Labour's magic money tree

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

He's no genius. He's just the first leader of any party for over a generation that is not interested in becoming rich, nor is he reliant on rich donors. As such, he has no fear of increasing their taxes. In fact he'll be the first leader in 30 years who will actually become poorer (after tax) if he wins. Of course it costs, but for the overwhelming majority it will be free.

You believe that, Corbyn believes that, but most people don't believe that. There's a well known saying, that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. It's a saying worth bearing in mind.

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

The problem is not that people don't want infinite amounts of cash and happiness by voting Labour. It's that they don't believe it can happen.

Do you really believe that Corbyn is a genius who just happens to have hit on a way to make everything right without it costing?

This is why so many Labour members voted for Corbyn, and against the Labour establishment. Corbyn is calling for an end to austerity, and a fairer redistribution of Britain's wealth. It's not a new or radical idea, and nobody is suggesting Corbyn or McDonnell invented it. It's just that they are putting Labour forward as a party that will do something about it.

If we look at it from a different angle, the Conservatives came to power in 2010 with promises to tackle Britain's debt. Their plan was to cut spending by an unprecedented degree on a lot of things that ordinary people rely on. Whatever you might think of benefits, there's no denying that a lot of people have suffered. University tuition went up to £9K a year, a lot of national assets were sold off, and local government has seen budgets slashed to the bone. But the debt doubled, and the deficit is still there. Where did the money go? During austerity taxes on the rich have gone down. The Tories are the party of the rich. Just look up where their donations come from. Vote Theresa May back in and what kind of kicking will ordinary people get next? You know that the entire brexit bill will be piled right onto ordinary people, and all the subsidies the rich landowners are used to will be maintained.

He might look like a geography teacher that slept in the back of his car, but Corbyn is offering a different way. It won't all be roses and sunshine, but compared to what we'd have to look forward to with May it's a lot better.

[Lancasterclaret]

I have this argument all the time with a mate.

All Labour members could think that a policy to eat green cheese everyday might be the best thing ever, but they have to get elected to do it.

As the vast majority of the voting population isn't a fan of green cheese, that has zero chance of happening.

But they still adopt the policy, even though they won't get elected.

Its ideological purity versus the reality of politics.

Add the lack of actual credible Lab politicians who the public can relate to, and you've got a bit of a problem.

[pureclaret]

I will not be affected by tax increase as I dont earn the sort of money being talked about nor do I have assets or investments at those levels, so for me having a good NHS is important. But I do not see the idea of taxing people with even more tax to pay for these services on a regular basis, as all that will happen is these people will move the money/ wealth away from UK.
Also if they were taxed more then they are going to want to be first in the que for NHS treatment so the waiting times will become worse.
The guy may be very clever but his ideological views are dreams only and should be left as a dream.

[Paul Waine]

If something appears perfectly possible, fair, beneficial and reasonable, it's probably entrenched wealth preventing it from happening.

(I think my saying is punchier.)

Hi if it be your will, I'm trying to think of parallels for your statement - other countries that have tried to implement the ideas that you (and JC) are espousing.

Venezuela is probably a good fairly recent example. Take a look how their economy has performed over the past 10-15 years. And, that's Venezuela with considerable oil production capacity, mostly through a period of very high oil prices (yes, oil prices have been volatile - but averaged towards $100 for a large of that period).

[AndrewJB]

Hi if it be your will, I'm trying to think of parallels for your statement - other countries that have tried to implement the ideas that you (and JC) are espousing.

Venezuela is probably a good fairly recent example. Take a look how their economy has performed over the past 10-15 years. And, that's Venezuela with considerable oil production capacity, mostly through a period of very high oil prices (yes, oil prices have been volatile - but averaged towards $100 for a large of that period).

Try Germany (under the centre-right Merkel).

[Burnley Ace]

Who wrote Corby s not rich?

[quoonbeatz]

Who wrote Corby s not rich?

someone who has clearly never heard of the trouser press.

[AndrewJB]

I will not be affected by tax increase as I dont earn the sort of money being talked about nor do I have assets or investments at those levels, so for me having a good NHS is important. But I do not see the idea of taxing people with even more tax to pay for these services on a regular basis, as all that will happen is these people will move the money/ wealth away from UK.
Also if they were taxed more then they are going to want to be first in the que for NHS treatment so the waiting times will become worse.
The guy may be very clever but his ideological views are dreams only and should be left as a dream.

Before it became a reality, people said the NHS was a great idea, but only a dream. Don't underestimate what a radical idea it was at the time, but also what a great progressive step forward. Compare child mortality figures from the '30s to those of the '50s and you see what an improvement the NHS has been to the lives of ordinary people. But it faced a lot of opposition. The Conservative Party was against it, as were a lot of rich people. It was created through imagination and determination to overcome and break through the obstacles. The same can be done today.

Will rich people leave the UK? I don't think Corbyn is planning to soak them to that point. What we can't do is continue to reduce their taxes and have to cut our own services.

[AndrewJB]

I have this argument all the time with a mate.

All Labour members could think that a policy to eat green cheese everyday might be the best thing ever, but they have to get elected to do it.

As the vast majority of the voting population isn't a fan of green cheese, that has zero chance of happening.

But they still adopt the policy, even though they won't get elected.

Its ideological purity versus the reality of politics.

Add the lack of actual credible Lab politicians who the public can relate to, and you've got a bit of a problem.

There is no 'green cheese' / wildly unpopular policy that Labour are standing on. Nobody is marching in the streets demanding more austerity, so opposing that is hardly contentious. The manifesto will be no different to that of a centre-ground German political party. Even a majority of Conservative voters say they'd like to see the railways back under public ownership. Surely the cuts we'll see with a Conservative government are more extreme.

The problem with Corbyn's image is a real and serious one, and it will be up to him and the party to change that over the next few weeks. He's not a bad character, and has an earned reputation for honesty. On the down side he's spent nearly two years being relentlessly attacked. I don't think many people actually believe he supports terrorists, but quite a few have written him off as 'unelectable'

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Andrew, there clearly are.

You can only blame the media to a certain extent, then the rest of it is all down to Labour and its members.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

I did come across an interesting article on Government borrowing the other day (basic conclusion was that the Conservative borrow more and pay back less). http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The author is somewhat biased but the methodology seems sounds.

[LongsideFacingUp]

Venezuela is a ridiculous parallel and you know it!

LOOOOOL

Not according to your dear leader it's not.

[Paul Waine]

Venezuela is a ridiculous parallel and you know it! The existing differences on so many levels between the UK and Venezuela - cultural, historical, economic and social - make this comparison unusable. Why not make a parallel with North Korea? That would be equally lazy. Try Scandinavia, perhaps.

Name one pledge of Labour that is shared with Maduro. Go on, pick one. The list is here:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 29606.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Try Germany (under the centre-right Merkel).

Hi iibyw and AJB,

I was expecting the link to be comparing Venezuela's policies v Corbyn's policies. But, I couldn't find any mention of the former.

When Chavez came to power he started out by promising to "tax the rich" and everything would be free for everyone else. The Venezuelan economy has been falling ever since. The result has been "taxes and deprivations for everyone." (I saw a report that Venezuela was "caught short" with no toilet tissues). I don't use twitter - I'm indebted to Longside for posting JC's support for Venezuela's policies. It would appear JC didn't notice the effect of those policies on the Venezuelan economy.

Yes, Germany has a different history and culture to UK. There are a lot of good things that can be said about the post-war Germany (no irony intended). Netherlands is similar in many respects to Germany - I lived there for a time, and enjoyed it very much. I agree that top rates of tax are higher in both these countries, though I'm not sure at the intervals that these progressive rates apply.

The health services in both Germany and Netherlands have good reputations. Neither is "free at the point of use." Both operate on compulsory health insurance models. Both ensure that the "less well off" are also covered by health insurance.

I'd accept a German tax system, provided it also included reform of the UK health care system. That's not what JC is offering.

[Paul Waine]

I did come across an interesting article on Government borrowing the other day (basic conclusion was that the Conservative borrow more and pay back less). http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The author is somewhat biased but the methodology seems sounds.

Hi aggi, you've got me interested - I'll read the article.

The UK economy was "sound" when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took over from John Major in 1997. GB in the near term promised to maintain the same fiscal approach as the outgoing Conservative Gov't. At one level he did this - but he also introduced stealth taxes and the "existential" raid on all final salary pension schemes - and, over the year's GB's tax charge has ended this strength of the UK economy. Then GB introduced working tax credits and the bill build up. There followed a few more generous distributions of UK taxes, including big pay awards (for less work) for the health service, and then a big "public buildings" boom (new schools and hospitals etc) most of it on PFI (so not counted as government debt). GB then declared "no more boom and bust" - a little bit before the banking crisis broke, because the banks had been lending >100% mortgages, including to people who couldn't repay.

You can see the result of GB's "management" of the economy at the end of Labour's period in power. So, in 2010 the coalition gov't start to do the re-balancing. Yes, austerity has been spoken about, but this is not the austerity which meant actual expenditure cuts as in Greece. The UK's approach has been a lot more moderate. Growth in gov't expenditure has been slowed and bit by bit the Conservative gov't has been reducing the level of the annual deficit, but of course, every year there is a deficit, however large, it is added to the debt.

When Margaret Thatcher became PM in 1979 it was after roughly 12 years of Labour gov't, with less than 4 years of Ted Heath breaking this period up. UK was "bailed out" by IMF in 1977 (I may be a year out either side). I don't remember whether the IMF was involved in Harold Wilson's "pound in your pocket" time. It took the Conservatives 18 years to sort everything out that time. It might be 2030s before Blair/Brown plus the banking crisis is sorted this time.

EDIT: I've now read the article. Glad I posted above before I did so.

So, the author is a left-wing accountant and campaigner. He got a bit defensive when a couple of actuaries raised questions about his statistical analysis. He doesn't appear to have responded to the question, "so, are deficits/debt good or bad?" He's avoided examining the causes of the respective deficits - unless that is being examined elsewhere.

There's a silly typo is his personal bio - which is usually written by the person himself, even though it's presented in the third person:

"Country-by-Country reporting  requires a multinational company to publish a proper loss account each and every jurisdiction in which it trades,...." Of course, the underlined words should read "profit and loss account..."

[AndrewJB]

Hi aggi, you've got me interested - I'll read the article.

The UK economy was "sound" when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took over from John Major in 1997. GB in the near term promised to maintain the same fiscal approach as the outgoing Conservative Gov't. At one level he did this - but he also introduced stealth taxes and the "existential" raid on all final salary pension schemes - and, over the year's GB's tax charge has ended this strength of the UK economy. Then GB introduced working tax credits and the bill build up. There followed a few more generous distributions of UK taxes, including big pay awards (for less work) for the health service, and then a big "public buildings" boom (new schools and hospitals etc) most of it on PFI (so not counted as government debt). GB then declared "no more boom and bust" - a little bit before the banking crisis broke, because the banks had been lending >100% mortgages, including to people who couldn't repay.

You can see the result of GB's "management" of the economy at the end of Labour's period in power. So, in 2010 the coalition gov't start to do the re-balancing. Yes, austerity has been spoken about, but this is not the austerity which meant actual expenditure cuts as in Greece. The UK's approach has been a lot more moderate. Growth in gov't expenditure has been slowed and bit by bit the Conservative gov't has been reducing the level of the annual deficit, but of course, every year there is a deficit, however large, it is added to the debt.

When Margaret Thatcher became PM in 1979 it was after roughly 12 years of Labour gov't, with less than 4 years of Ted Heath breaking this period up. UK was "bailed out" by IMF in 1977 (I may be a year out either side). I don't remember whether the IMF was involved in Harold Wilson's "pound in your pocket" time. It took the Conservatives 18 years to sort everything out that time. It might be 2030s before Blair/Brown plus the banking crisis is sorted this time.

As Aggi's link shows, the Tories have borrowed more, and repaid less than Labour governments over the last seventy years. My question is where do they spend it all? Norway established a sovereign wealth fund with their oil revenues. What happened to ours? You say that Major left a sound economy, but he left schools and hospitals starved of funds, and sold off public infrastructure such as the railways. I know they assert that 'governments shouldn't run railways' - but if that's the case why have they franchised ours out to companies owned by the French and German governments? Royal Mail - what was the point of selling that? And if we're so broke, why hand out tax breaks to the rich? This isn't evidence in my opinion of good economic stewardship.

[Paul Waine]

As Aggi's link shows, the Tories have borrowed more, and repaid less than Labour governments over the last seventy years. My question is where do they spend it all? Norway established a sovereign wealth fund with their oil revenues. What happened to ours? You say that Major left a sound economy, but he left schools and hospitals starved of funds, and sold off public infrastructure such as the railways. I know they assert that 'governments shouldn't run railways' - but if that's the case why have they franchised ours out to companies owned by the French and German governments? Royal Mail - what was the point of selling that? And if we're so broke, why hand out tax breaks to the rich? This isn't evidence in my opinion of good economic stewardship.

Hi AJB, the UK's oil revenues were spent on general taxation purposes - there's a big difference in the expenditure required to support a population of >50 million (going back to the 70s) and one of > 5 million.

I've no real answer to why the German and French (and I think Italian) state is not only running their own railways, but is also involved in running railways in the UK. We should ask those countries - and their tax payers. The same exists in electricity sector, EdF is majority French state owned, and currently running up enormous losses in France, particularly with their nuclear generation plants.

Who said we are broke? UK government has a very strong credit rating, very little risk of the lenders not being repaid. The thing is, this doesn't mean that there is a "bottom less pot of gold" or a "money tree" that we can keep on spending regardless - there always needs to be high certainty that the borrowing can and will be repaid. High taxation, and calling the high earners "wealth extractors" does not present the best case that any borrowing can and will be repaid.

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

Here's what the Guardian says about why Venezuela is so impoverished.

"How did such an oil-rich state collapse so catastrophically?
The Maduro government has blamed the crisis on the US and rightwing business owners who it accuses of cutting production to sabotage the economy, but Maduro has inherited a ruinous state-run system from Chávez to which economists say he has added some damaging mistakes of his own. Chávez build his popularity on oil money and foreign debt, using both to fund consumption, while nationalising more than 1,200 private companies deemed not to be functioning in the public interest. But in 2015 the oil price was cut in half and Venezuela’s reckless public finances helped make it a high-risk debtor, cutting the country’s access to international capital."

They blame Chavez, foreign debt, high spending, too much nationalisation, too much spending.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... n-briefing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[LongsideFacingUp]

No parallel can be drawn between a wealthy European state and an impoverished Latin American one.

Corbyn disagrees with you: https://youtu.be/iYEfYsZ8SaA?t=6m8s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ditto his shadow chancellor John McDonnell: https://www.facebook.com/hands.off.vene ... 019083203/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both glowing in their praise of Chavez and Venezuela for showing the world a better, fairer way. "It's called socialism."

Staggering.

[If it be your will]

.

[LongsideFacingUp]

I'll tell you what, rather than wasting your valuable time sifting through the archives trying to make an irrelevant point, how about this question:

Which policy pledge by any political party are you most in favour of and why?

The **** is this, a year 8 PSHE lesson?

[If it be your will]

.

[LongsideFacingUp]

I'll tell you what, rather than wasting your valuable time sifting through the archives trying to make an irrelevant point, how about this question:

Which policy pledge by any political party are you most in favour of and why?

Although you're now trying to deflect and divert the topic, the relevance of Corbyn's infatuation with Venezuela is pretty obvious.

Labour is run by a far left lunatic who openly advocates for socialism; and socialism is a vile philosophy that has led millions into starvation, chaos and despair whenever it has reared it's ugly head.

This has been demonstrated throughout history; most recently in ... drum roll ... Venezuela!

So on the 8th of June the grown-ups will vote to make sure that Jeremy Corbyn, along with his **** stained trousers and bullying Socialist cronies, don't get anywhere near the offices of power in this country.

[If it be your will]

.

[LongsideFacingUp]

So you've chosen the Tory policy of say nothing, do nothing, pledge nothing and spend all your time smearing the opposition? Good choice. (And it does indeed look like it will be the deciding policy in this election.)

Decent effort by you to simultaneously smear Tories, and criticise Tories for smearing their opponents, in the same sentence.

10/10 *clapping hands emoji* *smiling emoji* *smiling emoji* *pirate flag*

[Paul Waine]

It was funny while it lasted, but I'm not discussing Venezuela anymore. The UK is nothing like Venezuela. None of Labour's policies are like Venezuela's. We are not going to become more like Venezuela by increasing taxes on the rich, we're going to become more like most wealthy European countries (particularly Scandinavia), and less like the USA, that's all. Venezuela is not remotely relevant in any way to this election. It is no more relevant than picking out a random low tax country - such as Afghanistan - and saying: "The Tories will make us like Afghanistan!!!"

Hi iibyw, sorry to return, again, to Venezuela. I've been catching up with today's Times this evening. There's an article about V. (I hadn't seen this earlier today). The electorate are unhappy, they torn down a statue of Chavez last week - and burnt it. They had thought it was made of bronze, but it was papier-mâché. Apparently living standards are now lower in V - and more poverty - than there was when Chavez came to power in 1999.

Is Afghanistan low tax? I only know about it for it's war-torn history, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I've heard it said that UK could follow Singapore's example - though I've also heard the other side claim that this would be a tax haven.

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

You're just trying to wind me up now aren't you...

(Afghanistan is a low tax country according to wikipedia. Absolutely no clue as to its accuracy. But what I do know is that Al Qaeda, Taliban, war, poverty and heroin are what await us all if we reduce taxes to their levels, because other than our current taxation policies, Afghanistan and the UK are identical countries. And May wants us to become like Afghanistan, you know, because she is in favour of free-markets, low taxes, war and terrorism. I'm just completely certain this will happen if May gets elected because she's a total loony and an unelectable fascist, and anyone that doesn't think this should grow up and stop living in some kind of dream world.)

Hi iibyw, take a look at CIA World Fact Book. Whatever your views on USA and CIA the World Fact Book is a solid source of data for all countries. You will see that there are very few similarities between UK and Afghanistan. Yes, their taxes are low. So is the country's GDP. Per capita income is low.

But, no worries. Take care and have a good day.

[Paul Waine]

You're just trying to wind me up now aren't you...

(Afghanistan is a low tax country according to wikipedia. Absolutely no clue as to its accuracy. But what I do know is that Al Qaeda, Taliban, war, poverty and heroin are what await us all if we reduce taxes to their levels, because other than our current taxation policies, Afghanistan and the UK are identical countries. And May wants us to become like Afghanistan, you know, because she is in favour of free-markets, low taxes, war and terrorism. I'm just completely certain this will happen if May gets elected because she's a total loony and an unelectable fascist, and anyone that doesn't think this should grow up and stop living in some kind of dream world.)

Hi iibyw, take a look at CIA World Fact Book. Whatever your views on USA and CIA the World Fact Book is a solid source of data for all countries. You will see that there are very few similarities between UK and Afghanistan. Yes, their taxes are low. So is the country's GDP. Per capita income is low.

But, no worries. Take care and have a good day.

[Lancasterclaret]

So you've chosen the Tory policy of say nothing, do nothing, pledge nothing and spend all your time smearing the opposition? Good choice. (And it does indeed look like it will be the deciding policy in this election.)

Whether you like Corbyns policies or not, you have to admire him for at least trying to change the direction of how we do stuff in this country. If it be your will makes a good point, the Tories are not even trying in this election, nothing controversial, nothing that might get May into trouble.

You can look at it two ways of course, but with Brexit on the horizon, you'd hope for something radical and thought provoking for this "New Britain" that we are all going to be living in*

*before anyone mentions it, yes, I'm well aware that New Britain is an island in the Bismarck Sea!

[AndrewJB]

The fact Chavez took steps to improve the lives of poorer people should be laudable. When you contrast his government with the ones before you'll see he made great strides, and this is obvious through the huge mandates he received in elections (which were all found to be fair). To blame the country's current turmoil on socialism is simplistic at best. Building hospitals and schools for the less privileged is not a pathway to economic ruin.

As for socialism being 'vile' - the NHS is a product of socialism, and the BBC, the fire and ambulance service, and armed forces. We've had a mixed economy for over a hundred years, and you have benefitted from socialism as much as everyone else.

[texasbrit]

I think you will find the more you earn the more you pay as you pay a percentage of you earnings not a fixed amount
So those earning +£80k do pay more.

However labour are suggesting that capitalism in the UK can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression.

Labour want to introduce a socialist system that would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through workers' revolution.
i.e. if you are very successful at what you do then we are going to take a larger share of your success to equalise the imbalance of wealth for the benefit of all.

Commonly know as a marxist society ..... enjoy

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

About as many similarities as the UK and Venezuela. (I was being intentionally daft.)

I know - but does Jeremy Corbyn?