Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

I ve a feeling that history wont judge the tories kindly for wrecking the UK economy (as leading brexitiers have already told us) as we come out of the EU and beyond but then its only other peoples money.

We ve also had 2 tax policies overturned after press campaigns, hardly strong and stable... lol.

You're assuming they will. Many will disagree.

Unlike the case of Labour who have actually wrecked the economy a couple of times now - the last two times they were in power. That's a 100% strike rate - on that basis, what do you reckon would happen if they get in again?

Does that make it 2-2? I didn't think you were young enough to not remember the early '90s recession. If it hadn't been for the distraction of the Falklands, Thatcher might have copped the blame for the early '80s recession, too. They no more wrecked the economy than Labour did in 2007-8, albeit that with hindsight there may have been more that could have been done in terms of mitigation.

The Tories left a country in good economic health to Labour when Blair went into Downing Street as I recall (and yes I am easily old enough to remember). Whereas Labour have screwed up 100% of the time in living memory. And we now have a Labour party that is further left and so more liable to wreak havoc than previous incarnations of the party.

I wasn't suggesting that they didn't make some big mistakes; just that both parties have made them throughout history.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

I ve a feeling that history wont judge the tories kindly for wrecking the UK economy (as leading brexitiers have already told us) as we come out of the EU and beyond but then its only other peoples money.

We ve also had 2 tax policies overturned after press campaigns, hardly strong and stable... lol.

You're assuming they will. Many will disagree.

Unlike the case of Labour who have actually wrecked the economy a couple of times now - the last two times they were in power. That's a 100% strike rate - on that basis, what do you reckon would happen if they get in again?

Does that make it 2-2? I didn't think you were young enough to not remember the early '90s recession. If it hadn't been for the distraction of the Falklands, Thatcher might have copped the blame for the early '80s recession, too. They no more wrecked the economy than Labour did in 2007-8, albeit that with hindsight there may have been more that could have been done in terms of mitigation.

The Tories left a country in good economic health to Labour when Blair went into Downing Street as I recall (and yes I am easily old enough to remember). Whereas Labour have screwed up 100% of the time in living memory. And we now have a Labour party that is further left and so more liable to wreak havoc than previous incarnations of the party.

Yeah i ll give you that one, but considering MT had the bonus of N. Sea oil at its height of production it would be hard not to, plus she did sell off an awful lot, spending most of it of tax cuts.

But as this article shows she didnt make the most of it, as we can see with our roads and 1960/70s schools, it meant Blair had to spend on infrastructure.
comapre with what Norway did, obv not a direct comparision but they do show that the UK could have done soooo much more! that op has gone for good now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... 99s-future

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lefties have never been strong on finance/economics/business etc - if they were, they probably wouldn't be lefties That and the oft repated phrase that its only other peoples' money, so they only worry about it to the extent they think the public worries about it.

I ve a feeling that history wont judge the tories kindly for wrecking the UK economy (as leading brexitiers have already told us) as we come out of the EU and beyond but then its only other peoples money.

We ve also had 2 tax policies overturned after press campaigns, hardly strong and stable... lol.

You're assuming they will. Many will disagree.

Unlike the case of Labour who have actually wrecked the economy a couple of times now - the last two times they were in power. That's a 100% strike rate - on that basis, what do you reckon would happen if they get in again?

Does that make it 2-2? I didn't think you were young enough to not remember the early '90s recession. If it hadn't been for the distraction of the Falklands, Thatcher might have copped the blame for the early '80s recession, too. They no more wrecked the economy than Labour did in 2007-8, albeit that with hindsight there may have been more that could have been done in terms of mitigation.

The Tories left a country in good economic health to Labour when Blair went into Downing Street as I recall (and yes I am easily old enough to remember). Whereas Labour have screwed up 100% of the time in living memory. And we now have a Labour party that is further left and so more liable to wreak havoc than previous incarnations of the party.

Yeah i ll give you that one, but considering MT had the bonus of N. Sea oil at its height of production it would be hard not to, plus she did sell off an awful lot, spending most of it of tax cuts.

But as this article shows she didnt make the most of it, as we can see with our roads and 1960/70s schools, it meant Blair had to spend on infrastructure.
comapre with what Norway did, obv not a direct comparision but they do show that the UK could have done soooo much more! that op has gone for good now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... 99s-future

Blair/Brown had a huge windfall from the 3G licences at the start of the millennium. It was large enough to put the economy in surplus for a couple of years, even with labour spending

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Yeah i ll give you that one, but considering MT had the bonus of N. Sea oil at its height of production it would be hard not to, plus she did sell off an awful lot, spending most of it of tax cuts.

But as this article shows she didnt make the most of it, as we can see with our roads and 1960/70s schools, it meant Blair had to spend on infrastructure.
comapre with what Norway did, obv not a direct comparision but they do show that the UK could have done soooo much more! that op has gone for good now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... 99s-future

Ah yes, those terrible tax cuts. Corporation tax being cut from a level of 50% and income tax being cut from 83%, both of which were driving away corporate economic activity and entrepreneurs.

And Norway - that country whose economy is not in the last bit helped by massive oil reserves Way larger than the UK in relation to the size of its economy. Not a good comparison.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yeah i ll give you that one, but considering MT had the bonus of N. Sea oil at its height of production it would be hard not to, plus she did sell off an awful lot, spending most of it of tax cuts.

But as this article shows she didnt make the most of it, as we can see with our roads and 1960/70s schools, it meant Blair had to spend on infrastructure.
comapre with what Norway did, obv not a direct comparision but they do show that the UK could have done soooo much more! that op has gone for good now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... 99s-future

Ah yes, those terrible tax cuts. Corporation tax being cut from a level of 50% and income tax being cut from 83%, both of which were driving away corporate economic activity and entrepreneurs.

And Norway - that country whose economy is not in the last bit helped by massive oil reserves Way larger than the UK in relation to the size of its economy. Not a good comparison.

Good to see that you agree she didnt invest in crumbling infrastructure

As you said before, those cuts in higher rate tax and CT would have led to higher tax take, leaving more money to invest in infrastructure or are you saying we ve got good roads, schools skilled workers and high productivity etc ????

there needs to be balance, thats all i m saying.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Good to see that you agree she didnt invest in crumbling infrastructure

As you said before, those cuts in higher rate tax and CT would have led to higher tax take, leaving more money to invest in infrastructure or are you saying we ve got good roads, schools skilled workers and high productivity etc ????

there needs to be balance, thats all i m saying.

Do you have some verifiable evidence that our infrastructure is crumbling? And compared to what.

Tax cuts were needed to generate more economic activity and more tax...which they did.

rjsterry

http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/former-ad ... -on-roads/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/ ... structure/

rick_chasey

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then again, be glad you didn't have Cameron and Redwood then.

This would appear to be a de facto admission that Brown did mess up - the "Well the Tories would have been as bad or worse" defence. If you've been on the bridge for 10 years when the ship sinks, it's your fault.

In the context of Labour v Tory, it's surely relevant?

rick_chasey

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you hold equal blame for all other chancellors who were in charge of developed countries in that period, that was a result, mainly, of being closely connected to badly sold US mortgages?

I do, but most developed countries didn't suffer anywhere near as badly as the UK did.

Which ever way you spin it Rick, to have been in charge of the regulatory regime that allowed 4 high street banks (LBG, RBS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley) to go down the pan can only be a black mark on the CV. It doesn't really matter whether there were other Finance Ministers (or political rivals) who were worse than Brown. Brown is the only person who can realistically take the blame for wrecking the UK banking system and running up a deficit of 11% of GDP because he was paid for 11 years to do nothing else than be in charge of the UK's finances and financial system. It's not like he can be excused for taking his eye off the ball as he was curing cancer at the same time.

Yeah I just disagree. I don't think Brown "wrecked the financial system". To say that is to give waaay to much agency to politicians in a free market.

I don't think, for example, that chancellors need to be experts on mortgage lending, fixed income derivatives, or other niche products. For what it's worth, half the people using those FI derivs to make money barely understood them. To expect that is to expect a level of omniscience which is not possible.

You can complain about the deficit legitimately.

(And it wasn't LBG that went down the pan, it was HBOS - LLoyds bought them out - and the HBOS execs got sent to prison.)

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Good to see that you agree she didnt invest in crumbling infrastructure

As you said before, those cuts in higher rate tax and CT would have led to higher tax take, leaving more money to invest in infrastructure or are you saying we ve got good roads, schools skilled workers and high productivity etc ????

there needs to be balance, thats all i m saying.

Do you have some verifiable evidence that our infrastructure is crumbling? And compared to what.

Tax cuts were needed to generate more economic activity and more tax...which they did.

Healthcare? l
look at those waiting times, ranked 30th when you need treatment, this one prob tops, we ve failed to ivest in buildings and staff, consistently 1 or 2% gdp below the euro avg, hence the reliance on eu staff, though no doubt that ll change over time.
Mantal healthcare and adult social care.

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

also add in school buildings, many now reaching eol (actually that was many years ago) packed with asbestos and no money to for the extra costs involved in removing this hazardous waste.

ride on the UK B road network, (Trunk and M ways are good, even though very congested) which by en large are the only roads quiet enough for road cycling, and you ll soon see why there is a move to 28mm + tires.

where did this extra tax revenue/asset sales go?

wallace_and_gromit

Rick Chasey wrote:

(And it wasn't LBG that went down the pan, it was HBOS - LLoyds bought them out - and the HBOS execs got sent to prison.)

Good spot re LBG / HBOS. I worked on LBG related projects for a few years that were the result of the problems in HBOS that it acquired. Though in terms of Brown's CV the distinction is not particularly relevant, other than to highlight his role in the takeover of HBOS.

I missed Crosby and Hornby going to jail. IIRC Crosby handed back his Knighthood and both he, Hornby and Lord Stevenson were banned from working again in the FS industry by the FSA. Hornby has subsequently been a senior exec at Boots and Coral. (Ironic that he should end up at a genuine bookmaker!)

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

where did this extra tax revenue/asset sales go?

Initially property, imported cars and overseas holidays. Latterly imported "essential" gadgets.

tangled_metal

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

(And it wasn't LBG that went down the pan, it was HBOS - LLoyds bought them out - and the HBOS execs got sent to prison.)

I missed Crosby and Hornby going to jail. IIRC Crosby handed back his Knighthood and both he, Hornby and Lord Stevenson were banned from working again in the FS industry by the FSA. Hornby has subsequently been a senior exec at Boots and Coral. (Ironic that he should end up at a genuine bookmaker!)

Failure is curiously not a black mark on a top exec in the city. I've seen others do quite nicely out of failure. One was banned from being a director for a number of years after a big PLC collapse. He became non-board member exec effectively acting as a CEO in all but title, even being invited to sit in on board meetings. That was through his ban.period after he just got a mix of exec and non-exec positions. It was.barely a stumble in his career.

No politician to blame for that, sorry!

city_boy

FocusZing

^Ha:)

bendertherobot

It is interesting isnt' it? I mean, Abbott is terrible. A disaster. But the policy? I mean, everyone wants that, don't they? And if it's costed, and it appears to be (accepting political spin there) that's good? But because Abbott is so poor, and has form, it gets widely disseminated. Meanwhile, the Tories claim that permanent degenerative conditions improve and nada.....

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

It is interesting isnt' it? I mean, Abbott is terrible. A disaster. But the policy? I mean, everyone wants that, don't they? And if it's costed, and it appears to be (accepting political spin there) that's good? But because Abbott is so poor, and has form, it gets widely disseminated. Meanwhile, the Tories claim that permanent degenerative conditions improve and nada.....

No, everyone doesn't want. Because all it will mean is current working contracts will have a new holiday allowance of X-4 days (compared to X now) and you have to take the holidays when they are decided.

It's a poor policy, like many of the others

bendertherobot

There is always one mind...

bendertherobot

For balance, today's gaffe isn't just poor prep, or mental arithmetic per se. It's about sheer common sense. So why isn't this one trending more widely?

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

For balance, today's gaffe isn't just poor prep, or mental arithmetic per se. It's about sheer common sense. So why isn't this one trending more widely?

Coopster trending on Twitter???? :shock:

kingstongraham

What policy and what gaffe? Not been in the country.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

What policy and what gaffe? Not been in the country.

I'd keep it that way myself if I could.

Stevo_666

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

rick_chasey

per head or per household?

Stevo_666

Per head as I read it, given it is income tax policy.

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

Punished?

If you earn more, you should pay more tax, surely?

As I've said before there shouldn't be any tax under this 'excellent' system. I don't think it's capitalism + taxation.



Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

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

Last I looked, the Napoleonic wars were over.

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

Given that almost half the adult population pay no income tax whatsoever, where's the money supposed to come from?

Forget this proposal - what would be a fair and effective system in your view?

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

Punished?

If you earn more, you should pay more tax, surely?

As I've said before there shouldn't be any tax under this 'excellent' system. I don't think it's capitalism + taxation.



Income Tax
Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt's new graduated (progressive) income tax began at a levy of 2 old pence in the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 (£5,696 as of 2015),[7] and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million, but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million.

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

Last I looked, the Napoleonic wars were over.

We pay more tax the more we earn under the current system.

McDonnell was very shy about exactly how and to what extent, but to make their budget sums work it would need ti be punitive. He can FRO.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Well, looks like New Old Labour have finally decided that £80k pa is the level at which you are deemed to be rich and need to be punished. Bet they would have gone for a lower threshold if they thought they could get away with it.

Trouble is, it probably won't raise much if the last effort at being spiteful and raising the top rate to 50 % is anything to go by.

Given that almost half the adult population pay no income tax whatsoever, where's the money supposed to come from?

Forget this proposal - what would be a fair and effective system in your view?

Depends how much you want to raise.

Its less about fairness as effectiveness while maintaining incentives to create wealth. You also need to look at taxation overall rather than looking at income tax alone.

As I mentioned above, when the outgoing Labour govt of 2010 left their little bit of 'scorched earth' legacy by raising the top income tax rate to 59%, HMRC's own figures showed it raised sweet FA. So the simplistic and possibly superficially attractive 'bash the rich (anyone who earns over £80k) is not so much an effective revenue raiser as a vote winner - in the eyes of socialists anyway. Fortunately most people will not fall for it.

rick_chasey

Set inheritance tax to 100% & close offshore loopholes.