Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.

My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...

We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.

and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.

Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget

its called investment, we have to invest in state schools and tech colleges, the option not to is no longer there.
As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

so the IFS have said that JC's tax plans are unrealistic BUT then did go onto say that year on year he would get about 30 billion, not 48b he has planned for, 30 billion is still a step change in investment in NHS schools police etc, if he limited his uni fees plan to say 3k per year instead of free and there is the money for schools.

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.

My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...

We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.

and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.

Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget

its called investment, we have to invest in state schools and tech colleges, the option not to is no longer there.
As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

so the IFS have said that JC's tax plans are unrealistic BUT then did go onto say that year on year he would get about 30 billion, not 48b he has planned for, 30 billion is still a step change in investment in NHS schools police etc, if he limited his uni fees plan to say 3k per year instead of free and there is the money for schools.

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

remind me where he is going to get an extra £30bn pa more than the Tories are currently getting

mamba80

you can read Corbyns manifesto as well as i can, IFS went through it and this was their conclusion not mine.

even the tories say JC's plans would raise 20billion and they certainly wouldnt say that if they could have come up with an even lower figure.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

It's about 6% of the defence budget, which is 2% of the overall budget.

mamba80 wrote:

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

If I told you that a certain Michael Gove tried to do that, in a way that is supported by evidence, would you try and take back some of the abuse that has been heaped on his head by left-wing, anti-evidence, anti-change teaching unions and their lefty fans?

mamba80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

It's about 6% of the defence budget, which is 2% of the overall budget.

mamba80 wrote:

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

If I told you that a certain Michael Gove tried to do that, in a way that is supported by evidence, would you try and take back some of the abuse that has been heaped on his head by left-wing, anti-evidence, anti-change teaching unions and their lefty fans?

My sister is head of dept, dyed in the wool tory...yeah i know! her opinion of gove doesnt seem to be very positive at all, the changes he implemented have made her work harder and more stressful, with poorer outcomes.

Why do you always address anyone who thinks the tories are wrong as lefty fans.... its pathetic and belongs in the play
ground.

Its still a substantial amount of money, you could make exactly the same comparison with JC's 50 billion and say its a small amount of total x y or z.

briantrumpet

bompington wrote:

If I told you that a certain Michael Gove tried to do that, in a way that is supported by evidence, would you try and take back some of the abuse that has been heaped on his head by left-wing, anti-evidence, anti-change teaching unions and their lefty fans?

I suggest you look at some of the views on Gove's SPAG tests. If that's at all representative of how he approached education, it's not teachers, lefty or righty, who are the problem. https://schoolsimprovement.net/battle-a ... -teaching/

rick_chasey

Here's an economist looking at the Phillips Curve in relation to wage stagnation, which as afflicted most developed economies, and the UK's in particular.

He looks at the impact of reducing TU bargaining power, and how that impacts wage stagnation; from a historical perspective. For example, at a time when asking for a pay rise was actually dangerous.

He looks at how the movement towards greater self-employment and less unionisation echos what happened before the industrial revolution, and might go some way to explain stagnating wages.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.c ... dangerous/

meursault

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.

My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...

We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.

and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.

Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget

its called investment, we have to invest in state schools and tech colleges, the option not to is no longer there.
As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

so the IFS have said that JC's tax plans are unrealistic BUT then did go onto say that year on year he would get about 30 billion, not 48b he has planned for, 30 billion is still a step change in investment in NHS schools police etc, if he limited his uni fees plan to say 3k per year instead of free and there is the money for schools.

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

remind me where he is going to get an extra £30bn pa more than the Tories are currently getting

It's really very simple, get the evaded tax from the super rich and big business. It's multi billions.

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.

My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...

We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.

and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.

Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget

its called investment, we have to invest in state schools and tech colleges, the option not to is no longer there.
As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

so the IFS have said that JC's tax plans are unrealistic BUT then did go onto say that year on year he would get about 30 billion, not 48b he has planned for, 30 billion is still a step change in investment in NHS schools police etc, if he limited his uni fees plan to say 3k per year instead of free and there is the money for schools.

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

remind me where he is going to get an extra £30bn pa more than the Tories are currently getting

It's really very simple, get the evaded tax from the super rich and big business. It's multi billions.

No it isn't.

1. That's not nearly enough to fill a hole that size - I can show you the stats from HMRC if you want evidence
2. If they could have done it, they would have done by now. Way easier said than done.

bompington

It's a comforting fiction, on many levels, that there is a whole lot of cash that nasty rich people, probably with hooked noses, are sitting cackling over while hiding it from us, its rightful owners.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

It's a comforting fiction, on many levels, that there is a whole lot of cash that nasty rich people, probably with hooked noses, are sitting cackling over while hiding it from us, its rightful owners.

It's also lazy socialism - the phrases 'the rich' and 'big corporations' are bandied around as both an inexhaustible source of money and an object of hate for the 'oppressed masses'. A grade leftiebollox. Do people really still believe this stuff?

letap73

And yet the wealth gap between the top 1% and the bottom 10% grows.
A grade leftie bollox is as bad as A grade rightwing bollox.

Stevo_666

letap73 wrote:

And yet the wealth gap between the top 1% and the bottom 10% grows.
A grade leftie bollox is as bad as A grade rightwing bollox.

That old chestnut again. Sounds like you resent the success of others. And are advocating socialism - a failed economic system - to try to address the perceived issues.



P.S. it appears that at least one person still believes that guff above about the evil rich and those nasty big corporations

surrey_commuter

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

They definitely weren't lefties.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

Except they have not thought about the lead up to these asset purchases through. Experts, eh!

What would be the price of those company's if you knew they would be brought out? The market would quickly re-price these company's. The share prices would be in a constant upward spiral knowing there was a greater fool (the labour government) who would buy the shares off them at a greater price.

The only risk the market is taking that there would be a compulsory purchase of these company's at pre-determined value. This would immediately kill the UK as a safe place to do business so is a very small risk.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

They definitely weren't lefties.

If its such a surefire bet, nationalise everything and we'll all be rich. Oh hang on, that's socialism - unfortunately its never worked like that in real life

- Got any evidence for the post acquisition yield given current stock market valuations? (After the competition has been removed so there is little incentive to be efficient and after Corbyn reduces the rip off prices allegedly being charged by private providers now)
- Got any evidence that the borrowing rate would stay low once Corbyn has been in and turned on the borrowing taps?

Your post at least concedes one thing - that they would not be able to raise the money through tax so would have to borrow it.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

They definitely weren't lefties.

If its such a surefire bet, nationalise everything and we'll all be rich. Oh hang on, that's socialism - unfortunately its never worked like that in real life

- Got any evidence for the post acquisition yield given current stock market valuations? (After the competition has been removed so there is little incentive to be efficient and after Corbyn reduces the rip off prices allegedly being charged by private providers now)
- Got any evidence that the borrowing rate would stay low once Corbyn has been in and turned on the borrowing taps?

Your post at least concedes one thing - that they would not be able to raise the money through tax so would have to borrow it.

Wow!!!! You know my politics/economics and I never said I agreed. There is also a proviso that they saw it as one of his less risky (i.e. damaging) policies.

Just thought I would post it up as if I was Corbyn I would use the argument.
Current yields are 3-4% and would be higher with no tax. He could borrow for 25 years which if he prudently set aside the profits would pay off his outstanding balance even after paying his annual coupon.

Yes if he cut the rip off prices he would cut his own fiscal threat and no there is no evidence to suggest public sector organisations re more efficient. In fact most studies suggest the opposite.

However the electorate are thick with 40% voting for him because he has a money tree. Imagine if he said he was going to borrow at 2% to buy an asset yielding 7%? Surely he would get another 10%. If he wrote it on the side of a bus he could get a Putinesque landslide

letap73

Stevo 666 wrote:

letap73 wrote:

And yet the wealth gap between the top 1% and the bottom 10% grows.
A grade leftie bollox is as bad as A grade rightwing bollox.

That old chestnut again. Sounds like you resent the success of others. And are advocating socialism - a failed economic system - to try to address the perceived issues.



P.S. it appears that at least one person still believes that guff above about the evil rich and those nasty big corporations

No that old chestnut happens sadly to be true.
I am not sure where I am advocating socialism or where I show I resent the success of others - that sadly is in your imagination.

bompington

D'you know what, if socialism really did share the misery equally then maybe it might be tolerable.

But what actually happens inevitably is that a new elite emerges, the ones that know how to manipulate state power for their own ends.
The difference is that under capitalism you have at least some choice about who ends up with your money.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

Except they have not thought about the lead up to these asset purchases through. Experts, eh!

What would be the price of those company's if you knew they would be brought out? The market would quickly re-price these company's. The share prices would be in a constant upward spiral knowing there was a greater fool (the labour government) who would buy the shares off them at a greater price.

The only risk the market is taking that there would be a compulsory purchase of these company's at pre-determined value. This would immediately kill the UK as a safe place to do business so is a very small risk.

Bizarrely they quoted your name :shock: they were going to do the opposite of whatever you suggest.

FFS - these are investment guys. They would weigh up the chance of Corbyn becoming PM and then the chance of him paying, capitalist scum, way over the odds and if they thought he was going to do a Coopster they would buy shares.

Stevo_666

letap73 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

letap73 wrote:

And yet the wealth gap between the top 1% and the bottom 10% grows.
A grade leftie bollox is as bad as A grade rightwing bollox.

That old chestnut again. Sounds like you resent the success of others. And are advocating socialism - a failed economic system - to try to address the perceived issues.



P.S. it appears that at least one person still believes that guff above about the evil rich and those nasty big corporations

No that old chestnut happens sadly to be true.
I am not sure where I am advocating socialism or where I show I resent the success of others - that sadly is in your imagination.

So what's your solution to the problem you think exists with inequality?

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was in a pensions meeting today with senior investment/actuarial/economist boss and the discussion was revolving around what if scenarios of different political outcomes in the next 18 months.

One conclusion was that Corbyn's privatisation plans were not as risky as his other ideas and could be argued to have some merit as you would be buying an asset yeilding several % with money borrowed at 2%.

They definitely weren't lefties.

If its such a surefire bet, nationalise everything and we'll all be rich. Oh hang on, that's socialism - unfortunately its never worked like that in real life

- Got any evidence for the post acquisition yield given current stock market valuations? (After the competition has been removed so there is little incentive to be efficient and after Corbyn reduces the rip off prices allegedly being charged by private providers now)
- Got any evidence that the borrowing rate would stay low once Corbyn has been in and turned on the borrowing taps?

Your post at least concedes one thing - that they would not be able to raise the money through tax so would have to borrow it.

Wow!!!! You know my politics/economics and I never said I agreed. There is also a proviso that they saw it as one of his less risky (i.e. damaging) policies.

Just thought I would post it up as if I was Corbyn I would use the argument.
Current yields are 3-4% and would be higher with no tax. He could borrow for 25 years which if he prudently set aside the profits would pay off his outstanding balance even after paying his annual coupon.

Yes if he cut the rip off prices he would cut his own fiscal threat and no there is no evidence to suggest public sector organisations re more efficient. In fact most studies suggest the opposite.

However the electorate are thick with 40% voting for him because he has a money tree. Imagine if he said he was going to borrow at 2% to buy an asset yielding 7%? Surely he would get another 10%. If he wrote it on the side of a bus he could get a Putinesque landslide

I know you were quoting others but you appeared to endorsing what they said.

Sounds to me like whoever you were listening to has been overpromoted.

meursault

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you could make that argument for Grammar schools but private schools select on wealth.

My brother put his kids in a top private school because of the networking, they r avg at best kids and havent improved either, even he says they have not flourished as he hoped but it doesnt matter because they ve now got great connections...

We should be investing in all kids, whether it is to get a high performing child into Oxbridge and become a top surgeon or bring up a below avg kid to become a tradesperson, because if we dont do this asap, then we will continue to be reliant on immigration.

and nobody would disagree with your sentiment but how would you do it and at what cost.

Personally I think the biggest step change in education would be halving the class sizes which would probably double the budget

its called investment, we have to invest in state schools and tech colleges, the option not to is no longer there.
As for money, no one seems to say oh where is the money for tridents replacement coming from? its just a given we have the funds...

so the IFS have said that JC's tax plans are unrealistic BUT then did go onto say that year on year he would get about 30 billion, not 48b he has planned for, 30 billion is still a step change in investment in NHS schools police etc, if he limited his uni fees plan to say 3k per year instead of free and there is the money for schools.

the also curriculum needs to change, class sizes help but if you are nt teaching the right things, then it doesn't matter.

remind me where he is going to get an extra £30bn pa more than the Tories are currently getting

It's really very simple, get the evaded tax from the super rich and big business. It's multi billions.

No it isn't.

1. That's not nearly enough to fill a hole that size - I can show you the stats from HMRC if you want evidence
2. If they could have done it, they would have done by now. Way easier said than done.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/six-british-multinationals-including-shell-vodafone-lloyds-banking-group-did-not-paid-any-a6844676.html

Tip of the iceberg. But I agree it isn't easy to collect. As those who owe most are sitting on the boards of these scumbags are also sitting in parliament. "Let's tax ourselves!, no, let's not"

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's your solution to the problem you think exists with inequality?

that statement say a lot about you

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's your solution to the problem you think exists with inequality?

that statement say a lot about you

Everyone has their own view on it. The fact that he hasn't tried to answer it says a lot about him.

And you playing the man not the ball again says a lot about you

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's your solution to the problem you think exists with inequality?

that statement say a lot about you

Everyone has their own view on it. The fact that he hasn't tried to answer it says a lot about him.

And you playing the man not the ball again says a lot about you

Hmm perhaps i misread your statement? speed reading while working, sounded like you don't think there's any inequality issues, on reflection probably misread, apologies

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/six-british-multinationals-including-shell-vodafone-lloyds-banking-group-did-not-paid-any-a6844676.html

Tip of the iceberg. But I agree it isn't easy to collect. As those who owe most are sitting on the boards of these scumbags are also sitting in parliament. "Let's tax ourselves!, no, let's not"

Time for a little fact check.

You tnat said we could plug the £30 billion pap year funding gap by collecting the tax evaded by the rich and big business. Per HMRC's own figures we lose £5.2 billion a year in total to tax evasion - of which a fair bit will not be down to your two 'target' groups. That is nowhere near enough, even if you could collect every last pound evaded:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561312/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2016.pdf

As for your link, try looking at the facts for each. These are all global multinationals and they pay tax many countries. To say that they pay no UK corporation tax when they earn their profits all over the world is simply misleading. As the article itself say, there is no suggestion any of these groups have broken any laws, so that excludes tax evasion. I've explained before that there are some very good reasons why certain companies will pay no UK corporation tax in a given year. Such as losses in the relevant year, or losses incurred in earlier years and carried forward.

And let's get away again from corporation tax as the only measure of companies' tax contribution, given that businesses pay up to 25 different taxes and CT is less than 10% of the total tax take. This will give you a much better idea of how much big business does pay in tax:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html
A mere £82 billion of tax between 100 companies...the bastards!

And there you have it, another edition of leftie mythbusters

mamba80

Ah the IFS said approx 2/3 could be raised by raising taxes and not raising some thresholds, the rest of labours tax plans could not happen, I don't remember so much was said re evasion
But we can of course all see that money can be found when required.... what did May say to the nurse ? "The is no magic money tree" patently not true....

What's interesting is our French hosts and friends views on TM .. joke figure like Trump.

letap73

Another lovely scenario for the originator of this thread to get themself involved in - if they haven't already done so:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ight-fears

pblakeney

For UKIP, read BNP.