|
Post by servernaside on May 8, 2017 8:31:00 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across. From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak. Au contraire. Their message is getting across....it's just that people don't like the message !!!
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 8, 2017 15:17:47 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across. From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak. Au contraire. Their message is getting across....it's just that people don't like the message !!! What's not to like? More money for the NHS, police and fire service can't be a bad thing, surely? What about no VAT, NI or income tax rises for low and middle earners? Most of us on here earn less than £80k a year I would imagine, so nothing bad there. Also the triple lock on pensions will be safe. No more tax deals for corporations and the 1%? Doesn't sound too draconian. Not giving Trident £100m of refurbs, binning Hinkley Point and banning fracking? Insentives for the public and industry to become greener? No issues there I don't think. Making Eton, Harrow and the like liable for VAT. Ending the 'free' school special favours that take money from other local schools (eg the fact that a local junior school now has to pay tax on any money it saves through solar power, whereas a free school doesn't). Free school meals for all under 11s. Please tell me how these are things that most people wouldn't agree with? Just to add that pre NHS infant mortality was around 1 in 20 (50/1000) in the UK. It is currently 4 in 1000. In the USA (which has a system that Jeremy Hunt admires and aspires to) it is over 6 per 1000. If the Conservatives get back in the next 5 years will see the creeping privatisation of the NHS turn into a free for all (by all I mean US insurance companies, healthcare (sic) companies and pharmacutical giants) and if you've got a pre-existing condition or you're getting on a bit, tough. Please vote with your conscience and even if you disagree with all of the above Labour ideas at least vote Lib/Dem, Green or Monster Raving Loony for all I care, just don't vote Tory.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 8, 2017 17:06:39 GMT 1
Policy announcement today from Labour that they will abolish car parking charges at hospitals is likely to be popular in Shrewsbury. Well with patients and visitors at least
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 8, 2017 18:59:20 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across. From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak. I don't understand why LufbraShrew would automatically identify the woman as a a Conservative voter rather than the partner of an unemployed man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 5:52:10 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across. From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak. I don't understand why LufbraShrew would automatically identify the woman as a a Conservative voter rather than the partner of an unemployed man. Indeed. And to add to that, unemployment, disability and long term sick are apolitical. Yet people struggling with one, or even all three of these conditions will still vote Tory.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 9, 2017 6:58:54 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across. From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak. Au contraire. Their message is getting across....it's just that people don't like the message !!! Partially. As I've said before, after the last election the Labour party were told it was immigration, security and welfare on which they were not trusted. Why voters looked elsewhere. I'm struggling to see how this new new Labour have since made up that trust. I mean look to Abbott's comments about people who are complaining about freedom of movement. What message does that give? That the are simply not interested. You have an issue with such things then the shadow home secretary is pretty much putting that down to racism on your part. A sure fire vote winner if ever there was I'm sure. As for everything else, I think that's actually more down to the concern that people have as to whether the likes of Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell can deliver and what it will cost to do so. That's why Abbott's (again) performance with the police numbers really does harm Labour's chances.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 9, 2017 10:27:36 GMT 1
Also the triple lock on pensions will be safe. While I agree with your post and the majority of the policies, the triple lock is something that really irks me. What the hell is that 2.5% doing there? In recent years, it's just meant that pensions have grown at a far higher rate than necessary to maintain continuity in the standard of living at a time when everything else the government spends is being cut back drastically. If the aim is to increase pensions, then fine, but just increase them. Don't carry on with this stupid, excessive measure that means while I've had my tuition fees tripled to help with us all being in it together, pensioners (who tend to turn up and vote far more reliably than students) have seen their payouts boom: "The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said in its recent assessment: “Between April 2010 and April 2016 the value of the state pension has been increased by 22.2%, compared to growth in earnings of 7.6% and growth in prices of 12.3% over the same period.” That means pensioners have seen their incomes rise at almost double the pace of the average worker." Not one party is prepared to suggest it should go, though, because evidently they feel it would cost them too many votes.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 9, 2017 10:44:26 GMT 1
Also the triple lock on pensions will be safe. While I agree with your post and the majority of the policies, the triple lock is something that really irks me. What the hell is that 2.5% doing there? In recent years, it's just meant that pensions have grown at a far higher rate than necessary to maintain continuity in the standard of living at a time when everything else the government spends is being cut back drastically. If the aim is to increase pensions, then fine, but just increase them. Don't carry on with this stupid, excessive measure that means while I've had my tuition fees tripled to help with us all being in it together, pensioners (who tend to turn up and vote far more reliably than students) have seen their payouts boom: "The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said in its recent assessment: “Between April 2010 and April 2016 the value of the state pension has been increased by 22.2%, compared to growth in earnings of 7.6% and growth in prices of 12.3% over the same period.” That means pensioners have seen their incomes rise at almost double the pace of the average worker." Not one party is prepared to suggest it should go, though, because evidently they feel it would cost them too many votes. I don't hold an opinion on the triple lock, but obviously it can't stay in place forever, it would be unaffordable. However many older members of this board are quite happy that it is there and would be upset to see it go. For some wierd and wonderful reason most of them will vote for the only party that is suggesting getting rid of it. I understand your anger with regard to tuition fees, my daughter is just finishing her 2nd year and is already the best part of £25k in debt, with another year + potentially 2 more for a masters and teaching qualifications she'll probably owe not far short of my mortgage. Just to add, I notice severnaside hasn't come back on this thread since I challenged him on Labour policies. Perhaps he's busy being strong and stable somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 9, 2017 11:23:30 GMT 1
While I agree with your post and the majority of the policies, the triple lock is something that really irks me. What the hell is that 2.5% doing there? In recent years, it's just meant that pensions have grown at a far higher rate than necessary to maintain continuity in the standard of living at a time when everything else the government spends is being cut back drastically. If the aim is to increase pensions, then fine, but just increase them. Don't carry on with this stupid, excessive measure that means while I've had my tuition fees tripled to help with us all being in it together, pensioners (who tend to turn up and vote far more reliably than students) have seen their payouts boom: "The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said in its recent assessment: “Between April 2010 and April 2016 the value of the state pension has been increased by 22.2%, compared to growth in earnings of 7.6% and growth in prices of 12.3% over the same period.” That means pensioners have seen their incomes rise at almost double the pace of the average worker." Not one party is prepared to suggest it should go, though, because evidently they feel it would cost them too many votes. I don't hold an opinion on the triple lock, but obviously it can't stay in place forever, it would be unaffordable. However many older members of this board are quite happy that it is there and would be upset to see it go. For some wierd and wonderful reason most of them will vote for the only party that is suggesting getting rid of it. I understand your anger with regard to tuition fees, my daughter is just finishing her 2nd year and is already the best part of £25k in debt, with another year + potentially 2 more for a masters and teaching qualifications she'll probably owe not far short of my mortgage. Just to add, I notice severnaside hasn't come back on this thread since I challenged him on Labour policies. Perhaps he's busy being strong and stable somewhere else. Yes, and I don't blame anyone who's benefitted from the move for backing it. Re: tuition fees, it depends where she does her masters - I have been looking but simply can't afford to do one at Warwick or LSE, which would be among my preferred choices, because it costs a whopping £25k, while the postgrad loan is only £10,000 for the entirety of your fee costs and living expenses. Thing is, though, assuming she's in a similar situation to me and comes out with approximately £40,000 of debt from tuition fee loans and maintenance loans (mine will be over that due to an extra year studying abroad), and a current interest rate of 6.1% on that debt, you've got to be repaying over £2,400 each year to make any kind of indentation into that loan. The way that the payback is structured means that to be repaying £2,400 a year you need to be earning about £46,000 a year. For people whose salaries don't start that high (aka all graduates unless they've got family connections) the chance of ever actually repaying much, if any of the original loan is fairly small. What it means, then, is that you're paying an additional 9% aspiration tax on your salary for the first 30 years of your working life. If she wants to become a teacher then she's not likely to repay it, too, despite being a highly educated and intelligent person (who also legally requires those qualifications - same as nurses). So on top of teachers and nurses getting pitiful salaries, they get taxed an extra 9% on income over £21,000. Anyway. Rather off topic. But it's just a really faintly ridiculous system and another way of the "party of low taxes" sneaking stuff through by another name.
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on May 9, 2017 11:43:34 GMT 1
I’ve always voted Labour but not this time and it’s not a difficult decision.
Some of Corbyn’s policies are OK, albeit a bit trivial in the scheme of things e.g. hospital parking, but they’re nearly all about spending money. He’s got precious little to say about income generation beyond tax.
However, even if you love his policies, Labour are unelectable on the grounds of competence. His shadow cabinet comprises the second and third picks from the minority of MPs prepared to support him. Diane Abbot wants to be Home Secretary but she’s too lazy to learn the most basic details of her brief. And she’s an intellectual giant compared to Emily Thornbury.
Someone on here said that Corbyn’s job is to win the party, not the election. What a betrayal of labour voters that is but sadly it’s probably how Corbyn sees it. Better to be “right” than in a position to help anyone. John McDonnell addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square the other day below Syria and Soviet Union flags, so you can tell he’s not really interested in talking to anyone beyond his band of true believers.
And don’t assume that this election will rid us of Corbyn either. He and Momentum will blame the electorate for not getting it and try again. I doubt he’ll step down unless he has the numbers to put a fellow traveller on the leadership ballot.
Of course Corbyn and co. could search their souls and ask why large sections of Labour’s traditional support are deserting them, or they could just call them names and blame the media instead.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 9, 2017 12:00:16 GMT 1
I said Corbyns job was to win the party not the election and I stand by that, I also accept it is a sad reflection of the state of the current Labour Party but would contest that it betrayed its natural roots and voters 20 years ago and is now paying the price, that's not Corbyns fault.
This election is already lost and in all probability the next and that is why Corbyns ' time in the sun' is important in the internal bloodbath that is to come. As a Labour Party member I despised what Blair and Brown did to our party, we have to return to socialism first and foremost and Corbyn is the vehicle for the first stage of that journey. No on can seriously believe he will be there at its conclusion
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 9, 2017 12:10:03 GMT 1
I’ve always voted Labour but not this time and it’s not a difficult decision. Some of Corbyn’s policies are OK, albeit a bit trivial in the scheme of things e.g. hospital parking, but they’re nearly all about spending money. He’s got precious little to say about income generation beyond tax. However, even if you love his policies, Labour are unelectable on the grounds of competence. His shadow cabinet comprises the second and third picks from the minority of MPs prepared to support him. Diane Abbot wants to be Home Secretary but she’s too lazy to learn the most basic details of her brief. And she’s an intellectual giant compared to Emily Thornbury. Someone on here said that Corbyn’s job is to win the party, not the election. What a betrayal of labour voters that is but sadly it’s probably how Corbyn sees it. Better to be “right” than in a position to help anyone. John McDonnell addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square the other day below Syria and Soviet Union flags, so you can tell he’s not really interested in talking to anyone beyond his band of true believers. And don’t assume that this election will rid us of Corbyn either. He and Momentum will blame the electorate for not getting it and try again. I doubt he’ll step down unless he has the numbers to put a fellow traveller on the leadership ballot. Of course Corbyn and co. could search their souls and ask why large sections of Labour’s traditional support are deserting them, or they could just call them names and blame the media instead. Do you not think that the likes of Kier Starmer, Clive Lewis, Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Hillary Benn, Steven Kinnock et al will come running if Corbyn offers them a place on the front benches if Labour were to win (or be the largest party in a coalition)? Labour do have some credible MPs, but many of them are to the right of the party. Both wings should be working together for the benefit of both the party and the country, but instead are entrenching themselves for their own benefit and many activists and party members are frustrated by this. I think Corbyns biggest mistake was when he announced his first shadow cabinet, he should have asked Caroline Lucas to join him and at least one SNP MP and shown that he was willing to work outside party lines for the good of the country. If Labour are (as is suggested in the media) given a real kicking he will have no choice, but to stand down, however if the results are better than 2015 and he can make a few gains to make up for some inevitable losses (hopefully in Telford and we can get rid of that horrible Lucy Allan), he will probably stay for a while, whilst trying to move the party to the left of centre after Blair, Brown and to a certain extent Milliband it too far to the right. Although it is disappointing to see long term Labour voters changing their vote, please don't vote Conservative
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on May 9, 2017 13:06:51 GMT 1
Some interesting thoughts there NeilSalop and you may be right – time will tell.
Kier Starmer is in Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet now isn’t he? He’s the Shadow Brexit minister I think.
It would be good if, as you say, both wings came together but I’m not confident that Jeremy Corbyn and co. want them back. Also, given that the moderates won’t serve in JC’s cabinet now, I’m not convinced they’ll do so if he loses the election.
I hope you’re right about Corbyn being flexible but this would be a departure from form.
Voting is a little bit like going to football matches; much of it is done out of habit and loyalty. If people break the habit, it’s hard to get them back. People are learning not to vote Labour. It has happened already in Scotland and there are signs of the same in Wales and the north of England. Labour is going to have to work very hard to win votes that they used to be able to depend on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 13:13:00 GMT 1
Some of the things Corbyn wants are good, but its how it get there which is the problem.
I believe i have read somewhere that the lowering of Corporation tax which gets all the lefties up in arms about, making the rich richer etc has actually resulted in 10m more in raised corporation tax in the first year, which is encouraging, as growth means more jobs etc. Which is where Jezza's plans unfold, because they wish to hit corporate tax. so ok, i get it, the companies have less profit. Is that the answer, or does it stop businesses wanting to not invest in the UK, hence no jobs etc etc, its all well and good saying can sod off if they dont want to pay tax etc, but then we are just making issues worse.
I think we should be hitting google, starbucks and amazon harder as they pay less than the CT as we speak in special deals, but you squeeze companies to hard and then we are all gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 13:26:12 GMT 1
Agreed, got no problem with taxing wealthy individuals but do that via tax on income/ dividends, however you want to do it rather than corporation tax. It makes sense to incentivise companies to move and/ or stay in the UK to ensure employment of the work force as long as they're not taking the mic!
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 9, 2017 13:48:33 GMT 1
Agreed, got no problem with taxing wealthy individuals but do that via tax on income/ dividends, however you want to do it rather than corporation tax. It makes sense to incentivise companies to move and/ or stay in the UK to ensure employment of the work force as long as they're not taking the mic! EU tax rates ranked in order of highest to lowest 1. Malta, 35 per cent 2. Belgium, 33.99 per cent 3. France, 33.3 per cent 4. Italy, 31.4 per cent 5. Germany, 29.72 per cent 6. Luxembourg, 29.22 per cent 7. Greece, 29 per cent 8 / 9 /10. Austria / Netherlands / Spain, 25 per cent 11/12 /13. Denmark / Slovakia / Sweden, 22 per cent 14. Portugal, 21 per cent 15 / 16 / 17 / 18. Britain / Croatia / Estonia / Finland, 20 per cent 19 / 20 / 21. Czech Republic / Hungary / Poland, 19 per cent 22. Slovenia, 17 per cent 23. Romania, 16 per cent 24 / 25. Latvia / Lithuania, 15 per cent 26 / 27. Cyprus / Ireland 12.5 per cent 28. Bulgaria, 10 per cent This is a bit out of date as the UK is now at 19% I believe, but it shows that companies aren't just going to run away to somewhere with lower corporate taxes, because most of Europe has higher ones. The only ones much lower than where we are currently are hardly what you would call industrial or economic powerhouses. Granted when Brexit kicks in we are going to need some insentive for companies to locate or stay here, depending on what sort of deal can be brokered, but a race to the bottom of this list isn't going help the ecomony in the long term. You actually have to understand the basics of trickle down economics, which is what this is likely to lead to more of. It's quite simple really, the government gives money (via tax cuts, subsidies, etc) to the corporations and the rich and they keep it. Where is the trickle down you ask. No trickle, just a trick.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 9, 2017 13:48:37 GMT 1
Agreed, got no problem with taxing wealthy individuals but do that via tax on income/ dividends, however you want to do it rather than corporation tax. It makes sense to incentivise companies to move and/ or stay in the UK to ensure employment of the work force as long as they're not taking the mic! Taxing wealthy individuals too much also actually tends to decrease tax receipts due to capital flight and the fact that HNW people tend to be more mobile. Hence Nicola Sturgeon rejecting the prospect of increasing the Scottish top rate despite it being ideologically desirable. Good example of how managing a macroeconomy isn't comparable to a household budget. One of the depressing things for me from the infamous Abbott interview was the completely unchallenged notion that increasing spending - in this case adding police officers - needs to be "paid for" by increasing taxation/reducing expenditure elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 13:50:31 GMT 1
Correct if I am wrong. But I am under the assumption in our market based capitalist system that if a business were to 'sod off', then another substitute or complimentary enterprise may move into the gap left....
'Squeezing' businesses doesn't seem to do other similar nations that much harm. Our friends across the atlantic have had highish corporate tax rates for many years...
Much of what Corbyn proposes is geared towards smaller and middle market enterprises particularly in technology, with major investment in key infrastructure designed to improve productivity and a boost of disposable income to the working and middle classes to increase consumption. Corporate tax rate or not his is the only political party promising such investment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 14:33:59 GMT 1
Correct if I am wrong. But I am under the assumption in our market based capitalist system that if a business were to 'sod off', then another substitute or complimentary enterprise may move into the gap left....
Not when we have a global economy though, right?
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 9, 2017 14:58:31 GMT 1
Correct if I am wrong. But I am under the assumption in our market based capitalist system that if a business were to 'sod off', then another substitute or complimentary enterprise may move into the gap left....
Not when we have a global economy though, right?
I would have thought exactly because we have a global economy
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 9, 2017 15:12:47 GMT 1
If a business were to leave it would be because it's not a viable investment for them to continue to operate even when established and with sunk costs. No reason that an exact replacement would somehow find it worthwhile with additional costs to come in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 15:17:00 GMT 1
Ok so using an example - there is a demand for cars. So a company sets up to build cars in the UK. But later identifies that it's cheaper to build cars in China. So it moves to China.
So what is the gap left? Space to utilise, possible infrastructure and employees. But only if it's financially prudent for another company to move in to/ use, rather than operating abroad. Otherwise who moves into the gap? Without doubt not that simple but still.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 9, 2017 15:43:14 GMT 1
I said Corbyns job was to win the party not the election and I stand by that, I also accept it is a sad reflection of the state of the current Labour Party but would contest that it betrayed its natural roots and voters 20 years ago and is now paying the price, that's not Corbyns fault. This election is already lost and in all probability the next and that is why Corbyns ' time in the sun' is important in the internal bloodbath that is to come. As a Labour Party member I despised what Blair and Brown did to our party, we have to return to socialism first and foremost and Corbyn is the vehicle for the first stage of that journey. No on can seriously believe he will be there at its conclusion That's very much my view on Corbyn. Realistically when he became leader 2 years ago it was never about him becoming Prime minister in 2020 (as was thought the next election would be) but being the first stage in realigning the Party with its core voters; becoming a genuinely different offer to the Conservatives and forming a Parliamentary Labour Party that could win an election in 2024 Since then the referendum has thrown national politics in a new, probably more uncertain, phase and it might well be that leads to a whole new style of Labour Party in the future. Maybe that might see further splits and left and centre supporters going in different directions, or a new centralist party who knows. One thing is certain is that change was needed within the party. The status quo was not sustainable. This election is very much about May, the Conservatives and the way forward with Europe and you can't blame her for cashing in on it. But long term the future may see a new centalist approach to politics emerge - look at the sudden changes in France as an example
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 16:36:31 GMT 1
In this highly specialised and highly incorporated example then yes. There is a potential gap left. But as you say it is not as simple as this, and this certainly isn't the case in most industries/sectors.
Looking at it from another angle, why were Corp tax rates lowered in the first place? They have clearly failed to bring the economic benefits that were promised.
Investment? Well wage rates have remained stagnant as have tax rates I might add. These high paying jobs haven't materialised indicating a lack of investment despite notable corp tax rate cuts.
To make us competitive? Yes in the sense we are now firmly in a race to the bottom with countries such as Ireland. We specifically targeted the corp tax cut at multinationals who still continue to avoid tax aggressively.
Perhaps we should start looking at demand side policy and try and boost that, rather than this continual hope that if we give companies more and more we might start seeing a trickle down that isn't just p**s.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 9, 2017 17:12:10 GMT 1
In this highly specialised and highly incorporated example then yes. There is a potential gap left. But as you say it is not as simple as this, and this certainly isn't the case in most industries/sectors. Looking at it from another angle, why were Corp tax rates lowered in the first place? They have clearly failed to bring the economic benefits that were promised. Investment? Well wage rates have remained stagnant as have tax rates I might add. These high paying jobs haven't materialised indicating a lack of investment despite notable corp tax rate cuts. To make us competitive? Yes in the sense we are now firmly in a race to the bottom with countries such as Ireland. We specifically targeted the corp tax cut at multinationals who still continue to avoid tax aggressively. Perhaps we should start looking at demand side policy and try and boost that, rather than this continual hope that if we give companies more and more we might start seeing a trickle down that isn't just p**s. With regards to the bit in bold, unfortunately that can never actually be proven. Economists can create models to estimate what may have happened in alternative universe but it's all conjecture. I'd advocate demand side policies, though. I think now is the perfect time to increase the minimum wage and actually try and strengthen the welfare system because, as you note, wages are at a seriously low level. Like diabolically bad. This despite the macroeconomic phenomenon of low unemployment and inflation - probably largely due to continual increases in the labour force due to immigration being way out of control under May. A situation where those at the bottom have their incomes boosted - whether that's minimum wage or benefits - might lead to some increase in unemployment (but if the flow of migrants falls, it will ease pressure in that respect) but would give wages the jolt that they need so desperately - especially with Brexit-induced inflation now coming in sharply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 17:45:17 GMT 1
In this highly specialised and highly incorporated example then yes. There is a potential gap left. But as you say it is not as simple as this, and this certainly isn't the case in most industries/sectors. Looking at it from another angle, why were Corp tax rates lowered in the first place? They have clearly failed to bring the economic benefits that were promised. Investment? Well wage rates have remained stagnant as have tax rates I might add. These high paying jobs haven't materialised indicating a lack of investment despite notable corp tax rate cuts. To make us competitive? Yes in the sense we are now firmly in a race to the bottom with countries such as Ireland. We specifically targeted the corp tax cut at multinationals who still continue to avoid tax aggressively. Perhaps we should start looking at demand side policy and try and boost that, rather than this continual hope that if we give companies more and more we might start seeing a trickle down that isn't just p**s. We could argue this to the death - but as we both have said it's not that simple! So going to agree to disagree, say well argued to you, and move on :)
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 9, 2017 19:40:36 GMT 1
Given that corporation tax is levied after expense and income tax is levied before expenses I'm less than interested in arguments suggesting that it should be levied at a rate lower than income tax.
Also, given that lower corporation tax in theory incentivises a whole range of economic activities it is too blunt an instrument of economic policy.
The trend has been for corporation tax to come down and even though income tax has come down at the same time this trend has coincided with a breakdown in the relationship between productivity growth and wage growth. So there is a danger that lower overall taxes on income increases post tax income it can feed into increasing pre-tax income inequality.
Luckily enough we're in a position where we do not require taxes to pre-fund government expenditure. Therefore the tax system can safely be re-structured onto taxation of wealth and passive income.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 9, 2017 21:08:22 GMT 1
Agreed, got no problem with taxing wealthy individuals but do that via tax on income/ dividends, however you want to do it rather than corporation tax. It makes sense to incentivise companies to move and/ or stay in the UK to ensure employment of the work force as long as they're not taking the mic! But we know several do take the mick, particularly the muti-national giants (Vodadone, Starbucks etc) often with the scandalous complicity of HMRC. My problem is that to take your argument to its natural conclusion, we end up 'competing' with the likes of China and India on labour costs in your archetypal 'race to the bottom'. You will also know far better from me about bringing forward profits ahead of the introduction of a new higher rate, thereby creating the impression that the tax-take is less when the rate is raised. The other thing that irks me is that every cut in corporation tax as a sweetener to business has to be paid elsewhere - whether in other taxes that impact on the less well off, like VAT, or cuts to public services. We do live in a captialist system where huge corporations sometimes seem to have more power than states and elected governments, but another world is possible if the political will is there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 22:32:42 GMT 1
Agreed, got no problem with taxing wealthy individuals but do that via tax on income/ dividends, however you want to do it rather than corporation tax. It makes sense to incentivise companies to move and/ or stay in the UK to ensure employment of the work force as long as they're not taking the mic! But we know several do take the mick, particularly the muti-national giants (Vodadone, Starbucks etc) often with the scandalous complicity of HMRC. My problem is that to take your argument to its natural conclusion, we end up 'competing' with the likes of China and India on labour costs in your archetypal 'race to the bottom'. You will also know far better from me about bringing forward profits ahead of the introduction of a new higher rate, thereby creating the impression that the tax-take is less when the rate is raised. The other thing that irks me is that every cut in corporation tax as a sweetener to business has to be paid elsewhere - whether in other taxes that impact on the less well off, like VAT, or cuts to public services. We do live in a captialist system where huge corporations sometimes seem to have more power than states and elected governments, but another world is possible if the political will is there. Don't agree about race to the bottom - I think that applies to genuinely low cost low skill items such as clothing to produce. For me it's more about attracting businesses that will help the mix of getting people in employment, investing in infrastructure and upskilling the workforce. JLR is a great example of how a foreign owned business can have such an impact and we need to ensure we are competitive globally to keep encouraging those kinds of businesses. Ahhh damn it I've got into another B&A debate where I know neither of us is going to agree with each other ;)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 5:30:46 GMT 1
But we know several do take the mick, particularly the muti-national giants (Vodadone, Starbucks etc) often with the scandalous complicity of HMRC. My problem is that to take your argument to its natural conclusion, we end up 'competing' with the likes of China and India on labour costs in your archetypal 'race to the bottom'. You will also know far better from me about bringing forward profits ahead of the introduction of a new higher rate, thereby creating the impression that the tax-take is less when the rate is raised. The other thing that irks me is that every cut in corporation tax as a sweetener to business has to be paid elsewhere - whether in other taxes that impact on the less well off, like VAT, or cuts to public services. We do live in a captialist system where huge corporations sometimes seem to have more power than states and elected governments, but another world is possible if the political will is there. Don't agree about race to the bottom - I think that applies to genuinely low cost low skill items such as clothing to produce. For me it's more about attracting businesses that will help the mix of getting people in employment, investing in infrastructure and upskilling the workforce. It's not just about producing low skill items. It's also about the standard of living, lack of affordable housing and people working 7 days a week to make ends meet. Your point about upskilling the workforce is interesting too in light of this year's Skills Funding Agency cuts. JLR will be okay to upskill and train new people, but SMEs', the backbone of the local economy are going to struggle.
|
|