I wish I knew the first thing about economics... I don't so this is probably bollocks... Surely the way to increase the amount of tax taken, which can then be spent on public services, is to grow the economy. It shouldn't be about kicking the poor and disabled and calling them scroungers on one hand, or overtaxing the rich on the other. You want the rich to be investing in the economy, creating jobs, and paying fair wages so money circulates. Some focus from the politicians about how they are going to stimulate and grow the economy, and how they want everybody on board, rather than finger pointing and punishing people and making boogeymen would be nice. I find neither the hard left or right inspiring tbh. I don't want ideology, I want pragmatism. The lib dems ought to be filling that hole, but they are very hard to take seriously.
I don't think it is bollocks but neither will cafcnick1992, well maybe not him, because everything you have said is reasonable to most political persuasions.
I would hope so. I suppose the real question is how to drive growth. Government borrowing to pay for infrastructure payments is one idea, so is trying to encourage private and foreign investment, reduce red tape, even lowering taxes.... more money in to spend. Nothing should be off the table in my view so long as its evidence based, and I don't know what the evidence is.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Stress can affect lots of people - it doesn't really make any point. Nobody hates rich people - it is just a case of as fairly as you can, raising much needed money. Many 'rich' people get this. Living in a better britain enriches everybody. The most valuable thing we all have is our health. We don't realise it until we lose it, but if you do lose it, you would pay anything to get it back.
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain.
But not if you earn under £80k? Labour have missed a trick here, why cut it at £80k? is someone on £75k not happy to pay a bit more?
Can't believe I'm saying it but the lib dems are nearer the mark, 1p across all tax bands.
On NHS efficiencies, my sister (self employed) gets paid £750 a day by the NHS as a freelance psychologist, on more difficult cases £1k a day, compared to about £200 a day when they directly employed her. It was her boss who suggested she go self employed! As an aside she pays less tax now and works 3 days a week
This is an interesting point in itself. We've seen the boom in agency workers in the NHS and the huge costs that come with it. From a value for money point of view it's a disaster but who can blame those individuals for taking advantage of working less hours and picking up more money.
But the same is happening in other areas and it's directly due to the Tories austerity drive.
Several social workers of my acquaintance for example have taken redundancy as part of departmental cost cutting. Except they haven't, because 6 months later they are back working on an agency basis...because the job needed someone to do it and should never have been cut in the first place!
Only now they get to pick and chose their hours, decide whether they want to cover weekends (at an enhanced rate) and have a far bigger control over their previously ridiculous workload. The employer still has to find the money to pay for them from somewhere so the problem is pushed around from budget to budget or comes out of capital reserves. It's happening all over the place.
From their point of view it's a result of course but are we getting the level of public services the 5th richest country in the world should be?
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
Or soon to be 65%!
The point being, why would this change be considered a show of disdain to those with 'the audacity to have drive and ambition' when there is already a much higher marginal rate of tax for those with taxable earnings that fall below the £123k threshold. Surely, if this was a factor then a policy with the same effect is already in practice.
I'm no fan of the conservatives Bournemouth, to me it's the lesser of two evils. Since 1990 there's has never been a party I really wanted to vote for hence generally in the past I've simply voted for who I thought was the best MP standing.
The conservatives have got a lot wrong but on tax I think they've got it right as I showed a few pages back, you can't argue that those at the lower end pay considerably less tax, those at the upper end considerably more. Froze council tax for 6(?) years?
My over riding issue this time around is two fold, can Labour do even half of what they say? I don't believe so and secondly I believe Corbyn and those around him will be a very weak government.
Let's take the £6bn they will raise in income tax, there is zero chance of raising that amount. Due in part to brexit a number of large organisations are looking for a European base. It's likely under labour that would lead to a bigger exodus of people, the vast majority of those will be high earners. Therefore not only will they not get the extra tax they will lose what they did earn from those people.
In my company alone the three highest paid underwriters (on a good year £1m+ in income tax) would likely move abroad, that's the tip of the iceberg in my industry. You'll also lose the tax on profits to a degree.
Even myself, say they increase my tax by £10k. I'd clearly have to cut back, part of that would likely be reducing what I give to charity by 50% so that's around £5k id no longer give. I'd probably start paying into a pension again up to the maximum I could, £10k, which would mean £5.2k less tax I'd pay, I'd probably top up my wife's saving another £1-2k in tax. I'd cut back on a few luxuries, so my two local restaurants would be down £3k+ a year. So all in all I'd pay no more tax (probably less) and local businesses and charity would also lose out.
If labour think those earning millions won't put in place perfectly legal ways of minimising the additional tax they are very much mistaken. The 50p/45p is proof of that.
It's a recipe for disaster, promise the earth and ultimately I believe we'd get less than we have now.
Labour has some great ideals, I just don't believe the majority are remotely possible.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
This is the first post in a while that has made me f**king furious
I don't think anyone can criticise too many of the sentiments of the manifesto.
Everything depends on growing the economy and improving productivity. My concerns with the strategies are that they are unlikely to having the desired effect. If a Labour leader with any credibility was in place the electorate might think about giving Labour a chance to try something exciting and new. Compared to the challenges of Brexit I would rate the manifesto as 50% more risky for the economy.
It's surprising how Remainers can agonies over the disaster facing companies bearing a few percentage points increase in trading tariffs that would have a marginal impact on gross margins, yet see no problem with policies which will intentionally reduce the profitability of UK limited without fearing any potential adverse consequences on the labour market or industrial output.
The logic of nationalisation is to reduce the operational costs and/or improve services by eliminating the profit element in the cost of production/delivery. I think the German approach of letting private enterprise run essential services but impose a maximum profit margin of 1% makes more sense. The cost of borrowing capital for the government, because it is not in current account surplus, will cancel out the profit margin element and likely exceed it. The only reason privatisation has been employed is because of the lack of capital available to government without recourse to borrowing and the fear of increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels. You cannot compare and contrast privatisation and nationalisation without looking at both profits and cost of capital, not just profits saved.
The logic in having low corporate tax is to make more funds available to the company for investment, not a relaxation so the rich bastards get more money. If the shareholders (most of whom are pension funds and insurance companies) do receive more dividends then income tax is deducted before being paid. If dividends are reduced because of greater tax on profits then less tax is recovered on dividends. It's as broad as it's long. It just plays to the gallery to say companies are going to pay more tax.
I accept without reservation that dividends are prioritised above re-investment of profits and there is too much short termism. It's all the fault of @PragueAddick who insists that his fund managers give him 10% return each year on his portfolio. Taxing companies will not change anything, it will make things potentially worse for wage increases. Labour introducing ideas intended to support wage increases, and income re-distribution, by tinkering with rules around high end earnings is appealing, but entirely a waste of time.
I support the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, the key is who you trust to apply the funds. If they were far enough removed from the grasp of political ideologues of any party it would be fine. More likely with Labour, the economy would be second fiddle. The social engineering projects should come from the growth created, not by diverting funds away from investment in the economy. Because the manifesto suggests the national debt would rise in an unconstrained way, a sovereign fund and increasing debt simply cancel one another out.
There is no free lunch anywhere, and that's my biggest criticism of the manifesto, it gives the false hope that there is, but fair dos for putting the challenges in the shop window and demanding change.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain.
But not if you earn under £80k? Labour have missed a trick here, why cut it at £80k? is someone on £75k not happy to pay a bit more?
Can't believe I'm saying it but the lib dems are nearer the mark, 1p across all tax bands.
On NHS efficiencies, my sister (self employed) gets paid £750 a day by the NHS as a freelance psychologist, on more difficult cases £1k a day, compared to about £200 a day when they directly employed her. It was her boss who suggested she go self employed! As an aside she pays less tax now and works 3 days a week
This is an interesting point in itself. We've seen the boom in agency workers in the NHS and the huge costs that come with it. From a value for money point of view it's a disaster but who can blame those individuals for taking advantage of working less hours and picking up more money.
But the same is happening in other areas and it's directly due to the Tories austerity drive.
Several social workers of my acquaintance for example have taken redundancy as part of departmental cost cutting. Except they haven't, because 6 months later they are back working on an agency basis...because the job needed someone to do it and should never have been cut in the first place!
Only now they get to pick and chose their hours, decide whether they want to cover weekends (at an enhanced rate) and have a far bigger control over their previously ridiculous workload. The employer still has to find the money to pay for them from somewhere so the problem is pushed around from budget to budget or comes out of capital reserves. It's happening all over the place.
From their point of view it's a result of course but are we getting the level of public services the 5th richest country in the world should be?
Absolutely with you on this matter. This type of management is utter madness.
Is it due to Jeremy Hunt demanding certain levels of staff in specific departments or managers choosing to do this based on budget constraints?
Either way, Hunt should be on top of this and stop it.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
Or soon to be 65%!
The point being, why would this change be considered a show of disdain to those with 'the audacity to have drive and ambition' when there is already a much higher marginal rate of tax for those with taxable earnings that fall below the £123k threshold. Surely, if this was a factor then a policy with the same effect is already in practice.
If you thought your income would be permanently stuck between £100k and £121k then it probably would!
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Stress can affect lots of people - it doesn't really make any point. Nobody hates rich people - it is just a case of as fairly as you can, raising much needed money. Many 'rich' people get this. Living in a better britain enriches everybody. The most valuable thing we all have is our health. We don't realise it until we lose it, but if you do lose it, you would pay anything to get it back.
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
Not sure I can relate to the concept of 'austerity Britain' - in the most recent tax year we still borrowed >$50bn because spending is still in excess of receipts (despite the tailwind from relatively robust economic growth).
At what point does the Left recognise that there simply aren't enough funds (nor the means to raise them) to fulfil every dream they have for public services?
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Stress can affect lots of people - it doesn't really make any point. Nobody hates rich people - it is just a case of as fairly as you can, raising much needed money. Many 'rich' people get this. Living in a better britain enriches everybody. The most valuable thing we all have is our health. We don't realise it until we lose it, but if you do lose it, you would pay anything to get it back.
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
Not sure I can relate to the concept of 'austerity Britain' - in the most recent tax year we still borrowed >$50bn because spending is still in excess of receipts (despite the tailwind from relatively robust economic growth).
At what point does the Left recognise that there simply aren't enough funds (nor the means to raise it) to fulfil every dream they have for public services?
At the point when we can't afford them. We can afford them.
I tire of making the point - Austerity will mean spending in excess of receipts for the forseeable future. We need to promote growth, History shows austerity doesn't work! When the economy is in rude health - the last time it was was under a Labour government, then that is the time to rein borrowing in with the extra money. You can disagree with the point, but this is serious economic theory, not fag packet lefty musings. The fact that there is not a proper debate on this is beacuse the Tories are unwilling to discuss, it is better to pander to a simplistic viewpoint and dismiss it.
People think economics is really simple - the Tories tell them so - so it must be true.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
This is the first post in a while that has made me f**king furious
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Stress can affect lots of people - it doesn't really make any point. Nobody hates rich people - it is just a case of as fairly as you can, raising much needed money. Many 'rich' people get this. Living in a better britain enriches everybody. The most valuable thing we all have is our health. We don't realise it until we lose it, but if you do lose it, you would pay anything to get it back.
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
Not sure I can relate to the concept of 'austerity Britain' - in the most recent tax year we still borrowed >$50bn because spending is still in excess of receipts (despite the tailwind from relatively robust economic growth).
At what point does the Left recognise that there simply aren't enough funds (nor the means to raise it) to fulfil every dream they have for public services?
At the point when we can't afford them. We can afford them.
I tire of making the point - Austerity will mean spending in excess of receipts for the forseeable future. We need to promote growth, History shows austerity doesn't work! When the economy is in rude health - the last time it was was under a Labour government, then that is the time to rein borrowing in with the extra money. You can disagree with the point, but this is serious economic theory, not fag packet lefty musings. The fact that there is not a proper debate on this is beacuse the Tories are unwilling to discuss, it is better to pander to a simplistic viewpoint and dismiss it.
People think economics is really simple - the Tories tell them so - so it must be true.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
Or soon to be 65%!
The point being, why would this change be considered a show of disdain to those with 'the audacity to have drive and ambition' when there is already a much higher marginal rate of tax for those with taxable earnings that fall below the £123k threshold. Surely, if this was a factor then a policy with the same effect is already in practice.
If you thought your income would be permanently stuck between £100k and £121k then it probably would!
That's a fair point, someone on 100k today with an average 2% rise will for ten years pay 67% tax on their payrise.
Tax is always going to be progressive and so it should be, but to highlight some numbers (roughly) just on income tax (have excluded NI for now) and excluded any in work benefits;
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax Someone on 100k will pay 27.7% of their income on income tax Someone on 250k will pay 41% of their income on income tax Someone on £1m will pay 44% of their income on income tax
Under labours new plan
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax Someone on 100k will pay 28.7% of their income on income tax Someone on 250k will pay 45% of their income on income tax Someone on £1m will pay 49% of their income on income tax
Looks fair enough to me! Get that message out there - help Labour fight back! When you take those percentages away, people in those categories still have a lot of money and you can always make more money.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
It's not a question of not striving but it's the implicit message to anyone with the audacity to have drive and ambition.
At some level taxation becomes expropriation, especially when targeting those that no reasonable person would describe as rich.
I don't get that message at all. I really really don't see this as hampering my drive for financial success in life.
Fair enough but I am postulating for the whole country not two examples.
In recent times the brief 50% tax rate did not generate any additional receipts.
Anyone with taxable earnings between £100k and £123k is already paying a marginal rate of tax of 60%.
Or soon to be 65%!
The point being, why would this change be considered a show of disdain to those with 'the audacity to have drive and ambition' when there is already a much higher marginal rate of tax for those with taxable earnings that fall below the £123k threshold. Surely, if this was a factor then a policy with the same effect is already in practice.
If you thought your income would be permanently stuck between £100k and £121k then it probably would!
That's a fair point, someone on 100k today with an average 2% rise will for ten years pay 67% tax on their payrise.
Tax is always going to be progressive and so it should be, but to highlight some numbers (roughly) just on income tax (have excluded NI for now) and excluded any in work benefits;
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax Someone on 100k will pay 27.7% of their income on income tax Someone on 250k will pay 41% of their income on income tax Someone on £1m will pay 44% of their income on income tax
Under labours new plan
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax Someone on 100k will pay 28.7% of their income on income tax Someone on 250k will pay 45% of their income on income tax Someone on £1m will pay 49% of their income on income tax
The problem is that the relative number of people in each bracket isn't fixed.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Stress can affect lots of people - it doesn't really make any point. Nobody hates rich people - it is just a case of as fairly as you can, raising much needed money. Many 'rich' people get this. Living in a better britain enriches everybody. The most valuable thing we all have is our health. We don't realise it until we lose it, but if you do lose it, you would pay anything to get it back.
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
Not sure I can relate to the concept of 'austerity Britain' - in the most recent tax year we still borrowed >$50bn because spending is still in excess of receipts (despite the tailwind from relatively robust economic growth).
At what point does the Left recognise that there simply aren't enough funds (nor the means to raise it) to fulfil every dream they have for public services?
At the point when we can't afford them. We can afford them.
I tire of making the point - Austerity will mean spending in excess of receipts for the forseeable future. We need to promote growth, History shows austerity doesn't work! When the economy is in rude health - the last time it was was under a Labour government, then that is the time to rein borrowing in with the extra money. You can disagree with the point, but this is serious economic theory, not fag packet lefty musings. The fact that there is not a proper debate on this is beacuse the Tories are unwilling to discuss, it is better to pander to a simplistic viewpoint and dismiss it.
People think economics is really simple - the Tories tell them so - so it must be true.
Had to skip a few pages but an alert from my good friend @Dippenhall has dragged me back in.
On privatization. I think it is really important to revisit the nature and effectiveness of privatized utilities. I think it is right for Labour to target railways and water in this respect.
There was a bloke in Thatcher's earliest cabinet ( John Moore?) who said that the success test would be if privatization created competition, which in turn delivered better service.
Right then. Has anyone recently tried the competitive alternative to South Eastern Trains? Or how much better does the competitive water to that supplied by Thames Water taste? Epic fail there, I submit.
In the case of railways it is the ludicrous type of privatization that is the main problem. @Dippenhall cites the German model. He presumably thinks Deutsche Bahn is a private company. Well it is , but who is the largest shareholder? the German State, with 93%. DB retains both the infrastructure and the core intercity network. Why? because Germany understands that a smooth, super fast intercity network is essential to keep that country moving and doing business. There are private operators on the edges of the network, sometimes with quite large chunks, and they keep DB on their toes, but if you want to get from Frankfurt to Jever, as I did a while back, you don't have to worry about multiple ticket prices of different operators. The ticketing system is national and transparent.
I have no idea how the Germans do their water, but it surely is a key natural asset too. How can you possibly introduce competition into water? And if you can't, where is the benefit? It surely is a key strategic resource which should be in our hands. i was going to say in State hands. But of course water, like most of our energy, is now in State hands. The French State.
I am glad Labour have put this on the agenda. Nobody is happy with all aspects of any party's manifesto ( except the Ukippers pre 23 June, I suppose) , but these proposals on re-nationalization give me renewed resolve to vote for the excellent Clive Efford on June 8th.
Had to skip a few pages but an alert from my good friend @Dippenhall has dragged me back in.
On privatization. I think it is really important to revisit the nature and effectiveness of privatized utilities. I think it is right for Labour to target railways and water in this respect.
There was a bloke in Thatcher's earliest cabinet ( John Moore?) who said that the success test would be if privatization created competition, which in turn delivered better service.
Right then. Has anyone recently tried the competitive alternative to South Eastern Trains? Or how much better does the competitive water to that supplied by Thames Water taste? Epic fail there, I submit.
In the case of railways it is the ludicrous type of privatization that is the main problem. @Dippenhall cites the German model. He presumably thinks Deutsche Bahn is a private company. Well it is , but who is the largest shareholder? the German State, with 93%. DB retains both the infrastructure and the core intercity network. Why? because Germany understands that a smooth, super fast intercity network is essential to keep that country moving and doing business. There are private operators on the edges of the network, sometimes with quite large chunks, and they keep DB on their toes, but if you want to get from Frankfurt to Jever, as I did a while back, you don't have to worry about multiple ticket prices of different operators. The ticketing system is national and transparent.
I have no idea how the Germans do their water, but it surely is a key natural asset too. How can you possibly introduce competition into water? And if you can't, where is the benefit? It surely is a key strategic resource which should be in our hands. i was going to say in State hands. But of course water, like most of our energy, is now in State hands. The French State.
I am glad Labour have put this on the agenda. Nobody is happy with all aspects of any party's manifesto ( except the Ukippers pre 23 June, I suppose) , but these proposals on re-nationalization give me renewed resolve to vote for the excellent Clive Efford on June 8th.
This, this and this. As until relatively recently a commuter to central London, in is incalculable how much money is lost through delays etc...
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Having little or no money and not knowing where you are going to find the money to put food on the table for your children is I think at least as stressful as earning a lot and getting stressed because of it.
Why we look up to the latter and down on the former is a matter of human nature. It's also a reason why our society is prevalent with greed and self interest at the expense of anybody else. As I see it there is no drive to change this sad state of affairs.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Having little or no money and not knowing where you are going to find the money to put food on the table for your children is I think at least as stressful as earning a lot and getting stressed because of it.
Why we look up to the latter and down on the former is a matter of human nature. It's also a reason why our society is prevalent with greed and self interest at the expense of anybody else. As I see it there is no drive to change this sad state of affairs.
I think that's a sweeping generalisation, I've never looked down on either and nor do I know anyone pretty much who does/has.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
People who earn money from their own endeavours are vital to the economy and Labour appreciates that. Many of them are more than happy to pay a bit more for a better Britain.
But not if you earn under £80k? Labour have missed a trick here, why cut it at £80k? is someone on £75k not happy to pay a bit more?
Can't believe I'm saying it but the lib dems are nearer the mark, 1p across all tax bands.
On NHS efficiencies, my sister (self employed) gets paid £750 a day by the NHS as a freelance psychologist, on more difficult cases £1k a day, compared to about £200 a day when they directly employed her. It was her boss who suggested she go self employed! As an aside she pays less tax now and works 3 days a week
This is an interesting point in itself. We've seen the boom in agency workers in the NHS and the huge costs that come with it. From a value for money point of view it's a disaster but who can blame those individuals for taking advantage of working less hours and picking up more money.
But the same is happening in other areas and it's directly due to the Tories austerity drive.
Several social workers of my acquaintance for example have taken redundancy as part of departmental cost cutting. Except they haven't, because 6 months later they are back working on an agency basis...because the job needed someone to do it and should never have been cut in the first place!
Only now they get to pick and chose their hours, decide whether they want to cover weekends (at an enhanced rate) and have a far bigger control over their previously ridiculous workload. The employer still has to find the money to pay for them from somewhere so the problem is pushed around from budget to budget or comes out of capital reserves. It's happening all over the place.
From their point of view it's a result of course but are we getting the level of public services the 5th richest country in the world should be?
Absolutely with you on this matter. This type of management is utter madness.
Is it due to Jeremy Hunt demanding certain levels of staff in specific departments or managers choosing to do this based on budget constraints?
Either way, Hunt should be on top of this and stop it.
The only thing Jeremy Hunt should be on top of is a funeral pyre!
I know it is just under 20 minutesish, there are much longer ones, but can I invite people to watch this? It isn't a party political broadcast but a Canadian TV interview with one of the world's top ecomomists. Taking money way from people who haven't got any money will never be a solution - it defies logic that it can be. It isn't about hitting people who earn £300k a year, but they do have money, even if you tax them by a few extra percentage points. And they will spend it, as what is the point of having money if you don't spend it! If you believe in austerity, you should watch it to confirm your belief that your veiw is correct.
It is about the size of the economy that matters, not the size of the debt!
The point being, why would this change be considered a show of disdain to those with 'the audacity to have drive and ambition' when there is already a much higher marginal rate of tax for those with taxable earnings that fall below the £123k threshold. Surely, if this was a factor then a policy with the same effect is already in practice.
If you thought your income would be permanently stuck between £100k and £121k then it probably would!
If I thought my income would be permanently stuck between £100k and £121k I'd be FUCKING ECSTATIC! Jesus Christ do you people ever really listen to yourselves? That's roughly 4 times the national average salary, more than 6 times what someone doing 40 hours a week on minimum wage gets, more than 15 times the very highest rate of ESA (sickness benefit) and 26 times the highest rate of JSA (unemployment benefit). All this whining about possibly having to pay a bit more to fund the infrastructure and public services of the country that have helped you to be able to progress in the way that you have is pathetic. So you may have to cut back on the occasional luxury? Try explaining how hard done by you'd be to the disabled people who've lost funding for their carer or their mobility vehicle or are struggling to get the right level of ESA, the nurse who's trying to care for too many patients at once due to gaps in the staffing rota, or the teaching assistant who's about to lose her job due to education cuts. I doubt you'd get very much sympathy.
The most striking thing about targeting those on £80k+ (which only represents a small % of the population) is the disdain it demonstrates towards those who aspire to doing so someday (a far larger % of the population, even a majority I might guess).
There's always been a certain irony in the fact that 'Labour' is the party for those that don't work....
I don't earn more than 80k and the idea that the tax changes would put me off from striving to get up to that level is laughable.
The bit you miss is the further up the ladder and in general terms the more you earn the more stressful life becomes. You get to a point where 'the next step up' isn't worth it if the tax take is too high.
I know what you're trying to say but stress is someone working for £11k and not having any fecking food in the cupboard to give the kids breakfast.
We can all start worrying about not filling jobs paying £150k a year plus when there's nobody applying and I don't see that time coming any time soon.
I turned down the next job up, but you are right someone else took it (my old boss), he's now on indefinite leave with stress!! I'm not kidding!!
Having little or no money and not knowing where you are going to find the money to put food on the table for your children is I think at least as stressful as earning a lot and getting stressed because of it.
Why we look up to the latter and down on the former is a matter of human nature. It's also a reason why our society is prevalent with greed and self interest at the expense of anybody else. As I see it there is no drive to change this sad state of affairs.
I think that's a sweeping generalisation, I've never looked down on either and nor do I know anyone pretty much who does/has.
I think its a human trait to look less favourably on those doing less well and up to those that are obviously successful.
None of us aspire to doing badly but pretty much all of us aspire to better things.
There are always nuances to both but in general I think it's a reality. No need to look very far to see how the "system" likes to kick those most in need and looks after those that hare doing very well. How the newspapers regularly vilify the unemployed and disabled.
Nobody expects anything will be a free lunch. If we want stuff, we need to pay for it. Maybe if for example, health, education, schools and transport were decent, and homes affordable, then people wouldn't need to earn loads of money and spend it on circumventing the community systems.
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
Comments
I am against hammering rich people - they need encouraging. People like me, who have their own business need encouraging. This isn't a class war - it is about a fairer society that is less stressfull for everybody who live in it - rich and poor - as there will always be rich and poor.
But the same is happening in other areas and it's directly due to the Tories austerity drive.
Several social workers of my acquaintance for example have taken redundancy as part of departmental cost cutting. Except they haven't, because 6 months later they are back working on an agency basis...because the job needed someone to do it and should never have been cut in the first place!
Only now they get to pick and chose their hours, decide whether they want to cover weekends (at an enhanced rate) and have a far bigger control over their previously ridiculous workload. The employer still has to find the money to pay for them from somewhere so the problem is pushed around from budget to budget or comes out of capital reserves. It's happening all over the place.
From their point of view it's a result of course but are we getting the level of public services the 5th richest country in the world should be?
Everything depends on growing the economy and improving productivity. My concerns with the strategies are that they are unlikely to having the desired effect. If a Labour leader with any credibility was in place the electorate might think about giving Labour a chance to try something exciting and new. Compared to the challenges of Brexit I would rate the manifesto as 50% more risky for the economy.
It's surprising how Remainers can agonies over the disaster facing companies bearing a few percentage points increase in trading tariffs that would have a marginal impact on gross margins, yet see no problem with policies which will intentionally reduce the profitability of UK limited without fearing any potential adverse consequences on the labour market or industrial output.
The logic of nationalisation is to reduce the operational costs and/or improve services by eliminating the profit element in the cost of production/delivery. I think the German approach of letting private enterprise run essential services but impose a maximum profit margin of 1% makes more sense. The cost of borrowing capital for the government, because it is not in current account surplus, will cancel out the profit margin element and likely exceed it. The only reason privatisation has been employed is because of the lack of capital available to government without recourse to borrowing and the fear of increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels. You cannot compare and contrast privatisation and nationalisation without looking at both profits and cost of capital, not just profits saved.
The logic in having low corporate tax is to make more funds available to the company for investment, not a relaxation so the rich bastards get more money. If the shareholders (most of whom are pension funds and insurance companies) do receive more dividends then income tax is deducted before being paid. If dividends are reduced because of greater tax on profits then less tax is recovered on dividends. It's as broad as it's long. It just plays to the gallery to say companies are going to pay more tax.
I accept without reservation that dividends are prioritised above re-investment of profits and there is too much short termism. It's all the fault of @PragueAddick who insists that his fund managers give him 10% return each year on his portfolio. Taxing companies will not change anything, it will make things potentially worse for wage increases. Labour introducing ideas intended to support wage increases, and income re-distribution, by tinkering with rules around high end earnings is appealing, but entirely a waste of time.
I support the idea of a sovereign wealth fund, the key is who you trust to apply the funds. If they were far enough removed from the grasp of political ideologues of any party it would be fine. More likely with Labour, the economy would be second fiddle. The social engineering projects should come from the growth created, not by diverting funds away from investment in the economy. Because the manifesto suggests the national debt would rise in an unconstrained way, a sovereign fund and increasing debt simply cancel one another out.
There is no free lunch anywhere, and that's my biggest criticism of the manifesto, it gives the false hope that there is, but fair dos for putting the challenges in the shop window and demanding change.
Is it due to Jeremy Hunt demanding certain levels of staff in specific departments or managers choosing to do this based on budget constraints?
Either way, Hunt should be on top of this and stop it.
At what point does the Left recognise that there simply aren't enough funds (nor the means to raise them) to fulfil every dream they have for public services?
I tire of making the point - Austerity will mean spending in excess of receipts for the forseeable future. We need to promote growth, History shows austerity doesn't work! When the economy is in rude health - the last time it was was under a Labour government, then that is the time to rein borrowing in with the extra money. You can disagree with the point, but this is serious economic theory, not fag packet lefty musings. The fact that there is not a proper debate on this is beacuse the Tories are unwilling to discuss, it is better to pander to a simplistic viewpoint and dismiss it.
People think economics is really simple - the Tories tell them so - so it must be true.
However one can certainly debate to whom that growth has flowed and whether it was the right split (labour vs capital etc).
Tax is always going to be progressive and so it should be, but to highlight some numbers (roughly) just on income tax (have excluded NI for now) and excluded any in work benefits;
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax
Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax
Someone on 100k will pay 27.7% of their income on income tax
Someone on 250k will pay 41% of their income on income tax
Someone on £1m will pay 44% of their income on income tax
Under labours new plan
Someone on 23k will pay 10% of their income on income tax
Someone on 50k will pay 16% of their income on income tax
Someone on 100k will pay 28.7% of their income on income tax
Someone on 250k will pay 45% of their income on income tax
Someone on £1m will pay 49% of their income on income tax
On privatization. I think it is really important to revisit the nature and effectiveness of privatized utilities. I think it is right for Labour to target railways and water in this respect.
There was a bloke in Thatcher's earliest cabinet ( John Moore?) who said that the success test would be if privatization created competition, which in turn delivered better service.
Right then. Has anyone recently tried the competitive alternative to South Eastern Trains? Or how much better does the competitive water to that supplied by Thames Water taste? Epic fail there, I submit.
In the case of railways it is the ludicrous type of privatization that is the main problem. @Dippenhall cites the German model. He presumably thinks Deutsche Bahn is a private company. Well it is , but who is the largest shareholder? the German State, with 93%. DB retains both the infrastructure and the core intercity network. Why? because Germany understands that a smooth, super fast intercity network is essential to keep that country moving and doing business. There are private operators on the edges of the network, sometimes with quite large chunks, and they keep DB on their toes, but if you want to get from Frankfurt to Jever, as I did a while back, you don't have to worry about multiple ticket prices of different operators. The ticketing system is national and transparent.
I have no idea how the Germans do their water, but it surely is a key natural asset too. How can you possibly introduce competition into water? And if you can't, where is the benefit? It surely is a key strategic resource which should be in our hands. i was going to say in State hands. But of course water, like most of our energy, is now in State hands. The French State.
I am glad Labour have put this on the agenda. Nobody is happy with all aspects of any party's manifesto ( except the Ukippers pre 23 June, I suppose) , but these proposals on re-nationalization give me renewed resolve to vote for the excellent Clive Efford on June 8th.
Why we look up to the latter and down on the former is a matter of human nature. It's also a reason why our society is prevalent with greed and self interest at the expense of anybody else. As I see it there is no drive to change this sad state of affairs.
It is about the size of the economy that matters, not the size of the debt!
None of us aspire to doing badly but pretty much all of us aspire to better things.
There are always nuances to both but in general I think it's a reality. No need to look very far to see how the "system" likes to kick those most in need and looks after those that hare doing very well. How the newspapers regularly vilify the unemployed and disabled.
Maybe if for example, health, education, schools and transport were decent, and homes affordable, then people wouldn't need to earn loads of money and spend it on circumventing the community systems.
Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK.
I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity.
Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care.
One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment.
This manifesto is a shambles