I remember saying, prior to the EU referendum, that it was profoundly depressing that you could read more coherent political arguments on both sides of the debate on this forum than in much of the normal news outlets - it is both a sad indictment of the "leading" politicians and the media and gratifying that CL does not disappoint a year later*.
*Not all of us, all the time, but, in my view, we're bucking the trend.
Whatever about the wider country, I suspect many on here will not get the elected representatives that they deserve.
We've had one of Theresa May's lapdogs, lost to Corbyn in 2015, parachuted into Brentwood as it is considered a "safe" seat. He was on BBC Essex on Tuesday to discuss the issue with travellers in the area and why people should vote for him. He had 30 seconds.
Playing Tory bingo I got:
Strong and stable Coalition of chaos Labour can't do the maths Taking our country back in time Only Theresa can get a deal from Europe.
All in 30 seconds.
The highlight, though, was the point where he went off script with a few seconds to go and started confusing spending cuts with increases in spending. Unfortunately the Tories could put a turd up for MP here and it would still be voted in ahead of a viable candidate.
We've had one of Theresa May's lapdogs, lost to Corbyn in 2015, parachuted into Brentwood as it is considered a "safe" seat. He was on BBC Essex on Tuesday to discuss the issue with travellers in the area and why people should vote for him. He had 30 seconds.
Playing Tory bingo I got:
Strong and stable Coalition of chaos Labour can't do the maths Taking our country back in time Only Theresa can get a deal from Europe.
All in 30 seconds.
The highlight, though, was the point where he went off script with a few seconds to go and started confusing spending cuts with increases in spending. Unfortunately the Tories could put a turd up for MP here and it would still be voted in ahead of a viable candidate.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
We've had one of Theresa May's lapdogs, lost to Corbyn in 2015, parachuted into Brentwood as it is considered a "safe" seat. He was on BBC Essex on Tuesday to discuss the issue with travellers in the area and why people should vote for him. He had 30 seconds.
Playing Tory bingo I got:
Strong and stable Coalition of chaos Labour can't do the maths Taking our country back in time Only Theresa can get a deal from Europe.
All in 30 seconds.
The highlight, though, was the point where he went off script with a few seconds to go and started confusing spending cuts with increases in spending. Unfortunately the Tories could put a turd up for MP here and it would still be voted in ahead of a viable candidate.
There won't be many people on all sides of the political fence that wouldn't want more money spent on the NHS
The reason I haven't and probably never will vote labour is that they always try to turn it into some form of class war.
Admittedly I am in the 5% that they seem to hate and want to tax the hell out of but really, if you are on £80k a year with a housewife, 2/3 kids, mortgage, and live in the South East are you really 'rich'? I know I'm not.
I'm all for paying my way and every penny I earn is taxed as it should be but I can honestly see Labour taxing 50-60% of my salary if they get in and admittedly that may be a selfish view but I work hard to look after my family first and the rest of the country second.
If only we could decide where our taxes go because mine would go on NHS, education, defence rather than trade unions and worrying about bedroom tax
They've stated in the past that they would have increased income tax during the start of the recession but not know. Their aim is to get large corporations to pay their fare share, whether or not that's possible or benefits the economy is up for debate, personally I'm for that rather than going strong on the poor and weak and austerity. Perhaps if loop holes on the rich were closed we could afford to reduce the higher 50% rate on over £100k earners?
There isn't a 50% rate and not at £100k.
Earnings between £100k and £123k are taxed at 62% (inc 2% NI) earnings 123k - 150k back at 42%, over £150k 47%.
I'd love to know where these loop holes are. 99% of people employed above £80k are on PAYE.
They are in real danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here, adding 20% to school fees will see a large number of people going back to state schools, I know 3 people who would have to do just that and that's before they earn even less due to higher taxation on their salaries.
You also have the migration effect, many jobs/industries don't have to be here. Where I work our 3 most senior Underwriters would go to Bermuda so say goodbye to probably £500,000-£1m in income tax revenue.
It's very much be careful what you wish for.
There was a 50% rate seems the Tories reduced it to 45% and raised the threshold to £150k.
99% of employed £80k+ earners may be on PAYE but way less than 99% of earners on salaries that high are directly employed. The majority of the construction industry is self employed with them paying 20% tax and claiming back VAT on "business expenses" Although my post was regarding corporation tax.
I couldn't care less about kids having to go back into state school. After their public school they have to deal with peasants/rif raf or whatever they call most people anyway and with the extra money we can build more class rooms, and pay teachers a proper salary.
There's always talk of people leaving if taxes go up but do they leave because of taxation or is it just a threat? I expect the largest British migrate population isn't in the middle East or Bermuda where they can pay hardly any tax.
May was asked this evening on LBC would she raise taxes, on each occassion she refused to answer, but said the tory party wer the party of low taxation for working class families...what tosh.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
There won't be many people on all sides of the political fence that wouldn't want more money spent on the NHS
The reason I haven't and probably never will vote labour is that they always try to turn it into some form of class war.
Admittedly I am in the 5% that they seem to hate and want to tax the hell out of but really, if you are on £80k a year with a housewife, 2/3 kids, mortgage, and live in the South East are you really 'rich'? I know I'm not.
I'm all for paying my way and every penny I earn is taxed as it should be but I can honestly see Labour taxing 50-60% of my salary if they get in and admittedly that may be a selfish view but I work hard to look after my family first and the rest of the country second.
If only we could decide where our taxes go because mine would go on NHS, education, defence rather than trade unions and worrying about bedroom tax
They've stated in the past that they would have increased income tax during the start of the recession but not know. Their aim is to get large corporations to pay their fare share, whether or not that's possible or benefits the economy is up for debate, personally I'm for that rather than going strong on the poor and weak and austerity. Perhaps if loop holes on the rich were closed we could afford to reduce the higher 50% rate on over £100k earners?
There isn't a 50% rate and not at £100k.
Earnings between £100k and £123k are taxed at 62% (inc 2% NI) earnings 123k - 150k back at 42%, over £150k 47%.
I'd love to know where these loop holes are. 99% of people employed above £80k are on PAYE.
They are in real danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here, adding 20% to school fees will see a large number of people going back to state schools, I know 3 people who would have to do just that and that's before they earn even less due to higher taxation on their salaries.
You also have the migration effect, many jobs/industries don't have to be here. Where I work our 3 most senior Underwriters would go to Bermuda so say goodbye to probably £500,000-£1m in income tax revenue.
It's very much be careful what you wish for.
There was a 50% rate seems the Tories reduced it to 45% and raised the threshold to £150k.
99% of employed £80k+ earners may be on PAYE but way less than 99% of earners on salaries that high are directly employed. The majority of the construction industry is self employed with them paying 20% tax and claiming back VAT on "business expenses" Although my post was regarding corporation tax.
I couldn't care less about kids having to go back into state school. After their public school they have to deal with peasants/rif raf or whatever they call most people anyway and with the extra money we can build more class rooms, and pay teachers a proper salary.
There's always talk of people leaving if taxes go up but do they leave because of taxation or is it just a threat? I expect the largest British migrate population isn't in the middle East or Bermuda where they can pay hardly any tax.
the 50p band always was at 150k as is the 45p band. Labour brought in the 50p band a few weeks before they lost power, the conservatives reduced it 2 years later. Yet Labour always spouted how disgusting reducing it was when for all but the last couple of weeks of their 13 year reign the highest rate was 40%...... go figure, conservatives for the whole of their 7 years have had a higher rate of income tax than labour did for all bar a few weeks of their 13 years.
My point on children having to leave private school is that will be an additional burden on state schools, both financially and what is already in many areas an over crowded system. No additional income as no fees means no 20% VAT, it wouldn't take all that many in an area to cause a real issue.
I don't think huge numbers would leave, however what we don't know yet and my guess will be we never will is the rate of tax Labour are likely to put in. If it was a few p in the pound probably not, 10p plus may be a different story. My point in that really is it doesn't take all that many high earners to do so to have a pretty serious effect on the financial numbers. Theres no point putting on say a 70% tax on earnings of £2bn if by doing so you end up only taxing £1bn as the money (people) have gone elsewhere.
Lady in the Question Time audience reckons income tax increases should start at £35k- £40k !!! I expect Corbyn to employ her as Chancellor if he gets in........
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
It is a massive if - but if Corbyn can follow this up by convincing people all of this is costed it could get interesting. The Tories are going to say it isn't affordable so Corbyn is going to have to actually say - if you are on X to Y I promise you will not be worse off. If people believe him and he will need to make abig thing of this promise, he could win votes, as long as Y isn't too low a figure. It has been suggested to me that it coud be as high as people earning under £75 to £80k not being worse off. I suspect that won't happen, but there is a feint glimmer of hope for Labour.
Animal rights should be a big deal. I won't apologise for saying it is very important to me.
First I agree with you on animal rights.
Second let's look more closely at this £80k thing. The only helpful figure I could find was that around 1mn people earn over £100k. That's 4% of the working population. (Another stat. suggests that the top 20% of households earn before tax and benefits £83, 800. But I guess that's aggregated family income.)
Anyway let's make some heroic assumptions: people earning this sort of money will vote. And the vast majority of these high earners will be living and working in London and it's burbs.
Now it is not a heroic assumption to say that London is a stronghold of the Labours. But it seems that the Conservatives are targeting 14 seats for potential gains. They'll be going for them all guns blazing.
Let's be honest, we all know that outside the metropolitan areas, the map of England is covered in vast swathes of Tory blue and the Labours have no chance whatsoever in nearly all these places. So, this policy from the Labours seems to me like political harikari. The £80k+earners (or those getting very close to that figure with the promise of an as yet unspecified bonus at year end and those with other benefits in kind) will be out in force to vote Conservative in London as will their non-working or lower-earning partners. Blend in just a soupçon of UKIP defectors, with a spoonful of school fee payers and a pinch of those with private health care and Corbyn & Co are well and truly in a stew.
BTW where did this £80k come from? Is it net or gross of benefits in kind? Was it a figure plucked out of thin air? It doesn't equate to any of the existing tax bands does it? Can it be just a coincidence that it's just a little above the amount that an MP earns I wonder?
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
Isn't it more accurate golfie to say you haven't read the discussion around the leaked manifesto because it might challenge your existing opinions?
Like the one you hold about Labour always overspending and running up debts.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
BTW where did this £80k come from? Is it net or gross of benefits in kind? Was it a figure plucked out of thin air? It doesn't equate to any of the existing tax bands does it? Can it be just a coincidence that it's just a little above the amount that an MP earns I wonder?
Possibly because it's the nearest nice round number to three times the national average salary?
The debate about how much things cost, and how to pay for them conveniently leaves out how much things are needed or necessary. Take defence. The line doesn't go 'it would be nice to have armed forces, but right now we're in deficit', it goes 'we want and need armed forces, so we have to pay for them'. The alternative is to say 'we demand and expect guardian angel ninjas to magically appear for free in our time of need'. The public services, very especially in Health and Education are often expected to work for free, and very often do. But the lawyer class, who ride large in politics, charge £25 to open and read each email. When will we realise that if we need or have something, like street lights, they have to be paid for? Ironically one aspect of that murder in Ringwood recently is that the attackers waited until after 1am, when the street lights were turned off to save money.
As with every election time, I see that the labour supporters are slowly but surely turning this in to a class war.
The amount of posts that contain 'working man', 'ordinary man', 'working class rights' etc etc.
Last time I looked we had a progressive tax system already in place - and far fairer than many other countries in the world. People who earn more DO get taxed a higher percentage than lower earners, so do pay more into issues such as social care, benefits system etc. As it should be.
But its never enough - the answer is always - "the more well off need to pay more and more and more". People never consider that hammering large corporations isnt a simple solution, as those corporations will employ and provide a living to thousands of people.
Things are far from perfect, but once again this is veering into a class war now - rather than taking a balanced look at the issues on the table and how everyone has to play a part (proportionally) to get the country in the best place possible.
The debate about how much things cost, and how to pay for them conveniently leaves out how much things are needed or necessary. Take defence. The line doesn't go 'it would be nice to have armed forces, but right now we're in deficit', it goes 'we want and need armed forces, so we have to pay for them'. The alternative is to say 'we demand and expect guardian angel ninjas to magically appear for free in our time of need'. The public services, very especially in Health and Education are often expected to work for free, and very often do. But the lawyer class, who ride large in politics, charge £25 to open and read each email. When will we realise that if we need or have something, like street lights, they have to be paid for? Ironically one aspect of that murder in Ringwood recently is that the attackers waited until after 1am, when the street lights were turned off to save money.
It took nearly 50 minutes to attend to the victim of that shooting ffs because our ambulance service and hospitals are stretched beyond breaking point. And still people vote for more austerity.
The moral of the story is if you are unfortunate enough to get shot make sure you are unconscious and not breathing.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
Isn't it more accurate golfie to say you haven't read the discussion around the leaked manifesto because it might challenge your existing opinions?
Like the one you hold about Labour always overspending and running up debts.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been truly prudent, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
As with every election time, I see that the labour supporters are slowly but surely turning this in to a class war.
The amount of posts that contain 'working man', 'ordinary man', 'working class rights' etc etc.
Last time I looked we had a progressive tax system already in place - and far fairer than many other countries in the world. People who earn more DO get taxed a higher percentage than lower earners, so do pay more into issues such as social care, benefits system etc. As it should be.
But its never enough - the answer is always - "the more well off need to pay more and more and more". People never consider that hammering large corporations isnt a simple solution, as those corporations will employ and provide a living to thousands of people.
Things are far from perfect, but once again this is veering into a class war now - rather than taking a balanced look at the issues on the table and how everyone has to play a part (proportionally) to get the country in the best place possible.
Hasn't May literally said that they are the party for working parties ?
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Hardly any business will use tax cuts to pay and recruit more staff. The extra money usually goes directly into profits.
It makes no business sense in the majority of cases to just recruit more people. They've generally already got enough to cope with demand, they won't spend more unnecessarily.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Hardly any business will use tax cuts to pay and recruit more staff. The extra money usually goes directly into profits.
It makes no business sense in the majority of cases to just recruit more people. They've generally already got enough to cope with demand, they won't spend more unnecessarily.
Correct, any responsible and well run business will only have the people needed to cope with the amount of work they have. Everything else is just profit.
Have I missed something? When did 'Labours' become a legitimate term to refer the the Labour Party? Just because the Tory Party can be replaced with the plural of Tory does not mean you can replace the Labour Party with the plural of Labour. It is not right and it will never be right. There is a clear grammatical reason why it doesn't work but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
It's a manifesto of investment in "ordinary working people", rather than more failed austerity that only continues to increase national debt while corporation tax continues to be cut under the Tories.
Vote Labour. I'm *hoping* they fulfil all those pledges but as long as they do a decent job of most, it'll be a damn sight better than the bloody difficult woman.
Just seems like a standard classic left wing Labour manifesto to me. Nothing i wouldn't expect so the 'leak' isn't exactly a groundbreaking surprise.
Hammer the top 5pc of earners who already pay very high levels of tax compared to equivalents around Europe, which is expected to fill the hole created by the massive increases in public sector spending.
Don't blame them for it - that's what they are clearly fighting for but seems the classic example of take other people's money till it runs out and then just spend spend spend. They won't get my vote. Will be interesting to see how many votes of the 'ordinary voting man' they do get.
THIS. I've not read the following 3 pages as I expect it will be full of Labour supporters spouting the same old drivel. Part of me hopes that Labour do win & so that the under 30's who have voted for Corbyn & his 1970's dogma will find out what the realities will be. All I've heard from Labour is that they will pay for this, pay for that, spend money here, spend money there & that it will be paid for by taxing companies & the rich. No details of how much the rise in tax will be of course.
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
Isn't it more accurate golfie to say you haven't read the discussion around the leaked manifesto because it might challenge your existing opinions?
Like the one you hold about Labour always overspending and running up debts.
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
The Labours, always, do overspend. It is not a myth. The last lot were lucky enough to have inherited an economy that was entering a very prosperous boom period. If they had been truly prudent, a word famously used by Gordon Brown on many, many occasions, they would have been running very large budget surpluses on account in anticipation of harder times ahead.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
Where does anybody say there is a free lunch? I can't think of any political party that doesn't accept things have to be paid for. The political question is surely what things, for how much, paid for by whom?
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I think we can raise it to 25% without too much risk.
Donald Trump will unveil a proposal for a major corporate tax cut, involving dramatically cutting corporate tax rates to 15% from 39.6% and ending taxation of corporate profits earned overseas.
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I think we can raise it to 25% without too much risk.
Donald Trump will unveil a proposal for a major corporate tax cut, involving dramatically cutting corporate tax rates to 15% from 39.6% and ending taxation of corporate profits earned overseas.
If in doubt do the opposite of what that loon does!
Comments
*Not all of us, all the time, but, in my view, we're bucking the trend.
Whatever about the wider country, I suspect many on here will not get the elected representatives that they deserve.
The Tory party offers strong and stable leadership.
The Labour Party offers a return to the 1970's chaos.
Ummmm, ok.
Playing Tory bingo I got:
Strong and stable
Coalition of chaos
Labour can't do the maths
Taking our country back in time
Only Theresa can get a deal from Europe.
All in 30 seconds.
The highlight, though, was the point where he went off script with a few seconds to go and started confusing spending cuts with increases in spending. Unfortunately the Tories could put a turd up for MP here and it would still be voted in ahead of a viable candidate.
Oh well, one day my vote may count for something.
*taps side of nose*
And who was at the meeting to sign off the manifesto today..........that's right, Len MacLusky, the Unite leader. Best get my flares out again & my old Slade albums as its back to the 70's we go.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/tax/income-tax-how-much-should-you-pay/income-tax-rates/
99% of employed £80k+ earners may be on PAYE but way less than 99% of earners on salaries that high are directly employed. The majority of the construction industry is self employed with them paying 20% tax and claiming back VAT on "business expenses" Although my post was regarding corporation tax.
I couldn't care less about kids having to go back into state school. After their public school they have to deal with peasants/rif raf or whatever they call most people anyway and with the extra money we can build more class rooms, and pay teachers a proper salary.
There's always talk of people leaving if taxes go up but do they leave because of taxation or is it just a threat? I expect the largest British migrate population isn't in the middle East or Bermuda where they can pay hardly any tax.
My point on children having to leave private school is that will be an additional burden on state schools, both financially and what is already in many areas an over crowded system. No additional income as no fees means no 20% VAT, it wouldn't take all that many in an area to cause a real issue.
I don't think huge numbers would leave, however what we don't know yet and my guess will be we never will is the rate of tax Labour are likely to put in. If it was a few p in the pound probably not, 10p plus may be a different story. My point in that really is it doesn't take all that many high earners to do so to have a pretty serious effect on the financial numbers. Theres no point putting on say a 70% tax on earnings of £2bn if by doing so you end up only taxing £1bn as the money (people) have gone elsewhere.
Football supporters' trusts would be offered the chance to purchase shares when clubs change hands and to put two directors on the board.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/labours-manifesto-pledges-football-fans-10401526
Second let's look more closely at this £80k thing. The only helpful figure I could find was that around 1mn people earn over £100k. That's 4% of the working population. (Another stat. suggests that the top 20% of households earn before tax and benefits £83, 800. But I guess that's aggregated family income.)
Anyway let's make some heroic assumptions: people earning this sort of money will vote. And the vast majority of these high earners will be living and working in London and it's burbs.
Now it is not a heroic assumption to say that London is a stronghold of the Labours. But it seems that the Conservatives are targeting 14 seats for potential gains. They'll be going for them all guns blazing.
Let's be honest, we all know that outside the metropolitan areas, the map of England is covered in vast swathes of Tory blue and the Labours have no chance whatsoever in nearly all these places. So, this policy from the Labours seems to me like political harikari. The £80k+earners (or those getting very close to that figure with the promise of an as yet unspecified bonus at year end and those with other benefits in kind) will be out in force to vote Conservative in London as will their non-working or lower-earning partners. Blend in just a soupçon of UKIP defectors, with a spoonful of school fee payers and a pinch of those with private health care and Corbyn & Co are well and truly in a stew.
BTW where did this £80k come from? Is it net or gross of benefits in kind? Was it a figure plucked out of thin air? It doesn't equate to any of the existing tax bands does it? Can it be just a coincidence that it's just a little above the amount that an MP earns I wonder?
Like the one you hold about Labour always overspending and running up debts.
theconversation.com/fact-check-did-labour-overspend-and-leave-a-deficit-that-was-out-of-control-41118
There are numerous, well sourced articles around the subject of Labour's economic record. Whether you're Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Ukip or whatever it's never been easier to compare empirical, economic performance yet this myth promoted by the Tories persists.
Take defence.
The line doesn't go 'it would be nice to have armed forces, but right now we're in deficit', it goes 'we want and need armed forces, so we have to pay for them'.
The alternative is to say 'we demand and expect guardian angel ninjas to magically appear for free in our time of need'.
The public services, very especially in Health and Education are often expected to work for free, and very often do. But the lawyer class, who ride large in politics, charge £25 to open and read each email.
When will we realise that if we need or have something, like street lights, they have to be paid for? Ironically one aspect of that murder in Ringwood recently is that the attackers waited until after 1am, when the street lights were turned off to save money.
The amount of posts that contain 'working man', 'ordinary man', 'working class rights' etc etc.
Last time I looked we had a progressive tax system already in place - and far fairer than many other countries in the world. People who earn more DO get taxed a higher percentage than lower earners, so do pay more into issues such as social care, benefits system etc. As it should be.
But its never enough - the answer is always - "the more well off need to pay more and more and more". People never consider that hammering large corporations isnt a simple solution, as those corporations will employ and provide a living to thousands of people.
Things are far from perfect, but once again this is veering into a class war now - rather than taking a balanced look at the issues on the table and how everyone has to play a part (proportionally) to get the country in the best place possible.
bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15281811.Guy_Hedger_waited_50_minutes_for_ambulance_after_he_was_shot_because_he_wasn___t_a_top_priority_patient/
It took nearly 50 minutes to attend to the victim of that shooting ffs because our ambulance service and hospitals are stretched beyond breaking point. And still people vote for more austerity.
The moral of the story is if you are unfortunate enough to get shot make sure you are unconscious and not breathing.
But no, their choice instead was to borrow more, spend more and put the future in hock with a variety of PFI schemes. We now owe in excess of £120bn on PFI schemes alone, not to mention the annual (high) interest payments. (Yes, I know they were invented by John Major but the really big PFI spends happened under Brown. Andy Burnham alone signed off on 221 PFI projects. Factor in the additional Govt. tax receipts from Brown's, what was it, a staggering 157 additional stealth taxes and you get the picture.
And, then, who can forget Jim Callaghan's 1976 crisis when the UK actually had to borrow money from the IMF because no one else would lend us any? Or Harold Wilson's comedy and utterly dishonest "The pound in your pocket" quote after the formal sterling devaluation?
So, yes, there are numerous well sourced articles on the Labours' economic record and if you delve in a little you find the true picture and the true costs and the true mess.
I'm not saying the Tories are great either. But you can't honestly believe the Labours were any good, can you? Even they don't think that! With Burnham apologising for the PFIs; Brown flogging off all the gold reserves at the lowest possible price; and then there's the infamous letter from Liam Byrne, Brown's Chief Secretary to the Treasury which spelt out the position succinctly "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid that there is no money. Kind regards and good luck."
Now, let's fast forward. In case you've forgotten in October 2015 the Labours helped pass the Fiscal Charter which requires a Govt. to run a budget surplus from 2019/20. (How's that going I wonder?)
So, having initially fallen into this Tory trap and agreeing to their "fiscal charter" John McDonnell (after a particularly heated exchange with the Labours' paymasters) did a spectacular u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.
having previoulsy said "There is nothing progressive about running up excessive debt." he now says the Labour Manifesto is progressive! How can that be the case? And how good will the Labours' new(ish) Fiscal Credibility Rule turn out to be? It doesn't mind vast borrowing for capital projects for example. PFI revisited maybe or paying excessive interest, who knows?
So, say what you like about the Tories but please don't try to fool us into believing the Labours have a single sensible idea about budgetary prudence. Because that's a laughable suggestion. I wouldn't trust them with a five pence piece.
Labour supporters seem happy that rich(er) people and companies would be getting hit hard as a by-product of all these expensive policies; they are rubbing their hands with glee. But have they really thought about it? Do they know that the growth drivers in this country are small businesses which will also be hit by additional corporation tax not just the nasty big corporations? Do they know that the choice is between companies paying more tax or growing a business and paying and recruiting more staff. Is that a sensible choice? And one that they really want to be taken forward? They think it will not impact them and fortunately it's unlikely because as things stand Corbyn has no chance. But how would they get on if McDonnell got the chance to push out the BoE's inflation target from 2% to 4% while pay rises would be completely off the table because no businesses could afford expansion any more and even if they could, no one would have spare cash to buy their products! And that's before you factor in any unpleasantness as a result of Brexit.
Nothing is a free lunch, no matter how much the Labour dweebs try to pretend otherwise.
It makes no business sense in the majority of cases to just recruit more people. They've generally already got enough to cope with demand, they won't spend more unnecessarily.
Higher corporation taxes work in other G7 countries.
I can't think of any political party that doesn't accept things have to be paid for.
The political question is surely what things, for how much, paid for by whom?