagree with their economic policy, ok - but it really isn't that radical and it certainly isn't unachievable, as demonstrated in many economies around the world.

Report
summo 21:26 Tue
In reply to Pefa:

> But taxing the top earners more is necessary and a great place to start. 

It buys votes but doesn't solve the problem. When will he tell the other 95% they must pay more too? Isn't he simply lying to the electorate? 

The guy is deluded. He said on r2 today he'd pay the waspi pension money out of 'head room'.. when challenged he said the annual surplus! Clearly not the UK surplus, as it's been nearly two decades since it had one. 

Post edited at 21:27
Report
summo 21:29 Tue
In reply to NorthernGrit:

> Genuinely interested in why you think expenditure amounts (in percentage terms) that are comparable to Germany are "fantasy and totally unachievable"?

It's not the amount. It's the scale and pace of the increase that most consider impossible. 

>  as demonstrated in many economies around the world.

It's incredibly easy to spend that much money, but the challenge is what you do with the economy to fund it. Any idiot can spend. 

Post edited at 21:29
Report
HansStuttgart 22:13 Tue
In reply to NorthernGrit:

> > 

> Genuinely interested in why you think expenditure amounts (in percentage terms) that are comparable to Germany are "fantasy and totally unachievable"?

> I'm not especially cheering for Labour here but I am confused about the performative incredulity regarding their plans. If you disagree with their economic policy, ok - but it really isn't that radical and it certainly isn't unachievable, as demonstrated in many economies around the world.


Isn't the problem that it takes a lot of state capacity (manpower) to increase state service levels? And Labour will use most state capacity to renegotiate a brexit deal and organize another referendum and then deal with the outcome of that referendum.

Report
Darren Jackson 22:28 Tue
In reply to HansStuttgart:

I tried to follow your argument a couple of times, but gave up...

Report
Lord_ash2000 22:32 Tue
In reply to NorthernGrit:

> Genuinely interested in why you think expenditure amounts (in percentage terms) that are comparable to Germany are "fantasy and totally unachievable"?

> I'm not especially cheering for Labour here but I am confused about the performative incredulity regarding their plans. If you disagree with their economic policy, ok - but it really isn't that radical and it certainly isn't unachievable, as demonstrated in many economies around the world.

It's all very well saying X is close to Y and Y seems okay. But when you're at A trying to go all the way over to X in one leap is unrealistic. You can't shift economic systems so rapidly. If any government tried to spend that much extra money and make that sort of investment that quickly it's bound to be a disaster because there just isn't the time or skill to do any of it right. 

Report
Pefa 23:15 Tue
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

So you agree with the 160 experts that Labour's economic policies are needed and we should vote Labour but you just want them to go a bit slower? 

Same for you Summo. 

Post edited at 23:15
Report
summo 05:57 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> So you agree with the 160 experts that Labour's economic policies are needed and we should vote Labour but you just want them to go a bit slower? 

> Same for you Summo. 

No. Everyone wants better health, education etc..  but saying it's for free when it isn't is a lie. Having free broadband is no good if the country is mired in 3 or 4 trillion of debt. 

It's how you get to the goal that matters, not just writing it in a manifesto.

Report
Pefa 07:56 Wed
In reply to summo:

> No. Everyone wants better health, education etc..  but saying it's for free when it isn't is a lie. Having free broadband is no good if the country is mired in 3 or 4 trillion of debt. 

What is this 3 or 4 trillion in debt? 

> It's how you get to the goal that matters, not just writing it in a manifesto.

You have a problem with manifestos now? How else do you propose political parties show us what and how they want to fix the country so that we can make up our mind prior to an election? 

Report
neilh 08:04 Wed
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Basically he is saying that no matter who is in power the complexities over Brexit will dominate any govt, meaning that all the manifesto pledges are a waste of time anyway.

Report
neilh 08:07 Wed
In reply to Pefa

The issue being that those top earners can easily upstick  and move. 

Somebody like Hargreaves pays £40miillion a year on personal tax. Where does that shortfall come from if he leaves the UK??

Report
Lord_ash2000 08:37 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> So you agree with the 160 experts that Labour's economic policies are needed and we should vote Labour but you just want them to go a bit slower? 

No I think it's a horrific idea, Labours ideals are all very well (not that I share them) but socialism will lead to a crash in the economy, lower tax take,a massive debt increase and ultimately a lower standard of public services when we finally realise we can't afford this and have to face the music. But it's okay by that stage we'll have voted the Tory's back in so you can all blame them for the massive cuts which would be needed.

Report
BnB 08:59 Wed
In reply to neilh:

> In reply to Pefa

> The issue being that those top earners can easily upstick  and move. 

> Somebody like Hargreaves pays £40miillion a year on personal tax. Where does that shortfall come from if he leaves the UK??

I'd worry more about levels of business confidence in the event of a Corbyn government. The decisions of thousands of business leaders who have been castigated as tax dodgers and workhouse owners matter every bit as much as their tax payments do. The stick doesn't work as well as the carrot, in my experience. But the stick is the only tool Corbyn wields. Investment will plummet and it won't end well for our economy.

Report
seankenny 09:27 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> IFS aren’t really economist they’re just essentially financial analysts, they just tell you if the sums add up or not.

This is dead wrong: the IFS have a very good reputation as an economic research institute, about as close as you’ll get to academic economic research outside of a university.

Report
neilh 11:39 Wed
In reply to BnB:

The global economy is more of a concern, well to me anyway.

As an SME I do think there is a case for arguing that these big corporates have been running rings round HMRC with licences etc and using Ireland, Luxembourg. Holland a bit too much. Certainly some of these utilitiy companies have been a bit fast and loose (although they have now realised its not a good idea) on their structues. In a way they have only got themselves to blame if heaven forbid Labour get in and does what it says. The writing has been on the wall for sometime on this issue, crikey I can remember a couple of years ago the editor in the Financial section of the Sunday Times saying as much.I personnally doubt- with Brexit- they will have the parliamentary time in a 1st term to enact anything anyway.Its probably why the £ is increasing in value and the stock market has not gone seriously awry prior to the election.Realistically they have fat chance of doing most of the things that are on the wish list. Now if they were then elected for a second term that might be different.

Report
Bob Kemp 12:21 Wed
In reply to BnB:

Are you sure that Corbyn will affect business confidence in quite the way you expect?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/21/bankers-corbyn-tories-no-deal-capitalism-radical-government

Report
mullermn 13:02 Wed
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Are you sure that Corbyn will affect business confidence in quite the way you expect?

‘Yet people in unexpected places are starting to consider a Corbyn government less risky than the alternatives.’

Emphasis mine. Business is stuck in the same choice between bad options that we are. Compared to a potential hard Brexit Corbyn’s plan is the better option, but that doesn’t mean it will create confidence within the business world, it just means they hate it the least.

Report
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Once you look past the fear mongering propaganda you see that Labour is the party for 95% of business, just as it is for 95% of people, and the other 5% will also benefit from operating in a society where people are more prosperous.

Labour aim to create the conditions where businesses that are doing the right thing reap the rewards of increased investment to build a prosperous society at a time when borrowing is low. No one wants to see excessive taxation on wealth creators either, just a fair tax system that funds a society that works for all. In turn a prosperous society is also good for business.

Report
neilh 13:12 Wed
In reply to mullermn:

All depend on your business   

Report
neilh 13:26 Wed
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

All depends on your business.

Report
RomTheBear 14:01 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

It’s called “Institute of fiscal studies” of course they use element of economic theory but as far as I can tell they mostly produce financial models and analysis, not economic theory.

Post edited at 14:01
Report
BnB 14:14 Wed
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Are you sure that Corbyn will affect business confidence in quite the way you expect?

The pound rising in response to today's encouraging poll news for the Tories carries more weight than a 10 week old speculative snippet in a Labour-supporting rag.

The market is completely apolitical. It follows where the money will go. And that, as the oscillations in GBP show, is into the UK if Boris wins well, not that he deserves the plaudits he would claim in that eventuality. It's only because of some relief of uncertainty. And yes, in December 2020, that uncertainty would rear its head again, but the market hopes for that to be smoothed over.

Report
seankenny 14:43 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s called “Institute of fiscal studies” of course they use element of economic theory but as far as I can tell they mostly produce financial models and analysis, not economic theory.

Well, take a look at this IFS paper here:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w12994.pdf

I’ve only scanned it very briefly but to me it looks like they are making a slightly bespoke macro model and then testing it against the data. I am struggling to understand why this isn’t doing economics, as that is pretty much how the subject works: make some assumptions, pull together a theory and test the results against some data. In addition the paper (which took me about a minute to pick) was written by academic economists from UCL’s economics department.

Have you had any formal education in the subject?

Report
Bob Kemp 14:58 Wed
In reply to BnB:

This is a financial market. Am I surprised that it would go up with the prospect of a Tory government?  Funnily enough, no. Business of course means more than just the financial sector. 

Report
Pefa 16:03 Wed
In reply to BnB:

> I'd worry more about levels of business confidence in the event of a Corbyn government. The decisions of thousands of business leaders who have been castigated as tax dodgers and workhouse owners matter every bit as much as their tax payments do.

Hi, can you show me some evidence for that statement? 

> The stick doesn't work as well as the carrot, in my experience. But the stick is the only tool Corbyn wields. Investment will plummet and it won't end well for our economy.

Yet 160 prominent economic experts who are not JC or Labour fans disagree with you. 

Are you an economics expert? 

Report
Pefa 16:09 Wed
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> No I think it's a horrific idea, Labours ideals are all very well (not that I share them) but socialism will lead to a crash in the economy, lower tax take,a massive debt increase and ultimately a lower standard of public services when we finally realise we can't afford this and have to face the music.

What socialism? Since when did a few nationalisations mean the workers have taken control of all means of production? It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination as it would still be a fully capitalist mixed economy so why the gross exaggeration? To scare people? 

> But it's okay by that stage we'll have voted the Tory's back in so you can all blame them for the massive cuts which would be needed.

I think that was your Tory banker friends that were responsible for the collapse of capitalism in 2008 not the Labour Party. 

Report
Pefa 16:28 Wed
In reply to neilh:

> The issue being that those top earners can easily upstick  and move. 

> Somebody like Hargreaves pays £40miillion a year on personal tax. Where does that shortfall come from if he leaves the UK??

The average top rate of tax between 1932 and 1980 was 81% , and under Ted Heath’s Tory government in the 1970s the top rate was 75%, with an additional 15% investment surcharge to boot. Margaret Thatcher might have slashed the top rate, but it remained at 60% until the last two years of her reign.

Indeed, there are far more prosperous economies than our own with higher top rates of tax. In Denmark and Sweden – two of Europe’s richest economies – the top rate of tax is 60.4% and 56.4% respectively.

From - 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/15/corbyn-mcdonnell-tax-radical-labour

So all this is just scaremongering by Tory voters and some super rich billionaires. 

Report
RomTheBear 16:57 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> Are you an economics expert? 

No, he’s not an economic “expert” he is a businessman who, unlike economic “experts”, doesn’t get paid when he get its wrong. So if I were you I would listen to what the man says.

Report
seankenny 17:11 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, he’s not an economic “expert” he is a businessman who, unlike economic “experts”, doesn’t get paid when he get its wrong. So if I were you I would listen to what the man says.

You are Michael Gove and I collect my Daily Messenger prize.

Report
summo 17:40 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> In Denmark and Sweden – two of Europe’s richest economies – the top rate of tax is 60.4% and 56.4% 

Sweden is 62%. I suspect it's a badly researched article and the 56.4 is the median, average or similar that is paid when you look at the whole population. 

But I'd argue this isn't the critical difference. It's the near zero tax free threshold after which it's 31-33% depending where you live. So if you earn the equiv of £12k you are paying £3+k in tax. 

Despite this tax, I still pay to visit the doctors, vat is 25% etc. Etc. Why? Because that's the kind of funding needed to pay for many of Labour promises, some of which are in place in parts of Scandinavian in loosely similar forms. Taxing the richest uk 5% just won't cover their aspirations and they will mire the UK in even more debt. 

Report
summo 17:53 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> You have a problem with manifestos now? How else do you propose political parties show us what and how they want to fix the country so that we can make up our mind prior to an election? 

A manifesto has to stack up, not just be undeliverable aspiration. 

So far I think all parties manifestos have been destroyed. 

Report
RomTheBear 17:59 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> You are Michael Gove and I collect my Daily Messenger prize.

Get a like ;-)

Gove had a point though, we really have a fake experts problem, social scientist, psychologists,  economists etc etc usually people in academia with no skin the game.

It didn’t really apply to the context he was referring to, tough.

Report
seankenny 18:19 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

You’ve read Talib, of course you have. How predictable.

So tell me why the people you list are “fake experts”? I will also point out that you didn’t bother to answer my other question re the IFS - I’m assuming as fake experts who don’t deadlift (a Talib criteria right?) that they don’t count. 

Report
Pefa 18:42 Wed
In reply to summo:

No the top rate of tax in Sweden from this article by the tax foundation states that it is 56.4%. 

So as Owen points out if JCs taxation of the wealthiest goes up a bit but is still much lower than countries with a higher standard of living then why have their economies not collapsed? 

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

Post edited at 19:03
Report
Pefa 18:45 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, he’s not an economic “expert” he is a businessman who, unlike economic “experts”, doesn’t get paid when he get its wrong. So if I were you I would listen to what the man says.

He is a Tory voter who doesn't answer points made to him in a debate so why would I believe him over 160 experts in all economics? 

Report
RomTheBear 18:45 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> You’ve read Talib, of course you have. How predictable.

I honestly don’t know who you are talking about.

Report
RomTheBear 18:46 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> He is a Tory voter who doesn't answer points made to him in a debate so why would I believe him over 160 experts in all economics? 

Me, a Tory voter ? You are completely nuts.

Report
summo 18:48 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> No the top rate of tax in Sweden from this article by the tax foundation states that it is 56.4%. 

We as someone living and paying tax in sweden I can assure you the article is wrong. 

Report
Pefa 18:49 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

No not you, BnB. And grow up. 

Post edited at 18:53
Report
RomTheBear 18:49 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> So tell me why the people you list are “fake experts”?

Because, for the most part, the stuff they produce doesn’t work in reality.

Report
Pefa 18:50 Wed
In reply to summo:

So the tax foundation is wrong but you are right?

Sorry but why would I believe that? 

Report
seankenny 18:50 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I honestly don’t know who you are talking about.

Ahhh, the guys you’re reading have read him: that’s where the suddenly popular phrase “skin in the game” comes from. 
 

So tell me, why do those who study society have nothing to add to our knowledge of human behaviour?

Report
Pefa 18:51 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because, for the most part, the stuff they produce doesn’t work in reality.

You are starting to sound like Dominic Cummings when you say experts are useless. 

Post edited at 18:51
Report
seankenny 18:52 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

If that’s the case, why do governments and large companies employ such people?

Report
RomTheBear 18:52 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> So tell me, why do those who study society have nothing to add to our knowledge of human behaviour?

There is nothing wrong about studying society. There is something really wrong pretending you can make sense of it when in fact you can’t.

Report
Pefa 18:55 Wed

In reply:

So as Owen points out if JCs taxation of the wealthiest goes up a bit but is still much lower than Scandinavian countries with a higher standard of living then why have their economies not collapsed? 

Post edited at 18:57
Report
seankenny 18:57 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> So the tax foundation is wrong but you are right?

> Sorry but why would I believe that? 

KPMG reckon about 62%. 
Summo’s point still stands: public services cost money and we can’t raise enough just from the top 5%. I agree, and I speak as someone who wants to see much better public services in the U.K. 

Report
RomTheBear 18:58 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> If that’s the case, why do governments and large companies employ such people?

To pretend that there is some “scientific” basis for their policies where in fact, there isn’t.

Report
seankenny 19:00 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There is nothing wrong about studying society. There is something really wrong pretending you can make sense of it when in fact you can’t.

So although you claim that an organisation known for its economics research in fact does no such thing - suggesting your grasp on this is... limited - you are also knowledgeable enough to understand exactly what such people are saying about the world? 

Report
seankenny 19:03 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> To pretend that there is some “scientific” basis for their policies where in fact, there isn’t.

So at the Bank of England and the Treasury they are all just making it up as they go along? And Google’s ad pricing and so on, all just done on the back of an envelope with a few PhD’s knocking about to jazz it up later?

Report
Pefa 19:11 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> KPMG reckon about 62%. 

> Summo’s point still stands: public services cost money and we can’t raise enough just from the top 5%. I agree, and I speak as someone who wants to see much better public services in the U.K. 

Summo's point on the top rate tax in Sweden didn't stand. 

What evidence have you that the stated objectives in the Labour Party manifesto can not be met by just taxing the top 5% more. 

Post edited at 19:11
Report
RomTheBear 19:12 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> So although you claim that an organisation known for its economics research in fact does no such thing - suggesting your grasp on this is... limited - you are also knowledgeable enough to understand exactly what such people are saying about the world? 

 

I worked for a decade doing strategic financial planning and portfolio optimisation for a few of the biggest UK and global financial institutions. I worked directly with the chief economist of the biggest U.K. commercial bank. I’m not an economist by trade but I’ve got a pretty decent grasp on economic theory. I’m not saying everything in economics useless - but a lot of it is, in fact, you’d be hard pressed to find anything in economic theory actually being used effectively in finance. Or when they did, it blew up in their face spectacularly.

Post edited at 19:20
Report
RomTheBear 19:20 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> So at the Bank of England and the Treasury they are all just making it up as they go along? And Google’s ad pricing and so on, all just done on the back of an envelope with a few PhD’s knocking about to jazz it up later?

you’re trying to f*ck with the wrong guy here as pricing is my speciality. There is absolutely not much from economic theory that’s actually useful here. It’s all applied statistics, probability and financial modelling, which I’m grouping under “decision science”

Report
seankenny 19:22 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

Sure thing. Did your colleague tell you he was only there to provide “scientific cover” for decisions? 

Since you have a grasp of theory, tell me which bits work then - with the proviso that economics is much broader than finance.

Report
seankenny 19:24 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

Okay, so why does government employ these specialists then? 

Report
RomTheBear 19:41 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> Okay, so why does government employ these specialists then? 

As I’ve explained, they need to pretend there is a scientific basis to what are essentially political decision.

Report
RomTheBear 19:50 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> Sure thing. Did your colleague tell you he was only there to provide “scientific cover” for decisions? 

He’d be the first to say it. He once described his role to me as being an anti-anxiety medication. But beyond that he and his team did a lot of very useful things - just none of it has anything to do with what you would normally call economic theory.

> Since you have a grasp of theory, tell me which bits work then - with the proviso that economics is much broader than finance.

Difficult to say, there isn’t much that has stood the test of time. I’d say Schumpeter theory of entrepreneurship seems to hold up pretty well still today.

Report
seankenny 19:54 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> As I’ve explained, they need to pretend there is a scientific basis to what are essentially political decision.

But isn’t the BoE a strictly technocratic institution?

Report
seankenny 20:01 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> He’d be the first to say it. He once described his role to me as being an anti-anxiety medication. But beyond that he and his team did a lot of very useful things - just none of it has anything to do with what you would normally call economic theory.

So they never used concepts about information, incentives, markets and so on? 


> Difficult to say, there isn’t much that has stood the test of time. I’d say Schumpeter theory of entrepreneurship seems to hold up pretty well still today.

It’s a young subject. Getting rid of things that don’t work and replacing them with things that work better (even if still imperfectly) is a sign of doing something right surely?

Report
RomTheBear 20:36 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> But isn’t the BoE a strictly technocratic institution?

BoE does a lot of very good stuff and have some of the most talented people I’ve ever met. But really they don’t dwell so much in economic theory, actually.

Report
RomTheBear 20:42 Wed
In reply to seankenny:

> So they never used concepts about information, incentives, markets and so on? 

 

Sure, information theory, all the time. Game theory, all the time. You’re taking about mathematics here more than economics.

> It’s a young subject. Getting rid of things that don’t work and replacing them with things that work better (even if still imperfectly) is a sign of doing something right surely

Does it work better ? Doesn’t look that way to me.  I’d say we’re still completely clueless. We still don’t understand the economy.

As a practitioner I don’t need to understand the economy, all I need is to map out what we actually know, what I don’t know, and work with that. It’s much more powerful than trying to fill in what you don’t know with something rubbish.

Report
johang 20:59 Wed
In reply to summo:

A bit late back to the party, sorry.

Growth does not have to be more stuff. It can easily be more value but people don't seem to be able to get their heads around this.

I agree we need to stop our addiction to buying stuff. FWIW, I buy very few new things these days. I have all I need and feel no compulsion to gather much more. I rarely go abroad, my partner and I usually pop up to the highlands or islands instead. Fancy food is possible one sustainable way to increase value if it's done the right way, locally and with much skill for instance.

(For disclosure, my biggest "stuff" spends are typically climbing shoes as my old ones wear out, and I'd like a new touring bike to replace my grandfather's 1970s Dawes Galaxy I've just retired after riding for pretty much the past decade.)

I absolutely agree that the world cannot sustain current consumption. It just can't and that much is obvious but this is nothing to do with government providing public services. If we have the people to do the work, they can be paid if the political will is there and the service will add value in its very existence.

And so, as nobody has actually given me an answer, would people prefer fiscal policy or austerity?

p.s. In response to a later comment of yours: isn't the Krone pegged to the Euro?

And therefore I'll say it again, you all know I will ;)

That means the Krone is in effect not a sovereign currency and therefore you DO have to raise all money for government expenditure via taxation and borrowing. Not comparable with the UK.

Report
seankenny 21:00 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Sure, information theory, all the time. Game theory, all the time. You’re taking about mathematics here more than economics.

I think you’ll find that using applied mathematics to describe markets is exactly what economics is.

> Does it work better ? Doesn’t look that way to me.  I’d say we’re still completely clueless. We still don’t understand the economy.

Are you confusing what we know with what we want to do? And are you saying that despite increasingly large amounts of data, and increasingly sophisticated ways of analysing that data, we still don’t know much about how people interact? Are you saying that the response to 2008 was as ineffective as the response to the Great Depression?

> As a practitioner I don’t need to understand the economy, all I need s to map out what we actually know, what I don’t know, and work with that. It’s much more powerful than trying to fill in what you don’t know with something rubbish.

So the pursuit of knowledge is a waste of time? 

Report
summo 21:12 Wed
In reply to johang:

> p.s. In response to a later comment of yours: isn't the Krone pegged to the Euro?

No. Free floating.

> That means the Krone is in effect not a sovereign currency and therefore you DO have to raise all money for government expenditure via taxation and borrowing. Not comparable with the UK.

See above.

So directly comparable to the UK. 

Report
BnB 22:10 Wed
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> This is a financial market. Am I surprised that it would go up with the prospect of a Tory government?  Funnily enough, no. Business of course means more than just the financial sector. 

The Forex market isn’t tribal. Markets are unemotional entities driven by decisions made by traders of every race and hue in every financial centre around the world. The strength or weakness of GBP is driven by expectations for the economy and interest rates. For example, GBP rises against USD when foreign investors switch from USD to GBP in the expectation of relatively higher returns from UK assets borne from an improving economy. It has nothing to with which team an Australian Forex trader supports. Unlike the Guardian journalist you quoted.

Report
BnB 23:19 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> Hi, can you show me some evidence for that statement? 

I don't have to. I am a business owner and one of Corbyn's "few". And, contrary to Labour's claims, paying all my tax in the UK, treating my staff well and sharing my profits with them. A far cry from Corbyn's painting of entrepreneurs in the same light as Farage's immigrants: "They're stealing your money". On the back of those unfounded slurs, Corbyn wants to confiscate 10% of all the capital in UK companies. How on earth do you expect investors to react?

> Yet 160 prominent economic experts who are not JC or Labour fans disagree with you. 

> Are you an economics expert?

No. But I understand how companies and investors behave. I've been putting my money, that's all my money, into companies for 25 years now, standing or falling on the strength of my decisions. As Rom kindly points out, I've got far more skin in the game than the members of what is a small sample of the UK's population of economists. 

Report
BnB 23:21 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, he’s not an economic “expert” he is a businessman who, unlike economic “experts”, doesn’t get paid when he get its wrong. So if I were you I would listen to what the man says.

Too kind 

Report
BnB 23:25 Wed
In reply to Pefa:

> He is a Tory voter who doesn't answer points made to him in a debate so why would I believe him over 160 experts in all economics? 

Actually I'm an ex-Tory voter who'd vote Labour if it wasn't run by a clueless Marxist cheered on by a rabble for whom every dissenting voice is Tory scum.

Report
Pefa 02:34 Thu
In reply to BnB:

> I don't have to. I am a business owner and one of Corbyn's "few". And, contrary to Labour's claims, paying all my tax in the UK, treating my staff well and sharing my profits with them. A far cry from Corbyn's painting of entrepreneurs in the same light as Farage's immigrants: "They're stealing your money". On the back of those unfounded slurs, Corbyn wants to confiscate 10% of all the capital in UK companies. How on earth do you expect investors to react?

Sorry but you do have to back up those numbers you pluck out of thin air. 

Where did JC state ordinary company owners are stealing our money? Where is an example of his "slurs", toward you? 

And JC is only putting up tax a little on those who earn big money in fact as I showed upthread it isn't as much as all the well off Scandinavian countries and they are doing great, no flight to Monaco for their big earners or collapse of their economies so why would ours? 

> No. But I understand how companies and investors behave. I've been putting my money, that's all my money, into companies for 25 years now, standing or falling on the strength of my decisions. As Rom kindly points out, I've got far more skin in the game than the members of what is a small sample of the UK's population of economists. 

Prominent economists that would I'm sure know far more about the economy than you. 

> Actually I'm an ex-Tory voter who'd vote Labour if it wasn't run by a clueless Marxist cheered on by a rabble for whom every dissenting voice is Tory scum.

Ah now we see why you howl about this terrible injustice of putting tax up for the wealthy to the same as Scandinavian countries. So all people who vote Labour are a rabble who think Tories are scum now? Come on that's ridiculous. And JC is a social democrat not a revolutionary Marxist. 

Post edited at 02:35
Report
summo 06:03 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

> Ah now we see why you howl about this terrible injustice of putting tax up for the wealthy to the same as Scandinavian countries. 

Do you think low earners in the UK should be taxed Scandinavian style too? That's what it will take.... Oh and 25% vat. And employers pay matched taxation of their employees. Even then you pay per visit healthcare, broadband isn't free either. 

Corbyns spending plan is just deluded. 

Report
BnB 06:15 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

> Sorry but you do have to back up those numbers you pluck out of thin air. 

> Where did JC state ordinary company owners are stealing our money? Where is an example of his "slurs", toward you? 

Aping prominent populists across history, JC deliberately frames business owners as “the few”, the “other” that is taking all the money. It’s the central message of his strategy. Frankly I’m surprised you missed that bit.

> And JC is only putting up tax a little on those who earn big money in fact as I showed upthread it isn't as much as all the well off Scandinavian countries and they are doing great, no flight to Monaco for their big earners or collapse of their economies so why would ours? 

It’s not about the income tax. It appears you don’t understand business and capital taxes. He’s increasing business taxes by 100% (to 26% + 10%) and capital taxes by 250% to 500% (to 50%). In Germany, Switzerland, NL and Italy the rate of CGT Is 0%, in Belgium not much higher. 

> Prominent economists that would I'm sure know far more about the economy than you. 

And a lot less about running businesses, which is what business leaders do. I can form an opinion on their responses and behaviours by simply examining my own.

> Ah now we see why you howl about this terrible injustice of putting tax up for the wealthy to the same as Scandinavian countries. So all people who vote Labour are a rabble who think Tories are scum now? Come on that's ridiculous. And JC is a social democrat not a revolutionary Marxist. 

No. Not all Labour voters are a rabble. But Corbyn is bolstered by a mob that glories in its self-righteousness while viciously castigating any dissent as heresy and glorying in the phrase “Tory scum”. For example, you personally use the term “Tory” as an insult, as in beyond contempt.

We can go on and on but you and I aren’t going to reach an agreement because we see the world differently. However, the world is better place for its variety and I enjoy your posts, so let’s leave it at that and hope for an outcome that we both can live with

Report
jimtitt 08:20 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

> And JC is only putting up tax a little on those who earn big money in fact as I showed upthread it isn't as much as all the well off Scandinavian countries and they are doing great, no flight to Monaco for their big earners or collapse of their economies so why would ours?

Err, you are aware that Finland has been in recession for the past 4 years and have the dreaded austerity as part of their daily life and that Denmark isn't doing much better? As a long-term model things look bleak for both as their economic system makes them unable to react to a global downturn.

Report
In reply to BnB:

> Aping prominent populists across history, JC deliberately frames business owners as “the few”, the “other” that is taking all the money. It’s the central message of his strategy. Frankly I’m surprised you missed that bit.

This is just your innacurate perception which has been distorted by establishment media propaganda.

The Labour manifesto is full of policies that will support business. This is the only passage which could maybe be distorted towards what you think but it is also a pro business message.

"Businesses are the heartbeat of our 
economy, creating jobs, wealth and 
innovations. 

But the upper echelons of corporate 
Britain have been corrupted by a 
culture in which the long-term health 
of a company is sacrificed for a quick
buck for a few: a short-term culture 
has seen some treasured companies 
asset-stripped, leaving workers, small
business suppliers and pensioners in 
the lurch. Too often, the link between 
reward and long-term performance is 
broken for short-term greed. 

Labour will take on short-termism and corporate greed, making sure good businesses are rewarded, not undercut."


https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

Report
BnB 08:37 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> This is just your innacurate perception which has been distorted by establishment media propaganda.

This must be the umpteenth time you've accused me of being swayed by the media. In one reply I pointed out that my brother, a university professor, actually knows and worked with Corbyn and I take some guidance from him. He says "Corbyn is a cnut".

Generally I'll satisfy myself with the answer that I'm perfectly capable of forming my own decision on Corbyn, or Johnson or Swinson for that matter. My analysis of the increase in taxation for business and investors in the previous post is empirical evidence of that capability. By contrast, your arrogance in lecturing an experienced businessman on how I should perceive Corbyn's plans for business mirrors Corbyn's authoritarian instincts. It is also quite laughable given the vast gulf in our experience of the business world. You're welcome to act as Corbybot on UKC but I suggest you confine your observations towards me to the provable instead of conjecturing on my cognitive powers. 

Post edited at 08:41
Report
neilh 09:08 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Excellent  I look forward to my business paying a very low rate of corporation tax so I can reinvest and also pay dividends 

I look forward to a low personal tax  rate on dividends.

Report
RomTheBear 09:39 Thu
In reply to seankenny:

> I think you’ll find that using applied mathematics to describe markets is exactly what economics is.

Well I guess I have a different definition. I draw a distinction between practitioners and theorist.

> Are you confusing what we know with what we want to do? And are you saying that despite increasingly large amounts of data, and increasingly sophisticated ways of analysing that data, we still don’t know much about how people interact?

 

That’s exactly what I am saying. Again there are specific domains where it works very well and we can prove it, but as soon as you go to the macro level it’s very hard to do anything, as for data, what happened is that the dimensionality has exploded, we can track many more things, but the historical volume is still too low. At best we’ve got 50 years of relevant data. Try do anything statistically with 50 data points and a hundred dimensions. Good luck. The curse of dimensionality prevents you from doing much with it.

You see the issue is that we live in a crazy world, if someone buys plastic toys in New York in makes the price of beef in Paris go up because the Chinese can now afford to eat proteins. You can’t predict much with something so complex and with so many feedback loops.

> Are you saying that the response to 2008 was as ineffective as the response to the Great Depression?

The response to 2008 has just alleviated the symptoms without fixing any of it. It was a debt crisis, and today, we have even more debt.

> So the pursuit of knowledge is a waste of time? 

Nope. But building BS models of the world where it actually doesn’t lend itself to modelling, is a waste of time.

Thankfully the field is starting to recognise that after 300 years, there is interesting work going on with uncertainty at the core of it, so I’m starting to get some hope.

Post edited at 09:40
Report
In reply to BnB:

> This must be the umpteenth time you've accused me of being swayed by the media. In one reply I pointed out that my brother, a university professor, actually knows and worked with Corbyn and I take some guidance from him. He says "Corbyn is a cnut".

> Generally I'll satisfy myself with the answer that I'm perfectly capable of forming my own decision on Corbyn, or Johnson or Swinson for that matter. My analysis of the increase in taxation for business and investors in the previous post is empirical evidence of that capability. By contrast, your arrogance in lecturing an experienced businessman on how I should perceive Corbyn's plans for business mirrors Corbyn's authoritarian instincts. It is also quite laughable given the vast gulf in our experience of the business world. You're welcome to act as Corbybot on UKC but I suggest you confine your observations towards me to the provable instead of conjecturing on my cognitive powers. 

On the whole you've been reeling off Tory attack lines about business perceptions of Corbyns framing of business owners as the few. This is establishment media framing of Corbyns position and is an inaccurate portrayal of Corbyn's words which is what I wanted to point out.

Sorry, I was responding to your post and hadn't recognised we'd had dialogue before.

On your analysis of policy, which forms a very small part of your posting on this thread. Yes Labour's policies are good for the workers but you don't seem to recognise that, in an environment where the government are investing in growth in our economy, prosperity for the workforce doesnt have to be at the expense of business owners. Overall growth can make up for any increase in the share of growth that workers are given.

Labour want to reward the business that helps to increase the prosperity of all and prevent those businessas from being undercut by those that don't. Labour will create an environment that allows good businesses to thrive.

Report
neilh 10:11 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

As per the Labour manifesto - we will reward good businesses. 

So where are the proposals to cut corporation tax for my good business which manufactures and exports ??????

Report
mullermn 10:14 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> On the whole you've been reeling off Tory attack lines about business perceptions of Corbyns framing of business owners as the few. This is establishment media framing of Corbyns position

The way I read it he’s been articulating his perceptions as an actual business owner of Corbyn’s policies. 

Here’s a mind blowing idea - maybe the way Corbyn’s business related policies are framed in a lot of the media is actually how a lot of business owners see them and not a grand conspiracy to prevent the second coming. 

This immediate recourse to writing off everyone who disagrees with Labour as The Enemy so that they can be ignored is exactly why they’re currently barely in the running for this election instead of cleaning up. 

Report
summo 10:22 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> investing in growth in our economy

> reward the business 

> Labour will create an environment that allows good businesses to thrive.

Lovely little phrases to throw in a manifesto, an employee might think they sound reassuring. But to the self employed, or business owner etc. Without detail of the substance behind them they are just meaningless words. What they do hear are very specific tax increases that will directly impact them. 

Report
In reply to mullermn:

> > On the whole you've been reeling off Tory attack lines about business perceptions of Corbyns framing of business owners as the few. This is establishment media framing of Corbyns position

> The way I read it he’s been articulating his perceptions as an actual business owner of Corbyn’s policies. 

> Here’s a mind blowing idea - maybe the way Corbyn’s business related policies are framed in a lot of the media is actually how a lot of business owners see them and not a grand conspiracy to prevent the second coming. 

> This immediate recourse to writing off everyone who disagrees with Labour as The Enemy so that they can be ignored is exactly why they’re currently barely in the running for this election instead of cleaning up. 

Well business owners probably do see Corbyns polices that way but this is a bit circular isn't it because their perceptions are shaped by establishment media propaganda like everyone else's.

I don't regard anyone who is taken in by it as "the enemy" because the propaganda is everywhere and unavoidable.

I may be aware of it when it comes to Corbyn and left wing issues but I dread to think how my perceptions have been distorted about other matters.

That's why I want to correct these distortions where I see them.

Post edited at 13:14
Report
In reply to summo:

> > investing in growth in our economy

> Lovely little phrases to throw in a manifesto, an employee might think they sound reassuring. But to the self employed, or business owner etc. Without detail of the substance behind them they are just meaningless words. What they do hear are very specific tax increases that will directly impact them. 

What else can you put in a manifesto other than words? No one else has put together a more credible manifesto than Labour.

Report
In reply to neilh:

> As per the Labour manifesto - we will reward good businesses. 

> So where are the proposals to cut corporation tax for my good business which manufactures and exports ??????

If investment is increasing on a large scale to kick start our economy, where do you think that investment will go if not to the businesses who supply the government and their supply chains? Do you not think that could offset any small tax increases you may have to make in order to pay your fair share into the society that makes your business thrive?

Report
summo 13:43 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> What else can you put in a manifesto other than words? No one else has put together a more credible manifesto than Labour.

Actual proposal of what they think will help business as. Amounts they intend to invest. Tax changes to encourage business to invest. Perhaps tax incentives for apprentices, training...or rebate for environmental related improvements...

Maybe the problem is Corbyn, his shadow cabinet, his advisor cronies etc..  haven't in the main ever worked in the private sector, let alone been self employed or a business owner. They've been protected from risk in their public sector or union jobs, they just can't relate. 

Report
summo 13:45 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> If investment is increasing on a large scale to kick start our economy, where do you think that investment will go if not to the businesses who supply the government and their supply chains? 

Maybe Corbyn will plough all the money into his newly nationalised companies and the existing public sector to try and buy success? He's no fan of the private sector is he? 

Report
neilh 14:31 Thu
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

The economy is in a relatively good shape with full employment etc. It does not need a kickstart .a few nudges and tweeks. 

Post edited at 14:32
Report
RomTheBear 14:38 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

Listen mate, I’d be the first to say that we have a big problem in the current economy.

We now know thanks to better data that wealth has actually been flowing from the poor to the rich since the 1980s, even though we don’t really know by which mechanism.

Its high time for some kind of “left-wing” readjustment but the way Corbyn wants to go about it is to reuse failed 1970s policies that kill businesses and blame rich people.

A flat wealth tax combined with higher income tax would probably go a long way, but his solution to everything is “nationalise the railway”. Sorry but I don’t see it.

Report
Beanmanclimb 14:54 Thu
In reply to summo:

summo why do you love tories so much and lick their bumbums in every single political thread?

Report
Bob Kemp 15:00 Thu
In reply to BnB:

>The Forex market isn’t tribal. Markets are unemotional entities driven by decisions made by traders of every race and hue in every financial centre around the world.

My main point was that overall business confidence will not be affected in the same way as the financial markets by the prospect of a Corbyn government. How tribal or emotional the financial markets are is not relevant when we're talking about the levels of confidence as opposed to the causes. 

Post edited at 15:01
Report
summo 15:14 Thu
In reply to Beanmanclimb:

> summo why do you love tories so much and lick their bumbums in every single political thread?

Link me any thread where I've specifically cheered on the tories or their manifesto. Don't confuse a dislike of far left Corbyn for support of the far right, there is a lot of ground between the two.  

I've voted lib Dem in the past and will again. The only party that acknowledge better services aren't for free and will cost everyone more tax. There is no escaping this fact. 

Report
neilh 15:19 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

There is new “economic “ analysis of the data which suggests this may not be true. See the Economist last week. 

Report
RomTheBear 15:40 Thu
In reply to neilh:

> There is new “economic “ analysis of the data which suggests this may not be true. See the Economist last week. 


I believe this was an article about measure of inequality, but there is a much deeper insight to be had from newer models of wealth growth. They suggest a reallocation rate of about 2% from poor to rich has to be occurring.

The beauty of it is that it doesn’t require any assumption as to why or how this is occurring, nor any analysis of the redistribution factors. The downside is that it doesn’t explain why.

See https://ergodicityeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/ergodicity_economics.pdf#page101 

page 95 and following.

Post edited at 15:50
Report
Eric9Points 16:12 Thu
In reply to summo:

> Link me any thread where I've specifically cheered on the tories or their manifesto. Don't confuse a dislike of far left Corbyn for support of the far right, there is a lot of ground between the two.  

> I've voted lib Dem in the past and will again. The only party that acknowledge better services aren't for free and will cost everyone more tax. There is no escaping this fact. 

Nah.

Your pleas of centrism might have a shred of credibility if you'd ever said anything negative about the Tories but you haven't. Ever.

In fact come to think of it, you've never said anything positive about the Lib Dems either.

You have a love that dare not speak it's name.

Report
summo 16:19 Thu
In reply to Eric9Points:

Admittedly the lib Dem leadership of late has been what you might politely call weak. I totally agreed with their 1% for the nhs tax rise pledge and have said this many times. I'd even cope with their pro eu stance as the majority of their other policies would make the UK a better place without bankrupting it. 

Edit. If doesn't change the fact Corbyn a a Muppet. So is Boris albeit less so. 

Post edited at 16:20
Report
neilh 17:38 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

Bit more than an article. Well worth reading. It’s interesting to see economists starting to question this assumption.

Report
Pefa 17:43 Thu
In reply to summo:

> Do you think low earners in the UK should be taxed Scandinavian style too? That's what it will take.... Oh and 25% vat. And employers pay matched taxation of their employees. Even then you pay per visit healthcare, broadband isn't free either. 

Since we are referring to what is relevant only then how is that required to fulfil the policy in the Labour Party manifesto? 

> Corbyns spending plan is just deluded. 

You can say that and do, often, yet repeated fail to show how when asked. 

Report
In reply to summo:

> Edit. If doesn't change the fact Corbyn a a Muppet. So is Boris albeit less so. 

Come off it! Boris almost defines muppetry. I could easily imagine the Oxford Dictionary using him as an example in their next edition, if it were not libellous. 

Report
Pefa 18:21 Thu
In reply to BnB:

> Aping prominent populists across history, JC deliberately frames business owners as “the few”, the “other” that is taking all the money. It’s the central message of his strategy. Frankly I’m surprised you missed that bit.

No not business owners like you but the few mega corporations that dodge tax, I'm sure you must agree its time they started paying their fair share. 

> It’s not about the income tax. It appears you don’t understand business and capital taxes. He’s increasing business taxes by 100% (to 26% + 10%) and capital taxes by 250% to 500% (to 50%). In Germany, Switzerland, NL and Italy the rate of CGT Is 0%, in Belgium not much higher. 

You are correct I am but a worker who has other priorities and much less responsibilities than you do I appreciate that.Since you do know more about tax than me and since we were specifically comparing the tax rises for the super rich in the Labour Party manifesto and the equivalent in Sweden, Norway and Denmark then what is the current business and capital taxes in these specific countries? 

> And a lot less about running businesses, which is what business leaders do. I can form an opinion on their responses and behaviours by simply examining my own.

Yet you say all rich people will run to Monaco because Labour Party taxes on them will be so terrible, yet those taxes will be less than the successful Scandi countries tax their rich and there is to my knowledge plenty of super rich still there and enjoying successful countries with high standards of living.

So perhaps these 163 economists may have a point about voting Labour. 

> No. Not all Labour voters are a rabble. But Corbyn is bolstered by a mob that glories in its self-righteousness while viciously castigating any dissent as heresy and glorying in the phrase “Tory scum”. For example, you personally use the term “Tory” as an insult, as in beyond contempt.

A lot of people are suffering through 9 years of Tory cuts and austerity that has seen 4 million people in the UK now dragged below the poverty line, kids going to school hungry, increases in homelessness and huge cuts to support services. We see millions of people who can't build a future on precarious temporary work or buy a house, we see the huge rise in suicide of disabled people told they are fit to work and massive increase in food bank use even by many who actually work long hours. Then we see the fact that the - Richest 1,000 (uk) families control total of £547bn, rising by more than 112% since 2009 (the credit crunch) , and own more than the poorest 40% of British households. 

Millions of people are affected by these class warfare tactics of the Tories and see loved ones and communities suffer greatly from it so is it any wonder some of these suffering people shout Tory scum? And BTW that is usually the anarchists of class war who fight back with that term. 

> We can go on and on but you and I aren’t going to reach an agreement because we see the world differently. However, the world is better place for its variety and I enjoy your posts, so let’s leave it at that and hope for an outcome that we both can live with

Thanks I know we want the same good outcomes for everyone in the UK but have different routes to the same goals. 

Post edited at 18:25
Report
johang 19:04 Thu
In reply to summo:

> No. Free floating.

Hmm, Danmarks Nationalbank doesn't think the krone is free floating.

They apparently work to keep the krone within a certain tolerance of the Euro. Or so their website says.

But whatever, it's probably a sideways distraction.

Report
johang 19:22 Thu
In reply to neilh:

"full" employment

Report
seankenny 19:27 Thu
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I believe this was an article about measure of inequality, but there is a much deeper insight to be had from newer models of wealth growth. They suggest a reallocation rate of about 2% from poor to rich has to be occurring.

> The beauty of it is that it doesn’t require any assumption as to why or how this is occurring, nor any analysis of the redistribution factors. The downside is that it doesn’t explain why.

> page 95 and following.

Hold on, isn't this an example of a subject that you said was pointless and couldn't possibly tell us anything about the world, which was far too complex to be modelled?

And how can your favoured approach lead to "deeper insight" if there is no explanation of why something is happening? That does rather go against the way things have been done for several decades...

Report
summo 19:40 Thu
In reply to johang:

> Hmm, Danmarks Nationalbank doesn't think the krone is free floating.

But you said Swedish krona which is free floating.

Report
summo 19:46 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

Swedish corporation tax is roughly 22%(UK is 18), but because of matched funding they pay 32% pay roll tax, ie. 32% of their annual wage bill. Plus the usual vat at 25%.... 

Post edited at 19:48
Report
RomTheBear 20:10 Thu
In reply to seankenny:

> Hold on, isn't this an example of a subject that you said was pointless and couldn't possibly tell us anything about the world, which was far too complex to be modelled?

But in this case, what is modelled is simply wealth growth over time and its reallocation between agents, you actually don’t need to understand how or why it’s happening.

The only questionable assumption is of course that wealth over time can be modelled with geometric brownian motion, which clearly isn’t the case in reality, but for this purpose of looking at the past without trying to explain it is absolutely fine. Fir this purpose all you need is a model with a good fit it, you don’t use it to explain the world or to make prediction.

> And how can your favoured approach lead to "deeper insight" if there is no explanation of why something is happening? That does rather go against the way things have been done for several decades...

Well you have a point it does not indeed tell you why it’s happening, but the “why” is exactly the kind of thing we can’t really now due to complexity. The approach here is good as it focuses on what we know and then derives constraints that must be satisfied.

Post edited at 20:20
Report
Deadeye 20:49 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

> They are the only game in town and a fantastic opportunity for this country. 


Sorry I'm late to the party and not had the chance to read the full thread.

In the extremely unlikely event that nobody has observed this yet, I just wanted to say you are totally full of shit.

The choice between Labour and the Tories is whether you want a fast or slow start to wrecking the future. 

The LibDems are an utter shower at the moment too (and I have always voted Liberal).

I'm utterly despairing of how to vote...not that it matters in the least in one of the safest Con seats in the country.

But please don't try to presnt Corbyn as anything other than a progress holocaust.

Report
Beanmanclimb 22:23 Thu
In reply to Deadeye:

who would you suggest voting for then...

Report
In reply to summo:

> Actual proposal of what they think will help business as. Amounts they intend to invest. Tax changes to encourage business to invest. Perhaps tax incentives for apprentices, training...or rebate for environmental related improvements...

Have a flick through here

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

It's full of proposals to help business including the following.

  • A National Transformation Fund of £400 billion to tackle the climate and environmental emergency because the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of acting.
  • A National Investment Bank, backed up by a network of Regional Development Banks, to provide £250 billion of lending for enterprise, infrastructure and innovation over 10 years.
  • Smaller loans will be available, enabling thousands of bottom-up transformational changes by start-ups, small businesses, local co-operatives and community projects.
  • Tackle late payments that leave small businesses and the self-employed waiting months to be paid, including banning late payers from public procurement.
  • A strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses.
  • Put British innovation at the heart of our procurement to support local sourcing and reshoring, so that every investment we make strengthens our manufacturing and engineering sectors and supply chains.
  • Guarantee no increases in VAT.
  • Make it easier for employers to spend the Apprenticships Levy by allowing it to be used for a wider range of accredited training
  • Investing in people to prepare them for the jobs of the future through the National Education Service. Making sure training delivers the right skills by giving employers a role in co-design and co-production of qualifications.
  • Industrial strategy to help develop the industrial base needed to deliver high-quality exports and the decent jobs that go with them.

Labour are the party that will support British business and jobs.

Report
Deadeye 22:35 Thu
In reply to Beanmanclimb:

> who would you suggest voting for then...


As I said

"I'm utterly despairing of how to vote"

Report
BnB 23:22 Thu
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> >The Forex market isn’t tribal. Markets are unemotional entities driven by decisions made by traders of every race and hue in every financial centre around the world.

> My main point was that overall business confidence will not be affected in the same way as the financial markets by the prospect of a Corbyn government. How tribal or emotional the financial markets are is not relevant when we're talking about the levels of confidence as opposed to the causes. 

I don't know any business owners who would agree with you. A Corbyn majority instantly places a significant extra tax burden on every business in the UK. That will fundamentally compromise cashflows and I can assure you that nothing hits business confidence like falling cashflows. Then factor in the proposed confiscation of ownership which strikes at the heart of an entrepreneur's motivation. Now consider the upheaval from a shift in industrial policy towards state control. How you can expect business owners to express confidence in those circumstances is beyond me.

Report
Pefa 23:23 Thu
In reply to Deadeye:

> Sorry I'm late to the party and not had the chance to read the full thread.

Welcome! 

Feel free to explain your reasons. 

Report
BnB 23:49 Thu
In reply to Pefa:

> No not business owners like you but the few mega corporations that dodge tax, I'm sure you must agree its time they started paying their fair share. 

That difficult challenge has already been addressed by the Tories. Have you not seen how upset Mr Trump is about the proposed digital transactions tax?

> You are correct I am but a worker who has other priorities and much less responsibilities than you do I appreciate that.Since you do know more about tax than me and since we were specifically comparing the tax rises for the super rich in the Labour Party manifesto and the equivalent in Sweden, Norway and Denmark then what is the current business and capital taxes in these specific countries? 

The answer is lower than they would be in the UK under Labour, chiefly because of the proposed CGT rises and profit confiscation levy. A comparison with Scandinavia isn't necessarily helpful however because there are hundreds of alternative national fiscal jurisdictions that are considerably lower. It isn't as though the UK would suddenly become a Scandi social democratic paradise the minute taxes are doubled.

> Yet you say all rich people will run to Monaco because Labour Party taxes on them will be so terrible, yet those taxes will be less than the successful Scandi countries tax their rich and there is to my knowledge plenty of super rich still there and enjoying successful countries with high standards of living.

I haven't actually said that. I pointed our that capital is mobile and investors move their money where they see the best opportunity. I can stay in the UK but move my money to work in other vibrant economies, just as foreign investors move their money in and out of the UK. The UK's billionaires won't immediately flee, but you can't stop their money working elsewhere. And you want to encourage foreign investment in Britain. Confiscating their profits and forcibly taking over their assets at a discount to market value is going to have the opposite effect.

> Thanks I know we want the same good outcomes for everyone in the UK but have different routes to the same goals. 

You'd be surprised how many businesses already share financial success with their workers. But these tend to be businesses based on intellectual capital (patents, technology, accounting, legal expertise etc). A coherent industrial strategy would focus on developing more digital and STEM skills, as these are the key to success today, and would lead to better outcomes for businesses and higher rewards for employees.

Report
summo 05:34 Fri
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Investing people, develop strategic industrial base, widen the range of a credit training, strong economic future

But it's still 99% non specific fluff, compared to very precise tax increases. 

Apart from under Blair who was really centrist, when has any Labour policy helped UK industry to any degree. It went to the dogs in the 60s with USA bail outs and currency devaluation, it certainly didn't go any better in the 70s for any party with another bail out etc. These are the era's of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey hark back to as Labour's glory years of union dominance. 

Report
Pefa 05:58 Fri
In reply to summo:

The one off IMF loan was not needed as Healy later pointed out and the troubles in the 70s were down to a not so small matter called the 1973 oil crisis that affected the entire world economy. Why do right wingers always lie about Labour and the economy when Labour give a little power to the workers rather than constantly giving out to the employers. 

At the moment millions of un-unionised workers can't build a future because they are in throw away work which is down to Tory policies. Now unions have no power other than in a couple of strategic places which resulted in people getting £apittance an hour before Labour introduced the minimum wage.

BTW thanks for the reply upthread on Scandi tax rates, cheers. 

Post edited at 06:20
Report
RomTheBear 06:14 Fri
In reply to summo:

> Investing people, develop strategic industrial base, widen the range of a credit training, strong economic future

> But it's still 99% non specific fluff, compared to very precise tax increases. 

you’re being unreasonable here actually the labour manifesto is pretty well detailed and concrete. That is compared to the tory manifesto which is devoid of substance.

Report
Pefa 06:18 Fri
In reply to BnB:

> That difficult challenge has already been addressed by the Tories. Have you not seen how upset Mr Trump is about the proposed digital transactions tax?

No can you show me? And if the problem of mega corporations not paying tax has been addressed then can you show me how and why do you disagree with JC doing just that? 

> The answer is lower than they would be in the UK under Labour, chiefly because of the proposed CGT rises and profit confiscation levy. A comparison with Scandinavia isn't necessarily helpful however because there are hundreds of alternative national fiscal jurisdictions that are considerably lower. It isn't as though the UK would suddenly become a Scandi social democratic paradise the minute taxes are doubled.

The Scandinavian model is a good comparison as it is a success story economically and with a better standard of living than us (so a good example for us to aspire to) yet the tax rate on the super wealthy is more there than the amount JC wants to raise it to here. You raised a very valid point that I was unaware of concerning business and capital tax increases in the British Labour Party manifesto which would conflict with the figure I keep banging on about. Can you show me where you get this from and I can then calculate and adjust my figures? I'm not saying for one minute that I don't trust you BTW but without numbers I can't do the sums. 

> I haven't actually said that. I pointed our that capital is mobile and investors move their money where they see the best opportunity. I can stay in the UK but move my money to work in other vibrant economies, just as foreign investors move their money in and out of the UK. The UK's billionaires won't immediately flee, but you can't stop their money working elsewhere. And you want to encourage foreign investment in Britain. Confiscating their profits and forcibly taking over their assets at a discount to market value is going to have the opposite effect.

Right sorry, I get it now, I thought you said billionaire rich peeps would be off to Monaco if the L. P. were voted in but probably someone else wrote it, no worries,crossed wires. However my handy comparison with Sweden, Norway and Denmark still stands as capital flight under higher taxation has not affected their economy in fact it is excellent. 

> You'd be surprised how many businesses already share financial success with their workers. But these tend to be businesses based on intellectual capital (patents, technology, accounting, legal expertise etc). A coherent industrial strategy would focus on developing more digital and STEM skills, as these are the key to success today, and would lead to better outcomes for businesses and higher rewards for employees.

We get a yearly profit share where I work so I'm no stranger to that and it is a welcome boost but I work for a decent place with a big unionised workforce which does help balance out the power. 

Post edited at 06:25
Report
BnB 06:20 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> The one off IMF loan was not needed as Healy later pointed out and the troubles in the 70s were down to a not so small matter called the 1973 oil crisis that affected the entire world economy. Why do right wingers always lie about Labour and the economy when Labour give a little power to the workers over the employers. 

> At the moment millions of un-unionised workers can't build a future because they are in throw away work which is down to Tory policies. Now unions have no power other than in a couple of strategic places which resulted in people getting £apittance an hour before Labour introduced the minimum wage. 

Your point about the oil crisis is a good one. And it just so happens that the Great Financial Crisis  occurred recently and every developed nation on earth is still feeling the effects. Brexit is one of these and the rise of populism another. Look at France, where, despite 5 years of anti-austerity, the economy and job insecurity is bad enough that the whole nation is going on strike today after rioting much of this year. Social Democratic poster child Germany is in recession. Japan’s economy is stagnant. I’m there now and there are homeless on the streets. Maybe it isn’t just evil Tories deliberately making life hard and instead some wider economic forces at work?

Post edited at 06:21
Report
jimtitt 07:28 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Germany hasn't had a Social Democratic government for 15 years and judging by their current popularity probably never will in the future. They are also not in recession.

Report
summo 07:56 Fri
In reply to jimtitt:

> They are also not in recession.

They dodged it by 0.1%! 

Probably a convenient rounding error to avoid destroying market confidence. 

Post edited at 07:56
Report
BnB 07:58 Fri
In reply to jimtitt:

Sorry I should have said that German manufacturing is in recession. As for social democracy, thanks for the correction and you are right to draw the distinction between CDU and SPD, but I would argue that from where the UK stands, Germany looks a lot like one!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-pmi/german-manufacturing-stuck-in-recession-factory-job-losses-accelerate-pmi-idUSKBN1XE0TB

Report
summo 08:06 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

You keep citing the nordics just because of their tax rate, but ignore all their other internal policies which don't resemble anything of uk Labour's. Sweden's left or socialist party, whose policies are closest to Corbyn's Labour polled under 6% in the last election. There are more centrist parties who take the lions share. There is no demand to head back to the more socialist days of the early 80s or 70s.  

Businesses haven't fled sweden because corporation tax isn't much higher than the UK or central European neighbours. Before olof palme was shot he was suggesting policies that Corbyn would love. It's was also in this high tax era that Ikea and others fled and hq'd themselves elsewhere or structured themselves in a more tax beneficial manner. The same will happen in the UK if corporation tax rockets. 

Globally margins are right, recession is near, Corbyns ideas won't aid business, they have to decide where they their best chance of survival is and greatest chance of having some return on their investment. 

Report
BnB 08:21 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> You raised a very valid point that I was unaware of concerning business and capital tax increases in the British Labour Party manifesto which would conflict with the figure I keep banging on about. Can you show me where you get this from and I can then calculate and adjust my figures? I'm not saying for one minute that I don't trust you BTW but without numbers I can't do the sums. 

I suggest you don't take my word for it. Go to the HMRC website and make your calculations. Or go on a comparison site like this one

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/capital-gains-tax

and you'll see that UK levels of CGT are towards the top end of the range compared to similar nations, and snapping at the heels of our Scandinavian friends. Factor in Labour's proposals and you'll see they increase to world-beating levels!

Corbyn's "we're just asking the better off to accept a tiny increase of 5%" turns into a walloping great increase of 250% on non-property gains, and 500% for business owners! Is he being honest with the electorate?

Report
BnB 08:32 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> No can you show me? And if the problem of mega corporations not paying tax has been addressed then can you show me how and why do you disagree with JC doing just that? 

I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with the presentation. The Tory government hasn't been abetting tax avoidance, as Corbyn claims. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-digital-services-tax/introduction-of-the-new-digital-services-tax

This is an international problem that every government across the world is wrestling with as traditional borders are rendered ineffective by a whole new economic paradigm of virtual commerce.

Report
jimtitt 09:27 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Considering Germanies dependence on exports I'd say they are doing fairly well at the moment though, even though the automotive sector is problematic the actual unemployment figures are still dropping (and coping with the odd million refugees).

The CDU/CSU seem to have found the middle ground, the good tax income allowing them to move into SPD/Green territory without upsetting business too much. And Germans can remember the last bout of austerity and Thatcherism, that came under the last SPD government.

Report
neilh 09:34 Fri
In reply to BnB:

I agree the Tories have not been encouraging avioidance. Far from it.

In the EU there was a couple of months ago a proposal for more transparency on corporation tax. The UK is a supporter of transparency in this area

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/28/12-eu-states-reject-move-to-expose-companies-tax-avoidance

It was voted down by other countries.

Despite what people think the Tories are keen on this issue. It was Geoge Osborne who became reaaly interested in the subject when he was Chancellor as he was reportedly shocked about the scale of avoidance .

Its a complex issue requiring international cooperation. Even in the USA it varies from State to State ( Delaware etc).

Too easy to come up with soundbites on what is a complex issue.

Report
John2 09:43 Fri
In reply to jimtitt:

https://www.ft.com/content/a1a14220-1801-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385

German industry hit by biggest downturn since 2009.

Report
Bob Kemp 09:53 Fri
In reply to BnB:

> I don't know any business owners who would agree with you. A Corbyn majority instantly places a significant extra tax burden on every business in the UK.

But a Corbyn majority isn't the most likely outcome, which is why business as a whole is not running scared in quite the way we might expect. 

Report
BnB 10:06 Fri
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> But a Corbyn majority isn't the most likely outcome, which is why business as a whole is not running scared in quite the way we might expect. 

The subject of this thread is the delivery of the Labour manifesto. That is the baseline of my comments.

Report
BnB 10:06 Fri
In reply to John2:

> German industry hit by biggest downturn since 2009.

Beat me to it

Report
neilh 10:39 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Too early too jump to conclusions. My business followed what goes on in Germany and there is a pick up in activity. So just not sure if it is a blip or a recession. 

We will have to wait a few more months. 

Report
John2 10:42 Fri
In reply to neilh:

It's not technically a recession yet, but a 5.3% decline in industrial output in the year to October is significant.

Report
neilh 11:02 Fri
In reply to John2:

 Or is it an adjustment back to an average from a peak.

Report
BnB 12:25 Fri
In reply to neilh:

>  Or is it an adjustment back to an average from a peak.

No, it’s a significant decline in the manufacturing sector driven by emissions regulations and a drop in Chinese demand, some of it cyclical, some Trump trade war-driven. 

Report
John2 12:26 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Plus the gradual switch to battery powered cars.

Report
BnB 13:10 Fri
In reply to John2:

> Plus the gradual switch to battery powered cars.

Not so gradual in terms of expenditures, only in revenues!

Report
neilh 13:22 Fri
In reply to BnB:

It’s all relative. 5% overall is not bad. 

Granted in automotive it’s dropped off a cliff.

as I see it they were struggling to keep pace with demand anyway as there is a shortage of skills. So it gives breathing space. 

Report
neilh 14:07 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Just to add some perspective from my side. I source electromechanical clutches from Germany. They were running at 16 weeks lead time when they should be under 6 weeks. Could not get the skills to keep pace with demand. 

This is not untypical. What had happened now is that their normal lead times have been restored.

I also had a German machine builder competitor they were running at 9 months , now back down to 14 weeks which is their norm. 

A different perspective.

Report
Pefa 14:17 Fri
In reply to summo:

> You keep citing the nordics just because of their tax rate, but ignore all their other internal policies which don't resemble anything of uk Labour's. Sweden's left or socialist party, whose policies are closest to Corbyn's Labour polled under 6% in the last election. There are more centrist parties who take the lions share. There is no demand to head back to the more socialist days of the early 80s or 70s.  

We both know that is untrue as the Labour Party are the equivalent of the SAP social Democrats in Sweden and not the left or socialist party who are communist, why do you continue with this obfuscation? There was a Swedish professor just a couple of years ago who came over here and was astounded by the nonsense published in the British gutter press about Corbyn being a communist when as he put it he would be seen as just another run of the mill social democrat in any Scandinavian country. 

> Businesses haven't fled sweden because corporation tax isn't much higher than the UK or central European neighbours. Before olof palme was shot he was suggesting policies that Corbyn would love. It's was also in this high tax era that Ikea and others fled and hq'd themselves elsewhere or structured themselves in a more tax beneficial manner. The same will happen in the UK if corporation tax rockets. 

But the Labour Party manifesto only wants to raise our current low rate on corporate profits back to where it was in 2010 so how is that rocketing? 

> Globally margins are right, recession is near, Corbyns ideas won't aid business, they have to decide where they their best chance of survival is and greatest chance of having some return on their investment. 

Yet-

We have had ten years of near zero productivity growth. Corporate investment has stagnated. Average earnings are still lower than in 2008. public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse. We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis. 

Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment, which can in turn leverage private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand. Such investment needs to be directed into the large-scale and rapid decarbonisation of energy, transport, housing, industry and farming; the support of innovation- and export- oriented businesses; and public services. It is clear that this will require an active and green industrial strategy, aimed at improving productivity and spreading investment across the country. Experience elsewhere (not least in Germany) suggests a National Investment Bank would greatly help. With long-term real interest rates now negative, it makes basic economic sense for the government to borrow for this, spreading the cost over the generations who will benefit from the assets. As the IMF has acknowledged, when interest payments are low and investment raises economic growth, public debt is sustainable. 

At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages and productivity. A higher minimum wage can help do this, alongside tighter regulation of the worst practices in the gig economy. Bringing workers onto company boards and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help. The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies. 

163 leading economists.

So not weakening the economy at all but strengthening it. 

Post edited at 14:37
Report
Pefa 14:20 Fri
In reply to BnB:

> and you'll see that UK levels of CGT are towards the top end of the range compared to similar nations, and snapping at the heels of our Scandinavian friends. Factor in Labour's proposals and you'll see they increase to world-beating levels!

> Corbyn's "we're just asking the better off to accept a tiny increase of 5%" turns into a walloping great increase of 250% on non-property gains, and 500% for business owners! Is he being honest with the electorate?

How does it become those numbers? 

Report
Pefa 14:29 Fri
In reply to BnB:

> I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with the presentation. The Tory government hasn't been abetting tax avoidance, as Corbyn claims. See

> This is an international problem that every government across the world is wrestling with as traditional borders are rendered ineffective by a whole new economic paradigm of virtual commerce.

Yes it is international but under the Tories - 

The UK  is by far the world’s biggest enabler of corporate tax dodging, helping funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from state coffers, according to an international investigation.

Of the top 10 countries allowing multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profits, four are British overseas territories.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html

an index published today by the Tax Justice Network found that the UK has “single-handedly” done the most to break down the global corporate tax system which loses an estimated $500bn (£395bn) to avoidance.

So yes you are correct it is an international problem but one the UK Tories help create and maintain. 

This is what the Labour Party will change, money that should be going back into our society for us not the few. 

Post edited at 14:34
Report
summo 14:37 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> We both know that is untrue as the Labour Party are the equivalent of the SAP social Democrats in Sweden and not the left or socialist party who are communist, why do you continue with this obfuscation?

It's great that you are so up to speed on the manifestos of parties in a country you have no connection to. I can assure you social democrats are nearer the centre than Corbyn, McDonnell, McCluskey. 

> There was a Swedish professor just a couple of years ago who came over here and was astounded by the nonsense

A couple of years ago... how long has Corbyn been leader and published his manifesto? Can you link the article?

> But the Labour Party manifesto only wants to raise our current low rate on corporate profits back to where it was in 2010 so how is that rocketing? 

From 18 to 26%... bearing in mind sweden is at 22% that's 4% over the high tax nordics. 

> We have had ten years of near zero productivity growth. Corporate investment has stagnated. Average earnings are still lower than in 2008. public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse.

After a debt driven recession and we are currently facing another. The UK still has an annual deficit too. Much of the West is stuffed, it's borrowed too much, can't grow it's way out if It, can't  afford better services. 

> We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis. 

Has no relevance. Wait until it's  a choice between inefficient humans and machines, you see Labour back manual workers every time, protecting old industry, never moving forward. 

> Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment

I'd agree, all earners need to learn to live with less if they want to fund better state services. 

> At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages 

Higher wages, higher taxes..  what do you think will happen to uk industry? 

> A higher minimum wage can help do this,

Who pays for It?

> Bringing workers onto company boards

Experts in ?

> and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help.

Which countries?

> The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies. 

Good idea, they'll probably move to sweden which has lots already, especially as it's a very mobile industry and tax would be 4% lower here. Many already offices in both like amd. 

Post edited at 14:42
Report
neilh 15:13 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

And yet as per my previous post the Uk has been pushing for greater transparency, but this has been rejected by other countries. 

So your viewpoint does not stack up. 

Post edited at 15:14
Report
Beanmanclimb 15:19 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

JCFPM

Report
John2 15:21 Fri
In reply to neilh:

That's a rather different issue. There has been a skills shortage in the small engineering sector in Germany for some time now. https://www.ft.com/content/fd1078c8-03c7-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1

Report
Pefa 15:57 Fri
In reply to Beanmanclimb:

> JCFPM

❤️

Report
jimtitt 16:58 Fri
In reply to neilh:

> It’s all relative. 5% overall is not bad. 

> Granted in automotive it’s dropped off a cliff.

> as I see it they were struggling to keep pace with demand anyway as there is a shortage of skills. So it gives breathing space. 


Naturally engineering isn´t the German economy as a whole anyway which is why we haven´t gone into recession, other industries are still groaning under the strain particularly construction and consumer confidence is high as well, where I live you don´t phone a heating engineer or a builder, you make an appointment for your children to do it!

The car industry is having fun for sure, the odd trade war and Brexit has made some problems but on the other hand they are using the change to alternative energy as a reason to have a bit of a clean out and the unions are effectively powerless, BMW, Audi and Mercedes all announced their cost savings plans AND their investment plans for the future (my local BMW factory is just getting €400m to change over to electric vehicle production and that is only a drop in the ocean), they all have a proven track record of profitability that they can finance and justify huge investment, unlike say Tesla (who are also building their European plant in Germany). The supply industry are in the most turmoil, companies like Shaeffler and Continental are having to change rapidly from i.c. engine parts but they are the headliners, somebody IS still going to be building petrol and diesel engines in the foreseable future for either heavy plant/trucks or areas where electric cars are a non-starter. The upside is companie like TRW who I drive past who are building a new works beside the old one, they make airbags and the trigger systems and are expanding due to the need for immobilising systems for battery packs. Same for Osram (the struggling lighting manufacturer) who are fighting off  a German owned Austrian company who want their sensor division.

In Bavaria we´re a bit isolated from the turmoils of say Thyssen Krupp so it´s really hard to see any downturn in industry or the economy, full employment (and four times as many vacancies as umemployed), waiting lists well into 2020 for almost any engineering work. Changes to the immigration rules to let more non-EU skilled workers in as we are losing best part of 2% of GNP because of skills shortages don´t make it look like there´s a fundamental problem and luckily industry is allowed the flexibility to react which under socialism would be questionable.

Report
neilh 17:13 Fri
In reply to jimtitt:

A more realistic assessment. 

Report
Pefa 17:14 Fri
In reply to summo:

> It's great that you are so up to speed on the manifestos of parties in a country you have no connection to. I can assure you social democrats are nearer the centre than Corbyn, McDonnell, McCluskey. 

Now you tell me that I have no connection to Sweden?My 4 trips last year alone to Sweden through work on a prototype engineering product must have been in my imagination I take it. The SAP have always been the sister to the British Labour Party even during the much more socialist policies of Labour in the 40s etc. 

> A couple of years ago... how long has Corbyn been leader and published his manifesto? Can you link the article?

This years LP manifesto is as radical as the last a few years ago, not much difference in that respect. I will search later for the article about the Scandi professor. 

> From 18 to 26%... bearing in mind sweden is at 22% that's 4% over the high tax nordics. 

Our corporation tax was 26% just a few years ago and did that tank the economy? The corporate tax rate in Germany is 30%,in France its 31%,Australia and Japan its 30% and 25% in Holland, so what is the big scaremongering about? 

>>  We have had ten years of near zero productivity growth. Corporate investment has stagnated. Average earnings are still lower than in 2008. public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse.

> After a debt driven recession and we are currently facing another. The UK still has an annual deficit too. Much of the West is stuffed, it's borrowed too much, can't grow it's way out if It, can't  afford better services. 

Yet under the Tories the richest 1,000 British families have doubled their wealth since the collapse of capitalism in 2008 by a whopping 112% and you say nothing. And 14 million Brits live in poverty and you say nothing. With historically low interest rates there has never been a better time to borrow which will stimulate the economy and help people which is the point these economists are making. 

> Has no relevance. Wait until it's  a choice between inefficient humans and machines, you see Labour back manual workers every time, protecting old industry, never moving forward. 

Is the Labour Party manifesto pledge of a massive green revolution protecting old industry or new? Tell me. And is this not the most urgent in fact critical matter in this election along with the disaster of leaving the EU? 

> Higher wages, higher taxes..  what do you think will happen to uk industry? 

What a lousy ten quid an hour? That's basic to eek out an existence in the UK and as I pointed out the high earner tax is lower than that in successful Scandinavian countries. 

> Good idea, they'll probably move to sweden which has lots already, especially as it's a very mobile industry and tax would be 4% lower here. Many already offices in both like amd. 

Yet their high earner tax would be much greater than 4% so not such a good move. 

Post edited at 17:41
Report
neilh 17:16 Fri
In reply to John2:

The company I am talking about has 4000 employees on one site in Germany. Hardly small. 

Report
summo 17:51 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> Yet their high earner tax would be much greater than 4% so not such a good move. 

Doubt that's a concern when given your knowledge of sweden you'd know that outside the big 3 cities you can buy a 3 of 4 detached house for £100-150k, often less. Paying more tax here, would still enable a higher standard of living. 

Report
BnB 23:55 Fri
In reply to Pefa:

> How does it become those numbers? 

Here are some examples, somewhat crudely expressed but the gist is there.

For investors, CGT on non-property assets goes from 20% to 50%, that's a 2.5x increase, hardly "just 5%". CGT is 0% in Germany, NL and others.

At the lower end of the scale, taxation for the self-employed goes from 26.5% (19% CT + 7.5% Dividend tax) to 46% (26% CT + 20% Dividend Tax). Before anyone points out these are crudely calculated (there is some offset between the two taxes in both cases), I acknowledge that, but this is an attempt to make a simple explanation of a complex subject.

These are your relatively low paid workers who Labour should be supporting. More to the point, they are a big part of the economy. It would be impossible to make good those extra taxes no matter what illusory boost Labour claims it will provide to the economy. Those higher taxes have a real cost in terms of cashflows to small businesses, and that affects jobs.

Your lack of awareness of the numbers is undermining your argument and revealing of Labour's obfuscation over the true cost of their fiscal plans.

Report
In reply to BnB:

You're totally focused on only one side of the equation here.

Labour are investing £650bn into the British economy with procurement rules designed to favour British SME's rather than huge multinational corporates. That's an average of £114,000 distributed across Britain's 5.7m businesses.

So Britain's business owners are being asked to pay some extra tax but in return they are getting a massive injection of spending into their businesses.

Labour will give our economy the boost it needs and make us all more prosperous.

Report
summo 11:02 Sat
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Labour are investing £650bn into the British economy with procurement rules designed to favour British SME's rather than huge multinational corporates. 

I presume that means they are pro hard Brexit as it sounds likely to breach eu regulations?

> Labour will give our economy the boost it needs and make us all more prosperous.

It's true all you have to do is spend spend spend... looking at Greece, worked a treat there. 

Report
timjones 13:06 Sat
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> You're totally focused on only one side of the equation here.

> Labour are investing £650bn into the British economy with procurement rules designed to favour British SME's rather than huge multinational corporates. That's an average of £114,000 distributed across Britain's 5.7m businesses.

> So Britain's business owners are being asked to pay some extra tax but in return they are getting a massive injection of spending into their businesses.

> Labour will give our economy the boost it needs and make us all more prosperous.

So we're going to spend our own money in our own market whilst enforcing rules that will very likely restrict our ability to sell in other markets?

From a business perspective that doesn't sound like a recipe for growth.

Report
neilh 13:10 Sat
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Does not stack up.only some businesses benefit from trading with the public sector. It’s irrelevant if you for example sell B2B or B2C. 

Most will say “ so what” it’s not relevant to my market.

Post edited at 13:12
Report
BnB 13:20 Sat
In reply to neilh:

> Does not stack up.only some businesses benefit from trading with the public sector. It’s irrelevant if you for example sell B2B or B2C. 

> Most will say “ so what” it’s not relevant to my market.


Sounds to me like an economy in which good businesses like yours, which do not need help because they have strong products in growing markets, end up providing life support in the form of large tax payments that are directed towards weak businesses that rely on government largesse for their existence, thus compromising your and the UK’s competitiveness and reducing productivity.

Report
neilh 16:09 Sat
In reply to BnB:

I am sure you hear of horror stories of small firms bidding for public sector work. Ranging from diversity statements, trade union representation and poor rates of return being imposed on contracts. 

Have a friend who runs a care business where one local authority in which he operates  imposes a return of 3% . Needless to say he does not bid.

There are probably  simple procurement guidelines which could be adopted to open up more public procurement to small businesses there is no real need for this type of  largesse .

Report

In reply to:

Some of the replies above just go to show that you don't need any knowledge of macroeconomics to run a successful business.

https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

Yes, an economy grows mostly by trade occurring within its own borders. Even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.

It doesn't matter if your business trades directly with the public sector. An injection of £650bn will create a boom that will necessarily spread throughout the whole economy.

Report
summo 19:23 Sat
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

That would also depend where that £650bn came from in the first place? Is that tax from the same businesses who you claim will benefit? 

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.