You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Crude attempt to divert the discussion/thread.
The point was not brought up by me and what I said is true hence you have to say "crude" rather than refute
CMD has changed which side he wants to bomb in Syria.
As for envy - it is just a cheap slur and a right wing diatribe to distract ...oh the irony..TBH What it shows is that even the supporters of the system know they can put forward as credible defence of the iniquitous system that gives us starving citizens eating from foodbanks and tax avoiding billionaires. Despite this you still attack folk who want fairness as if this is a bad thing....it says so much about the "morals " of anyone who attacks a quest for fairness as "envy".
The politics of envy - Like the private sector and right wing press villifying pensions and benefits seen in the public sector?
Regardless Ed should've brought in the parts of his speech about the deficit and immigration, still go ves us something exiting to look forward too today 😉
a deficit of £75 billion
Labour will balance the books in the next parliament.
[i]Ed Balls[/i]
1% cap on child benefit increase: £0.1bn pa
Mansion tax: £2.0bn pa *
50p Income tax rate restored: £0.1 - 2.0bn pa *
Means tested winter fuel allowance: £0.1bn pa
£4.2bn pa out of £75bn.
Only another 94% to go. Good game, good game.
* estimates
CMD has changed which side he wants to bomb in Syria.
That's right. There's a REASON for that.
A bit like saying, in 1939, that we should deal with Hitler first and leave Mussolini 'til later.
Not difficult, really.
Osbourne made similar claims Stoner. How's he doing?
Which collection of failures and future failures do you favour guys?
Sorry, I seem a little cynical this morning.
Most of the deficit will be eliminated by economic growth. Overall spending envelope has already been broadly set out by Ed Balls in his announcements on the zero based budget and in his speech on Monday.
Labour has also offered for the OBR to examine its financial plans to see if
Wage growth has been appallingly low in this country over the last few years Portugal, Greece and Cyprus are the only European countries how have seen their wages erode more than the UK. If working people are not paid enough then they fall into indebtedness and can't spend in the economy. If consumers can't consume in a consumer driven economy it isn't great for economic growth.
Bang on frosty! The increasingly disproportionate amount of national income taken by those at the top is incredibly bad for the economy. They don't spend it, they squirrel it out of the country into tax havens. Or they invest it by buying property portfolios in London, driving prices through the roof, and yet further increasing inequality.
People at the bottom spend every penny they earn. They have too. So it all goes back into the local economy
Millibean pledging to increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2020 just shows how timid the labour party is. That represents an annual increase of 2.2%. Hardly revolutionary distribution of wealth is it? But with weary predictability the usual suspects cry and wail that the sky is about to fall in, and the nation about to be bankrupted! When in reality it may signal that the government isn't prepared to subsidise their profits any more, while they won't pay their staff a living wage.
Interestingly, if the minimum wage had kept pace with average FTSE 100 boardroom pay increases (the people presently wailing about the proposed increase) since its introduction, then it would presently stand at £20 an hour. Its £6.15.
"Bang on frosty! The increasingly disproportionate amount of national income taken by those at the top is incredibly bad for the economy. They don't spend it, they squirrel it out of the country into tax havens. Or they invest it by buying property portfolios in London, driving prices through the roof, and yet further increasing inequality."
The data on income tax quite clearly shows the rich are paying significantly more under the current government than under the last one.
Statements like this also obfuscate a rather relevant fact which is that the "super rich" i.e. oligarchs and such like aren't British but are just residing here - so if they move the wealth gap suddenly closes again.
When the wealth gap" increases it's largely just because a few more billionaires have chosen to domicile themselves here here rather than proving something more fundamental is at play - the upside of these people moving here is that they tend to waste enormous amounts of their money on goods and VATable services in the UK which generates jobs - by way of example a neighbour of ours is managing a £36m refurb for an oligarch in Hampstead that has several hundred tradesmen working on it, another example is the ridiculous number of Jags and Range Rovers in the congestion charge zone - which support jobs and pour in millions through VAT on sales.
Now the UK has a reasonably competitive rate of Corporation Tax these same Oligarchs also quite often headquarter their businesses here as well - as can be seen by the number of mining and raw material companies now listed in London. These firms pay corporation tax on their significant global profits despite the misconception that all companies avoid tax.
are you suggesting it is one rule for them and one rule for us
Terribly envious demand for fairness there binbins
Stoner as noted Balls gave enough details for you to get excited ...were you disappointed there was no Spreadsheet 😉
PS did GO hit his forecasts at any time ?
its not the forecasts Im particularly worried about.
It's that either Balls is either a as timid as a church mouse OR he willfully ignores the size of the deficit OR he willfully doesnt care about the size of the deficit.
I dont necessarily think we need to be reducing the national debt dramatically, but even allowing for GDP and price growth, at some point in the cycle the gap needs filling with something other than our children's future economic activity.
And moar spreadsheets would be welcome.
Agreed, but all parties seem happy to keep the status quo for personal allowances and, to my mind, it does not seem right to start taxing people on such low incomes.robdixon - MemberThe data on income tax quite clearly shows the rich are paying significantly more under the current government than under the last one.
^This. Corp tax is 35% in the USA which, under Obama is seemingly very anti-business and the moribund performance data suggests this does not bode well for their economy.robdixon - Member
Now the UK has a reasonably competitive rate of Corporation Tax these same Oligarchs also quite often headquarter their businesses here as well - as can be seen by the number of mining and raw material companies now listed in London. These firms pay corporation tax on their significant global profits despite the misconception that all companies avoid tax
It is illustrative of the corner Keynsianism and the bloating of the public sector creates for a government - even if they know high taxes (personal or corporate) are bad for the economy, they are unable to kick the taxation habit, because the monster needs funding.
Looking at the UK, the only party that is about 'smaller government' is UKIP. Saying it is one thing, but driving change through Whitehall would really need cross-party support which is simply not there. Yet.
Is the public sector 'bloated' though?
It seems that the railways left the public sector and we keep on paying billions in subsidies, while fares rise,of course journey times have decreased thanks to network rail- Which was re-nationalised earlier this month so that the public could absorb the debt that the private sector had benefited from in improving all that infrastructure.
How did low corporation tax work out for Ireland?
RobDixon.
Good post. However, the lefties won't see or hear the points you make.
The left are humiliated having to sit in opposition and watch others turn the economy around. A subject dear leader Miiliband didn't even think to mention yesterday...
Also, lets not ignore the knee jerk ideas being posted here and on other threads.
For example:
[i]then it would presently stand at £20 an hour. Its £6.15. [/i]
And if basic was now £20 ph, what effect would this have on inflation, math whizz ?
Slightly one sided thinking, me thinks.
The [i]system[/i] has been refined for centuries, millennia, to favour the rich. To favour a system of winners and losers, for we can't one without the other...
However, at which level do you set the bar, when deciding who's a [i]winner[/i].
That's not a question, btw, just think about it!
You can't legislate against greed and attempting to do so, makes the people who try, just as greedy. (think about that too)
You can't punish greed either, we've seen what happens when people try.
Reading some comments on here and listening to the Big hitters of the left, in the media. I, like most of the UK, know that Labour are hopeless with our money and are therefore, unfit for government.
looks like recall of parliament on friday, Cameron is keen to bomb rebels in Syria, Milliband not so
Not mentioning the deficit or the Economy because "I forgot", a massive own goal.
Property Taxes
I was stunned that the shadow health secretary didn't understand that the land registry does not record property values but only transaction prices. Its basic stuff and one of the pillars of funding for his department and the £2.5bn NHS spend was to come from that source and he didn't have the faintest idea about how it would work
Stamp Duty (now a bigger earner than tax/duty on petrol/diesel) is heavily dominated by the South East, Kensington and Chelsea and Westmister produce 7% of the stamp duty collected nationally at the moment.
Another of my favourite stats
Top 1% pay 30% of the taxes (it used to be 25% but their portion has risen markedly in the past 2 years). Whilst many here bemoan the wealth being generated by the "rich" the fact is it is the "rich" who are paying the bills for the NHS etc.
(it used to be 25% but their portion has risen markedly in the past 2 years).
because everyone else is making less money, while the rich stay rich.....
What % of income, after tax, is 'disposable' in each tax bracket?
the fact is it is the "rich" who are paying the bills for the NHS
The "rich" are also profiting from its [url= https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/jos-bell/tory-links-of-health-agencies-exposed-as-hunt-lines-up-next-nhs-selloff-in-england ]pish-poor re-organisation[/url] - in fact, if anything is making the NHS bureaucratically "bloated" (and - believe me - it certainly isn't on the frontline), it's the muddle-headed ConDem reforms.
I think there needs to be some kind of clarification on the line between "the rich" and [b][i]The Rich[/b][/i].
[b][i]The Rich[/b][/i], those profiting from Private Equity ownership of commercial ventures, Corporate Banking management, senior bank traders & brokers, FTSE company board members, etc etc, are easy to have pot shots at for imorallity, greed etc. but number in just the few thousands. Sure, have a crack at them if you can. See how tight you can make the noose that they cant slip out of.
But these are not the same people as, nor do they represent anything like the volume of wealth, income and consumption of the simply better off, the higher rate tax payers, the middle management. These are "the rich" in the income tax contribution layers that are disproportionately bankrolling the show.
There arent 12 million oligarchs to take it out on.
I think there needs to be some kind of clarification on the line between "the rich" and The Rich.
"The Rich" = anybody richer than me, comrade. 😉
I take your point - but if I had my way, the PE backers of (for example) Circle Healthcare would be told to foxtrot oscar at the high port.
See how tight you can make the noose
*Buys rope.
agree that the rich is a pretty nebulous term,
it all gets a bit fuzzy......
the close relationship between ministers and the city, russian oligarchs who we like and those we dont, peerages for bankers, influence of school chums on policy, lobbyists, THAT picture of the bullingdon club, a prison sentence for stealing a bottle of water in a riot,yet a pat on the back for selling a hedge fund that you had no idea how its fanniemac mortgage debt was repackaged bringing global finance to a standstill resulting in millions of job losses......
Talking of "the rish" there was a good piece on Russia Today last night about the IPO of Alibaba. Basically, the only way a private investor could get "in on the ground" and make a killing from the inevitable initial surge of the stock would be to have [i]at least[/i] $500k with a major fund manager (e.g. Fidelity) so that tells you who the system benefits, to an extent. Longer term, these stocks will tend to underperform, so those of us getting in after the IPO will be lucky to see too much of the intial fizz, but the uber rich can get 10, 20 or 30 basis point growth of capital within days.
No matter how much the system sucks, taxing people to redistribute wealth, or targeting a certain band as being super rich and thereby eligible for 'super tax' is unlikely to be effective. Looking at things another way around, you could write off all assets and debts and start again from square one with everyone owning £1k and, within a year, the distribution of wealth would have altered drastically.
@[s]croesus[/s]Stoner:
You know me, spiritually rich and all that. 😀
[img] 
[/img]
This whole discussion regarding taxing the rich to redistribute to the less off via mechanisms such as tax credits is missing the point. Yes, we need those who can afford it to pay tax to help fund our public services. But the more important point is that we should be moving away from methods of state wage subsidy such as tax credits and housing benefit which in the long terms are a false economy. What we need more than anything else is increased wages for the average working working people.
Twitter comments on the speech are comedy gold:
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/23/ed-miliband-labour-conference-speech-twitter_n_5868234.html?utm_hp_ref=uk ]HuffingtonPost[/url]
Noun @ncguk
Follow
Ed Miliband is expected to close his speech with a rallying cry of "three tits for everyone!", critically misjudging the audience.
Hodges nails it 😀
[i]Picture the scene. Ed Miliband and his advisers are gathered around the family kitchen table. Warm croissants and cups of aromatic, Fairtrade coffee fight for space among bundles of policy papers and polling reports. It is the planning meeting for the most important speech of Miliband’s life.
One of the figures at the table turns to his leader. “We need to tackle this thing head-on,” he says. “People think you’re weird. It’s not right, but there it is. So you need to tell a story about how you’re in the habit of wandering around alone on Hampstead Heath. You then need to explain how during your rambles you like chatting to women you’ve never met before – women who say things like 'My generation is falling into a black hole’... [/i]
and cups of aromatic, Fairtrade coffee
Ha ha, these bleeding-heart lefties all like to drink "Fairtrade" coffee, it's so true and so hilarious.
Who gives a shit about poor farmers in Third World countries, apart from leftie losers?
Well that'll explain why only coffee made from beans grown on US/Western owned mega-plantations is drank at Conservative Central Office.
The article which you copied and pasted was obviously referring to Ed Miliband's callous disregard for the plight of poor Third World farmers, with its insightful reference to his "aromatic Fairtrade coffee".