8 June

[DaveR]

The problem with The Corbyn analysis above is that it ignores where we are now and the direction of travel. In relation to utilities, for example, the current position in the UK is that we have privately owned (as opposed to state-owned) providers operating in regulated but competitive markets. Much of the EU now also looks more or less like this, although as expected there are significant variations, but the direction of travel for the last 20 years has been away from state-owned monopoly utilities. Against that background, Labour's manifesto proposals (including compulsory acquisition by the State of shareholder owned plcs) are shockingly radical.

In any event, "mainstream of northern European social democratic thinking" means the Socialists in France (just been wiped out) and the SPD in Germany (looking likely to get wiped out by Merkel and the CDU) so perhaps nothing to be happy about.

[JohnL]

Looking at the below link there's more "nationalisation" since 2000 than I thought

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

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Emily Thornberry absolutely demolished Michael

> Fallon on Marr today Brilliant. She even said

> B@ll**ks.

>

> He was at a party with Assad but couldn't remember

> - she did :)

>

>Wow, her memory must have improved! Last year she couldn't remember the name of the French Foreign Minister (when Shadow Foreign Secretary!) or that the president of South Korea is a woman!

I wonder why Lady Thornberry of Islington has taken to saying "boll**cks" - maybe she thinks it might lure back the lost votes of the white van drivers of Kent!

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The failed economics of the 70s or more recently

> France but still people fall for the free lunch

> guff

Nothings free. The manifesto suggests raising money from increases in taxation and borrowing against investments.

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> borrowing against investments.

I assume you're talking about borrowing to fund the proposed renationalisation programme?

I'm not sure Labour are viewing these as "investments" in the financial sense of the word... i.e. running them as profit making businesses capable of repaying the initial capital. But not sure.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I believe they're talking about bringing services into public ownership at the end of the existing franchises and that the services will bring money back into the exchequer (as with the east coast line).

The borrowing is for a ?250 billion fund for investment in infrastructure ? transport, energy systems, communications ? scientic research, and housing.

[robbin]

Ah yes, a quarter of a trillion. No problem, I'll just get my cheque book...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here's the funding statement: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

[Earl Aelfheah]

... and he manifesto http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

[DaveR]

National Transformation Fund. National Infrastructure Commission. National Education Service. National Investment Bank. National Care Service. Department of Housing. Ministry of Labour. Cultural Capital Fund. Violence Against Women Commissioner. And so on, ad infinitum. Vote for the government, we can and will do anything and everything to make all your lives much better than they could ever be without us. We are Big Brother, and we are watching you, but in a nice way (if you are one of 'the many' and especially if you are a 'worker').

NB - can someone explain to me the difference between a 'worker' and someone who has a job?

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah yes, a quarter of a trillion. No problem, I'll

> just get my cheque book...

?250BN over ten years, to build 100,000 social housing units per year, providing employment for how many? Equates to 3.5% of current annual tax revenue. You might not like what they propose spending the money on, as is your right, but let's not act as if it's an insane sum - if we can find ?200+BN for Trident...

[robbin]

You can break it down and try to rationalise it however it suits you best Rendel, but that doesn't necessarily make the sums add up.

Your 3.5% of total tax revenue is a nice way of disguising the reality, but if you are hoping to raise an extra 3.5% of the total (100%) from just 5% (the top bracket), with a 5% or 10% tax rise and another slice from corporation tax, it doesn't take a genius to see that might not be as simple as your statistics try to make it out to be.

Btw, if I am asked to pay 50% on my income, in keeping with others I am highly likely to stick more into my pension, so Jezza won't get that part of it. If you do (which I doubt) you shouldn't think it is all that simple. Check out the Institute for Fiscal Studies and see what they think the additional revenue might be from those suggested tax rises. It is possible it will come out to zero. It might be more, but it's very difficult to predict. What is not difficult to predict is that our debt is highly likely to increase even more. Maybe more debt is fine for oldies, but maybe not the future generation - suppose it depends on where your priorities lie.

And as for Trident - the Labour manifesto is to keep it! But, to keep it while removing any actual value as a deterrent with the Prime Minister (trying to keep a straight face writing that) saying he would never actually use it! Now that's getting full value for our most expensive asset! Scrap it or use it as a deterrent - don't pay for it and not have any deterrent - a small child could come up with a better strategy than that.

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But, to keep it while removing any

> actual value as a deterrent with the Prime

> Minister (trying to keep a straight face writing

> that) saying he would never actually use it!

Never trust the guy carrying a huge stick who says he

never uses it - he'll whack you for sure.

[????]

The top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of income tax - that's 320,000 people (based on 32 million in employment); many of them will have highly portable skills alot of them won't be UK citizen - if the spread of international workers in say banking in London is anything to go by - and very many of them work for big, international financial services with plenty of offices overseas (that will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily transferable within their companies; many won't share Left wing views on sharing half of their income for the greater good either; - not hard to say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll with devastating results for tax take. This combined with the anti-business crap that Labour spouts will see an exodus of high vale employees and employers. Stone age economics but at least we'll be more equal in our squalor. Anyone but Labour for me now is the clear cut decision which here in SE22 probably means voting Conservative for the first time in my life - i can feel my dad spinning in his grave.

[maxxi]

After trawling through this and the other votey thread (not just the above posts) the choice is clear...

Vote labour and the big earners will leave the country and a madman will borrow the earth and ruin the country and we'll all go mad and die.

Vote Tory and the big earners will skullf*ck the poor, and a madwoman will sell our country to a mad yank with a dodgy barnet and we'll all go mad and die.

Vote LibDem and- ... no, I've got nothing.

[jaywalker]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>>

> Btw, if I am asked to pay 50% on my income, in

> keeping with others I am highly likely to stick

> more into my pension, so Jezza won't get that part

> of it.

I think you will find that is covered. Your pension pot can be taxed. Even this government is taxing it at the margin by extraordinary amounts if you exceed the shrinking investment limit.

> What is not difficult to

> predict is that our debt is highly likely to

> increase even more. Maybe more debt is fine for

> oldies, but maybe not the future generation -

> suppose it depends on where your priorities lie.

but the government is currently able to borrow on 10 year gilts at 1%, and even on 50 year gilts at 3%: with inflation at 3.5% today, I think Corbyn can borrow as much as he likes and there will be no adverse effects: actually, it would be equitable inter-generationally - the wealthier old ones (like me) paying more in real terms in the early years of the debt, the younger ones paying virtually nothing in real terms (look up how quickly real debt halves if inflation is 3.5%! on nominal interest rates of 1 or 2%)

> And as for Trident - the Labour manifesto is to

> keep it! But, to keep it while removing any

> actual value as a deterrent ...

To make this statement requires that you say under which circumstances you would push the button. I am struggling to think of any such circumstances. For example, if N Korea send off a ballistic to Japan or the USA, the USA know full well that to eviscerate N Korea in exchange is MAD (mutually assured (environmental) destruction). The computer simulations suggest a global winter that would kill all unbunkered Americans (and us of course).

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> NB - can someone explain to me the difference

> between a 'worker' and someone who has a job?

A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an 'employer is the 'demander'

'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human capital' is the skill that a worker possesses.

Another measure is that a worker receives a reward for 'earned income' [wages, salaries, tips, other taxable employee pay and self-employment income] as opposed to 'unearned income' [property income, inheritance, rent, interest & profit]. The unemployed who make themselves available for work are regarded as workers except for those who are classified as unemployable. There is another category is the discouraged worker who has essentially given up on seeking work due to finding it nigh impossible to find work.

Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend to treat their transition to 'employer' differently.

It gets complicated according to hours worked & hours available for work etc - economists treat the subject differently to tax people.

[Otta]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Vote LibDem and- ... no, I've got nothing.

This is the big problem.

[JoeLeg]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of income tax -

> that's 320,000 people (based on 32 million in

> employment); many of them will have highly

> portable skills alot of them won't be UK citizen -

> if the spread of international workers in say

> banking in London is anything to go by - and very

> many of them work for big, international financial

> services with plenty of offices overseas (that

> will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily

> transferable within their companies; many won't

> share Left wing views on sharing half of their

> income for the greater good either; - not hard to

> say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll

> with devastating results for tax take. This

> combined with the anti-business crap that Labour

> spouts will see an exodus of high vale employees

> and employers. Stone age economics but at least

> we'll be more equal in our squalor. Anyone but

> Labour for me now is the clear cut decision which

> here in SE22 probably means voting Conservative

> for the first time in my life - i can feel my dad

> spinning in his grave.

I'm still suspecting that Corbyn et al know - absolutely know - that they aren't going to get elected. They've been outmanuevered by May on the timing of the GE, and figure that they may as well go down in glorious socialist flames on this one, shoring up support with their core vote.

I'd bet money that if this was an election they actually had a chance on winning they'd be running a much more middle of the road platform, as it is they have nothing to lose by running to the left. They'll never have to deliver on any of this, and the battleground for the next election will be the aftermath of whatever Brexit turns out to be, so none of this will matter.

[Lordship 516]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of income tax -

> that's 320,000 people (based on 32 million in

> employment); many of them will have highly

> portable skills alot of them won't be UK citizen -

> if the spread of international workers in say

> banking in London is anything to go by - and very

> many of them work for big, international financial

> services with plenty of offices overseas (that

> will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily

> transferable within their companies; many won't

> share Left wing views on sharing half of their

> income for the greater good either; - not hard to

> say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll

> with devastating results for tax take. This

> combined with the anti-business crap that Labour

> spouts will see an exodus of high vale employees

> and employers. Stone age economics but at least

> we'll be more equal in our squalor. Anyone but

> Labour for me now is the clear cut decision which

> here in SE22 probably means voting Conservative

> for the first time in my life - i can feel my dad

> spinning in his grave.

The the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people [2007/08 to 2015/16].

This is an indictment of the low pay policy promoted by the tory parties [including Tory Bliar's regime] whereby a huge phlanx of the population don't even get enough to pay their way - this even applies to nurses, police & firemen who provide essential services. If these people earned sufficient basic pay then they would begin to pay tax. If their low pay is so essential to the various industries that they work for then society needs to top up their income to adjust the deficit - as in tax benefits but a bit better than is paid now. Then we would have a fairer society.

Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax. Many of this 1% are paying tax on unearned income & cannot be regarded as 'workers' - they collect rent, interest, dividends etc. often on inheritated wealth. They benefit from a hidden income - the capital growth of their holdings that they never pay tax on until they dispose of the asset & they have many opportunities to manipulate the derived income in a 'tax efficient' manner - that means 'tax avoidance' promoted by gunslinger banksters, solicitors & accountants. These asset accretions need to be taxed as much as our cash incomes are.

This is mainly due to the growing inequality over time from 1978/79 that signifies that the larger tax burden on the richest reflects their rising incomes.

The richer people and high paid must regard their taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their jobs will be taken up by plenty of available people who will probably do a better job & for less. The UK is a sufficiently large market that will attract people to service it. The issue of the treatement of invisible earnings from such activities as insurance, banking, shipping services supplied to non-residents is an area that needs special treatment but so also does tax avoidance & tax evasion need sorting out.

We need the NHS functioning so we can have our health looked after when we need it.

We need the police functioning so we can be safe & so we can walk the streets without fear.

We need good schools with sufficient staff to educate our children to a reasonable standard.

Etc. etc....

I am in the higher tax bracket [thankfully but not the 1%]. I could avoid paying a lot of tax [about half] by keeping funds abroad in China, Ireland, Brazil & elsewhere that I get paid from but I am happy to pay my due tax particularly if the services are to a good standard - by returning my funds to the UK also gives me security for my earnings. I sleep at night & know that in the future a big bill won't drop on my mat some morning demanding previously non-reported earnings. I am not being sanctimonious, just try to act fairly. The NHS saved my life twice, I owe the state respect for that & my kids education & much more. No issue - I expect most people ought to act likewise & be happy to do so.

[TE44]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> After trawling through this and the other votey

> thread (not just the above posts) the choice is

> clear...

>

> Vote labour and the big earners will leave the

> country and a madman will borrow the earth and

> ruin the country and we'll all go mad and die.

>

> Vote Tory and the big earners will skullf*ck the

> poor, and a madwoman will sell our country to a

> mad yank with a dodgy barnet and we'll all go mad

> and die.

>

> Vote LibDem and- ... no, I've got nothing.

Ha ha What about green, they'll have alkanet diggers, preparing medicines with its many properties and natural dye from its roots. Think

Of the money we'd save on pharmy bill. Oops no that would never do either.

[TheCat]

Its two smaller tax grabs that have caught my eye in the labour manifesto, over and above the big headline income and corp tax increases.

Firstly they want to increase the insurance tax on private medical insurance premiums; secondly they want to add VAT to private school fees....

Both of these smack of ideological vindictiveness, rather than economic sense...

At a time when Labour claims that both our healthcare and education system are 'broken'; why would they want to add barriers to those who can afford to alleviate pressure on the public systems? Even if you're ideologically opposed to the privatisation of the NHS, why would you begrudge someone who can afford to go elsewhere, doing just that and freeing up pressure on the public system?

Envy politics and anti-aspirational in my view.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Labour it is suggested, would 'take us back to the 1970's' with renationalisations. The Tories on the other hand, would prefer the 1950's with grammar schools and fox hunting and girls jobs and boys jobs.

[Jules-and-Boo]

50s? More Victorian era...

[TheCat]

To be fair, labour wont take us back to the 70's...maybe just the 1980's....1980's USSR...