Loading Notifications...

160 economists say vote Labour

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Pefa 29 Nov 2019
49
 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.

21
 neilh 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

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

16
 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.

9
 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
13
 ClimberEd 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

hahahahah.

Bless. 

You believe them

38
 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.

18
 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. 

9
In reply to neilh:

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

Or told him to sell gold. 

6
In reply to Pefa:

Former employees of the Venezuelan president? 

11
 DerwentDiluted 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

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

 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? 

13
 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
9
 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.

3
 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... 

2
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. 

5
 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. 

5
 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. 

1
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). 

4
 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.

3
 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. 

5
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.

1
 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?

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.  

2
 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. 

6
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. 

2
 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
3
 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
13
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. 

4
 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. 

10
 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. 

4
 Pefa 29 Nov 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Show me where I do that. 

Or are just engaging in some yourself? 

6
 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.”

1
 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?

2
 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.

2
 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? 

1
 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.

2
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...

2
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

1
 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. 

2
 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?

1
In reply to neilh:

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

 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. 

5
 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. 

 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. 

4
 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
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
12
 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

 john arran 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

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

5
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. 

11
In reply to PaulScramble:

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

2
 Oceanrower 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

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

Partaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!

1
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Mac fae Stirling:

Yeah, for real, seriously.

11
In reply to PaulScramble:

> Yeah, for real, seriously.

In which case I think you can be safely dismissed.

1
 DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Yep. Very childish. 

1
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.

 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!

8
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. 

 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.

2
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
5
In reply to BnB:

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

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
 JefB 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

7
 Lord_ash2000 30 Nov 2019
In reply to JefB:

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. 

1
 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. 

5
 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. 

3
 Oceanrower 01 Dec 2019
In reply to Pefa:

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

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.

2
 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
2
 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.

 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...

1
 neilh 03 Dec 2019
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. 

 RomTheBear 03 Dec 2019
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
 johang 03 Dec 2019
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.

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. 

 Pefa 03 Dec 2019
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 ? 

5
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. 

1
 Pefa 03 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

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

4
 NorthernGrit 03 Dec 2019
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.

2
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
1
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
1
 HansStuttgart 03 Dec 2019
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.

1
In reply to HansStuttgart:

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

 Lord_ash2000 03 Dec 2019
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. 

1
 Pefa 03 Dec 2019
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
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.

2
 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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? 

 neilh 04 Dec 2019
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.

2
 neilh 04 Dec 2019
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??

1
 Lord_ash2000 04 Dec 2019
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.

3
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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.

3
 neilh 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
 Bob Kemp 04 Dec 2019
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

1
 mullermn 04 Dec 2019
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.

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.

2
 neilh 04 Dec 2019
In reply to mullermn:

All depend on your business   

1
 neilh 04 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

All depends on your business.

1
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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.

2
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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?

 Bob Kemp 04 Dec 2019
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. 

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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? 

6
 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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. 

3
 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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. 

1
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

2
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
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. 

2
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. 

1
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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. 

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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
 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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? 

1
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
In reply to seankenny:

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

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

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
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. 

1
 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

No not you, BnB. And grow up. 

Post edited at 18:53
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

So the tax foundation is wrong but you are right?

Sorry but why would I believe that? 

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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?

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

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

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019

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
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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. 

1
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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? 

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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?

 Pefa 04 Dec 2019
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
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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
 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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”

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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.

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Okay, so why does government employ these specialists then? 

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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?

 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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?

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 RomTheBear 04 Dec 2019
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.

 johang 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
 seankenny 04 Dec 2019
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? 

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. 

1
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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.

2
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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. 

2
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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 

2
 BnB 04 Dec 2019
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.

1
 Pefa 05 Dec 2019
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
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. 

1
 BnB 05 Dec 2019
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

1
 jimtitt 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
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/

2
 BnB 05 Dec 2019
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
1
 neilh 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
 RomTheBear 05 Dec 2019
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
1
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.

1
 neilh 05 Dec 2019
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 ??????

1
 mullermn 05 Dec 2019
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. 

1
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. 

1
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
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.

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?

1
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. 

1
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? 

1
 neilh 05 Dec 2019
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
1
 RomTheBear 05 Dec 2019
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.

2
 Beanmanclimb 05 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

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

4
 Bob Kemp 05 Dec 2019
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
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. 

3
 neilh 05 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

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

 RomTheBear 05 Dec 2019
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
 Eric9Points 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
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
2
 neilh 05 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

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

1
 Pefa 05 Dec 2019
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. 

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. 

1
 Pefa 05 Dec 2019
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
 johang 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
 johang 05 Dec 2019
In reply to neilh:

"full" employment

 seankenny 05 Dec 2019
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...

In reply to johang:

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

But you said Swedish krona which is free floating.

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
 RomTheBear 05 Dec 2019
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
Deadeye 05 Dec 2019
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.

4
 Beanmanclimb 05 Dec 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

who would you suggest voting for then...

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.

4
Deadeye 05 Dec 2019
In reply to Beanmanclimb:

> who would you suggest voting for then...


As I said

"I'm utterly despairing of how to vote"

 BnB 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
 Pefa 05 Dec 2019
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. 

 BnB 05 Dec 2019
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.

1
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. 

1
 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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
2
 RomTheBear 06 Dec 2019
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.

 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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
 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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
 jimtitt 06 Dec 2019
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.

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
1
 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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

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. 

1
 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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?

1
 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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.

1
 jimtitt 06 Dec 2019
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.

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
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.

1
 John2 06 Dec 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

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

German industry hit by biggest downturn since 2009.

 Bob Kemp 06 Dec 2019
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. 

 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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.

 BnB 06 Dec 2019
In reply to John2:

> German industry hit by biggest downturn since 2009.

Beat me to it

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
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. 

 John2 06 Dec 2019
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.

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
In reply to John2:

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

 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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. 

 John2 06 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

Plus the gradual switch to battery powered cars.

 BnB 06 Dec 2019
In reply to John2:

> Plus the gradual switch to battery powered cars.

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

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
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. 

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
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.

 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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
 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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? 

 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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
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
2
 neilh 06 Dec 2019
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
1
 Beanmanclimb 06 Dec 2019
In reply to Pefa:

JCFPM

 John2 06 Dec 2019
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

 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
In reply to Beanmanclimb:

> JCFPM

❤️

 jimtitt 06 Dec 2019
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.

 neilh 06 Dec 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

A more realistic assessment. 

 Pefa 06 Dec 2019
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
 neilh 06 Dec 2019
In reply to John2:

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

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. 

 BnB 06 Dec 2019
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.

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.

3
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. 

2
 timjones 07 Dec 2019
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.

2
 neilh 07 Dec 2019
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
1
 BnB 07 Dec 2019
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.

1
 neilh 07 Dec 2019
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 .

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.

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? 

1
 neilh 08 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

You said in one of your earlier posts Labour is planning to spend £650bn by altering procurement rules. Can you expand on what that actually means?

I am assuming that means we will have left the EU as large contracts are subject to EU procurement rules anyway. 

 Dr.S at work 08 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Ah, pile the jam high you mean?

In reply to neilh:

I think here you've identified a benefit of leaving the EU, the Build it in Britain strategy would be more effective outside the EU than within it. That's not to say it won't be extremely effective within the EU, I'm sure there is some flexibility within the EU's rules that the Conservatives probably haven't bothered about with their laissez faire style of economic policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/corbyn-build-it-in-britain-public-contracts-manufacturing

For instance, when services are procured from the private sector, full tax compliance will be one of the factors that contracts are awarded by.

 BnB 08 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> 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.

The National Institute for economic and social research, which has the most comprehensive forecasting model of all economic bodies outside government, today published studies that show that neither Labour’s nor the Tories’ spending plans are likely to have a significant impact on the economy.

The reason? There is very little slack in the economy for it to grow intrinsically. Or, to put it another way, the economy is doing very well and any improvement will come from extraneous factors, eg global trade, not local stimulus.

Post edited at 23:21
In reply to summo:

> 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? 

No the spend comes from any reserves, borrowing from investors (putting saved money to work in the economy), or even just instructing the BoE to print the money. As the economy grows the spend comes back to the government through tax and the investors are paid their return.

 RomTheBear 09 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

> The National Institute for economic and social research, which has the most comprehensive forecasting model of all economic bodies outside government, today published studies that show that neither Labour’s nor the Tories’ spending plans are likely to have a significant impact on the economy.

That I believe.

> The reason? There is very little slack in the economy for it to grow intrinsically. Or, to put it another way, the economy is doing very well

My impression “on the ground” from the past 3 years of the UK economy is that everybody is working flat out but going absolutely nowhere.

There is a big productivity problem and a big skills problem. And I don’t think it can be fixed with more spending.

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> No the spend comes from any reserves,

There is an annual deficit.

> borrowing from investors (putting saved money to work in the economy),

Private investment  ? ;)

> or even just instructing the BoE to print the money.

Not working elsewhere, the minute they stop qe in Europe it drifts back into recession. 

> As the economy grows the spend comes back to the government through tax and the investors are paid their return.

As easy as that, which is why all other  countries which have borrowed now have zero debt? 

Post edited at 05:45
 BnB 09 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There is a big productivity problem and a big skills problem. And I don’t think it can be fixed with more spending.

If you look at productivity across sectors, there are some striking differences. As measured by revenue per employee, the technology sector is a clear standout with a steep and steady, rising curve, while another pillar of the economy, financial services, shows declining productivity that is prompting significant employment cuts.

Or to put it another way, the only department in most banks that is still busily hiring is IT. The clear message is that the UK ought to have been investing in more STEM-based education at a young age. Arguably the solution is less one of spend than of focus and there have been a number of initiatives launched towards this end.

 RomTheBear 09 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

> If you look at productivity across sectors, there are some striking differences. As measured by revenue per employee, the technology sector is a clear standout with a steep and steady, rising curve, while another pillar of the economy, financial services, shows declining productivity that is prompting significant employment cuts.

> Or to put it another way, the only department in most banks that is still busily hiring is IT.

I’d agree, but the problem is your bank IT department has nobody decent to hire.

> The clear message is that the UK ought to have been investing in more STEM-based education at a young age. Arguably the solution is less one of spend than of focus and there have been a number of initiatives launched towards this end

I frankly doubt that education in STEM is going to fix it. In my view it’s a broader problem with the UK education system which focuses too much on acquired knowledge and passing tests than actually “learning to learn”.

Good for looking good on international rankings, not that great to make adaptable brains.

 Dr.S at work 09 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Interesting observation - Which education system do you think does this well?

 RomTheBear 09 Dec 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Interesting observation - Which education system do you think does this well?

In my experience, the Eastern European ones.

In reply to BnB:

> The National Institute for economic and social research, which has the most comprehensive forecasting model of all economic bodies outside government, today published studies that show that neither Labour’s nor the Tories’ spending plans are likely to have a significant impact on the economy.

> The reason? There is very little slack in the economy for it to grow intrinsically. Or, to put it another way, the economy is doing very well and any improvement will come from extraneous factors, eg global trade, not local stimulus.

Well I don't know what data they are looking at to say all is well? We just avoided recession by the skin of our teeth last month.

This paints a different story and interestingly the reccomendations read like the Labour manifesto.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

 BnB 09 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

No one is disputing the benefits of "upskilling" and the current government's proven efforts to engage more school leavers in STEM subjects are as worthy of note as Labour's intentions in the same regard. But nowhere does the pwc report advocate an avalanche of spending promises funded from imaginary sources like "reserves" let alone an orgy of borrowing and punitive taxation.

On a wider note, this strikes me as more a question of the composition of the UK economy than a failure of government. Nationalisation won't make workers more productive, technology will. How will your unions embrace the automation that is driving productivity gains in our competitor economies?

 BnB 09 Dec 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In my experience, the Eastern European ones.

Yep. Bulgaria is the new Silicon Valley when it come to tech innovation. 

In reply to summo:

Yes, private investment. 

This investment isnt QE which was either a massive policy failure or a deliberate transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich depending on your outlook. 

QE didn't stimulate the productive economy, instead it propped up the failed banking system allowing it to carry on with its unproductive casino capitalism without any increase in lending to productive businesses.

40% of the benefit of QE went to the richest 5% of households who take their winnings out of the economy. This investment will be via new regional development banks and targeted at productive businesses.

 BnB 09 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> QE didn't stimulate the productive economy, instead it propped up the failed banking system allowing it to carry on with its unproductive casino capitalism without any increase in lending to productive businesses.

We should have let all the banks fail, destroy everyone's savings and leave every business in the land without a means to collect debts, or pay staff and suppliers? How would that have gone?

> 40% of the benefit of QE went to the richest 5% of households who take their winnings out of the economy.

Is that the same 5% that today pay 50.1% of all the tax (up from 39% at the turn of the century? Sounds like a good deal even before we discount your deceitful claim that the 5% do nothing for the economy when they are the employers and the senior workers (to be clear I'm not accusing the 95% of not striving themselves).

Post edited at 08:55
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

>  This investment will be via new regional development banks and targeted at productive businesses.

Sounds great in theory, who will put their money in, what's the leverage ratio, what return will investors get, who decides what a productive business is? The Labour party or the same type of bankers that are currently employed elsewhere? You've just reinvented the wheel. 

Post edited at 09:02
 neilh 09 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

You have not really answered my question though.

You said in one of your earlier posts Labour is planning to spend £650bn by altering procurement rules. Can you expand on what that actually means?

 neilh 09 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

100% spot on. You only have to look at unemployment stats to see the economy needs nudges not a wholesale restart.

In reply to BnB:

That the top few % pay most of the tax means that they have hoarded most of the income for themselves and is a symptom of our broken economy.

The top 5% have had a massive handout of free money and now resent the policies that can lift the rest up a bit. They seem to be willing to turn a blind eye to the misery and hardship going on around them. There's no punitive taxes, just the taxes it takes to rebuild a fair society. Why do you resent this,you'll still be the top 5% and it will actually boost your business.

Post edited at 09:00
5
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> The top 5% have had a massive handout of free money and now resent the policies that can lift the rest up a bit. 

I'm in, or close to, the top 5%. 

What is this massive handout I've had?  I seem to have missed something.

Also, which policies do I resent?  You seem to know me very well.

In reply to MG:

Just replying to recent posts which are of an all is well nature and blind to the suffering all around them.

QE is the free money that has landed in the pockets of the wealthy.

5
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> That the top few % pay most of the tax means that they have hoarded most of the income for themselves and is a symptom of our broken economy.

Most people earning £50-150k haven't hoarded a penny. They studied, worked, often still studied at the same time, done ridiculous 70-80hr weeks on a 40hr salary to progress. Those self employed will have taken the leap and committed to being responsible for their own employment and salary, many will have risked every asset they own. Then when they become an employer they assumed responsibility for the employment and prosperity of others, ever had anyone's job and salary directly dependant on you? I suspect not, otherwise you'd have more respective for those who have jumped from under the protective umbrella of employee status. 

For every Lord who inherited their asset wealth there are probably a 100 every day people who have grafted for it and spend everyday focusing on keeping their business afloat. 

2
In reply to summo:

You make it out like unemployment and low pay are lifestyle choices but many on low pay have also studied, worked, often still studied at the same time, done ridiculous 70-80hr weeks just trying to keep their heads above water.

Work should provide a decent life for all and Labour's plans will increase prosperity for everybody.

6
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> You make it out like unemployment and low pay are lifestyle choices

No. That's not what I said is it. So don't play the child and misquote me. I said many who are moderately wealth or comfortable have worked exceedingly hard, taken personal risks and are keeping others in employment. 

>  Labour's plans will increase prosperity for everybody.

Will? There is no evidence, just ideological views.

 neilh 11 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Out of interest,studied what subjects..?

In reply to summo:

> No. That's not what I said is it. So don't play the child and misquote me. I said many who are moderately wealth or comfortable have worked exceedingly hard, taken personal risks and are keeping others in employment. 

Ok, what was your point then if not to contrast the worthy rich with the feckless poor? Many who are not reaping the rewards of society have also worked exceedingly hard, taken personal risks, and some also keep others in employment. The employers will benefit mostly with an average of £114k into their business.

Labour have a fully costed plan to make the benefits of society work for all.

> Will? There is no evidence, just ideological views.

This thread started with evidence more credible than mine but I have been saying why I believe in Labour's plan and nobody has disputed the economics. Its just been wealthy people turning a blind eye to people's misery and saying there is no need for change.

Labour will launch the largest-scale 
investment programme in modern 
times to fund the jobs and industries of the future, so that no one is held back.

2
 Pefa 11 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

> Will? There is no evidence, just ideological views.

The Labour Party have form for increasing workers pay. 

Was it the Tories who gave us a minimum wage? No it was the party created by British workers for British workers. 

 BnB 11 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Ok, what was your point then if not to contrast the worthy rich with the feckless poor?

This is a mendacious distortion of Summo’s argument. He made an impassioned and well received rebuttal of your exaggeration that the 5% had been gifted their wealth by QE. You’ve turned this to class war, straight out of the Momentum playbook.

> Labour have a fully costed plan to make the benefits of society work for all.

> This thread started with evidence more credible than mine but I have been saying why I believe in Labour's plan and nobody has disputed the economics. Its just been wealthy people turning a blind eye to people's misery and saying there is no need for change.

> Labour will launch the largest-scale investment programme in modern times to fund the jobs and industries of the future, so that no one is held back.

Another distortion and more class war. We’ve been arguing that Labour’s spending plans are all very well but

a) the tax burden will extend well beyond the “few” about which Labour is disingenuous in the extreme

b) we already have the businesses of the future here in the UK. And they are thriving on the back of technological invention. Labour’s plans are for state intervention which doesn’t make the UK more competitive even if they are redistributive. You haven’t anywhere made a case otherwise.

2
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Ok, what was your point then if not to contrast the worthy rich with the feckless poor?

That most people earning £50-150 haven't inherited a penny, they aren't the rich elite etc read the post again. 

> Many who are not reaping the rewards of society have also worked exceedingly hard,

But that's not a reason to punish the successful, the goal should be to lift others up, but drag everyone down. 

> The employers will benefit mostly with an average of £114k into their business.

How? On average or absolute best case?

> Labour have a fully costed plan to make the benefits of society work for all.

Fully costed? Imaginary growth and non specific borrowing. 

In reply to Pefa:

> The Labour Party have form for increasing workers pay. 

Who pays for the increase? It doesn't just appear magically, the money comes from somewhere?

> Was it the Tories who gave us a minimum wage? No it was the party created by British workers for British workers. 

Who increased it..  or who started student uni fees.. no party is perfect. 

In reply to BnB:

> This is a mendacious distortion of Summo’s argument. He made an impassioned and well received rebuttal of your exaggeration that the 5% had been gifted their wealth by QE. You’ve turned this to class war, straight out of the Momentum playbook.

> Another distortion and more class war. We’ve been arguing that Labour’s spending plans are all very well but

> a) the tax burden will extend well beyond the “few” about which Labour is disingenuous in the extreme

> b) we already have the businesses of the future here in the UK. And they are thriving on the back of technological invention. Labour’s plans are for state intervention which doesn’t make the UK more competitive even if they are redistributive. You haven’t anywhere made a case otherwise.

It's not a class war, everyone will be better off from Labour's economic plan.

QE though is not the same as the banking bailout. It has been done a couple of times since the crisis and has inflated the price of assets which has disproportionately benefited the top 5% (whether they agree with the policy or not). Assets don't benefit the productive economy which the rest of us rely on and giving money to already wealthy people doesn't benefit the productive economy so much either because of the Marginal Propensity to Consume.

Sorry, you're right I hadn't made those points. I'd spent ages typing them out then lost it resulting in a much more hurried post the other morning.

I'm glad you agree that Labour's plans are worthwhile. Your a) is incorrect, Labour have costed them and the tax burden only needs to affect 5%. Your b) is akin to saying nothing needs to change which I don't think many agree with you about when they look around and see the suffering in broken Britain.

Labour's spending will boost the economy and I'd argue that we will be more competitive internationaly but, even if not, an economy grows mostly through internal trade so there will be a boost and we will all be more prosperous under Labour.

 BnB 11 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> It's not a class war, everyone will be better off from Labour's economic plan.

Then why did you deliberately misconstrue Summo's response?

> QE though is not the same as the banking bailout. It has been done a couple of times since the crisis and has inflated the price of assets which has disproportionately benefited the top 5% (whether they agree with the policy or not). Assets don't benefit the productive economy which the rest of us rely on and giving money to already wealthy people doesn't benefit the productive economy so much either because of the Marginal Propensity to Consume.

Everyone saving towards a pension has benefited in the same way.

> Your a) is incorrect, Labour have costed them and the tax burden only needs to affect 5%.

Given your leader was forced to admit in a deeply embarrassing TV interview that the taxes would affect those outside the 5% I don't think you're going to convince anyone on here. I've even described upthread how many self-employed workers well outside the 5% will see their tax bill almost double. Of course what do I know about tax after only 25 years in business? Remind me, what are your qualifications?

> Your b) is akin to saying nothing needs to change which I don't think many agree with you about when they look around and see the suffering in broken Britain.

No. I'm in favour of ending austerity. But then so is Johnson, apparently. What I'm saying is that good businesses don't need the help you're offering. They do and will thrive in all conditions. It's weak businesses who are more likely to benefit from your policies and that is a form of redistribution that makes the UK less competitive overall.

Post edited at 17:23
1
 wercat 11 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

If voting labour gives any chance of preventing this forseen but much lied about consequence by giving us a choice

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50719616

then I can vote Labour tomorrow even if my heart is not in it.

Just to top the excellent economic figures for the UK yesterday

Post edited at 17:35
 NathanP 11 Dec 2019
In reply to Pefa:

IIRC the minimum wage was introduced in 1998 by that vile Tory-lite traitorous Blair government. Thank heavens True Labour have purged themselves of those evil people and the running-dog voters (like me) who supported them.

1
 Philb1950 11 Dec 2019
In reply to NathanP:

And never been in power since. ‘Running dog voters.’ What are you on? At the last election there were a million more Tory running dogs than ultra left dogma supporters.

And Momentum not evil ? You only have to see what they’ve ,ve done to Labour to understand what they would do to the country.

Still it will all come out tomorrow one way or another.

By the way I,m only repeating your use of words, as my language is not normally so provocative 

1
 NathanP 11 Dec 2019
In reply to Philb1950:

Perhaps I should have used more winking smileys. 

1
 Pefa 11 Dec 2019
In reply to NathanP:

> IIRC the minimum wage was introduced in 1998 by that vile Tory-lite traitorous Blair government. Thank heavens True Labour have purged themselves of those evil people and the running-dog voters (like me) who supported them.

There were still a huge amount of old Labour types in the party then. So what is it about JC that you don't like compared to Blair? 

 Pefa 11 Dec 2019
In reply to BnB:

What interview? 

In reply to Pefa:

Yes, what interview? 

There are no tax rises for 95% of people and most households will be thousands of pounds better off through policies like increased minimum wage, lower energy, utility, and broadband bills, and increased access to free child care.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-1.pdf

Labour are also the party of the self-employed offering income protection insurance schemes, better access to mortgages and pension schemes, tackling late payments, and ending bogus self-employment so that employers can not evade workers’ rights.

The 5% pay a bit more tax but they benefit from investment into their businesses and from trading and living in a more prosperous society.

Everyone is better off under Labour.

6
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

I fail to see how if Labour are pro the self employed and business why are they about to hammer them with taxes? 

Plus if every household is thousands better off, the self employed are richer and businesses.   Where exactly is the money coming from, everyone can't gain at the same time?

Post edited at 10:41
2
In reply to summo:

Nobody is going to be hammered with taxes. It's 5% more for the 5%. A doctor on £95k will pay £750 a year more under Labour. Business taxes may rise by a larger percentage compared to today's historic low rates but in return they will benefit from large scale investment.

Everyone can benefit at the same time. The economy is not a zero sum game.

Post edited at 10:52
1
 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

You clearly do not understand self employed trades people - electricians , painters, carpenters , plumbers and so on- take their income as dividend income. 

Their tax will increase because of the changes to dividend tax proposed by Labour. 

2
In reply to neilh:

> You clearly do not understand self employed trades people - electricians , painters, carpenters , plumbers and so on- take their income as dividend income. 

> Their tax will increase because of the changes to dividend tax proposed by Labour. 

Some do. It’s avoidance. 

2
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Business taxes may rise by a larger percentage compared to today's historic low rates but in return they will benefit from large scale investment.

> Everyone can benefit at the same time. The economy is not a zero sum game.

But neither can you give a business more than you take from it, unless you are taxing others more heavily or borrowing. 

Don't say growth..  look at global growth right now. It's below inflation and interest rates everywhere. 

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Anyway what's done is done and we'll see what the damage will be in the morning. There isn't likely a good outcome no matter what, just severity of badness. 

 Pefa 12 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

> But neither can you give a business more than you take from it, unless you are taxing others more heavily or borrowing. 

Yes taxing the top 5% of earners less than the Scandinavians are doing but more than the Tories are. 

2
 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

How is it avoidance?they are not employees. 

1
In reply to Pefa:

> Yes taxing the top 5% of earners less than the Scandinavians are doing but more than the Tories are. 

But for perspective a person earning just £12k/yr would be paying £3264 in tax too. Both would still need to pay for a doctors visit, or pay £2k to get fibre installed in a rural area  etc..

This is the bit that's missing from all of Labour massive spending plans, the reality of just how much they'll cost everyone rich or poor. 

1
In reply to neilh:

> How is it avoidance?they are not employees. 

Are we talking sole traders, limited companies of limited partnerships?

In reply to summo:

> But neither can you give a business more than you take from it, unless you are taxing others more heavily or borrowing. 

> Don't say growth..  look at global growth right now. It's below inflation and interest rates everywhere. 

The money is available, it's likey to be mostly borrowing (from private investors - this does not mean we are in debt to another country, it's more like we have borrowed from ourselves in the future) or printing the money on the same sort of scale that was conjoured up to bail out the banks in 2008 and for QE since then. This is a better investment that upgrades our economy for the future and it will stimulate growth.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Self employed covers all of those.

you do understand how painters , plumbers etc earn a living ?

In reply to neilh:

> Self employed covers all of those.

> you do understand how painters , plumbers etc earn a living ?

Yes. The distinction matters.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

So you will understand that say a self employed tradesmen who takes their income as dividend income will face a tax increase?

In reply to neilh:

A sole trader should be paying tax and national insurance. With a limited company, you are an employee of the limited company, even if you own it. In tax terms, you are not self employed.

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> The money is available, it's likey to be mostly borrowing (from private investors - this does not mean we are in debt to another country, it's more like we have borrowed from ourselves 

Borrowing from ourselves..  ? Quality. 

> or printing the money on the same sort of scale that was conjoured up to bail out the banks in 2008 

Bailing out a bank when they were just days from turning off cash machines is considered justified by even the most incompetent of economists. Borrowing to fund largely ideological dreams isn't. 

> This is a better investment that upgrades our economy for the future

Great buzzwords, but proves nothing.

> and it will stimulate growth.

Debt driven growth..  which largely caused the problems 10+ years ago and if you look elsewhere isn't generally working, it's buying time, but isn't fixing anything. 

1
 wercat 12 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

I've certainly never been worse off and had fewer prospects than in the time since the Cons took over from the previous government. 

things haven't improved at all under them - I've simply had to give up worrying about personal circumstances to survive mentally

Post edited at 12:42
 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

What they do is pay themselves a salary of £8.5 k or thereabouts a year so they pay the min  NI to gain the benefits. After that they take any other incomes as dividend income. There are variances on this.

How they set it up is upto them.

So with the proposed new taxes on dividend they will face an increase.These are not people in the top 5%.

The Cons got caught out on this a couple of years ago and had to back track.

In reply to neilh:

> What they do is pay themselves a salary of £8.5 k or thereabouts a year so they pay the min  NI to gain the benefits. After that they take any other incomes as dividend income. There are variances on this.

> How they set it up is upto them.

That is why I mentioned avoidance.

> So with the proposed new taxes on dividend they will face an increase.These are not people in the top 5%.

> The Cons got caught out on this a couple of years ago and had to back track.

What the Cons did, hit them much harder. We are still talking about a rate that is well below combined Tax and NI, even at basic rate.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

You must have some friends who fall in this category, go and talk to them and how they feel about it.

There are an estimated 5 million single person businesses in the UK.

The Cons backtracked so it did not hit them.

In reply to The New NickB:

> That is why I mentioned avoidance.

That's very loaded.  It's no more avoidance than ISAs and pensions are avoidance.

1
In reply to summo:

You chopped off the end of my sentence which provided the explanation!

That's what borrowing is for a soverign government in control of its own currency. The borrowing is from its future self.

The problem 10 years ago was private debt inflating the price of assets causing a bubble which popped when the real productive economy couldn't keep up. This would be the opposite, government debt invested in growing the real productive economy.

The bankers bailout was justified, QE was a failure, borrowing to invest when rates are low in order to stimulate a recovery in the economy is considered economic common sense.

Post edited at 13:44
In reply to neilh:

> You must have some friends who fall in this category, go and talk to them and how they feel about it.

> There are an estimated 5 million single person businesses in the UK.

I have and I do.

In reply to wercat:

> I've certainly never been worse off and had fewer prospects than in the time since the Cons took over from the previous government. 

> things haven't improved at all under them - I've simply had to give up worrying about personal circumstances to survive mentally

Well, we've got some hope of a better future today.

Vote Labour.

In reply to MG:

> That's very loaded.  It's no more avoidance than ISAs and pensions are avoidance.

Not really. Pensions are probably more relevant than ISAs in this case and yes they will reduce the tax liability, or rather defer it. The practice of paying yourself half the minimum wage and then collecting dividends of several multiples of that in order to pay a lower rate of tax is another level of avoidance.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

So you understand that they will face a tax increase.In effect small shop owners, tradesmen, single owner van drivers etc will be hit.

It is not as portrayed the "top 5 %".

It is a significant tax increase for them.

The avoidance issue ( which is legal anyway) is irrelevant in this context. Those people will take a hit contrary to politicans claims.

Post edited at 13:59
1
In reply to neilh:

> So you understand that they will face a tax increase and they are not the top 5%.

I understand that those that will face a tax increase are unfairly avoiding tax. A minority of them will be in the top 5%, roofer around the corner from me has just swapped Continental GT for a Rolls Royce.

Post edited at 14:04
In reply to neilh:

I've used the term avoidance, because in most cases it probably is. The example you give feels like evasion to me. They are misrepresenting. Avoidance is clearly very relevant. Labour have made a play of clamping down on avoidance.

Post edited at 14:07
In reply to The New NickB:

For me avoidance suggests game playing with the rules.  As long as people are following the rules as intended by parliament, which small business owners doing this clearly are, it's just tax.  Contrast with say complex offshore scheme which may be entirely legal but are clearly using the law to pay less tax in ways unintended by the law.

In reply to MG:

They are playing with the rules, these people are not really paying themselves £8.5k (to use Neil's example) to work full time.

In reply to The New NickB:

Correct - the rest comes from dividends, which are deliberately taxed lower in acknowledgement of the risks associated with owning a business.  It's what government intends. You might think the rules are wrong but there are being followed as intended.

In reply to MG:

> Correct - the rest comes from dividends, which are deliberately taxed lower in acknowledgement of the risks associated with owning a business.  It's what government intends. You might think the rules are wrong but there are being followed as intended.

Except in Neil's example they clearly are not. It's also worth adding that the proposed Labour is also significantly lower than paying basic rate tax and national insurance.

 mullermn 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Corporation tax is paid on profits before dividends can be issued. Have you taken that in to account?

In reply to mullermn:

> Corporation tax is paid on profits before dividends can be issued. Have you taken that in to account?

Yes, that is what the whole discussion is about. Basic rate tax + NI is 32% + employer NI, corporation tax is 19%. It's a big tax saving, Labour's plan will half that saving. I think distorting wages to reduce the amount liable at 32% or higher and transfer that in to dividends on which Corporation tax is paid at 19% is unfair avoidance.

It will probably mean that it is less attractive for people to form Limited Companies and more people will remain sole traders and pay tax and NI at those rates, accepting that sole traders have a slightly higher allowance than ordinary PAYE employees.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Good on him/her.Good that a " roofer" aspires to do well. Clearly does a good job.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

So in other words Labours plans are for a tax increase which will hit people outside the top 5%.

1
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> borrowing to invest when rates are low in order to stimulate a recovery in the economy is considered economic common sense.

Yes. But not borrowing to fund political ideologies, or projects created just to buy votes. Name another country in the world that has borrowed to fund free broadband for example? 

1
In reply to neilh:

> So in other words Labours plans are for a tax increase which will hit people outside the top 5%.

Tax avoiders, yes.

In reply to The New NickB:

> Except in Neil's example they clearly are not.

No what?  If Labour wants to tax people more, I could support that.  However, pretending it's only  the top 5%, or that people running their own businesses in entirely normal, expected ways are somehow "avoiding" tax and therefore bad are both dishonest claims.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Avoidance is perfectly legal and the tax system uses avoidance to encourage people in a whole range of areas like research and development, pushing money into pensions, savings, encouraging people to invest in business, charitable donations ( waiving VAT), allowing people to reclaim work expenses and so on.

It is hardly rocket science.

In reply to MG:

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my claim. It is a distortion of true taxable income for the sole purpose of reducing tax liability, tax avoidance. The Labour policy around corporation tax reduces some, not all, of the benefit of that tax avoidance. 

In reply to neilh:

Quit the patronising bollocks. This is not the same as pensions, R&D, other business expenses. It's a mechanism for an individual to pay considerably less personal tax than an employee. It is nothing more than that. I know it's legal, it's not going to be stopped, it's just not going to be quite so generous.

In reply to The New NickB:

Not yours, Labour's.  I just think you are wrong to label people using the tax system as it is intended as "avoiders", with the implications that has.

In reply to The New NickB:

> Quit the patronising bollocks. This is not the same as pensions, R&D, 

How is it different (in principle, not the situation, obviously).  If I put money in a pension, I pay less tax as the governemt wants me to do to save for retirement.  If I pay myself dividends rather than a salary, I pay less tax, as the goverment wants me to do to encourage entrepreneurship

 BnB 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Yes, that is what the whole discussion is about. Basic rate tax + NI is 32% + employer NI, corporation tax is 19%. It's a big tax saving, Labour's plan will half that saving. I think distorting wages to reduce the amount liable at 32% or higher and transfer that in to dividends on which Corporation tax is paid at 19% is unfair avoidance.

> It will probably mean that it is less attractive for people to form Limited Companies and more people will remain sole traders and pay tax and NI at those rates, accepting that sole traders have a slightly higher allowance than ordinary PAYE employees.

Breaking news. Left winger spectacularly underestimates tax paid by business.

CT is paid on profits first at 19%. Then dividends (the post-tax profits) are taxed to income at the dividend rate. You’ve completely ignored or are unaware of this.

Labour’s proposed changes are two big extra rises on top, as Neil and I have pointed out several times on this thread already. The changes don't halve the difference. They put the tax into the stratosphere.

Post edited at 15:50
1
In reply to The New NickB:

> A sole trader should be paying tax and national insurance. With a limited company, you are an employee of the limited company, even if you own it. In tax terms, you are not self employed.

This is just plain weird. How can neilh make such a fundamental mistake?

Further point: I believe the vast majority of 'electricians , painters, carpenters , plumbers' that he mentions to support his view are freelance and do NOT own limited companies. 

In reply to BnB:

I didn’t realise the allowances had reduced so much. What you are saying in reality is that those using this method of reducing their personal tax burden are not going to get hit very hard.

Post edited at 15:58
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Further point: I believe the vast majority of 'electricians , painters, carpenters , plumbers' that he mentions to support his view are freelance and do NOT own limited companies. 

Think you might be surprised. Quite a few also put their partner down as a director too. 

In reply to summo:

I'd be surprised if they didn't form companies.  Partly for tax reasons but also so business and personal assets are separated legally.

 BnB 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I didn’t realise the allowances had reduced so much. What you are saying in reality is that those using this method of reducing there personal tax burden are not going to get hit very hard.

Quite the opposite, the limited company rates go from 

19% CT + 7.5% Dividend Income Tax (DIT)

to 

26% CT + 20% DIT

Does that look like a small difference to you?

Post edited at 15:58
2
In reply to BnB:

Incentivises paying themselves properly.

2
 BnB 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Incentivises paying themselves properly.

You mean bearing all the risks of being an employer without any of the incentives. I wonder how that will turn out.

In reply to BnB:

> You mean bearing all the risks of being an employer without any of the incentives. I wonder how that will turn out.

Neil was talking about the self employed.

In reply to summo:

> Yes. But not borrowing to fund political ideologies, or projects created just to buy votes. Name another country in the world that has borrowed to fund free broadband for example? 

I don't think this is ideological. Connecting everybody to broadband will boost the economy so they've costed what it will take to address market failure. When the public picks up the tab that the private sector won't touch it would then be ideological to hand it over for private profit rather than give it to the public as Labour will do.

 David Riley 12 Dec 2019
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

How can free broadband boost the economy, when virtually everyone that wants to use it is connected already ?

In reply to David Riley:

As someone who has been using dodgy broadband all day, I’d say fast broadband can massively increase productivity. I’m in a major metropolitan area as well.

 BnB 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Neil was talking about the self employed.

The owners of independent shops or decorating businesses or online traders are all self-employed in the broadly accepted sense. But they are all running companies.

1
 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

So the proposal hits people like painters , electricians etc?Hardly your top 5 %. 

Its laughable. 

Why not just  be honest about it and say yes.

2
In reply to neilh:

Change the record. They can pay tax at the same rate as the rest of us. 

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It’s mixed , some do and some do not . 

A couple of years ago the Cons attempted to redress the balance by increasing NI contributions for self employed. It backfired spectacularly.

I think you might  be surprised by how many established single tradespeople use Ltd company status.

It’s been a long-standing issue about parity on tax.

Not easy to change as it affects a lot of people. 

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

That’s fine , but then Labours proposal is being dishonest  to those people. Do you not get that ?

its saying it’s only the top 5%. When in reality it’s not.Far from it .

In reply to The New NickB:

 "Tax Small Businesses Owners More" isn't the message Labour have been sending, is it?

In reply to neilh:

That isn’t the message though. They have been pretty clear that it’s raised income tax on £80k+ earners and raised corporation tax to OECD averages.

3
In reply to MG:

If they were hiding the Corporation Tax rise, they were doing it very badly.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

 Yes agreed.And the message is just plain wrong .

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I don't think this is ideological. Connecting everybody to broadband will boost the economy 

No it won't. It will just enable the UK to keep pace with the rest of the world as they connect. It won't generate anything extra just change the way things work. Besides the uk has some catching up to do, so it's not really even keeping pace, it's playing catch up. So don't expect some miraculous leap in GDP just because mrs miggins in the back of beyond can now stream her favourite antiques programme. It might save carbon and travel time, but is broadband not for free, so I doubt there will be financial savings overall. 

2
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

To extend the above. We live in the sticks and previously enjoyed 4g running at between 20 and 50. 

We paid the equiv. of £2k to have fibre. It's a one shot chance where the rest was paid by the government. So now we have fibre that ends in the upstairs hall where the router sits, with whatever speed we want and unlimited data. 

It still costs the same per month that 4g did, it hasn't changed how we work and there is no financial saving at present to ever recoup the £2k.

Explain where I've gone wrong and should now be boosting the economy and saving money? 

 David Riley 12 Dec 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

"Connecting everybody to broadband will boost the economy"

> As someone who has been using dodgy broadband all day, I’d say fast broadband can massively increase productivity. I’m in a major metropolitan area as well.

What's that got to do with it ?

In reply to neilh:

Well, I've had absolutely loads (15+) of exceptionally good skilled freelance carpenters, electricians, plasterers and decorators, etc, working on my little terraced house in Derbyshire over the last year and absolutely none of them are companies.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Pay them cash?

Post edited at 18:32
 NathanP 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> There were still a huge amount of old Labour types in the party then. So what is it about JC that you don't like compared to Blair? 

I've absolutely no dislike of Corbyn on a personal level but in terms of policies and views, some (by no means all) of my top reasons are:

As we've discussed previously, I think the far-left view of, for example, Corbyn, you and the far-left student politicians I knew in the 80s that all the ills of the world come from the USA, UK and Israel is wrong - though for sure all three have plenty of faults. Further, I think this leads to them making the classic mistake of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' so refusing to criticise and standing alongside some really nasty regimes that completely disregard human rights and/or are a far greater threat to international peace than the evil West. It is also the root of the anti-semitism controversies that have damaged Labour so much. 

Corbyn and (now) Labour seem to be turning to the class war policies of the far left in the 1980s - eg. demonising higher earners (even salaried ones with straightforward tax arrangements and no attempts at avoidance let alone evasion), recent resolutions at conference on private schools. I have to confess a personal interest there - by a quirk of school catchments, we couldn't get my daughter into our first, second or third choice secondary school, with her friends from Primary; the one offered didn't look at all a good option so we've paid for her to go to a good local private school. Obviously I can afford that but it isn't without sacrifice in not doing other things. Most of the other families there are in a similar position whilst others are there thanks to generous free places or subsidies to children from financially poorer backgrounds. Labour's view seems to be that people like us are now enemies of the people, buying advantage for our undeserving offspring. VAT on the fees adds another £3k and for some that will be unaffordable, their children's education will be disrupted and, instead of paying £15k into a local business, they will absorb the £7.5k that the UK spends per head on secondary education, not that the places exist for these extra students. On the plus side, they'll have £15k to spend on foreign holidays and gadgets. I don't see that as being better for the UK as a whole.

My final and biggest problem with Corbyn and the direction Labour has taken is that is has made them nationally unelectable. I want to see a left of centre government tackling the social injustices in the UK and investing more in state education and the NHS. By tomorrow Labour will have lost four general elections in a row, giving us 14 years of increasingly right wing Conservative governments, Brexit and a good chance of breaking up the UK. 

In reply to neilh:

> Pay them cash?

Sadly, some of them, yes. At least half have been only too happy to be paid directly online into their bank. I've always been very unhappy about paying people cash because I think it's immoral, but then, I don't want to be a moralist, and typically do so without comment. The last to do so, who re-did my gutters, was a very chatty south african Brexiter, who gave me a huge amount of lip about me being a Remainer, then wanted to be paid in cash.... I'm afraid I just paid up with a grin (because he was the kind of guy you didn't want to get into a fight with.) But the self-satisfied, right-wing grandeur of a lot of these tax-dodgers I do find rather nauseating. 

 colinakmc 12 Dec 2019
In reply to NathanP:

You seem to be saying, no point in increasing working class disposable income cos they’ll spend it. Economies work much better when money circulates - more economic activity (small trade), more wages, more tax being paid as a result. Much better that way than big tax giveaways to people who will then sit & count it. It also means les people in secondary poverty.

and while I empathise with your schooling dilemma, the big takeaway from that is that we’re not spending enough on making our state schools excellent at the same time as we provide big tax giveaways in charitable status for fee paying schools.

If you take a proper look at the Corbyn programme, it’s a left of centre realignment. The country has plummeted so far right that we have trouble seeing that - and the oligarch press exploit that to the hilt.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

For all you know they were subsequently putting it through their ltd company books............as I said earlier there are +-for each. 

There is no right solution. 

In reply to neilh:

Why no ordinary invoice and receipt then, with their company letterhead? Why no mention of their company on the internet?

Etc.

 NathanP 12 Dec 2019
In reply to colinakmc:

I must have worded things very badly if you think I don't see a benefit in increasing "working class" incomes - I certainly do. I'm assuming by working class, you just mean lower income groups rather than it only counts if it is a traditionally working class job. 

I'm also against big tax give aways. We need to increase government spending, especially on health and education and I'd like to put some more into housing and defence. At the same time I'm against excessive borrowing to leave the bill to our children or excessively increasing the money supply, fuelling inflation so there has to be some increase in tax. I'm happy to pay my share of that.

Perhaps it is naive but I'm a believer in redistributive taxation on the basis of 'from each according to their means to each according to their needs' but the two main UK parties seem to believe in 'from each according to their political expendability to each according to how easily their votes can be bought by our policies'.

 neilh 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I have learnt that people when running their own businesses do different things and we as individuals do always not go poking around looking for things like that. One guy I knew just took £8k a year and shovelled the rest into pension contributions. Very tax efficient. There again he was single...    

 colinakmc 12 Dec 2019
In reply to NathanP:

>the two main UK parties seem to believe in 'from each according to their political expendability to each according to how easily their votes can be bought by our policies'.

Not sure that I agree re labour proposals although I admit I haven’t looked minutely at the detail. Any progressive taxation structure is going to have trigger points which create political friction but it’s ineluctable that folk on over 80k can afford another few pence in the pound, by normal standards that’s a huge amount of money. I think the reactionary press have approached the labour proposals on a “let’s see what we can over dramatise out of this”. It’s hardly demonising to have an additional tax band which is still broadly in line with what happens in mainland Europe. 

 NathanP 12 Dec 2019
In reply to colinakmc:

> >the two main UK parties seem to believe in 'from each according to their political expendability to each according to how easily their votes can be bought by our policies'.

> Not sure that I agree re labour proposals although I admit I haven’t looked minutely at the detail. Any progressive taxation structure is going to have trigger points which create political friction but it’s ineluctable that folk on over 80k can afford another few pence in the pound, by normal standards that’s a huge amount of money. I think the reactionary press have approached the labour proposals on a “let’s see what we can over dramatise out of this”. It’s hardly demonising to have an additional tax band which is still broadly in line with what happens in mainland Europe. 

The problem with progressive taxation as applied in the UK is there is no adjustment for household circumstance. An individual on £80k would be very comfortable. If you look at a household though - say the classic 2 adults and 2 children with £80k household income, there is a massive difference in net income after tax and NI between two £40k incomes v one £80k income and one adult doing, say voluntary work or caring for a family member. The family with a single £80k earner would be paying £25k in tax and NI - £6.5k more than the family with £80k spread between two fairly equal earners. They would also lose out on child benefit so be £8.3k worse off after tax and benefits on exactly the same household gross income. 

There are a lot of step changes at low and medium income levels where the marginal tax rate goes way above 50 or 60%, then drops back down. If it was up to me, I'd look at ways to smooth that out and make it a genuinely progressive tax scheme with some allowance for family circumstance. 

The demonising isn't the tax rate as such, it is rhetoric about the evils of these fat cats not paying their share when actually UK higher earners already pay a far higher proportion of total income tax (and NI) than in most other European countries.

 colinakmc 12 Dec 2019
In reply to NathanP:

Germany: 9000 euro tax free allowance. 42 % tax rate for over 50000-something euros. 46% for over 260000.

Nope, not very different at all.

 NathanP 12 Dec 2019
In reply to colinakmc:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48988052

"Compared with European countries, the UK stands out most in its relatively light taxation of middle earners' incomes. Rates for high earners are closer to those seen elsewhere." 

Labour policy seems to be to increase that anomaly whilst claiming that the higher earners are shirking their fair share of the income tax burden compared to other comparable countries.

In reply to colinakmc:

> Germany: 9000 euro tax free allowance. 42 % tax rate for over 50000-something euros. 46% for over 260000.

> Nope, not very different at all.

The key factor that isn't considered when looking at Europe is UK take home pay and housing costs. Which in many parts of the UK are way more than anywhere else in Europe. So it's hard to directly compare purely tax rates. Folk keeping point at the nordics but ignore the zero rate allowance for example in sweden is only £1800, after which it's 32%. The rich might pay more tax but so do the less well off, it's proportionate. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.