Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Kite159]

I can see some of those higher earners deciding to move abroad.

Water companies is a good one to take back in under public ownership, seeing as currently consumers have no choice about which company they get water from

 

[Moonshot]

I can see some of those higher earners deciding to move abroad.

Water companies is a good one to take back in under public ownership, seeing as currently consumers have no choice about which company they get water from

Which will still leave consumers with no choice as to where to get their water from.

 

[Kite159]

Which will still leave consumers with no choice as to where to get their water from.

But better the profits going back into the system rather than to shareholders of (say) Southern Water

 

[Barn]

I can see some of those higher earners deciding to move abroad.

It's not just moving abroad. If faced with an effective tax rate which is too high, people just won't bother pushing themselves, creating risky businesses or gunning for a promotion. The extra net income just wouldn't be worth the endeavour.

 

[Moonshot]

But better the profits going back into the system rather than to shareholders of (say) Southern Water

Or Rail Pension Funds !! I think I m right in saying that the RMT Union has shares in Southern Water.

 

[Barn]

But better the profits going back into the system rather than to shareholders of (say) Southern Water

Well for many years they'll be going to the banks, foreign countries and other lenders who have lent Labour the tens of billions to fund the purchase price...

 

[Dave1987]

Dave, the WTO tariff point might make the 10% of GDP which is exported to the EU slightly more expensive. It isn't a separate chunk of GDP.

On Euro clearing, the volume of traffic per day does not equate to the income to the UK. We wouldn't be much of a clearing centre if we confiscated every Euro that came through London! London happily clears US Dollars and Japanese Yen and many other currencies without being in political union. The EU can't simply ban London from handling an internationally traded currency. If the EU decided to ban its citizens, states and businesses from performing transactions in London, it would be excluding them from one of the latest financial centres in the world and would cause huge damage.

WTO tariffs will do very serious harm to our exports and our imports which will do serious harm to the economy. And if Euro clearing goes to Paris then circa 83,000 jobs will be lost in the city on top of those lost due to banks relocating.

 

[Barn]

Dave, there aren't 83,000 people sat in the City clearing euros, and neither are there that number of people looking to relocate to Paris to do so. It's as if you've read something on Twitter and got yourself into a panic.

 

[Howardh]

Now we've had Labour's manisfesto, and who would disagree with it being "radical" even if they disagree with it, what happens in the future to Labour if the voters reject it?
Or would it simply be the country doesn't like/trust Corbyn but the policies are OK?

Has the mansfesto changed anyone's mind on here?

 

[47802]

WTO tariffs will do very serious harm to our exports and our imports which will do serious harm to the economy. And if Euro clearing goes to Paris then circa 83,000 jobs will be lost in the city on top of those lost due to banks relocating.

Personally I think some sort of deal will be worked out defaulting to WTO tariffs will do neither side any good, but clearly any deal is unlikely to be as good for us as the present, and probably will be some losses in some sectors, which is I voted remain, However the decision has been made and will have to make the best of it, some Remainers seem to think we can stay in the single market but I don't really see how that's likely, it be like still being in the EU without the clout and accepting freedom of movement or something close to. Clearly that wouldn't satisfy the Brexiteers.

 

[47802]

Now we've had Labour's manisfesto, and who would disagree with it being "radical" even if they disagree with it, what happens in the future to Labour if the voters reject it?
Or would it simply be the country doesn't like/trust Corbyn but the policies are OK?

Has the mansfesto changed anyone's mind on here?

Not for me it hasn't, Tax and Spend with some left Wing Dogma thrown in, and given Corbyn views of Defence and Immigration I don't much believe the manifesto in these particular areas.

I worked in a Nationalised industry for a short while just before it was privatised, and was very inefficient in my eyes, so I don't really see nationalisation as a solution to anything.

 

[EM2]

Not for me it hasn't, Tax and Spend with some left Wing Dogma thrown in, and given Corbyn views of Defence and Immigration I don't much believe the manifesto in these particular areas.

So how do you improve public services with a low tax economy?

 

[47802]

So how do you improve public services with a low tax economy?

Possibly you don't, you make it work as efficiently as possible within the money available.

NHS people say throw more money at, well you could do that as Labour want to and it may improve it, but it will probably be never enough, alternatively you make it live within its means and provide the best possible service within that, and maybe you have to look what can be delivered within the NHS and what cannot, and what are the options that which cannot be delivered within the NHS.

Also if you Tax Higher Earners more it can be counter productive, they will look at ways around it, and possibly they may move abroad causing a Brain Drain, at time when we really need the best brains the country can muster, and Taxing the City may not be helpful either at a time when it may loose jobs already due to Brexit. But with the Politics of Envy and the Class War that extreme left wingers want to wage that's OK.

 

[Dave1987]

Dave, there aren't 83,000 people sat in the City clearing euros, and neither are there that number of people looking to relocate to Paris to do so. It's as if you've read something on Twitter and got yourself into a panic.

Actually there are 83,000 jobs directly related to clearing Euro transactions. And by my current count there are around 20,000 jobs currently at threat in the city from leaving the single market

 

[Butts]

Plaid Cymru's manifesto (sorry, "Action Plan") has also been released today. Click here.

The have some nice ideas IMO, and given that Westminster is unlikely to represent my interests for the foreseeable future, pledges to strengthen the Welsh Assembly are welcome to me. I can't really find much I disagree with here.

I'm afraid you are "****ing in the wind" trying to draw attention to anything happening in Wales - have you not come to appreciate that yet ?. Think of when you lived in Scotland and multiply the disinterest by a factor of 10. As for Northern Ireland don't even go there

Unless it has some impact on England only a handful of contributors will venture an opinion or comment.

Leanne Wood may have a point with regard to her worries relating to Wales being a forgotten backwater/ region of Greater England.

 

[Dave1987]

Possibly you don't, you make it work as efficiently as possible within the money available.

NHS people say throw more money at, well you could do that as Labour want to and it may improve it, but it will probably be never enough, alternatively you make it live within its means and provide the best possible service within that, and maybe you have to look what can be delivered within the NHS and what cannot, and what are the options that which cannot be delivered within the NHS.

Also if you Tax Higher Earners more it can be counter productive, they will look at ways around it, and possibly they may move abroad causing a Brain Drain, at time when we really need the best brains the country can muster, and Taxing the City may not be helpful either at a time when it may loose jobs already due to Brexit.

In other words privatise parts of the NHS. Those who are wealthy enough to pay for treatment are fine, those who aren't just have to suffer. :roll:

 

[EM2]

Possibly you don't, you make it work as efficiently as possible within the money available.

So make more money available, and then you can do more.

NHS people say throw more money at, well you could do that as Labour want to and it may improve it, but it will probably be never enough, alternatively you make it live within its means and provide the best possible service within that, and maybe you have to look what can be delivered within the NHS and what cannot, and what are the options that which cannot be delivered within the NHS.

That sounds suspiciously like a pitch for privatisation...

Also if you Tax Higher Earners more it can be counter productive, they will look at ways around it, and possibly they may move abroad causing a Brain Drain, at time when we really need the best brains the country can muster, and Taxing the City may not be helpful either at a time when it may loose jobs already due to Brexit.

The highest tax rate between 1979 and 1988 was 60%. I don't remember much of a brain drain then.
Corporation Tax was between 40% and 25% in the same period. Not many companies relocating then, either.

 

[47802]

So make more money available, and then you can do more.

That sounds suspiciously like a pitch for privatisation...

The highest tax rate between 1979 and 1988 was 60%. I don't remember much of a brain drain then.
Corporation Tax was between 40% and 25% in the same period. Not many companies relocating then, either.

Really I know of 2 of my School mates who soon after graduating uni in the early 80's went abroad and never came back for essentially better pay and lower taxes.

In the context of the 74 to 79 Labour Government 60% was a major improvement over their staggering 83%. But the country was stuffed financially and will be again with Corbyn in charge and 50% will end up being just the start.

 

[Howardh]

So make more money available, and then you can do more.

That sounds suspiciously like a pitch for privatisation...

The highest tax rate between 1979 and 1988 was 60%. I don't remember much of a brain drain then.
Corporation Tax was between 40% and 25% in the same period. Not many companies relocating then, either.

I think there's a huge difference between then and now, other than THE most important thing, I had hair in '88

We're now in this global economy where the world is reliant on the web (look at last week....!!) which is basically in English or emoji's and how more difficult is it to run your life from France as it is from Fulham? That's of course if you are a high earner and have skills you can take anywhere.

But ther could well be highly-paid (£80k +) 40-somethings staff living in the south east who may well nowadays be able to sell their £1.2m three bed; buy a place in Spain for a tenth of that and get a pool, and survive off the difference.

Must be more tempting than to pay your taxes to Corbyn. But the difference is that now their houses are worth a lot, lot more in real terms than in the 80's, and they are basically sleeping in their pension.

Naturally, Brexit may put obstacles in the way, but how many countries would turn down someone turning up with £1m in their passport? That'll Do Nicely, Sir.

https://www.aplaceinthesun.com/prop...4-bed-property-in-alcala-la-real--jaen--spain - (property in Spain) even I could buy that, although at the price it probably comes with it's own hot and cold running cockroaches...

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I think there's a huge difference between then and now, other than THE most important thing, I had hair in '88

We're now in this global economy where the world is reliant on the web (look at last week....!!) which is basically in English or emoji's and how more difficult is it to run your life from France as it is from Fulham? That's of course if you are a high earner and have skills you can take anywhere.

But ther could well be highly-paid (£80k +) 40-somethings staff living in the south east who may well nowadays be able to sell their £1.2m three bed; buy a place in Spain for a tenth of that and get a pool, and survive off the difference.

Must be more tempting than to pay your taxes to Corbyn. But the difference is that now their houses are worth a lot, lot more in real terms than in the 80's, and they are basically sleeping in their pension.

Naturally, Brexit may put obstacles in the way, but how many countries would turn down someone turning up with £1m in their passport? That'll Do Nicely, Sir.

https://www.aplaceinthesun.com/prop...4-bed-property-in-alcala-la-real--jaen--spain - (property in Spain) even I could buy that, although at the price it probably comes with it's own hot and cold running cockroaches...

So sorry about your hair, but I really don't buy this mass exodus of 40 somethings earning more than 80k to Spain. Even with a decent wad of notes in the back pocket, I'm not convinced that too many Brits will take that up at that age (for a start, many will have children). Retired people is still a possibility, but for some it is is no picnic in Spain, and post Brexit why would it be in Spain's interest to encourage the more elderly to their country?...in the same way the UK wouldn't encourage people of that age group to come over here. Anyway, did Phil Collins really go? I was hoping he would.

 

[Howardh]

So sorry about your hair, but I really don't buy this mass exodus of 40 somethings earning more than 80k to Spain. Even with a decent wad of notes in the back pocket, I'm not convinced that too many Brits will take that up at that age (for a start, many will have children). Retired people is still a possibility, but for some it is is no picnic in Spain, and post Brexit why would it be in Spain's interest to encourage the more elderly to their country?...in the same way the UK wouldn't encourage people of that age group to come over here. Anyway, did Phil Collins really go? I was hoping he would.

Or Greece, Italy....New Zealand?
BIB - because the Brits After Brexit will be paying their own way regarding health insurance and so on so they won't be a burden on the state system. Plus they will be paying local residents taxes, they will be occupying homes that Spaniards can't fill, they will be supporting local businesses therefore the economy, and if they get seriously ill they will simply return to the UK.

My plan after caring was to sell up the inherited house, buy a small retirement apartment here and rent one overseas on a long-term basis and flip between the two, but that wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding high taxes (my earnings wouldn't be enough) but to do with getting some guaranteed sunshine on my old slaphead. But if my combined pensions were hit with high tax (and to be fair £80k is some whopping private pension....) I would consider simply moving permanently.

**Note - before any pedant arrives I'm fully aware about skin cancer on the head - dad has it and I don't go out without a hat. Even in winter. Here.

 

[Mvann]

Or Greece, Italy....New Zealand?
BIB - because the Brits After Brexit will be paying their own way regarding health insurance and so on so they won't be a burden on the state system. Plus they will be paying local residents taxes, they will be occupying homes that Spaniards can't fill, they will be supporting local businesses therefore the economy, and if they get seriously ill they will simply return to the UK.

My plan after caring was to sell up the inherited house, buy a small retirement apartment here and rent one overseas on a long-term basis and flip between the two, but that wouldn't have anything to do with avoiding high taxes (my earnings wouldn't be enough) but to do with getting some guaranteed sunshine on my old slaphead. But if my combined pensions were hit with high tax (and to be fair £80k is some whopping private pension....) I would consider simply moving permanently.

**Note - before any pedant arrives I'm fully aware about skin cancer on the head - dad has it and I don't go out without a hat. Even in winter. Here.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the medical bills were paid inter government.

 

[ninja-lewis]

But better the profits going back into the system rather than to shareholders of (say) Southern Water

More like into the Treasury to fund yet another political giveaway (whether a tax cut or more spending).

And when the Treasury needs yet money because someone has been too generous capital investment pay the price.

It's the history of every nationalised industry. There is no "profits reinvested" - simply profit taking. The difference between shareholders and the Treasury is the former must act within the company law in regards to distributable reserves. The Treasury has no such limit on its extractions.

 

[furnessvale]

More like into the Treasury to fund yet another political giveaway (whether a tax cut or more spending).

And when the Treasury needs yet money because someone has been too generous capital investment pay the price.

It's the history of every nationalised industry. There is no "profits reinvested" - simply profit taking. The difference between shareholders and the Treasury is the former must act within the company law in regards to distributable reserves. The Treasury has no such limit on its extractions.

Indeed, the Treasury has very recently demonstrated that, by demanding that cash raised by sales of Network Rail assets earmarked for rail improvements, be instead remitted to them for use elsewhere.

 

[muddythefish]

So make more money available, and then you can do more.

That sounds suspiciously like a pitch for privatisation...

The highest tax rate between 1979 and 1988 was 60%. I don't remember much of a brain drain then.
Corporation Tax was between 40% and 25% in the same period. Not many companies relocating then, either.

The Labour Party manifesto has been fully-costed. Every single spending commitment has an allocated funding source.

Right-wing political propaganda is incredibly pernicious, so even though the Labour manifesto is fully-costed and the Tories are making false and uncosted spending pledges all over the shop, we're going to hear a lot of right-wing headbangers ranting on about "magic money trees" and the like for the next three weeks.

 

[muddythefish]

In other words privatise parts of the NHS. Those who are wealthy enough to pay for treatment are fine, those who aren't just have to suffer. :roll:

Unconditional bailouts for bankers and austerity for the people - Tory economics in a nutshell.

Remember folks, taxing the top 5% of the population works for 95% of the population.

 

[ninja-lewis]

The Labour Party manifesto has been fully-costed. Every single spending commitment has an allocated funding source.

Right-wing political propaganda is incredibly pernicious, so even though the Labour manifesto is fully-costed and the Tories are making false and uncosted spending pledges all over the shop, we're going to hear a lot of right-wing headbangers ranting on about "magic money trees" and the like for the next three weeks.

Better tell John McDonnell that the water nationalisation commitment is fully-costed...

 

[Barn]

The Labour Party manifesto has been fully-costed. Every single spending commitment has an allocated funding source.

Not beyond criticism though. "If we increase X rate to Y%, we'll bring in £Z" is a statement of hope, not fact.

 

[muddythefish]

Not beyond criticism though. "If we increase X rate to Y%, we'll bring in £Z" is a statement of hope, not fact.

It's all been fully costed - as has been stated.

 

[Barn]

It's all been fully costed - as has been stated.

No. It's not as if there is a huge piggy bank and their only concern is not to spend money twice. They are making proposals for how they THINK they can increase the tax revenues. That money doesn't exist yet so it can't be fully costed. Whether Labour's belief that they can raise this amount is realistic is certainly a matter of legitimate debate.