You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
They rely on the society and infrastructure around the places their operations are. When we’re talking about corporation tax we’re just talking about where the company chooses to put its HQ and pay its corporation tax. They only need an address, 2/3 FTEs there, an airport and somewhere to have a board meeting once a month.
My original reply was to jjprestidge
jjprestidge
Source? Otherwise I’m calling that out as BS (knowing what we pay in corp tax as a business with 3 employees).
They have 3 employees, I'm not sure they are going to be avoiding tax in the way you are suggesting.
Not every voter will be wildly enthusiastic about that.
How do you think they feel about the estimated £700 million in subsidies independent schools get via their questionable and in somem cases flat out illegitimate charitable status?
If Labour did go up to 26%, it would be barely above the EU average and still 4% below that economic basket case that businesses are fleeing in droves - Germany. Oh, wait....
Voting anti tory is the critical thing for anyone with progressive views. In my constituency the tories have a very slim chance of winning and I don’t really care if its an SNP or labour mp as I dislike both candidates but they will do the same thing as regards a labour government and brexit
There is also a large part of Scotland (the tub thumping red white and blue unionists) that wouldn't vote for Labour solely due to Corbyns past words of support for the IRA and the likes of Hamas (whether he actually did or not!).
They'll also never vote SNP, for obvious unionist reasons. IMO it's one of the reasons for the rise of the Tory vote in the last few years on Scotland , not Ruth Davidson as some would have you think.
My original reply was to jjprestidge
They have 3 employees, I’m not sure they are going to be avoiding tax in the way you are suggesting.
I hadn't spotted that so yeah, sorry not really relevant to your point. I agree, a 3 man business won't be going anywhere.
They’ll also never vote SNP, for obvious unionist reasons. IMO it’s one of the reasons for the rise of the Tory vote in the last few years on Scotland , not Ruth Davidson as some would have you think.
There's a fair bit of truth in that , Ruth Davidson just made it less embarrassing for Scots to admit they voted Tory 😜
But yeah there's at least half the country that's unionist and still 38% of them that voted leave, they have to vote for someone . Johnson shafting the DUP may have caused them to pause tho.
If Labour did go up to 26%, it would be barely above the EU average and still 4% below that economic basket case that businesses are fleeing in droves – Germany. Oh, wait….
Interestingly the other two counties with the highest Corp Tax are Greece and Spain, which *are* economic basket cases.
Is high tax a good thing for Greece, or is Greece's economy being "strangled"? [1]
Taxation strangles Greece's growth prospects:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/taxation-strangles-greeces-growth-prospects-1532597400
[1] I read Yanis Varoufakis' book this summer so you won't be surprised by my take on that.
The main reason the tories got 13 mps from scotland last time was the labour / tory non aggression pact. That and the tories recovering from a truely awful showing. Remember they still only got (IIRC) 20% of the vote
It is a conundrum in Scotland. a significant part of the SNP vote voted NO and out. A significant part of the labour vote voted YES and IN
Davidson very carefully and cleverly built her entire pitch around unionism and still only got 20% of the vote - and there is no way they will do that again without her.
My predictions for Scotland 50 snp, 3 limp Dems, 2 tory I labour
cromolyolly
Member
If Labour did go up to 26%, it would be barely above the EU average and still 4% below that economic basket case that businesses are fleeing in droves – Germany. Oh, wait….
Yup. What exactly about the UK is it that's so terrible that we can only hope to attract businesses by dropping our corporation tax to 17%- 4.4% less than the world average, 5.5% less than the EU average.
Worryingly, we'd be competing directly with that international powerhouse Lebanon, so we'd probably better drop it a bit further
We're between the 5th and 7th biggest economy in the world depending on who you ask, the 2nd or 3rd biggest in europe- and both of those european economies have corporation tax higher than the Labour proposal.
And why do people assume that cutting tax is the only way to do it? We have a well-educated, mostly healthy workforce, pretty good infrastructure with massive room to grow, we speak the world's most common language (er, assuming Mandarin hasn't overtaken us yet), and an excellent geographic location with direct, simple access to the enormous EU economy oh no wait forget I said that last one.
So it’s a Tory majority, or a hung parliament of some kind… because of Scottish voters.
Nice point. I'd clocked that the popularity of the SNP in Scottish Constituencies has effectively prevented decent majorities in the Uk, but I hadn't spotted that Scotland has been literally vetoing a Labour Government for the last 10 years or so. [1]
Staggering.
[1] Assuming without the SNP many seats would go to the red party and few to the blue. [2]
[2] I've checked, it's stark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland
Are Greeks paying their taxes now?
My ex had many 1000s of € in her student account so her dad's business (garage) could dodge tax, she hated it, but said it's what everyone did . This was pre crash not sure what it's like now.
check the numbers. The SNP have not been stopping a labour government. Even if all the snp mps were labour, labour would still not have got a majority.
this is a complete myth. Look at the numbers. If the SNP would support the tories you would be right - but they do not. For the last 40 years its been irrelevant what scotland votes - we get the government England votes for.
Add the SNP mps to labour and it makes no difference.
On the subject of polls it's stark that the Guardian opinium one gives Tories 16 pt lead
While telegraph ORB gives them just 8 pts
It's almost as if they are trying to scare their readers into voting
And why do people assume that cutting tax is the only way to do it?
I don't know, but every nation in the EU thinks that is the only way to do it WRT corporation tax and I'd want to know why they think that and why it's wrong before moving in the opposite direction to the consensus.
Even if all the snp mps were labour, labour would still not have got a majority.
Yes, you're right, I should have checked the numbers before cracking open the hyperbole.
None the less, because Scotland won't vote Labour the Red party is ~45 seats down every election these days. That's a massive handicap. ...and, unlike the rest of the UK, Scottish seats won't be returning to Labour if/when it frees itself from Momentum.
Actually it makes zero difference to getting a labour government as the SNP will support a labour queens speech but not a tory one. so if labour plus SNP gives a majority then its a labour government we are getting with SNP doing supply and confidence. this still works even if the tories are the largest party ( although given the fragmentation this is a very unlikely scenario
Actually it makes zero difference to getting a labour government as the SNP will support a labour queens speech but not a tory one. so if labour plus SNP gives a majority then its a labour government we are getting with SNP doing supply and confidence.
A government with a Supply and confidence [1] deal is a lame duck government. Can you provide an example of a UK Government in that position that functioned normally and survived anywhere near a full term?
Governments need to do unpopular stuff. Would the SNP support something unpopular the way whipped MPs from the same party would? Of course not. Lame duck government.
[1] Which just means they will vote for a Queens Speech and budget until they decide not to.
And collapsing a labour government would cause them huge political issues. they still suffer for collapsing the Callaghan government.
The scottish government has run as a minority government without issues and other countries seem to manage just fine. How long have the tories been governing now without a majority? 8 years?
Shall we discuss our Russian speaking friends (I’m jealous of their language skills)…?
https://twitter.com/c4dispatches/status/1191065622085603329?s=21
How long have the tories been governing now without a majority? 8 years?
Two and a half years. Hasn’t it been a blast.
Nope - 5 years before that without a majority.
Would that be voice of socialism - multi-millionaire, privately educated son of the director general of the BBC Seamas Milne, comrade?
Sticking it to ‘the establishment’?
The voice of ‘the people’?
Two and a half years. Hasn’t it been a blast.
Yes, I can't say I'd be picking the chaos of the last two and a half years as an example of how well minority governments with C+S deals work.
...but I wasn't really making a judgement on the merit or otherwise of the situation, just acknowledging the analysis of another poster who pointed out that the situation exists.
How about years of holyrood governments? the current one is a minority government with no deals in place. Seems to be managing fine without a majority.
outofbreath
Member
I don’t know, but every nation in the EU thinks that is the only way to do it WRT corporation tax and I’d want to know why they think that and why it’s wrong before moving in the opposite direction to the consensus.
This is a false comparison. While our competitors are reducing their rate, they're not moving down from 19% to 17%- they're moving down from far higher. So while Labour are proposing a rise while others are reducing it, they're not proposing to be higher than the competition- in fact even after their rise, we'll still be lower than our most direct competitors.
The consensus is that corporation tax should be much higher than we have it. We're moving towards that consensus, just from the other direction.
If Labour did go up to 26%, it would be barely above the EU average and still 4% below that economic basket case that businesses are fleeing in droves – Germany. Oh, wait
We're being diddled.
The Tories lowered corp tax whilst at the same time added tax to dividends.
I run a small corp and I would be more than happy to pay tax back at 26% (although companies that turn up to a certain amount are likely to be excluded from this increase.)
The conservatives are the party of stealth taxes remember.
As for companies claiming that tax is too high - **** em, they always want to pay as little as tax no matter what the rate. Corp tax was lowered in the US and guess what - the tax take went down. In fact the tax burden moves to individuals if corp tax is lowered.
Interestingly the other two counties with the highest Corp Tax are Greece and Spain, which *are* economic basket cases.
You missed France. Portugal and Belgium before you get to Greece. Then Italy, Luxembourg, Nederland and Austria before getting to Spain.
Lowest Corporate tax rate? Hungary at 9% and they are just tearing it up economically.
So not really much if a correlation between corporate tax rates and economic outlook.
Brexit of any kind will do far more damage than Labour's tax increase, but that's not stopping anyone.
Would that be voice of socialism – multi-millionaire, privately educated son of the director general of the BBC Seamas Milne, comrade?
If he uses that influence to shape a better society for more - then what's the problem? It's the converse that's the issue.
If you want to test Milne's credentials then check out his book 'The Enemy Within." His research here into the way the Miners were treated is as anti-establishment as it gets.
In an ideal world I agree with you but parties are always going to employ the talents of other people.
(I'd rather him than Alistair Campbell.)
“ Brexit of any kind will do far more damage than Labour’s tax increase, but that’s not stopping anyone.”
That’s very much debatable but what is certain is that if Labour follow through on their pledge to take / steal 10% of the value of all private companies with more than 250 staff the immediate effect will be:
1. All U.K. headquartered PLCs will love their HQ for tax purposes
2. The U.K. will lose all of the associated corporation tax
3. Foreign inward investment would cease
4. The country would £100B + worse off
5. The government would become embroiled in a series of international legal cases that would sink Whitehall for a decade or more.
Anyone who votes for Corbyn and McDonnell needs their head looking at.
The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru are set to announce plans for a “remain pact” in up to 60 seats in a bid to deny Boris Johnson a Conservative majority.
The Tories lowered corp tax whilst at the same time added tax to dividends.
I can't immediately see the case against doing that: If you reduce corp tax but tax dividends more then you're taxing people taking money out of a business but allowing businesses that want to grow more cash to invest. Plus you're harvesting more cash from people who pay themselves reduced salary and take more dividend which IME is everyone who can.
I can’t immediately see the case against doing that: If you reduce corp tax but tax dividends more then you’re taxing people taking money out of a business but allowing businesses that want to grow more cash to invest. Plus you’re harvesting more cash from people who pay themselves reduced salary and take more dividend.
It has exactly the same 'incentive'. Allow me - as I run a tight ship with our book-keeping!
If you've made a profit - then you are taxed at that point.
A business can already invest (purchase assets, obtain bigger premises employ more people etc) and that would be offset against the corporation tax already, before it gets to the dividend / profit stage. So if the corporation tax rate was high you can invest and effectively lower your corp-tax burden.
So if you have high corp-tax you have a greater incentive to invest as profit can be reduced and recycled before it's taxed.
You are already taxing profits with corp-tax, so it makes not a jot of difference if they are extracted or not. The only difference it makes is whether those profits are extracted via dividends or PAYE for the benefits of the individuals.
It comes down to individuals paying more or less tax rather than the company entity generating more or less profit based on investment or extraction.
The Tory argument would be profit/salary for the individual drives incentive - well then why did they Tax dividends? (I'm not saying that is unfair.) Either way it was counter-intuitive in its implementation.
The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru are set to announce plans for a “remain pact” in up to 60 seats in a bid to deny Boris Johnson a Conservative majority.
Not for viewers in Scotland where the Scottish Greens are happy to see a few more Tories.
scotroutes - I really do not get this - same as you said the scottish greens were pro brexit when they are not.
Or do you think the greens should stand aside for the SNP?
A business can already invest (purchase assets, obtain bigger premises employ more people etc) and that would be offset against the corporation tax already, before it gets to the dividend / profit stage. So if the corporation tax rate was high you can invest and effectively lower your corp-tax burden.
I hadn't clocked that, so yeah, that's true it makes no odds in that sense.
So why is it bad, it seems neutral?
Or do you think the greens should stand aside for the SNP?
To help try and oust Tory MPs? They should, and they are…
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17995904.snps-chances-ousting-tory-mps-boosted-greens-opt/
THE Scottish Greens are poised to stand in just one Tory-held constituency at the forthcoming General Election, boosting the chances of the SNP retaking the seats from Boris Johnson’s party.
Should they not stand in other seats? Not challenge the SNP at all, anywhere? There are some SNP/Tory marginals where I wish they’d step aside… but to avoid all high profile seats would be a tough call for any party.
I hadn’t clocked that, so yeah, that’s true it makes no odds in that sense.
So why is it bad, it seems neutral?
Well because one is a 'headline' figure - that which we are discussing and it will get compared country to country, but then you have a backdoor which effectively 'defeats' the object of lower corporation tax which is not discussed or compared. So yeah they cancel each other out (sort of) but the Tories look good for lowering the headline tax in the public eye/campaign.
On top of that you now have a new layer of bureaucracy to deal with.
Introduce a tax cut - get it back somewhere else later - mid-term, quietly.
Tories look good for lowering the headline tax in the public eye/campaign.
It was a LibDem policy to bring CGT rates and rates on other taxes more in line with each other, and what you are referring to was initially a move toward that. To stop dividend earners etc paying much lower tax rates than people earning in more straightforward ways.
Anyway, back to this election… Labour suggested rates for corporation tax are very mainstream (if you ignore USA & Ireland) with high levels of support. It is other policies as regards who owns companies that are more likely to be worrying some people.
Funny - worker ownership / representation on boards is totally mainstream in Germany and is a part of the reason for them to be much more productive.
It was a LibDem policy to bring CGT and other taxes more inline with each other, and what you are referring to was initially a move toward that. To stop dividend earners paying much lower tax than people earning in other ways.
You'll have to explain your first line to me - I'm not with you?
The dividend thing often gets misrepresented, especially for small business.
For instance - we've already paid 20% (up until recently) tax on our profits. So if I then extract them without tax paid for arguments sake - I've paid tax at the same rate as PAYE.
But the dividend tax doesn't do what you think it does, and the benefits of not paying tax on dividends were misrepresented. It was sold as we were not paying tax, well we were, as you need to make a profit to have a dividend. Profit is taxed.
It's a stealth tax in all but name - but was a cheeky way of looking like the Tories were dealing with Tax avoidance.
It depends on your circumstances and company structure of course.
It is other policies as regards who owns companies that are more likely to be worrying some people.
Add some meat to the bone.
worker ownership / representation on boards is totally mainstream in Germany
Oh, agreed, and the representation is mandated by the government, and could be here. Ownership is a different matter, and should be encouraged (tax breaks anyone?) but not mandated… the idea of the government forcibly taking chunks out of large companies (with the exception of public services/transport) will send them abroad… and that worries people who work for them or their suppliers/partners.
As old toadface isn't standing - does that mean should the Brexit Party ltd win, he would not be Prime Minister?
Kind of want them to win if that's the case...
he would not be Prime Minister?
Whilst it is convention that the PM be a MP I dont think it is strictly necessary. Its one of those convention things as opposed to actual law.
In the past (eg 100 years or so back) they have been from the House of Lords as well as House of Commons. Dont think any not from either although as above I am not sure anything specifically blocks it.
Whilst it is convention that the PM be a MP I dont think it is strictly necessary
I presumed it was based on the fact the the current PM is always moved to a safe seat to ensure they are not at risk of no longer being an MP and therefore no longer a PM
After spending far too much time on Twitter this weekend I’ve come to the sad conclusion that the Tories are going to walk it and we’ll be Brexited about 10 mins later, hopefully (it’s a relative thing) via a the BoJo deal and not ‘no deal’.
I follow a lot of prominent Labour, Plaid and Lib Dems. They’re all very busy sticking the boot into each other, the real Socialist Ultras in Labour despise the Libs more than the Tories, they accept Tories will be Tories but the Libs are somehow worse. The Libs are calling for tactical voting, but only in areas they’re close to winning - they’re less keen in my area that’s been split Labour / Tories for decades with usually a sub 5% win margin, frankly despite their claims I fancy they’d rather take 50 seats and a Tory government than 25 and a labour one, I can’t imagine any of their projections show them wining this one. The sad thing is I reckon they could take more Tory voters, maybe that’s their plan
Libs are already standing aside for Green, PC and Independent candidates. I expect that if Labour stood aside in just a few key seats for them (or anyone) they’d do the same in some key Labour/Tory marginals.
The Greens have been more magnanimous and stood aside for Labour in our seat (good for them) but Labour will have to throw the other parties a bone if they want a free run at this and similar seats.
That’s very much debatable but what is certain is that if Labour follow through on their pledge to take / steal 10% of the value of all private companies with more than 250 staff the immediate effect will be:
1. All U.K. headquartered PLCs will love their HQ for tax purposes
2. The U.K. will lose all of the associated corporation tax
3. Foreign inward investment would cease
4. The country would £100B + worse off
5. The government would become embroiled in a series of international legal cases that would sink Whitehall for a decade or more.
You've extrapolated all that from the assumption that they are just going to whack 10% on the rate immediately and sod the consequences. And you've decided that fact because you already dislike them. Raising taxes doesn't have to be done badly, and I see no evidence that they will do it badly.
As for foreign inward investment ceasing? Pfft. Brexit will do far more damage to that. Although Brexit and possibly Labour govt should put paid to 1. above. Your assessment is very simplistic. From what I can see so far McDonnell is cleverer than you, so they still get my vote.
I think Robdixon’s “10%” is nothing to do with tax, I presume they are on about plans to take 10% of the ownership of large companies away from the current owners. It’s a gradual handover (1% a year) and sold as being a boon to staff… but when I read the proposals last year it looked very much like stealth privatisation, with the state taking much of any gains made, not the staff.
I presumed it was based on the fact the the current PM is always moved to a safe seat to ensure they are not at risk of no longer being an MP and therefore no longer a PM
Has that ever happened?
The role of the PM itself apparently isnt actually defined in law let alone who can hold it. Its one of those roles which has evolved over several centuries to what it is now mostly by taking over more and more of the royal prerogative.
I suspect the Supreme Court are thinking "bugger this could mess up Christmas" and lots of constitutional law professors are getting their cases ready but there is no simple "paragraph d of the PM act 1888 says no. byeee".
Individual parties could have rules about who can be leader of them and hence PM so might be resolved that way as well.
In other news.
So why is Johnson trying to prevent the publishing of a report of Russian interference in the referendum before the election?
Could he have something to hide.
Has that ever happened?
If it has is can't have happened in recent times because it would be electorally counter-productive these days. Jacqui Smith and Iain Dale on the 'For the many Podcast' seemed to think it's not really feasible - doing a Chicken run to a safe constituency doesn't indicate much confidence from a leader. I can't fault their logic.
Much less damaging just to flood the constituency with activists and do whatever it takes to win the seat.
The risk of losing the seat is less than the damage the chicken run would do.
Of course if Boris did lose his seat a Tory in a super safe seat could step down and trigger a by-election.
BUT...
Boris isn't popular among the Parliamentary party, they didn't vote for him because they like him or think he's good. The whole point of Boris was he was a populist who *could* win this election. If he *had* won this election but lost his seat wouldn't that be a good opportunity to jettison him and put a grownup in charge for the next five years?
Is it likely that Boris will lose his seat, though? I'd have said yes until I read about Ali Milani.
Johnson’s seat is historically a very safe seat in a very safe area for the Conservative Party, isn’t it?
Sinn fein are standing down in 3 seats to help remainers beat the DUP. Very interesting as one of them they are asking for the voters to back an independent unionist.
SDLP are doing the same. Some parties are awake to the importance of this election for the people they seek to represent beyond it just being another general election.
Time for Labour to get onboard in England & Wales.
Johnson’s seat is historically a very safe seat in a very safe area for the Conservative Party, isn’t it?
It was before Brexit, now who knows. It's entirely possible all the local Tories are remainers.
But yeah, Labours Brexit non-Policy plus Ali Milani makes it feel safe to me.*
* My political predictions are overwhelmingly wrong.
Johnson’s seat is historically a very safe seat in a very safe area for the Conservative Party, isn’t it?
Yup. However was reduced last time round and considering its a)heavily remain and b)he had that urgent trip to Afghanistan rather than vote against Heathrow expansion, as promised to his constituents, there is more risk than normal for him.
So… it’s always been Tory… but if Labour took an unequivocal stance on both Heathrow expansion and EU membership, they could put him under real pressure? Especially if only one “anti-Boris” candidate stood? Despite it being historically a safe Tory area? Not really sure it could work… but would be interesting to see them try this approach… as others have said, would be very hard for him to stay PM if his seat was lost.
Johnson is also blocking the report on russian interference
It would probably suit Boris to not get re-elected. Give him a way out. He could claim he was the victim of some sort of unholy Remainer alliance and politcally died trying nobly to deliver the One True Brexit.
but when I read the proposals last year it looked very much like stealth privatisation, with the state taking much of any gains made, not the staff.
What I read about it it seems unlikely the govt would make much out of it unless they tinkered with the thresholds.
through on their pledge to take / steal 10% of the value of all private companies with more than 250 staff the immediate effect will be:
Essentially reserving voting stock in a pool is a long way from stealing value. That sounds like torygraph nonsense. You do realise that boards and CEO s regularly do that to their own shareholders? That's okay though because its 'democratic'?
I didn't find the Dividend tax particularly controversial, other than how quietly they did it. Lots of places gross up dividends for tax purposes to reflect the tax paid by the corporation on the dividend holders behalf and then give a smaller rebate. Small business get a smaller gross up and bigger rebate. It's pretty progressive.
Essentially reserving voting stock in a pool is a long way from stealing value.
I'm not really clear on what that means. Imagine my pension is 100pc* invested in UK stock which is exclusively firms over 250 FTEs. The day after 10pc stock is reserved is my pension fund worth the same, or 10pc less?
* It isn't, it's only 50pc.
I’m not really clear on what that means
Won't make any difference. It's not different than an institutional investor buying a big block of shares, or the CEO using company money to buy back stock to prove to the board that he/she has increased value and deserves a bigger bonus.
Any trade in a stock affects price, as does a new share issue but that's true no matter who gets them
It's actually very American of the Tory/Tory backer s to generate massive fear of government rigging the economy, instead of business doing the same.
What I read about it it seems unlikely the govt would make much out of it unless they tinkered with the thresholds.
IIRC, the “staff” had a very low ceiling on what they could get out of the arrangement, with everything above that going to the state… and the staff couldn’t sell or take their “share” with them if they moved on, but the state kept earning come what may. The headline of “worker’s shares” looked like it was masking “state shares by stealth”, to me, sadly. Gov would earn very little in first few years as the % ramped up, but stood to do well long term… well, unless the companies just relocate, taking jobs with them… which they’d already be considering if a Labour Brexit is going ahead… steadily losing shares to “staff” (not really owned or controlled by the staff) could well be the final straw.
As I recall it was £500 in dividends to the staff lifetime and over that to the state. Presumably new employees reset the clock on their portion of the shares The state would never have any control of the shares, not be able to benefit from the sale of them.
Essentially it would make employees a big enough block of shareholders to enable them to have some influence over decisions. It would hinder the board/CEO/institutional or activist investors from making decisions based solely on self interest.
I find it interesting that in places like Germany, which is often accused of deliberately pursuing a policy of wage limiting export driven economic policies, which are not very pro-worker, have the same outcome of employees as shareholders, maybe achieved through diffent means and it is pretty uncontroversial.
Labour proposes a way to achieve the same ends and it is a doomsday scenario on the way to communism. Because of where it came from, not what it says.
Labour haven't done themselves any favours with some fairly loony economic ideas, which colours perceptions but some of their ideas are pretty sensible and have laudable aims and at least start a conversation or get people thinking about if there is a different way.
And makes them Cannon fodder for some.
It’s the fact that the proposals look superficially similar to what Germany does that peeked my interest last year and got me reading more… but sadly it looks very much like privatisation using the language of empowering and rewarding the workforce. Now, I’m a fan of privatisation in lots of areas… but the gap between the rhetoric of this policy and the detail of the proposals makes me very wary… I’m voting Labour again, but god knows what this policy looks like close up to someone who previously voted Conservative toying with the idea of voting for a Labour candidate to stop Johnson, Mogg & co.
Labour haven’t done themselves any favours with some fairly loony economic ideas, which colours perceptions but some of their ideas are pretty sensible and have laudable aims and at least start a conversation or get people thinking about if there is a different way.
And makes them Cannon fodder for some
A decent point but yet again how many of the ideas are actually crackers rather than the interpretation of them we get through the MSM?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1191415158331056128?s=09
Highest Labour have polled in any poll since 22nd May apparently.
how many of the ideas are actually crackers rather than the interpretation of them we get through the MSM?
Not in this case. You can hear it in Long-Bailey's own words here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009ybq
They are claiming they are going to confiscate 10pc of shares in UK companies over 250FTEs. [1] We all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
They are claiming they are going to nationalise businesses and pay what is ominously being described as a 'fair' rate rather than the market rate.
[1] Well they aren't because pensions don't have to be invested in the UK, and companies don't have to be listed in the UK so all they're really doing is forcing companies abroad and making people to change their pension investment options away from UK stocks, but we're all going to get badly stung in the stampede out of UK stocks whether we have pensions or not.
but sadly it looks very much like privatisation using the language of empowering and rewarding the workforce.
It looks like the opposite of privatisation to me?
god knows what this policy looks like close up to someone who previously voted Conservative toying with the idea of voting for a Labour candidate to stop Johnson, Mogg & co.
Well, the devil is in the details. Depend who they are and where they get their info. from.
rather than the interpretation of them we get through the MSM?
They were part of the 'some' standing behind the Cannon.
They are claiming they are going to confiscate 10pc of shares in UK companies over 250FTEs. [1] We all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
I'm behind on this one...
But what could be the upside for the country? That has to be factored in.
The Guardian view on Labour’s radical plans: fix the economy and democracy
Guardian gets to the nub for me. On the money and alluding to how the money system actually works.
They are claiming they are going to nationalise businesses and pay what is ominously being described as a ‘fair’ rate rather than the market rate.
Ideologically I'm all for this. Bring it on.
We all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
THat isn't how shares work. If a company does a buy back, do you lose value in your pension?
In fact, if the employees shares are essentially locked in, the value of your shares might increase, since supply in the market is lowered. And that will remain true because if more shares are rolled out, some will have to go into the employer pool.
nationalise businesses and pay what is ominously being described as a ‘fair’ rate rather than the market rate.
If it's transit and rail, that would almost certainly be a good thing.
Anytime there is a buy back or buy out, an offer is made for shares in what the buyers feel is a fair range. It might be less than current market rates and will certainly be less than market rates after word gets out, which is precisely why they do it that way.
No one worries about that because half the time you aren't even aware, unless you own some of the right class of shares, and they send you an offer
Because it's the government and Labour, it's the end of capitalism as we know it and we'll all be shivering in caves in some hunger games dystopia.
Did anyone get this vexed when Osborne was buying a horse paddock on his Parliamentary credit card*
*Not really but might as well have been.
I follow a lot of prominent Labour, Plaid and Lib Dems. They’re all very busy sticking the boot into each other, the real Socialist Ultras in Labour despise the Libs more than the Tories, they accept Tories will be Tories but the Libs are somehow worse.
This isn't a surprise, history has repeatedly proven that the people who the far left really hate are not those on the further right and far right - but centrists and the center left. Some things never change!
They are claiming they are going to confiscate 10pc of shares in UK companies over 250FTEs. [1] We all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
They can't just confiscate assets - shares belong to someone. There has to be compensation, and if it's your pension then it has to buy more shares elsewhere so you won't lose out.
If a company does a buy back, do you lose value in your pension?
Buy backs are neutral to the shareholder. (Assuming the shares are bought at the going rate.)
In contrast someone taking 10pc of a company without paying for it isn't neutral to the shareholders.
Anytime there is a buy back or buy out, an offer is made for shares in what the buyers feel is a fair range. It might be less than current market rates and will certainly be less than market rates after word gets out, which is precisely why they do it that way.
No one worries about that because half the time you aren’t even aware,
No one worries about that because the shareholders can turn down the offer if they think it isn't good enough!
But what could be the upside for the country? That has to be factored in.
The upside to the country of everyone moving their pensions form UK investments to foreign investments and UK companies listing themselves abroad? Beats me. There are advantages to employee share ownership of course, and many companies sell employees shares at a discount. Since it's a good thing how about we collectively pay for it rather than just people who are dumb enough to have pensions? Are Nurses and teachers and other people in the state sector allowed to switch their pensions out of UK stocks the way most of us are? If not will they be compensated?
They can’t just confiscate assets – shares belong to someone. There has to be compensation, and if it’s your pension then it has to buy more shares elsewhere so you won’t lose out.
That's what they're going to do, listen to Long-Bailey. They're going to take 10pc of the company. The existing share holders (typically pension funds) then own 90pc instead of 100pc the company. The shareholders have lost 10pc of the company. No compensation was mentioned.
Hence capital flight.
so do all german pension funds invest only out of the country and have all their manufacturing companies moved out of the country?
If not what is so special about the UK?
NUrses pensions are revenue funded - ie was pay a significant extra amount that is effectivly tax then the taxpayer pays our pensions