92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
Muttley, which part of "the economy is growing" are you struggling with? ;-)
Things may well change after Brexit...
I know the economy is slowly growing, so are prices and pressures not to spend money. Do you honestly believe it is growing as fast as it can or is it simply enough that it grows?
Here is a question based on historical fact. The USA have had a deficit since the Civil War. The deficit is massively larger now than it was at the time of the civil war. Does this mean that the USA was richer at that time? If you are a Conservative economist, based on what they have been telling the electorate - you would have to say yes. But you can't look at the size of the deficit and ignore the size of the economy. The truth is the USA is massively richer because the size of their economy is now much bigger. Of course we all know that, even the Conservatives!
When you look at the Labour manifesto, it is text book Keynesian economics on show. Borrowing on the sort of areas that grow the economy, higher taxes for those that can afford them for better public services. The IFS have actually indicated that the revenue predicted by Labour for its tax plans alone is on the low side. This is entirely sensible as you need to be cautious - I can't really use the word conservative .
As for nationalisation - the accusation is that it hasn't been costed in the manifesto. I think the challenge about affordability is rubbish - what is a better argument against this policy is - how can we trust you to run these industries better? But of course many of the companies that own these services are nationalised, they simply are foreign nationalised companies. Labour say - and it makes sense whether you agree with it or not, that the costs in the long term are at least cost neutral. These are profit making companies so you are deflecting the profits into the public purse. They have openly stated that they will buy these companies by issuing shareholders with Government Bonds. It is a bit like getting a mortgage on a great value property. They also don't have to buy the entire company, just have enough shares to control them.
As for rail nationalisation, the Labour party has said they will wait for existing contracts to run out - which is a bit different. I think the important way to look at this is it is a direction, it won't happen on day one, but will be clearly be done over time which is the responsible way.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
If that was all true how come Labour lost.?
Maybe the fact that they were holding the baby when the GLOBAL financial crisis happened? They clearly were not expecting it, which is fair to criticse them for, but does anybody believe the Tories would have been - I'm warning you, I'll get the lie dectector out if you say yes!
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
If that was all true how come Labour lost.?
Maybe the fact that they were holding the baby when the GLOBAL financial crisis happened? They clearly were not expecting it, which is fair to criticse them for, but does anybody believe the Tories would have been - I'm warning you, I'll get the lie dectector out if you say yes!
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
If that was all true how come Labour lost.?
It was true. They are matters of fact not opinion. We can argue until the cows come home about the reasons why Labour lost that election but I'm pretty sure up there will be that Brown was not a particularly charismatic leader and the Tory press did a hatchet job on Labours record in government based more on tapping into bias than fact. Move forward to 2017...
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
We have the fifth largest economy, we're not the fifth richest country.
On a PPP basis we're roughly the 25th richest country in the world, well below many of our Western European neighbours, the USA, Australia, Canada, the Gulf states etc.
Muttley, which part of "the economy is growing" are you struggling with? ;-)
Things may well change after Brexit...
I know the economy is slowly growing, so are prices and pressures not to spend money. Do you honestly believe it is growing as fast as it can or is it simply enough that it grows?
Here is a question based on historical fact. The USA have had a deficit since the Civil War. The deficit is massively larger now than it was at the time of the civil war. Does this mean that the USA was richer at that time? If you are a Conservative economist, based on what they have been telling the electorate - you would have to say yes. But you can't look at the size of the deficit and ignore the size of the economy. The truth is the USA is massively richer because the size of their economy is now much bigger. Of course we all know that, even the Conservatives!
When you look at the Labour manifesto, it is text book Keynesian economics on show. Borrowing on the sort of areas that grow the economy, higher taxes for those that can afford them for better public services. The IFS have actually indicated that the revenue predicted by Labour for its tax plans alone is on the low side. This is entirely sensible as you need to be cautious - I can't really use the word conservative .
As for nationalisation - the accusation is that it hasn't been costed in the manifesto. I think the challenge about affordability is rubbish - what is a better argument against this policy is - how can we trust you to run these industries better? But of course many of the companies that own these services are nationalised, they simply are foreign nationalised companies. Labour say - and it makes sense whether you agree with it or not, that the costs in the long term are at least cost neutral. These are profit making companies so you are deflecting the profits into the public purse. They have openly stated that they will buy these companies by issuing shareholders with Government Bonds. It is a bit like getting a mortgage on a great value property. They also don't have to buy the entire company, just have enough shares to control them.
As for rail nationalisation, the Labour party has said they will wait for existing contracts to run out - which is a bit different. I think the important way to look at this is it is a direction, it won't happen on day one, but will be clearly be done over time which is the responsible way.
In the long-term, unless people are comfortable working harder or longer then real economic growth is a function solely of growth in the working population and productivity growth (although in the shorter term the natural boom/bust cycle will ensure it fluctuates around this trend line).
There is something of a 'productivity conundrum' across the developed world (in terms of why technological advances haven't translated into huge leaps in productivity), so for now productivity growth seems capped at around 2% pa. Add in some modest growth in the working population (thanks to a higher birth rate that many developed market economies, plus immigration) and you have the long-term potential growth rate of the UK economy.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
We have the fifth largest economy, we're not the fifth richest country.
On a PPP basis we're roughly the 25th richest country in the world, well below many of our Western European neighbours, the USA, Australia, Canada, the Gulf states etc.
Whatever. The point still stands.
7 years of failed austerity policies that haven't worked and cause real hardship for millions. Isn't it about time we stopped blaming Labour for a global financial crisis, using this as an excuse for this governments dismal economic record and moved on in a different way?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Fiish, thanks for this;
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
Specific to nurses Labour also plan to reintroduce the bursaries scrapped by the government, which will help.
But once again, you're focused on what Labour will or won't do. Why not set out what positive steos you want to see from the Tory manifesto to solve a problem that's of their making?
I haven't seen the conservative manifesto and nor do I expect it to be any good when it comes out, as I've said before I don't like either party much and nor have I for my whole voting life (1990). It's always been who is the least worse in my view.
We've been discussing since yesterday the Labour Manifesto. My over riding point isn't just Nurses but used them as an example as the often quoted 'nurses have to use food banks'. A nurse earns roughly as a minimum £21,500. If someone on that salary is having to use food banks what is the so-called 'party of the many not the few' doing about those earners and below? £21,500 is above even the new minimum wage Labour will introduce (£10). I agree introducing bursaries during training is in principal a good thing.
Those earning that sort of level won't be effected by the minimum wage increase and I think feeding people is far more important than nationalising the railways, water companies, post office etc etc.
A nurse (or anyone on circa £21k) has more disposable income in there pay packets now than in 2010...... so why is it they are considered 'poorer'?
What would I do? On this one specific point to help the lower earners (under the national average) have more in their pockets;
1. Raise the income tax threshold (personal allowance) so that no one on or around the minimum wage (and a fair margin) pays any income tax, so increase it to £20k. I think this is the conservatives aim for a few years time, or was previously. I'd do it now. 2. Raise all income tax bands I haven't fully done the maths but something like 25p, 42p, 46p. Having the personal allowance increased by circa £8,500 will save anyone on £20k £1700, although the 25p rate looks a big increase it won't effect people who aren't currently 40p tax payers (in fact anyone on under around £65k). 3. I might go one step further and on salaries over say £250k add another band, say 50p.
I think those three would have the effect of increasing the money in peoples pockets who earn less than £50k, at the same time those over around £60k would begin to pay more tax gradually. Someone with more time/info than me can probably calculate if that balances out or not.
I'd probably also freeze the UEL for NI contributions and maybe increase slightly the LEL as it is probably too low, but it's clearly a balance.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
This is an absolute serious question. You stated "we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power".
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
Sometimes keeping a country afloat can be argued to be a better alternative to sinking it - when you look at what they inherited.
"Keeping a country afloat" is the limit of your ambition for one of the top 5 richest countries on the planet is it? Jeez.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
We have the fifth largest economy, we're not the fifth richest country.
On a PPP basis we're roughly the 25th richest country in the world, well below many of our Western European neighbours, the USA, Australia, Canada, the Gulf states etc.
Whatever. The point still stands.
7 years of failed austerity policies that haven't worked and cause real hardship for millions. Isn't it about time we stopped blaming Labour for a global financial crisis, using this as an excuse for this governments dismal economic record and moved on in a different way?
No it doesn't - India has the 7th largest economy and hundreds of millions in (real) poverty.
I don't blame Labour for the financial crisis (though they took their eye off the regulatory ball) but the go-go years the economy enjoyed were credit-fuelled just as they were all over the developed world (led by the under-regulated banks but happily lapped up by consumers, corporates and governments alike).
Meanwhile I've shown in various posts above that it is the rich not the poor which have been disproportionately and negatively impacted by Tory tax policy - however I accept there are other offsetting non-policy driven factors like booming house and share prices which clearly don't benefit the poor at all.
I've nothing to add on the cause and effect angle, and everyone sees the world through their own perspective, is entitled to vote for who they want etc, but this is an interesting read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927
My favourite bit so far from Jeremy's manifesto is a footnote.
It concerns a proposed offshore company property levy. (Which seems like a plan with prospects, frankly.)
I won't bore you with it all but at the end it says: "Data from Land Registry and Private Eye calculations".
Private Eye, a satirical magazine, really?
Ah, so you can't attack either the proposed Levy, nor he accuracy of the calculations, therefore all you're left with is a petty swipe at the source.
It merely amused me that's all. I could have attacked the calculations though, and other bits, so perhaps I will now. Thanks for the opportunity.
First, the proposal is for a 15% levy on the sale price of residential property acquired through offshore trusts in one of a number of tax havens. Confusingly the text of the manifesto says "offshore trusts in a tax haven". But the footnote calls it an offshore company property levy. I don't think all trusts are companies, (bare trusts?) and clearly not all companies are trusts. So I wonder which they mean? Who knows?
Second, the claim is that this will raise £3.5bn per annum for Jeremy's coffers. Except it won't. Even the manifesto acknowledges this: "£3.5bn before allowing for behavioural impact". So, what does that mean? Presumably it means that rather than cough up an additional 15% people will: buy in their own name rather than that of a trust/company; buy using a trust/company not from a blacklist tax haven country; buy in a relative's name; buy in th ename of a tame lawyer in Panama or somewhere; or not buy at all. I assume, perhaps naively, that the underlying purpose of this proposal is not to actually raise income but to release additional properties for sale to genuine UK residents? Either way, it will not raise the amount suggested nor slow down the volume of sales to foreign residents. So it probably doesn't work on any level.
If they were serious about this seemingly noble idea, maybe the extra tax would have been applied to anyone buying from overseas, whether a foreign national or a company? (That could only apply to EU residents post-brexit of course.)
In short, after "allowing for behavioural impact" there would be another fucking great hole in Jezza's coffers.
BTW, has anyone found the bit about what they propose doing about income tax personal allowances keeping pace with (or outstripping) inflation yet? (Fiscal drag and all that). Or what will happen about fuel duty, fag and booze tax, etc? Or is it just a lie that the tax increases would not impact regular tax payers?
My favourite bit so far from Jeremy's manifesto is a footnote.
It concerns a proposed offshore company property levy. (Which seems like a plan with prospects, frankly.)
I won't bore you with it all but at the end it says: "Data from Land Registry and Private Eye calculations".
Private Eye, a satirical magazine, really?
Ah, so you can't attack either the proposed Levy, nor he accuracy of the calculations, therefore all you're left with is a petty swipe at the source.
BTW, has anyone found the bit about what they propose doing about income tax personal allowances keeping pace with (or outstripping) inflation yet? (Fiscal drag and all that). Or what will happen about fuel duty, fag and booze tax, etc? Or is it just a lie that the tax increases would not impact regular tax payers?
No mention from what I've seen, as I've posted earlier, for all the 'ideals' in the manifesto is seems to do almost nothing for low earners.
I read the no tax increase for anyone under £80k simply meaning the 20p/40p rate below that level will remain as such, doesn't mean they can't hold the personal allowance, change where the bands come in etc.
My favourite bit so far from Jeremy's manifesto is a footnote.
It concerns a proposed offshore company property levy. (Which seems like a plan with prospects, frankly.)
I won't bore you with it all but at the end it says: "Data from Land Registry and Private Eye calculations".
Private Eye, a satirical magazine, really?
Ah, so you can't attack either the proposed Levy, nor he accuracy of the calculations, therefore all you're left with is a petty swipe at the source.
BTW, has anyone found the bit about what they propose doing about income tax personal allowances keeping pace with (or outstripping) inflation yet? (Fiscal drag and all that). Or what will happen about fuel duty, fag and booze tax, etc? Or is it just a lie that the tax increases would not impact regular tax payers?
No mention from what I've seen, as I've posted earlier, for all the 'ideals' in the manifesto is seems to do almost nothing for low earners.
I read the no tax increase for anyone under £80k simply meaning the 20p/40p rate below that level will remain as such, doesn't mean they can't hold the personal allowance, change where the bands come in etc.
They could change the bands so the 20% and 40% come in higher than present - but certainly not lower them.
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
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
In your view maybe, but people have studied it and found that higher tax rates do not cause people to work less. People continue to work exactly the same when tax rates are higher.
If the government taxed me more I would have to work harder to make up for the loss of income.
Can't really see why we assume people will stop working if taxes are higher?
Lucky you. Presume you work for yourself then. I work for a company. Not a commission based job. If I get taxed more I earn less. End of.
Not so lucky really. I'm basically retired but still need to earn some money to pay mortgage etc. by doing part time work. I would prefer a more reliable income (and I would prefer it if my own taxes didn't go up!)
But it still seems to me like neither of us would actually work less if tax rates increased which was the point I was originally trying to make!
Who the hell is that tosser? And how did anyone find his pronouncements?
Does he know that the whole world was a very different place nigh on two generations ago? Would he know, for example, that the idiot Foot wanted to re-introduce exchange controls in 1983? That would have been good. Anyway, it allows us the opportunity to revisit the Foot manifesto (which didn't include the bit about exchange controls by the way, although all the documents were printed up and ready to go, presumably because of the Labour Party's 1983 promise of a Brexit.) So, the longest suicide note in history. It's remarkably similar in many respects to the 2017 edition. It's here politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm should anyone fancy some mawkish reminiscence of "The New Hope for Britain". A young Jeremy Corbyn, in his first stint as an MP said the '83 manifesto was “a very interesting electoral platform but lots of people in the party were quite frightened of it”. Whereas Tony Benn took comfort by arguing that “for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over 8.5 million people. This is a remarkable development by any standards and it deserves some analysis.”
It is remarkable to look back now at that great orator, Michael Foot and see similar adoring crowds at that election campaign as our Jeremy gets now. In anything approaching normal times, the Labour party should be in with a strong shout this time round. But I suspect that the twin effects of the SNP's stranglehold on Scotland and the eagerly anticipated demise of UKIP as a political force would be sufficient to do for the party's chances even without the Corbyn effect. We shall see. (I'm still not voting.)
Doesn't really tell the full story. In the first budget after her election in 1979 she reduced the top rate from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. She continued to cut the basic rate every budget over the next few years down to 25% which was when I started work (88/89). The top rate reduced to 40% in 85 I think. Not so sure on Corp tax, i'd have to check. I have in the back of my mind at some point (50's/60's?) the top rate of income tax was 90%.
You also need to look at the overall income tax take compared to GDP.
It's all spin, like the media don't point out that the conservatives since election in 2010 have had a higher rate at the upper end of income tax compared to labour other than for the last two weeks of their tenure. They have also taken away the personal allowance above a level, nearly doubled the personal allowance blah blah blah.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
But how many graduated in your/my day versus today?
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
And this is the whole point! Higher education initial participation rates (HEIPR) have travelled from 12% in 1979 to 30% in the early 90s and then up to 40% by 1999. The then Labour government had a target of 50% by 2010. Why? Because wealthier countries have higher HEIPR. Countries with a high HEIPR attract global investment due to the education of the workforce.
Achieving 40% HEIPR was delivered by phasing out grants, bringing in loans and then moving to tuition fees of £3,000. So how did Labour deliver this under Blair and Brown? Well they didn't waste scarce resources trying to renationalise things! What they did was provide a macro economic framework which led to ten years of growth and government surplus / deficit of +/- 1%. And they changed the funding framework such that more money followed the individual student thus encouraging institutions to expand courses and the range of courses.
And they were assisted by fast growing tax receipts. Bank profits and associated tax receipts used to be huge. Between 2007 and 2015 UK bank profits fell by 63% and that will be one of the main reasons why we still have a 3% deficit. Who knows where this number will go after Brexit?
In terms of participation, between 2005/06 and 2013/14 the proportion of English state school pupils eligible for free school meals going to higher education increased from 13% to 22%. That would be half the national rate of those not eligible for free school meals, but still a significant increase.
Let us be very clear in that HEIPR had already been at 40% for a long time when the coalition used austerity to dream up £9,000 tuition fees. Graduates who paid fees of up to £9,000 a year are estimated to have left university with an average of £44,000 of debt, compared with the average £16,200 of debt faced by those who graduated five years earlier. Some estimate that 70% of students today will never finish paying the debt! It will be written off. In other words this is just another Enron style off-balance sheet scheme which appears to take costs away from the government, only for the policy to catch up with the government in the future when significant amounts need to be written off.
Comments
Here is a question based on historical fact. The USA have had a deficit since the Civil War. The deficit is massively larger now than it was at the time of the civil war. Does this mean that the USA was richer at that time? If you are a Conservative economist, based on what they have been telling the electorate - you would have to say yes. But you can't look at the size of the deficit and ignore the size of the economy. The truth is the USA is massively richer because the size of their economy is now much bigger. Of course we all know that, even the Conservatives!
When you look at the Labour manifesto, it is text book Keynesian economics on show. Borrowing on the sort of areas that grow the economy, higher taxes for those that can afford them for better public services. The IFS have actually indicated that the revenue predicted by Labour for its tax plans alone is on the low side. This is entirely sensible as you need to be cautious - I can't really use the word conservative
As for nationalisation - the accusation is that it hasn't been costed in the manifesto. I think the challenge about affordability is rubbish - what is a better argument against this policy is - how can we trust you to run these industries better? But of course many of the companies that own these services are nationalised, they simply are foreign nationalised companies. Labour say - and it makes sense whether you agree with it or not, that the costs in the long term are at least cost neutral. These are profit making companies so you are deflecting the profits into the public purse. They have openly stated that they will buy these companies by issuing shareholders with Government Bonds. It is a bit like getting a mortgage on a great value property. They also don't have to buy the entire company, just have enough shares to control them.
As for rail nationalisation, the Labour party has said they will wait for existing contracts to run out - which is a bit different. I think the important way to look at this is it is a direction, it won't happen on day one, but will be clearly be done over time which is the responsible way.
What did they inherit btw? A lower public debt than now, public services that had been invested in for the first time in decades and an economy that was growing.
On a PPP basis we're roughly the 25th richest country in the world, well below many of our Western European neighbours, the USA, Australia, Canada, the Gulf states etc.
There is something of a 'productivity conundrum' across the developed world (in terms of why technological advances haven't translated into huge leaps in productivity), so for now productivity growth seems capped at around 2% pa. Add in some modest growth in the working population (thanks to a higher birth rate that many developed market economies, plus immigration) and you have the long-term potential growth rate of the UK economy.
7 years of failed austerity policies that haven't worked and cause real hardship for millions. Isn't it about time we stopped blaming Labour for a global financial crisis, using this as an excuse for this governments dismal economic record and moved on in a different way?
It concerns a proposed offshore company property levy. (Which seems like a plan with prospects, frankly.)
I won't bore you with it all but at the end it says:
"Data from Land Registry and Private Eye calculations".
Private Eye, a satirical magazine, really?
We've been discussing since yesterday the Labour Manifesto. My over riding point isn't just Nurses but used them as an example as the often quoted 'nurses have to use food banks'. A nurse earns roughly as a minimum £21,500. If someone on that salary is having to use food banks what is the so-called 'party of the many not the few' doing about those earners and below? £21,500 is above even the new minimum wage Labour will introduce (£10). I agree introducing bursaries during training is in principal a good thing.
Those earning that sort of level won't be effected by the minimum wage increase and I think feeding people is far more important than nationalising the railways, water companies, post office etc etc.
A nurse (or anyone on circa £21k) has more disposable income in there pay packets now than in 2010...... so why is it they are considered 'poorer'?
What would I do? On this one specific point to help the lower earners (under the national average) have more in their pockets;
1. Raise the income tax threshold (personal allowance) so that no one on or around the minimum wage (and a fair margin) pays any income tax, so increase it to £20k. I think this is the conservatives aim for a few years time, or was previously. I'd do it now.
2. Raise all income tax bands I haven't fully done the maths but something like 25p, 42p, 46p. Having the personal allowance increased by circa £8,500 will save anyone on £20k £1700, although the 25p rate looks a big increase it won't effect people who aren't currently 40p tax payers (in fact anyone on under around £65k).
3. I might go one step further and on salaries over say £250k add another band, say 50p.
I think those three would have the effect of increasing the money in peoples pockets who earn less than £50k, at the same time those over around £60k would begin to pay more tax gradually. Someone with more time/info than me can probably calculate if that balances out or not.
I'd probably also freeze the UEL for NI contributions and maybe increase slightly the LEL as it is probably too low, but it's clearly a balance.
I don't blame Labour for the financial crisis (though they took their eye off the regulatory ball) but the go-go years the economy enjoyed were credit-fuelled just as they were all over the developed world (led by the under-regulated banks but happily lapped up by consumers, corporates and governments alike).
Meanwhile I've shown in various posts above that it is the rich not the poor which have been disproportionately and negatively impacted by Tory tax policy - however I accept there are other offsetting non-policy driven factors like booming house and share prices which clearly don't benefit the poor at all.
Better than what you can earn in the bank - just better hope she doesn't get run over by her battle bus.
First, the proposal is for a 15% levy on the sale price of residential property acquired through offshore trusts in one of a number of tax havens. Confusingly the text of the manifesto says "offshore trusts in a tax haven". But the footnote calls it an offshore company property levy. I don't think all trusts are companies, (bare trusts?) and clearly not all companies are trusts. So I wonder which they mean? Who knows?
Second, the claim is that this will raise £3.5bn per annum for Jeremy's coffers. Except it won't. Even the manifesto acknowledges this: "£3.5bn before allowing for behavioural impact". So, what does that mean? Presumably it means that rather than cough up an additional 15% people will: buy in their own name rather than that of a trust/company; buy using a trust/company not from a blacklist tax haven country; buy in a relative's name; buy in th ename of a tame lawyer in Panama or somewhere; or not buy at all. I assume, perhaps naively, that the underlying purpose of this proposal is not to actually raise income but to release additional properties for sale to genuine UK residents? Either way, it will not raise the amount suggested nor slow down the volume of sales to foreign residents. So it probably doesn't work on any level.
If they were serious about this seemingly noble idea, maybe the extra tax would have been applied to anyone buying from overseas, whether a foreign national or a company? (That could only apply to EU residents post-brexit of course.)
In short, after "allowing for behavioural impact" there would be another fucking great hole in Jezza's coffers.
BTW, has anyone found the bit about what they propose doing about income tax personal allowances keeping pace with (or outstripping) inflation yet? (Fiscal drag and all that). Or what will happen about fuel duty, fag and booze tax, etc? Or is it just a lie that the tax increases would not impact regular tax payers?
I read the no tax increase for anyone under £80k simply meaning the 20p/40p rate below that level will remain as such, doesn't mean they can't hold the personal allowance, change where the bands come in etc.
But it still seems to me like neither of us would actually work less if tax rates increased which was the point I was originally trying to make!
Does he know that the whole world was a very different place nigh on two generations ago? Would he know, for example, that the idiot Foot wanted to re-introduce exchange controls in 1983? That would have been good. Anyway, it allows us the opportunity to revisit the Foot manifesto (which didn't include the bit about exchange controls by the way, although all the documents were printed up and ready to go, presumably because of the Labour Party's 1983 promise of a Brexit.) So, the longest suicide note in history. It's remarkably similar in many respects to the 2017 edition. It's here politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm should anyone fancy some mawkish reminiscence of "The New Hope for Britain".
A young Jeremy Corbyn, in his first stint as an MP said the '83 manifesto was “a very interesting electoral platform but lots of people in the party were quite frightened of it”. Whereas Tony Benn took comfort by arguing that “for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over 8.5 million people. This is a remarkable development by any standards and it deserves some analysis.”
It is remarkable to look back now at that great orator, Michael Foot and see similar adoring crowds at that election campaign as our Jeremy gets now. In anything approaching normal times, the Labour party should be in with a strong shout this time round. But I suspect that the twin effects of the SNP's stranglehold on Scotland and the eagerly anticipated demise of UKIP as a political force would be sufficient to do for the party's chances even without the Corbyn effect. We shall see.
(I'm still not voting.)
You also need to look at the overall income tax take compared to GDP.
It's all spin, like the media don't point out that the conservatives since election in 2010 have had a higher rate at the upper end of income tax compared to labour other than for the last two weeks of their tenure. They have also taken away the personal allowance above a level, nearly doubled the personal allowance blah blah blah.
Strong and stable Tory government planning another reshuffle.
I expect this'll be reported on a similar scale to the shadow home secretary's numbers mix up. Oh wait.
Achieving 40% HEIPR was delivered by phasing out grants, bringing in loans and then moving to tuition fees of £3,000. So how did Labour deliver this under Blair and Brown? Well they didn't waste scarce resources trying to renationalise things! What they did was provide a macro economic framework which led to ten years of growth and government surplus / deficit of +/- 1%. And they changed the funding framework such that more money followed the individual student thus encouraging institutions to expand courses and the range of courses.
And they were assisted by fast growing tax receipts. Bank profits and associated tax receipts used to be huge. Between 2007 and 2015 UK bank profits fell by 63% and that will be one of the main reasons why we still have a 3% deficit. Who knows where this number will go after Brexit?
In terms of participation, between 2005/06 and 2013/14 the proportion of English state school pupils eligible for free school meals going to higher education increased from 13% to 22%. That would be half the national rate of those not eligible for free school meals, but still a significant increase.
Let us be very clear in that HEIPR had already been at 40% for a long time when the coalition used austerity to dream up £9,000 tuition fees. Graduates who paid fees of up to £9,000 a year are estimated to have left university with an average of £44,000 of debt, compared with the average £16,200 of debt faced by those who graduated five years earlier. Some estimate that 70% of students today will never finish paying the debt! It will be written off. In other words this is just another Enron style off-balance sheet scheme which appears to take costs away from the government, only for the policy to catch up with the government in the future when significant amounts need to be written off.