General Election Is On

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:21 pm

dsr wrote:Yes. Normal accountancy would show money borrowed to buy an asset as balance-sheet neutral; over time, the asset would depreciate in value and the loan would be repaid out of profits until both disappeared off the balance sheet when the asset was worn out and the loan repaid; hopefully with a profit as a result.

Government finances don't work like that. Probably the reason is that treating schools and hospitals this way, as Labour is proposing, is nonsense. Schools and hospitals don't make financial profits so the company financial model doesn't work. Government finances work on the basis of receipts and payments.

Which is probably why the manifesto refers to ‘profitable utilities’ in reference to this rule.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:21 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Fair enough, but if the government is spending on an income generating asset like the utilities, surely it's wrong to write that expenditure off straight away and it makes more sense to account for it as any other entity would.

Yes, but if the government is changing its own rules so that new assets are to added to the balance sheet and presumably depreciated, then they must also change the rules so that existing assets are depreciated as well. That'll blow a massive hole in the budget. They can't use one set of accounting policies for new spending while applying a different set of policies to old spending. It's nonsense.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:24 pm

martin_p wrote:Which is probably why the manifesto refers to ‘profitable utilities’ in reference to this rule.

But there is the other rule about having to balance "current spending" as opposed to investment; the definition of investment to be made by themselves. You can bet that schools and hospitals will class as "investment" and don't need the books to balance for them.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:27 pm

dsr wrote:But there is the other rule about having to balance "current spending" as opposed to investment; the definition of investment to be made by themselves. You can bet that schools and hospitals will class as "investment" and don't need the books to balance for them.

So you’re guessing now to try and back up your point.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:30 pm

martin_p wrote:So you’re guessing now to try and back up your point.

If they're leaving gaps in the info, we've either got to make best estimates to fill the gaps, or else just shrug and think "it'll be right".

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:31 pm

dsr wrote:If they're leaving gaps in the info, we've either got to make best estimates to fill the gaps, or else just shrug and think "it'll be right".

Like you do with Brexit?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:34 pm

martin_p wrote:Like you do with Brexit?

If you like. And like we make "best estimates" to fill the gaps of what we don't know about Brexit. Works both ways.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:37 pm

dsr wrote:If you like. And like we make "best estimates" to fill the gaps of what we don't know about Brexit. Works both ways.

But there isn’t a gap here. Labour are very clear about how they’ll fund their investments, through taxation.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:39 pm

martin_p wrote:But there isn’t a gap here. Labour are very clear about how they’ll fund their investments, through taxation.

So when Sam Coates says "2. Relax fiscal rules. Under Lab they only have to balance *current* spending, not investment - and they will define the difference themselves. Their goal is to always be able to promise balance at a point 5 yrs in future", what is the very clear definition of "current" spending and investment?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:40 pm

dsr wrote:Yes. Normal accountancy would show money borrowed to buy an asset as balance-sheet neutral; over time, the asset would depreciate in value and the loan would be repaid out of profits until both disappeared off the balance sheet when the asset was worn out and the loan repaid; hopefully with a profit as a result.

Government finances don't work like that. Probably the reason is that treating schools and hospitals this way, as Labour is proposing, is nonsense. Schools and hospitals don't make financial profits so the company financial model doesn't work. Government finances work on the basis of receipts and payments.

Hilarious how you originally asked about the utilities, and then switched to schools and hospitals.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:46 pm

dsr wrote:So when Sam Coates says "2. Relax fiscal rules. Under Lab they only have to balance *current* spending, not investment - and they will define the difference themselves. Their goal is to always be able to promise balance at a point 5 yrs in future", what is the very clear definition of "current" spending and investment?

Well if all you can find to criticise is an unclear definition of investment then it’s looking like a pretty good manifesto to me. As I said the funding for the investment is addressed anyway.

But if not having a clear definition is a big deal for you then fair enough, although you weren’t voting Labour whatever was in the manifesto.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:47 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Hilarious how you originally asked about the utilities, and then switched to schools and hospitals.

And then switched to something else when it was pointed out that Labour wasn’t intending to treat schools and hospitals like utilities.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:05 pm

To be succinct, Corbyn’s manifesto sucks.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:08 pm

dermotdermot wrote:To be succinct, Corbyn’s manifesto sucks.

Ok, be less succinct and say why.

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:09 pm

If the 1983 Labour manifesto was described as the “longest suicide note in history” this one runs it close.

It is one thing saying it’s fully costed and another actually obtaining the funds from the markets. Like me saying I fancy buying a house for a million pounds and I will borrow the million to pay for it.

The idea of taxing dividends at same rate of income tax will have a massive effect on small ltd companies who already pay corporation tax on profits which Labour have said will rise to 21% but now any dividend paid afterwards will be taxed at 20% minimum. This is your local garage, shop etc that will be effected.

Whilst it admirable the pension age will stay at 66 no mention of the extra cost of this.

Waspi women will be compensated no mention of cost

No mention of cost of abolishing private schools which they are committed to.

The thing with this election is that if Labour were running a centre left agenda under a Blairite they would be walking this election

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:10 pm

Dy1geo wrote:If the 1983 Labour manifesto was described as the “longest suicide note in history” this one runs it close.

It is one thing saying it’s fully costed and another actually obtaining the funds from the markets. Like me saying I fancy buying a house for a million pounds and I will borrow the million to pay for it.

The idea of taxing dividends at same rate of income tax will have a massive effect on small ltd companies who already pay corporation tax on profits which Labour have said will rise to 21% but now any dividend paid afterwards will be taxed at 20% minimum. This is your local garage, shop etc that will be effected.

Whilst it admirable the pension age will stay at 66 no mention of the extra cost of this.

Waspi women will be compensated no mention of cost

No mention of cost of abolishing private schools which they are committed to.

The thing with this election is that if Labour were running a centre left agenda under a Blairite they would be walking this election

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:10 pm

dsr wrote:Yes, but if the government is changing its own rules so that new assets are to added to the balance sheet and presumably depreciated, then they must also change the rules so that existing assets are depreciated as well. That'll blow a massive hole in the budget. They can't use one set of accounting policies for new spending while applying a different set of policies to old spending. It's nonsense.

They can if those existing assets aren't generating income (such as schools and hospitals, for example) and the new ones are going to.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:15 pm

martin_p wrote:Well if all you can find to criticise is an unclear definition of investment then it’s looking like a pretty good manifesto to me. As I said the funding for the investment is addressed anyway.

But if not having a clear definition is a big deal for you then fair enough, although you weren’t voting Labour whatever was in the manifesto.

If you had read the rest of my recent posts you would realise that I have a lot more criticisms than that.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:19 pm

Dy1geo wrote:The idea of taxing dividends at same rate of income tax will have a massive effect on small ltd companies who already pay corporation tax on profits which Labour have said will rise to 21% but now any dividend paid afterwards will be taxed at 20% minimum. This is your local garage, shop etc that will be effected.

Not really, small company owners will pay themselves a wage instead of a dividend and get corporation tax relief at a higher rate.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:19 pm

dsr wrote:If you had read the rest of my recent posts you would realise that I have a lot more criticisms than that.

I’ve read all your posts since the manifesto was published and all you’ve talked about is Corbyn being middle class and getting confused over what a profitable utility is.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:33 pm

Labour costings are not credible according to the IFS.

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1197504856761815041" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:55 pm

I have been having a debate at work.
Who nowadays is working class???
Who is middle class???
Who is upper class???

It’s become a difficult definition.

When I started work I would have myself where I am today as middle class.

Now I am where I am I thinking i am working class but not sure other people would think.

When does working class become middle class???

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:01 pm

Dy1geo wrote:If the 1983 Labour manifesto was described as the “longest suicide note in history” this one runs it close.

It is one thing saying it’s fully costed and another actually obtaining the funds from the markets. Like me saying I fancy buying a house for a million pounds and I will borrow the million to pay for it.

The idea of taxing dividends at same rate of income tax will have a massive effect on small ltd companies who already pay corporation tax on profits which Labour have said will rise to 21% but now any dividend paid afterwards will be taxed at 20% minimum. This is your local garage, shop etc that will be effected.

Whilst it admirable the pension age will stay at 66 no mention of the extra cost of this.

Waspi women will be compensated no mention of cost

No mention of cost of abolishing private schools which they are committed to.

The thing with this election is that if Labour were running a centre left agenda under a Blairite they would be walking this election

They could always take the money out as wages which may also relieve some of the IR35 abuse.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:03 pm

New tactical voting app for brexiteers, recommends voting Tory in Burnley.

http://tacticalbrexit.org/#/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:06 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Not really, small company owners will pay themselves a wage instead of a dividend and get corporation tax relief at a higher rate.

To explain currently a 100% owner of a Ltd company will pay himself/herself a wage of £8632 a year. If the business make a profit of say £40k he/she will pay 19% corporation tax = £7600 the accountant advises say a dividend of £32400 he/she will receive the first £2000 free and pay 7.5% on the £30,400 = £2,280 in tax. Total tax bill £9,880 (corporation plus dividend tax) and he/she will receive a Net income of £38,752

If he paid himself a wage in full as you suggest the £8632 would be added to the £40k profit bringing total wage to £48,632 the first £12,500 would be at 0% and the residual amount of £36,132 at 20% bringing tax bill of £7226.40, there would also be Class 1 National Insurance to pay first £8632 is discounted so remaining £40,000 is at 12% = £4800 so total tax and NI bill by paying it as a wage as you suggest is £12,026.40 so from a wage of £48,632 he/she would get £36,605.60

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:08 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Labour costings are not credible according to the IFS.

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1197504856761815041" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by the looks of it, neither will the Conservatives:

Tom Newton Dunn
‏
Verified account

@tnewtondunn
Follow Follow @tnewtondunn
More
Matt Hancock all but confirms the Tories are ducking out of proposing a specific social care solution in their manifesto. Including his own well-prepared insurance payments system. Instead, just a lofty aim to achieve cross-party consensus. So the decade-long dither continues.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:13 pm

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10389069/ ... ered-vote/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:20 pm

dsr wrote:Yes, but if the government is changing its own rules so that new assets are to added to the balance sheet and presumably depreciated, then they must also change the rules so that existing assets are depreciated as well. That'll blow a massive hole in the budget. They can't use one set of accounting policies for new spending while applying a different set of policies to old spending. It's nonsense.

You wouldn't expect to depreciate an appreciating asset (a profitable company) though. Obviously the assumption there is that it will be profitable (which they seem to have based on the sector's current performance).

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:02 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:
When does working class become middle class???

When they start voting Tory

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:19 pm

Dy1geo wrote:To explain currently a 100% owner of a Ltd company will pay himself/herself a wage of £8632 a year. If the business make a profit of say £40k he/she will pay 19% corporation tax = £7600 the accountant advises say a dividend of £32400 he/she will receive the first £2000 free and pay 7.5% on the £30,400 = £2,280 in tax. Total tax bill £9,880 (corporation plus dividend tax) and he/she will receive a Net income of £38,752

If he paid himself a wage in full as you suggest the £8632 would be added to the £40k profit bringing total wage to £48,632 the first £12,500 would be at 0% and the residual amount of £36,132 at 20% bringing tax bill of £7226.40, there would also be Class 1 National Insurance to pay first £8632 is discounted so remaining £40,000 is at 12% = £4800 so total tax and NI bill by paying it as a wage as you suggest is £12,026.40 so from a wage of £48,632 he/she would get £36,605.60

So a fairly small impact, not a massive one as you originally stated.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:34 pm

Millions flooding in to the party of the rich. What are they buying..?

: Screenshot_20191121-163247.png (88.51 KiB) Viewed 1267 times

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:49 pm

Spijed wrote:And by the looks of it, neither will the Conservatives:

Tom Newton Dunn
‏
Verified account

@tnewtondunn
Follow Follow @tnewtondunn
More
Matt Hancock all but confirms the Tories are ducking out of proposing a specific social care solution in their manifesto. Including his own well-prepared insurance payments system. Instead, just a lofty aim to achieve cross-party consensus. So the decade-long dither continues.

Pretty sure Johnson said there would be a social care pledge in their manifesto other night and said people should not have to sell their homes to fund being cared for ?

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:50 pm

Tall Paul wrote:So a fairly small impact, not a massive one as you originally stated.

The point I was making was regarding the changes to the dividend tax rates and increase in corporation tax but even if they do what you suggest on that level of income it equates to to £41.28 a week.

You might not think that it’s a lot but it’s the general direction of travel towards higher taxes. Blair realised that you had to appeal to the aspirational business owners unlike Corbyn and McDonnell

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:51 pm

Haha LOL look at labour the absolute scrubbers. £218k. Randy Andy spends more than that on coke at his sex parties, the absolute legend. £218k! HA! Losers! Haha LOL!!!

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:58 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Pretty sure Johnson said there would be a social care pledge in their manifesto other night and said people should not have to sell their homes to fund being cared for ?

And you believed him?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:01 pm

Dy1geo wrote:The point I was making was regarding the changes to the dividend tax rates and increase in corporation tax but even if they do what you suggest on that level of income it equates to to £41.28 a week.

You might not think that it’s a lot but it’s the general direction of travel towards higher taxes. Blair realised that you had to appeal to the aspirational business owners unlike Corbyn and McDonnell

I'm sure they'll just invent another £50 a week of business expenses to make up for it.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:02 pm

Cryssys wrote:And you believed him?

Of course!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:02 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Millions flooding in to the party of the rich. What are they buying..?

Screenshot_20191121-163247.png

Don’t worry, I’m sure the rich people have got our backs on this. Throughout history the main concern of the rich man is making sure his workers are well paid and happy, even if it’s at his own expense.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:05 pm

Does that include the Bankers and Corporations for whose benefit the EU is run ?

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:12 pm

Spiral wrote:Haha LOL look at labour the absolute scrubbers. £218k. Randy Andy spends more than that on coke at his sex parties, the absolute legend. £218k! HA! Losers! Haha LOL!!!

Don't do drugs like Spiral kids.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:15 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Does that include the Bankers and Corporations for whose benefit the EU is run ?

I'm sorry, but please just stop making **** up.

Yours

Everybody else

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:56 pm

Dominic Raab:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... -misled-us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:58 pm

Labour have only £218k in donations larger than £7.5k in the last week.

Meanwhile Tory's millions in large donations include a donation of £200k from a Putin linked Russian Oligarch's wife.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:01 pm

Spijed wrote:Dominic Raab:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... -misled-us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Patrick Bateman I mean Dominic Raab won’t give a toss about this.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:08 pm

Labour plan to build 100,000 council homes a year which is brilliant however they also want to have free movement of people and more migration into the UK and make it easier for refugees. Will they be living in tents ? Labour will house them first so the housing problem will never be resolved.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:19 pm

dermotdermot wrote:To be succinct, Corbyn’s manifesto sucks.

It’s impossible to fully evaluate without putting it next to the Tory one.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Chobulous wrote:When they start voting Tory

Will I have had people in Terraced houses who are going to vote Tory.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:31 pm

Good to see Labour insisting only those earning over £80,000 will pay more tax. An MP's salary is £79,468.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:37 pm

bfcjg wrote:Labour plan to build 100,000 council homes a year which is brilliant however they also want to have free movement of people and more migration into the UK and make it easier for refugees. Will they be living in tents ? Labour will house them first so the housing problem will never be resolved.

Nash... foam... foreigners...

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:38 pm

Oh, now .i believe polls.

2% meh

: 02CC6DB8-93EB-4E91-8C9F-DAA46E05FBE3.jpeg (83.78 KiB) Viewed 1105 times