You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If "the richest" all clear off, how does that help the poorest BTW ?
Curious that the supply of labour within the heady heights of banking appears to be one small pool of personnel, so small that we CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE ANY OF THEM. Apparently you have to pay a lot of money for talent...and its a special kind of talent that bankrupts your economy.
If they don't like it, they can leave. There will be plenty to replace them.
Hmm, that sounds familiar...thats right, its the tactic their kind have used on everyone else since year dot.
but many many senior jobs gone in London. I personally think this is a factor in the reduction of average earnings as these are all above average paying jobs
The master of understatement strikes again! 😆
Seems to be quite a ping pong on non doms, anyway, entirely unrelated, I was wondering what the crowds opinion was on the 'tax differences' between PAYE, self employed and director status was.
If they don't like it, they can leave. There will be plenty to replace them.
You make the mistake of thinking that thrm 'leaving' means leaving their jobs - this is the 21st century age of technology, truth is they will still be doing the same job, still getting the same money, just resident elsewhere so we don't see a penny of it (and more likely than not taking a bunch of their employees who do pay lots of scrumptious tax with them)
It sounds to me that the filthy rich haven't got enough money. We obviously need to shower them with even more money and perhaps exempt them from all taxes.
Like that we will all be better off as they get even richer, at our expense. It makes perfect sense.
Anyone who can't see the sense of making filthy rich people even richer is clearly guilty of 'politics of envy'.
There is a law of diminishing returns and also of unintended consequences in regard to taxing the uber rich.ernie_lynch - Member
Anyone who can't see the sense of making filthy rich people even richer is clearly guilty of 'politics of envy'
Whilst the subject warrants attention, it needs to be remembered that the system is trying to outwit the portion of society which is comprised of individuals who [i]may[/i] be any or all of the following; the most powerful, well connected, intelligent, hardworking, quick-thinking and well educated.
FWIW I do know of high-earners who have already left the UK altogether, [i]purely[/i] as a result of taxation. The UK now gets 0% of the benefit of either their earnings or cost of living expenditure - it might benefit from a few exports to them indirectly.
I have received my postal vote confirmation yesterday so I shall be voting before you lot ... 😆
Seems to be quite a ping pong on non doms, anyway, entirely unrelated, I was wondering what the crowds opinion was on the 'tax differences' between PAYE, self employed and director status was.
@towzer, personally as someone who's been PAYE I feel like a sitting duck for the tax man/government whilst business owners have a huge amount of flexibility, tax allowances, lower tax rates etc. Even pensions are seen as fair game these days. I think if I had my time again I would focus on starting a business and not doing a more normal job. I did give that a try in 2012/3 but it didn't work out, from a tax perspective it would have been much more favourable.
I have received my postal vote confirmation yesterday so I shall be voting before you lot ...
Will see if mine has arrived at the weekend. BTW are you based outside the UK ? i was trying to fund dates voting slips are sent out yesterday but could only find registration dates.
I wonder how this will play out in the polls, is Labours' portrayal of the tories as the party of the elite tax avoiders working? (regardless of how effective it might be or indeed if it would ever get passed into law)
its been countered by a bitchy, 'Millibands a backstabber and will get us all nuked' we saw today
im not sure if that was a panicked response after labours best polls of the year coming out yesterday and the tory vulnerability at the elitism claim
There is a law of diminishing returns and also of unintended consequences in regard to taxing the uber rich
And don't forget the law which states that the "uber rich" never have quite enough money and always need more.
@kimbers indeed it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Polls I saw had things still neck and neck between Tories and Labour, not much change really.
yeah very little in it,
also, interesting to see what happens with ukip, theyve crashed out in the polls, only a couple of months ago they were a dire threat to labour and the tories, im not sure if they just peaked too soon or if the constant drip of negative stories has beat them down
FWIW I do know of high-earners who have already left the UK altogether, purely as a result of taxation. The UK now gets 0% of the benefit of either their earnings or cost of living expenditure - it might benefit from a few exports to them indirectly.
Society is probably better off without such greedy borderline sociopaths.
I find it astonishing this argument of 'let's not try and tax the super rich as they'll only wriggle out of it'. How about 'let's not bother trying to catch serious criminals because they're really good at evading capture' or 'let's not bother going after the worst benefit cheats as they're really good at fraud'. Yet somehow people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's perfectly acceptable. 😕
We do tax the super rich though. It is a reality though that the richer you are the more able you are to avoid tax via the organisation of your affairs. Warren Buffett is hugely wealthy on paper via his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway but he is able to shelter most of that from tax via the company. Sadly we are unable to address corporate tax avoidance as countries like Ireland and Luxembourg actively encourage it for their own benefit. Super rich individuals are able to do the same.
digga - MemberFWIW I do know of high-earners who have already left the UK altogether, purely as a result of taxation. The UK now gets 0% of the benefit of either their earnings or cost of living expenditure - it might benefit from a few exports to them indirectly.
How do they do their high earning? Likewise I know of several who chose to leave the country, and you know what? We lost their tax, but someone else took over and they do pay tax. Essentially, we lost some ****s and in their place, some better human beings are now doing well.
jambalaya - Member
I have received my postal vote confirmation yesterday so I shall be voting before you lot ...
Will see if mine has arrived at the weekend. BTW are you based outside the UK ? i was trying to fund dates voting slips are sent out yesterday but could only find registration dates.
I am based in the North East in a very sunny county with nice people who love to drink and to party. Wahey! 😀
So the Torygraph finally runs the Flanders story - tomorrow the "earth is round" revelation
Amazing that he used to talk economics and yet now he seems to have forgotten most of it. The Flanders trio F x E^2 is slightly mind boggling though
Still despite everything Ed opening up a slight advantage in the polls this morning. Maybe focusing on non-issues that make good headlines is the trick after all. He could try currency is an asset and perhaps that might start a recovery north of the wall.
The only good news from the election stories so far, is the fracture of the UKIP bubble. How did it take that long? Was it Farrage's promise to resign if he lost his seat?
@Northwind - you seem to have this view that anyone successful with money is a ****
The guy I know who retired to Singapore has about £1m a year in investment earnings after selling his businesses for £15m. If he stayed in the UK that would be £250-£400k of taxes, in Singapore he pays close to zero as investment income is tax free. We lose tax and we lose his spending and his considerable expertise, he still runs a few businesses in that region, if he lived in the UK he's probably do the same here creating employment and passing on his knowledge. Its not as simple as to say if someone leaves another person just "does their job", in many cases the jobs leave with the person. He comes back to the UK for his 90 days a year, that's more than enough to do most of the stuff any of us would want to do. He spends the summer in the Med.
Anyway we cannot and should not try and compete with Singapore's zero tax but on the margin these are important considerations
tmh I think UKIP's strongest showing for the time being is going to be European Elections and By-elections. I think the potential Tory waverers to UKIP don't want to see a Labour government. I looked at the Borough I'll be voting in and its a straight race between Lib Dems and Conservative, UKIP are miles back.
EDIT: BTW do you think this Flanders story is really newsworthy ? Trying to make some implication of impropriety seems pretty weak, BBC journalist with politician. The fact she dated both Ed Balls and Miliband, who cares ?
How do they do their high earning?
Why ask when...
Essentially, we lost some ****s and in their place, some better human beings are now doing well.
...they are condemned already!!
They are mostly in financial services, although one is a (very senior) mech engineer, so on the most part they could base themselves anywhere with an internet connection, and do.Northwind - Member
digga - Member
FWIW I do know of high-earners who have already left the UK altogether...How do they do their high earning? Likewise I know of several who chose to leave the country, and you know what? We lost their tax, but someone else took over and they do pay tax. Essentially, we lost some ****s and in their place, some better human beings are now doing well.
FWIW and IMHO, as far as being 'fair', UKIP is the only party talking about increasing GDP and immigration eroding the living standard of ordinary people:
Ukip are crashing out because the election is imminent, they are swivel eyed loons, they are making loads of mistakes and their previous success was purely by election protest vote.
The group that will have a significant impact is the SNP who have made it impossible for Labour to win, leaving the Conservatives as the largest party without a majority. The Lib Dems will get wiped out so they can't prop them up this time, hung parliament here we come.
The irony is the party wanting to split up the Union is likely to have the most positive effect on finally shaking up politics long term. Thank God they lost the referendum.
As for Labour, they should be storming into power on tbe back of the last 5 years of Conservative non governance. They should be genuinely embarrased they are where they are in the polls.
Yes the populous poll has a Lab/SNP coalition well ahead in terms of most likely result
So the trident thread could be a 100 pager.
After a fortnight, the polls on seats are unchanged. Can we have the vote now and just get on with it?
Interesting the poll shows that if Jim Murphy claimed back just 5% of voters, the Lab seats would more than double (in Scotland). But if the SNO gain another 2%, then labours seats go down to just 5!!!
The group that will have a significant impact is the SNP who have made it impossible for Labour to win
They've made it much less likely that they'll win an overall majority, but much more likely that they'll end up in government. It's a win-win for us anti-tory, anti-nu-labour types. We get a labour govt with a further left minor partner who will prevent them from doing anything tory-like. And even if the lib-dems keep a decent number of MPs, something tells me they won't want to go into coalition again. They need to rehabilitate themselves with the electorate and their supporters and siding with the tories again will not do that.
something tells me they won't want to go into coalition again
Don't underestimate the appeal of power.
Ernie, we meet again.
And don't forget the law which states that the "uber rich" never have quite enough money and always need more.
Remember the Uber Rich employ people. These people who are employed then go on to pay tax and stimulate the economy. The Uber rich also pay tax, to an extent, and yes I agree tax avoidance should be debated. The motivation if Uber rich people to earn money results in research, development, innovation and technological advances.
What is wrong with people being successful in life? Would you prefer a socialist state like Cuba? I wouldn't, as it would completely suck all motivation out of me and you.
The motivation if Uber rich people to earn money results in research, development, innovation and technological advances.
involved in much r&d then?
id say the majority of innovation (certainly in medical research) happens in state/charity funded university research departments and its then spun off into the private sector but usually still developed in concert with the unis and NHS for example
I fail to see how your logic of uber rich people driving r&d and innovation makes any sort of sense
Would you prefer a socialist state like Cuba?
I think the answer to that lies in his name...
Hi Kimbers. To an extent I am involved in research. The graphene institute at the Uni of Manchester use my machines to test. Astra Zeneca is Knutsford use my machines to test, Sheffield University use my machines to teach. The list is endless. But my point isn't about research entirely. Companies have to evolve, develop and innovate new products to remain competitive, which in turn drives profit and growth.
The motivation if Uber rich people to earn money results in research, development, innovation and technological advances.
You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.
And don't forget the law which states that the "uber rich" never have quite enough money and always need more.
Not to mention the law that states "if we tax the uber rich they'll leave the country and we won't have anyone left who's competent to run a bank (*) "
(*) yes - I know it's hard to type that with a straight face
Not to mention the law that states "if we tax the uber rich they'll leave the country and we won't have anyone left who's competent to run a bank (*) "
If that's true why aren't they all already living in Monaco or Luxembourg?
You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.
Funded by governments with hardware supplied by private companies. Think outside the box a little bit.
@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is "dodgy" ?
Same way you've decided all Greeks are "dodgy", for pages and pages and pages?
You mean the billionaires funding medical research, space exploration, the LHC, university research etc? Who are they then? I was under the impression that the vast majority of funding for these are paid for by governments.
Are you not eternily grateful for the research that Russian oligarchs, and their ilk, are funding... into owning football clubs, massive yachts, diamond encrused Bentleys, enormous cinemas underneath their Nightsbridge mansions, and gaudy tasteless watches?
Because I bloody well am!!
*doffs cap*
hardware supplied by private companies
But you said the Uber rich fund R&D, not private companies. Most of the biggest private companies are owned by pubic shareholders, not by the 'uber rich'. Some, like the one I work for are owned by the staff, and operate without any 'uber rich' people at the top. It's perfectly possible for the private sector to operate and be successful without there needing to be some rich people at the top creaming off all the profits, so making the uber rich pay more tax would have negligable effect on the success of these companies, and certainly wouldn't have any impact on R&D or innovation.
Just imagine if anyone in Britain had jobs making football stadiums/luxury yachts/bentleys/cinemas/watches?
Oh yeah... 'trickle down economics'? The more yachts Roman Abromivich buys, the better off we all are a society? And we should be thankful for his benevolant largesse?
He could alwys just pay some tax instead?
Just a thought....
Well, he's made his money abroad, and he's going to buy the yacht anyway - would you rather it was a yacht designed, built, crewed and maintained in the UK, or somewhere else (like Germany)?
Some, like the one I work for are owned by the staff, and operate without any 'uber rich' people at the top. It's perfectly possible for the private sector to operate and be successful without there needing to be some rich people at the top creaming off all the profits
I agree.
The Company i work for is privately owned. The MD is extremely wealthy with his own plane and yacht collection.
The two situations described above can and are allowed to exist together.
I don't actually know who builds his yachts ninfan? Do you?
Edit: A quick Google says it was Blohm Voss Shipyards in Hamburg. So thanks for that £1.5 billion 'contribution' from Mr Abramovich that will all be trickling down into our economy, to us grateful minions.... apparently.......somehow ... it benefits us in the country where he lives, but doesn't pay any tax
though to be honest I'm not quite sure how thats going to work....
I'm not very bright though. Otherwise I'd be rich, obviously. Living in this great meritocracy, as I do.
Perhaps you could run through it for me Ninfan...?
Please don't use big words though. I had a state education 😉
I can't believe people are still peddling the utter bollocks of trickle-down economics. It's been thoroughly debunked years ago as a complete myth. The idea that we should be grateful to sociopaths like Abramovich is absolutely laughable. A man who made his fortune by not paying wages for months in a town where everyone was employed in the plant he controlled, then buying up all the shares issued to the workers for peanuts because people were starving. These are the 'wealth creators' we should be bending over backwards to come over here and buy mansions in Kensington. FFS.
That's right, keep drinking the Kool Aid...Over 70% of the UK population think 'something' needs to be done to (better) control immigration - that's irrespective of ethnicity.stumpyjon - Member
Ukip are crashing out because the election is imminent, they are swivel eyed loons, they are making loads of mistakes and their previous success was purely by election protest vote.
You have to be joking. All but the most staunch, die-hard Labourites know full what what sort of an economic shambles they created last time round, and looking at their shadow cabinet right now; well if anyone's swivel-eyed and loony it's Balls.stumpyjon - Member
As for Labour, they should be storming into power on tbe back of the last 5 years of Conservative non governance. They should be genuinely embarrased they are where they are in the polls.
[quote=digga said]All but the most staunch, die-hard Labourites know full what what sort of an economic shambles they created last time round
Ooo, you've done it now 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis, and that the Tories failing to meet all of their own targets on deficit reduction somehow displays economic competence.
Just mention something about Gordon sold off all our gold for the full compliment of Daily Mail-informed BS bingo.
WTF is trickle down economics anyway apart from a gross simplification/distortion of the circular flow of income/multiplier effects and marginal propensities to consume/invest/save???
The non dom issue is a side show and a historical anachronism. Scrap it yes and then we can deal with the bigger issues. But let's not make the UK an unattractive place to invest in the meantime.
The £ is already have a slight wobble. Better buy the holiday €s now I think....
Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis,
'No more boom and bust'
Out of interest Grum, who did cause it?
But let's not make the UK an unattractive place to invest in the meantime.
Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'
Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery
Here you go THM -
I've had a quick read but I can't see where it says 'it's all the Labour party's fault because someone wrote a note saying 'there's no money left''.
True, but firms and the people they employ may be dependent on investors/providers of capital and funding who have moved offshore. The same people may consider re-locating parts of these firms offshore too if the UK becomes less attractive for them. Not the same as non doms, but the principle of keeping UK attractive remains the same.
On housing yes and no. But the wealth effect had an important impact on consumption which is the largest driver of UK aggregate demand (sadly!!)
stumpyjon - Member
As for Labour, they should be storming into power on tbe back of the last 5 years of Conservative non governance. They should be genuinely embarrased they are where they are in the polls.
This is comical! The only argue labour have is on the NHS, because employment is up, the defecit is reduced by half, the economy is growing.
At least labour and the Conservatives agree on one economic policy, and that is to Keep charismatic character and charmer that is Ed Balls in his role.
Hehe. "The clunking fist will save us".ninfan - Member
Oh look, yet another idiot who thinks that Labour caused a global financial crisis,
'No more boom and bust
Meanwhile, some interesting revelations of how the people's party play with power and influence> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11526188/Ed-Miliband-was-dating-senior-BBC-economics-journalist-Stephanie-Flanders-when-he-was-at-the-Treasury.html
1. How impartial could Stephanie Flanders have been as an "economics" correspondent for the BBC having been in relationships with both Balls and Milliband? (Certainly Paxman has plenty to say on the subject of not socialising with politicians.)
2. How nice to see the revolving doors from BBC/politics into big business are still nicely oiled? (She's now with J P Morgan)
'No more boom and bust'
Yes it was a stupid thing to say - can you please explain how it proves that Labour caused a global financial crisis though. Because to me it just sounds like a soundbite that people can latch onto when they don't have an argument.
I thought it was mainly due to a lack of banking regulation?
Glad you have that article Grum, it's a good one.
LOL making it personal is doing ed no harm at all, and may well help him into downing street
2. How nice to see the revolving doors from BBC/politics into big business are still nicely oiled? (She's now with J P Morgan)
So you are concerned by conflicts of interest and the close relationship between ministers and business, especially the one's they are in charge of regulating? And yet this is the issue you've chose to pick up on? Interesting.
In total 76 MPs have recent past or present financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. Of them, 61 are Conservative MPs, 8 are Labour MPs, and 4 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from the Bishops. This means, 81% of MPs with these links are Conservative.
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/over-60-mps-connected-to-companies.html
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/10/01/questions-over-mps-conflicts-of-interests-raised/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/1billion-nhs-sell-off-scandal-tory-4724959
This is a complex web to untangle.binners - Member
Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery
No, house prices being elevated - in the vicinity of foreign investment and, by radiation, elsewhere - beyond the reach of the indigenous workers is not ideal.
Certainly the problem is not unique to the UK or London - New York being just another example and somewhere where they are looking specifically at the issue of 'investment' property that is never (or almost never) used as being subject to some kind of legislation and taxation.
However, it's an ill wind and all that; right now Putin would give his right bollock to have this sort of inward investment in Russian property and, by extension their currency. There is no doubt that this foreign investment and demand therefore for sterling will have helped to keep interest rates slightly lower than they might have been.
Same way you've decided all Greeks are "dodgy", for pages and pages and pages?
Touche 8) In the last letter to the IMF Syriza themselves said there was a problem with tax evasion in the service industry btw
@kimbers, I think, for example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Johnny Ive made a contribution technology and innovation wise.
@grum you cannot judge all billionaires based on Abramovich (yes I too am aware of the history). As an aside it would be interesting to see the total in tax and national insurance paid by CFC since he bought the club. Clearly a big part would have been paid anyway but it's clear his involvement has had a big positive impact on the club financially. Lots more revenue to HMRC.
I have worked in finance for 30 years, I have benefited from trickle down be that from large companies or wealthy individuals. A large part of what I do is to manage money for wealthly people (and pension funds). I have worked in IT for a small company founded and run by an entrepreneur. My good fortune has benefited HMRC and thus the country. So I believe in trickle down.
I have worked in finance for 30 years, I have benefited from trickle down
😆
Isn't the theory meant to be that the wealth trickles down to everyone, not just from the very rich to the moderately rich?
The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.James Henry, a former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has conducted groundbreaking new research for the Tax Justice Network campaign group – sifting through data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and private sector analysts to construct an alarming picture that shows capital flooding out of countries across the world and disappearing into the cracks in the financial system.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens
Labour didn't cause the financial crisis.
Labour put the Country in such a position that when the financial crisis arose, we were hid hard by it.
Nice one labour. Nice one Balls.
[i]"With Bank of England independence, tough decisions on inflation, new fiscal rules, and hard public spending controls, we today in our country have economic stability not boom and bust, the lowest inflation in Europe, and long term interest rates - essential for businesses planning to borrow and invest - lower than for thirty five years. So [u]while many have claimed Britain was worst placed of any to withstand the global slowdown,[/u] the OECD and IMF have both shown that Britain last year had the highest growth of any of the G7 countries. So nothing we do will put at risk the fundamental stability on which manufacturing depends. There will be no return to the short-term lurches in policy that would put long-term stability at risk. No relaxing our fiscal disciplines as some would like."[/i]
Warnings as far back as 2002 that we were badly placed for the inevitable crash
This was the inevitable Nemesis to the Hubris of believing they had ended boom and bust!
Labour put the Country in such a position that when the financial crisis arose, we were hid hard by it.
It's very clever of you to be able to imagine alternate realities with such certainty, like what would have happened had we had a different government.
Or is it just one of those things that 'everyone knows' because they read it in the Sun/Daily Mail?
As mentioned above, I believe one of the main factors involved was a failure of banking regulation - the Tories are known for their love of regulation generally, and particularly when it comes to the banking industry, so no doubt everything would have been hunky-dory on their watch.
Or is it just one of those things that 'everyone knows'
As detailed above, Gordon himself stated that people were warning of this as far back as 2002
That would be during the longest period of uninterrupted growth for 200 years. Thanks Labour.
Oh sorry, I forgot - when the economy does well under a Labour government it's thanks to global economic conditions, when it fails it's because of Labour policies - when the economy does well under a Tory government it's thanks to Tory economic polices, and when it fails it's still because of Labour.
This is genuinely the narrative that's promoted in the Tory-dominated press we have in this country, and lots of you seem to be falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Buying Chelsea mansions is not 'Investing in the UK'Just as an artificially inflated housing boom in the South East is not an econoimc recovery
12% stamp duty now, that's quite a big investment. Plus all the VAT on rennovations. A £5m place generates £600k in stamp duty. Kensington and Chelsea buyers pay 7% of the stamp duty collected in the whole of the UK
London property is strong is that's where the employment is being generated plus it attracts most of the foreign investment. I don't see what is artificial about the rise. IMO some of the regional authorities should look and see why that is and what they could do to get some of that. As an aside with GBP having fallen 30% since 2007 vs Asian currencies UK property looks pretty cheap vs their domestic markets and London is a city they can see them/their kids living in especially if there are political issues in China/Hong Kong etc.
Of course it was the longest period of uninterrupted growth, they had ended boom and bust remember...
It's like saying 'that was the best and biggest drunken payday weekend blowout ever' and then wondering why you've got the worst hangover ever and no money in the bank
jambalaya - I struggle to think that you actually believe some of the stuff you come out with. Even the Spectator thinks this housing bubble is ludicrous and unsustainable.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8915781/osbornes-bubble/
ninfan - come back when you've actually got an argument rather than just trolling please.
As mentioned above, I believe one of the main factors involved was a failure of banking regulation - the Tories are known for their love of regulation generally, and particularly when it comes to the banking industry, so no doubt everything would have been hunky-dory on their watch.
It was indeed. It's a red herring to point at the tories (at the end of the day, they weren't at the wheel at the time). Labour did not regulate, and they had ample opportunity to do so. That is not a criticism, it's a fact I'm afraid, and one which should come as no surprise to anyone who knew what "new" labour were about.
Whilst we weren't well insulated, the major cause was in the US; who not only failed to impose significant regulation; they actually relaxed/cancelled the regulation they did have in place. So in reality, labour could have done more, but it would be highly likely it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference considering that the wrong doing was mainly from our american friends.
Well that's my understanding of it anyway.
That would be during the longest period of uninterrupted growth for 200 years. Thanks Labour.
Careful! That wasn't real growth!
The country did well under Labour, I do believe they should have done more to reduce the deficit, ie "fix the roof when the sun was shining". The UK government like those all around the world of all left/right persuasions ignored the spiralling debt levels (personal, corporate/bank and state), this included the governments themselves, eg Greece. State owned German banks were some of the largest buyers of US Sub Prime. Its notable to me that the most spectacular failures in the UK where of regional "wannabe's" Northern Rock, Halifax-Bank of Scotland, RBS, Bradford and Bingley, Alliance and Leicester. Our core major banks like Barclays, Lloyds and HSBC weathered the storm pretty well, Lloyds of course talked into buying the failed HBOS which turned out to be a disaster for them.
You cannot say Labour caused the crash but they did nothing to prevent it, high levels of personal debt and consumption suited them well politically.
@grum, I think you do appreciate I post what I believe. London property will be materially higher than it is now in 5 and 10 years. If you look at property prices now vs 2006 and adjust for inflation they are not so unreasonable. Plus we have very low interest rates (with longer term fixed rates available), we have a supply/demand imbalance, we have a growing and ageing population with employment (especially well paid) focused in London/South East.
I have been reading and hearing about too high property prices for the last 30 years, we've had a few corrections from time to time but in the medium term the trend has always been up. London isn't so expensive vs some other major foreign cities.
It's very clever of you to be able to imagine alternate realities with such certainty, like what would have happened had we had a different government.
Grum this doesn't dimininsh responsiblilty. Labour were in power. They broke the Country.
@grum - on the Spectator article. Since it was written in 2013 its been shown very clearly that help-to-buy has been used quite little in London and South East. Also comparing house prices to average wages is a big mistake, aside from being statistically meaningless (average wages include many part timers) the calculation makes no account for the level of interest rates for example nor rtrends in population aging and immigration. Also one side effect of the crises is that people are buying even more property as they see that as a much sounder asset than financial products, as an extreme example if you put your money with Bernie Maddoff you lost 100% - done dusted game over, its hard to imagine losing more than 25% in property and even if you do you can keep renting it out and wait for a recovery.
(average wages include many part timers)
are part time workers not entitled to buy houses?
grum - Member
Even the Spectator thinks this housing bubble is ludicrous and unsustainable.
it's sustainable if we can persuade an infinite number of money-drunk foreigners to keep buying a finite number of houses at ever-increasing prices.
oh.
They broke the Country.
When people come out with meaningless hyperbolic soundbites like this it's very difficult to take them seriously. Have you ever considered a career as a politician?
Since it was written in 2013 its been shown very clearly that help-to-buy has been used quite little in London and South East.
Has it?
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/02/help-to-buy-scheme-treasury-figures
Have you got some more up to date figures or is this another one of those things that 'everyone' knows, so you don't need any evidence?
The boom was built on debt, not all (although some due to Brown's deregulation of banks) the responsibility of labour. This was the bubble.grum - Member
That would be during the longest period of uninterrupted growth for 200 years. Thanks Labour.Oh sorry, I forgot - when the economy does well under a Labour government it's thanks to global economic conditions, when it fails it's because of Labour policies - when the economy does well under a Tory government it's thanks to Tory economic polices, and when it fails it's still because of Labour.
This is genuinely the narrative that's promoted in the Tory-dominated press we have in this country, and lots of you seem to be falling for it hook, line and sinker.
[img] http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/8bba1fde-79f3-11de-b86f-00144feabdc0.img [/img]
It was also based on a huge creation of public sector jobs.
The GFC saw the bubble burst and Labour had not set aside anything to fight it with. They'd spent it all.
The recovery we have now is, in most part, to do with global recovery (i.e. the credit cannot go to the coalition) but the reductions in debt and deficit are down to the coalition.
are part time workers not entitled to buy houses?
Everyone if of course entitled to buy a house but it's ridiculous to suggest prices should be set at a level to make them affordable to part time workers, like students working in the evening to fund their education. Anyway as you well know that wasn't my point.