Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[Greebo]

is this a new policy or in their manifesto? not seen it? surely the conservatives should be climbing all over this?

Its mention, no figure set and Boris is running around saying the average council tax will go up be £4k per annum which is ridiculous. Becuase the Tories have said that they have removed the promise on tax rises in their manifesto labour can go around saying the Tories are going to put the basic rate of tax up to 30%.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

There was nothing funny about it and Liam Byrne bitterly regrets it every day I'm sure.

I thought it was pretty funny

 

[Trusty]

But playing devils advocate surely as a neo liberal you are all about the survival of the strong so if a business isn't competitive should it not die out and allow a better and stronger business to replace them? You are in effect asking the state to subsume public services to prop up sub standard business practices which is, essentially, pushing what could be argued to be public money into private hands.

Except it won't be replaced with a competitor, it'll be replaced with unemployment.

 

[Greebo]

I keep seeing this and intrigued, is there anywhere that has published proper data on how it has shown to be fully costed?

IFS analysed it and confirmed its fully costed but point out the tax increases they propose will never raise the stated amount of money (they never do)

Equally they looked at the Tories and said because theirs isnt costed there is billions of pounds of shortfalls.

In summary. Neither manifesto adds up and either things will have to be dropped or more tax increases will incur.

 

[RDM]

Is there much evidence that we've seen the opposite effects since it was lowered? Has productivity improved?

I saw an FT article the other day that said the decrease in Corporation Tax rate has correlated with a massive increase in corporation tax receipts, something like 20%?

https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

Which is one of the flaws of Labours "costings", they seem to think a change in tax rate won't lead to a change in behaviour.

Not to mention lots of the nationalisation program isn't actually costed.

 

[scorza]

He's condemned the IRA

No he hasn't. Provide the full quote to back you up if you think otherwise.

But playing devils advocate surely as a neo liberal you are all about the survival of the strong so if a business isn't competitive should it not die out and allow a better and stronger business to replace them? You are in effect asking the state to subsume public services to prop up sub standard business practices which is, essentially, pushing what could be argued to be public money into private hands.

These will be businesses that offer goods or services that people want, at competitive prices, successful businesses in other words, who will be strangled by new regulations brought in under the Corbyn regime. Companies like OCUK will find it increasingly difficult to operate in Corbyn's Britain until all we're left with are the likes of the purple shirted ones to buy our PC components from. Nothing to do with survival of the fittest, everything to do with strangling entrepreneurship through taxes and regulations. Big government and big business are quite happy co-existing with each other.

 

[Roar87]

As I say there is not necessarily a right or wrong here just how you view it through a particular lens. Some will argue if you had loaned more and spent it would have stimulated the economy to drive down debt. The flip side you argue is that we have the best situation we could be in and more lending would only have exacerbated it.

There is no way to know the right answer, personally I believe spending would have helped you don't. We can't definitively say who is right in just pointing out your absolute statement of the Cons benefit is actually anything but a sure thing.

The problem with your argument is that if you lend more and the economy doesn't improve you're in a much worse position than you would've been by simply making cuts

 

[No1newts]

Except it won't be replaced with a competitor, it'll be replaced with unemployment.

He's a neo liberal, he shouldn't care, they're failures.


As I say I'm playing devils advocate rather provocatively I'll admit but his argument is we need free markets and competition etc etc but only if any pain is passed on to society as opposed to business leaders otherwise god forbid and let's go everything we can to prop them businesses up.

 

[div0]

So anyone else seen the labour proposal to change council tax to a land value tax.

Based on their costing document would put my council tax bill up to over 4k a year :/

50% of house value is land value they say and they want to put a level of up to 3%of the land value

Can you link? All the sources I've found seem unclear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/tax-homes-treble-labour-plans-land-value-tax/

Tax on homes 'to treble under Labour plans for Land Value Tax'

Council tax bills would treble for middle-class homeowners under Labour plans to introduce a so-called “garden tax” on the value of land, it was claimed last night.

...

The policy has been driven by the Labour Land Campaign, a working group praised by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, and is regarded by its supporters as a fairer way of taxing property.

The campaign proposes a “standard rate” of 3 per cent of the value of land, which would be applied to 55 per cent of a home’s value (based on the assumption that land accounts for 55 per cent of a property’s value). The tax would be levied on 100 per cent of the value of vacant plots.

...

A Labour spokesman said: "This is desperate nonsense from the Tories. Labour has no such plans."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...17-jeremy-corbyn-john-mcdonnell-a7738766.html

Labour looks to replace Council Tax with a Land Value Tax
Party to launch a review into tax backed by many economists due to its efficiency

...

The Independent understands that the party are also interested in LVT as a means of encouraging developers to bring vacant or undeveloped land into use to address Britain’s housing crisis.

...

Dave Wetzel, president of the Labour Land Campaign, said: “This is an example of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party not only listening to us but also other economists across the political spectrum such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, The Adam Smith Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that have all advocated Land Value Tax.

Reading between the lines and trying to extract some 'facts':

• It is (possibly/probably?) the Labour Land Campaign who have proposed the figures mentioned - nothing to do with Labour Party or their manifesto as far as I can tell
• The Labour Party is considering a change to LVT, which the Labour Land Campaign approves of - but I cannot find any information on the exact figures that Labour say they would implement

This is what I hate about modern journalism. So many papers are desperate for the 'shocking' headline rather than trying to clearly lay out the facts. When ever I read things like 'it was claimed last night', I automatically wonder whether there's any credibility in the source at all.

 

[LizardKing]

IFS analysed it and confirmed its fully costed but point out the tax increases they propose will never raise the stated amount of money (they never do)

Equally they looked at the Tories and said because theirs isnt costed there is billions of pounds of shortfalls.

In summary. Neither manifesto adds up and either things will have to be dropped or more tax increases will incur.

Thanks! found it and the following article.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

It makes pretty damming reading of both manifesto's, a potential 6 billion shortfall or the unknown shortfall of anything from 0-48 billion.

Thats a lot of money Labour are gambling on gaining.

 

[No1newts]

The problem with your argument is that if you lend more and the economy doesn't improve you're in a much worse position than you would've been by simply making cuts

And the problem with your argument is we may have missed opportunities to stimulate the economy and drive down debt to stimulate spend to further increase tax receipts and further push down debt.

Who is right? We can't say but your statement is easily open to challenge, I'm not necessarily trying to disprove your point as I am say stating it as the only answer is incorrect.

 

[VincentHanna]

No he hasn't. Provide the full quote to back you up if you think otherwise.


These will be businesses that offer goods or services that people want, at competitive prices, successful businesses in other words, who will be strangled by new regulations brought in under the Corbyn regime. Companies like OCUK will find it increasingly difficult to operate in Corbyn's Britain until all we're left with are the likes of the purple shirted ones to buy our PC components from. Nothing to do with survival of the fittest, everything to do with strangling entrepreneurship through taxes and regulations. Big government and big business are quite happy co-existing with each other.

What are you blithering on about? I'm pretty sure Gibbo stated Brexit would be bad for A) OCUK and B) customers and with the instant drop in the pound he was proven right and you happily voted for that.

Never mind they are owned by Case king, a German company.

 

[No1newts]

No he hasn't. Provide the full quote to back you up if you think otherwise.


These will be businesses that offer goods or services that people want, at competitive prices, successful businesses in other words, who will be strangled by new regulations brought in under the Corbyn regime. Companies like OCUK will find it increasingly difficult to operate in Corbyn's Britain until all we're left with are the likes of the purple shirted ones to buy our PC components from. Nothing to do with survival of the fittest, everything to do with strangling entrepreneurship through taxes and regulations. Big government and big business are quite happy co-existing with each other.

How evocative I suppose under your argument we should also quash those pesky workers rights to further help these angelic businesses grow and prosper?

 

[VincentHanna]

The problem with your argument is that if you lend more and the economy doesn't improve you're in a much worse position than you would've been by simply making cuts

Well we've tried austerity for 7 years so far and I would say it hasn't really worked.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

Well we've tried austerity for 7 years so far and I would say it hasn't really worked.

Has the deficit been cut?

 

[Trusty]

Well we've tried austerity for 7 years so far and I would say it hasn't really worked.

How so?

The deficit is going down, according to the IFS, we're in line to meet a surplus on day to day by 2020 (1st time since 2000) Labour will take a year longer, but only if they don't borrow to nationalise everything. Plus there a large holes in their manifesto...:/

 

[No1newts]

Has the deficit been cut?

Deficet is a symptom of debt, yes deficet has been reduced but debt is still going through the roof.

It's like saving the sofa and being proud of yourself despite the house still burning down around you.

 

[FoxEye]

No he hasn't. Provide the full quote to back you up if you think otherwise.

These will be businesses that offer goods or services that people want, at competitive prices, successful businesses in other words, who will be strangled by new regulations brought in under the Corbyn regime. Companies like OCUK will find it increasingly difficult to operate in Corbyn's Britain until all we're left with are the likes of the purple shirted ones to buy our PC components from. Nothing to do with survival of the fittest, everything to do with strangling entrepreneurship through taxes and regulations. Big government and big business are quite happy co-existing with each other.

The same arguments have been used ad nasuem in the past. Example, the introduction of National Minimum Wage. "Businesses will suffer; go bankrupt... left right and centre!"

It never happens (beyond the normal churn of unsustainable businesses going bankrupt which happens all the time).

But don't worry, like the NMW, plenty of corporations will simply "opt out" of abiding by the law...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38979368

There does seem to be little you can do to make businesses of all sizes pay what you're asking them to pay. From tax havens to other kind of fraud or non-compliance, many companies consider themselves above the law.

 

[No1newts]

How so?

The deficit is going down, according to the IFS, we're in line to meet a surplus on day to day by 2020 (1st time since 2000) Labour will take a year longer, but only if they don't borrow to nationalise everything. Plus there a large holes in their manifesto...:/

And IFS recommends a national debt of no greater than 80% (could be 85 but pretty certain it's 80) which since the tories have been in power has went from £1 trillion at 76% to £1.7 trillion at 89.3%.

So as above well done you've saved the sofa but your house is a smouldering ruin.

 

[Roar87]

Deficet is a symptom of debt, yes deficet has been reduced but debt is still going through the roof.

It's like saving the sofa and being proud of yourself despite the house still burning down around you.

You do realise that Labour started the overspending and the Cons have simply been forced to cut from day 1? It's like if you inherited my business and I was spending £200 a day and earning £100, if after 1 month you'd got that down to only spending £120 a day while earning £100 the debt would've still gone up but you would be in a better position than if I was left in charge spending £200 a day still.