I don't think he ultimately will either, for what it's worth.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
I don't think he ultimately will either, for what it's worth.
Just been reading a bit. The Labour manifesto isn't even that radical. It doesn't go much further than Ed Milliband did.
Tory scum are going to level the same criticisms regardless of what the case is.
It would destroy the economy, so those criticisms are quite valid.
Fuck the economy. I'd well vote Labour if I was English.
Depends what you mean by "destroy" and what you mean by "the economy". The Tories are doing a poor job on that by most measures that ought to be important.Originally Posted by GS
It's a weak manifesto, but where the current Labour leadership is concerned I think it's perfectly legitimate to go ad hominem rather than on policy. Nobody wants those wankers running the country.
Labour Party at 0% in latest poll!*
*Sample size: 1
It's impossible to fund massive increases in public services by hammering the private sector and the middle class from all angles.
The result will be job losses, economic stagnation, increased borrowing and misery for everyone. I really don't understand how many times it has to fail before the left accept it's a complete non starter. It doesn't work.
At least three of those are already happening. And tempted as I am to berate you for your standard boilerplate, I'll ask a question instead. Do you consider the outcomes of the current economic model a success?
The Scandinavians seem to be doing alright taxing the shit out of everyone.
If you have 4 million people and a shitload of trees, life is a little bit easier.
The banks will all move abroad once the finance passports run out so may as well tax them at 90% until then.
Ah yes. Trees!
I consider it to be a moderate success. Job creation is sound, unemployment is low. Earnings have stagnated, but comparing it to 2008 is a nonsense given everything that happened up until then was built on air.
Unemployment is the lowest since 1975 or something, I read yesterday. You can't just conjour the idea of job losses from your imagination.
When successfully getting the drones to work in shit jobs is a success, you know on whose behalf you're speaking.
This Robin Hood financial transaction tax of 0.5% that Cons are suggesting is going to crush the financial sector even more and make it even easier to leave the UK.
Great politics though even if it's awful economics. People out there in the country fucking hate London and financial services.
Indeed even though it's the thing (services) that gives us as a country the competitive advantage over others. At least we don't need to worry about that when we leave Europe and we can look at the Irish with all our old jobs.
At least they have jobs, which means tax income to the exchequer from companies and employees. The private sector pays for public services.
The idea that everyone should have a "good job", or that it's achievable, is ludicrous, by the way. What do you classify as a non shit job, exactly?
This is it. Companies have used the corporation tax cut to invest in expansion and job creation. It's led to an increase in tax intake.
If Labour increase taxes by about 10% overnight, who do you think is going to lose out exactly? You're certainly not going to have companies ploughing FDI into a "hostile" business environment. Totally counterproductive, and would lead to significant impact on jobs.
Still, I suppose Jez can just employ them all in the public sector.
£11bn to subsidise rich kids to go to university.
Superb.
Isn't this a Labour policy? Or are the Conservatives suggesting it is going to crush the financial sector? Confused. Have they committed to one as well?
Anyway, leaving could be interesting seeing as a FTT is a desired policy of the EU/Eurozone, even if it is miles off being agreed.
No one should be particularly worried about a Labour government wrecking the economy seeing as you aren't going to have one.
Works ok in Scotland.
and Wales.
Where it has greatly increased the difficulty of poor students getting into university. So no it didn't.
Has it? Every cunt is at uni these days so I doubt it.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc...s/amp/36392857
Funding fees means limiting places. That means demand outstrips supply, so grades go up. If grades go up, rich kids are far more likely to get those places. Hence the gap growing bigger, and it will continue to grow whilst the policy is in place.
There's also the £120m a year the SNP spend on giving EU students free tuition, for reasons passing understanding.
Ok but does nobody take in to account that poor kids are mostly thick as fuck?
Looks like I've got the wrong end of the stick there. You are right - it's Labours.
The Welsh Wales party have been launching their manifesto.
Do centre left parties in other countries freely chuck around such language about centre right parties?Her party's "action plan" was designed to withstand the risks of a "cruel and reckless Tory party", she said.
Leanne Wood is completely out of her depth anyway. This all comes back to the Judean People's Front. It's a crowded field for the progressive vote, so they just try and outdo each other.
It would only be remotely feasible if it was a global tax, so no company could just move elsewhere etc. Without it, it's just a waste of time and completely counterproductive.
It did not.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-...8-168383da43b7
Appealing to the Laffer Curve ought to disqualify you from any discussion of this kind.
A shit job is one that is unstable, poorly paid, in unsocial hours and so forth. A non-shit job is one that avoids these things, or compensates for them.
If making things better for people is ludicrous then we might as well all give up - unless again, you don't give a shit about anyone but the well off.
The modern [mainstream] left is almost wholly defined by what it's against, rather than what it's for. The referendum exposed it reasonably well, since all of their big talk over the past few years fell to bits as soon as it meant indirectly agreeing with Nigel Farage, but you can probably trace it back to Margaret Thatcher donning them.
Yep. It isn't voodoo economics. Companies had more capital, and the unemployment rate decreasing, more investment and further tax intake increasing are direct consequences of it.
Question - how do you expect private enterprise to invest in " stable, well paid" jobs if you're proposing to take more of their money in CT, make it unattractive as a place to do business, and then hammer the private incomes of the wealthy who are actually going to invest / run these companies?
It's a preposterous programme for government, and it really could only come from the intellectually dense who developed a view of the world in the student union and never changed it.
I notice you've managed to overlook the deeply unpleasant views that Corbyn and McDonnell share on the IRA. Perhaps you'd like to offer a view on why it can be overlooked by the electorate.
Did you bother to read the FT link? (Hardly a bastion of socialism.) It specifically says that there was a fall in business investment, and offers various other reasons for the increased take.
Do European's do small c conservatism?
It's either total deference to the state and/or church or fascism isn't it?
I've read it before, on account of not being chained to positions on account of ideology.
Lower taxes leads to positive outcomes, and I think that is especially pertinent post Brexit. We compete globally for business, and lower taxes and favourable allowable expenses regimes encourage investment (see: Ireland). This is the way forward, not baying at the moon for the socialist paradise that will finally work "if only it's done properly".
I dunno, what's Merkel, I'm sure Martin Schulz doesn't go around calling her evil and cruel.
Why collect tax at all then? Why not just let the corporations and individuals spend their money where they see fit if that's how you feel?
Then why have you decided to ignore it and the evidence it presents, in favour of repeating your ideological babble?
What a completely ridiculous point.
"Ignoring the evidence" is an apt description of your entire world view.
Have you decided why the Corbyn/McDonnell views on the IRA aren't important or are you just going to keep ignoring it and hope nobody remembers?
What's a low tax rate that doesn't lead to positive outcomes? 4%? 12%?
That's nice. But I'd prefer you defend your position rather than lobbing insults about this or indeed the IRA.
You keep going on about low taxes leading to higher revenues and cited the corporation tax cut. The FT says that there were other reasons for higher revenues in that case. It list them and provides various figures, including one figure that shows that business investment (which you say increased) was in fact lower following the cut.
Do you disagree with what the article is saying? Is there something it doesn't mention? Or am I misrepresenting it?
If you can't or won't answer it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are simply repeating ideological bullet points.
You could ask the same thing about high taxes, i.e. why let anyone keep their money at all when the state could spend it more usefully for them (I'd love a crate of BRITISH PRODUCE food rations delivered to my door every Friday morning, and no child would go hungry).
You could, which is why there's no simple answer. In mathematical terms, an economy is a complex system with lots of feedback loops and changing circumstances. Sometimes it is good to lower taxes, other times it is good to raise them, and it is very hard to predict the effects whatever you do. Anyone subscribing to a model where there's some sort of smoothly curved relationship between tax rate and tax receipts is blinkered, to put it politely.
Which is why bollocks to the models, and let's get philosophical (that is to say ideological).
You're misrepresenting it and not considering like for like.
My points throughout have been based on the period 2010-2016; that is, the period with a Conservative chancellor and where the rate fell from 28% to what is now 19% (that is, tolerably medium term to overlook the one year comparison with its one off effects / exceptional items which the FT article is predicated on).
Your points re a decrease in business investment (of 2%, no less) relate only to 2016 and not the full period. Further, my point on "investment" was particularly relevant to FDI (a personal favourite). According to government statistics, 390k jobs have been created by FDI since 2010, with 116k created or safeguarded in 2016 alone. The UK remains the top European destination for investment from emerging markets. This is a boon to the economy, and tax rates / relief regimes are particularly prevalent for companies making these decisions (see: Ireland, where surveys of international companies clearly indicate that these are key drivers).
Intake was 36.6bn in 2010, increasing to 44.4bn in 2016, an increase of 21.2%. The unemployment rate when they took over was 7.8%. It's now 4.5%, which economists consider to be full employment in the modern sense of what is possible. Income tax receipts increased by 16.3% (to 168.5bn) despite an increase in the personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600 and an increase in NIC (including employer NIC) of 19% (to 113.7bn) in the same period.
Steep cuts to corporation tax overnight don't work, in my view. Volume can't compensate for the sudden drop in tax revenues. However, this has been a staged decrease in the headline rate with accompany relief for lower earning workers through personal income tax relief. The cut in the upper tax take was offset by freezing the higher threshold repeatedly.
For this six year period, the tax intake has increased despite reductions in headline rates. Almost 44% pay no income tax. The top 1% more pay 27.5% of all income tax (up from 24.4% previously).
It's a medium term strategy and it works, and it needs to continue post Brexit with further cuts to ensure competitiveness with other developed economies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote