General Election Is On

[Devils_Advocate]

We are typing at the same time. Does my edit, above, provide reasons why neither BJ nor JS would make the argument against JC/JMcD by citing EU rules?

No unless ive misunderstood your post. Ive not got involved with Lowbanks post about pensions and im definitely not trying to defend Corbyn or his manifesto.

My issue is with people who just post lies on here or post other peoples lies without making any effort to check them

Lowbank made a big statement in very general terms about Corbyn not being able to deliver on his manifesto promise around nationalisation because of EU rules and that he has just made it up to win votes knowing full well it cant be delivered.

All ive asked for is one link of his manifesto being attacked for this because I dont trust Lowbank.

Thats as simple as it is and all ive been doing is repeating the same simple request

[Paul Waine]

No unless ive misunderstood your post. Ive not got involved with Lowbanks post about pensions and im definitely not trying to defend Corbyn or his manifesto.

My post #2995 on EU state aid - not later one on pensions.

My issue is with people who just post lies on here or post other peoples lies without making any effort to check them

Lowbank made a big statement in very general terms about Corbyn not being able to deliver on his manifesto promise around nationalisation because of EU rules and that he has just made it up to win votes knowing full well it cant be delivered.

All ive asked for is one link of his manifesto being attacked for this because I dont trust Lowbank.

Thats as simple as it is and all ive been doing is repeating the same simple request

Hi DA, yes, I get what you are asking. My suggestions that it is in neither BJ's or JW's campaign message to make the "it's against EU rules" argument may be the reason why we've not heard this particular argument made. (I'm not in charge of any party's campaigns, so no more than reasoned speculation on my part).

Generally, we know that "state aid" contravenes (some) EU rules. As a topical reminder TSB is in the news again today with reports they may announce closure of 100 branches (roughly 20%) because TSB is losing money - aside from not being able to manage their IT. TSB was spun out of Lloyds as one of EU requirements for UK breaking EU rules in the financial crisis.

Similar events have happened in other EU member states. Italy got into trouble for continuously providing financial aid to Alitalia, because the (then) state owned airline was always losing money.

I'm sure there are many more examples if we know where to look.

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi DA, yes, I get what you are asking. My suggestions that it is in neither BJ's or JW's campaign message to make the "it's against EU rules" argument may be the reason why we've not heard this particular argument made. (I'm not in charge of any party's campaigns, so no more than reasoned speculation on my part).

Generally, we know that "state aid" contravenes (some) EU rules. As a topical reminder TSB is in the news again today with reports they may announce closure of 100 branches (roughly 20%) because TSB is losing money - aside from not being able to manage their IT. TSB was spun out of Lloyds as one of EU requirements for UK breaking EU rules in the financial crisis.

Similar events have happened in other EU member states. Italy got into trouble for continuously providing financial aid to Alitalia, because the (then) state owned airline was always losing money.

I'm sure there are many more examples if we know where to look.

Ive said its complex and theres lots of nuances to the rules and laws so you really need to look at the individual examples on merit like ive asked Lowbank to demonstrate

But on Twitter for example people are ripping apart everything from the other side. I found loads of criticism about Corbyns nationalisation plans but nothing mentioned EU rules.

The way twitter is even accurate things get twisted and pulled apart so there is no way that they wouldnt be a load of mention of this if what Lowbank said is true.

Also no matter what you thonk of Corbyn do you really think he is going to make massive claims like this that are absolutely black and white untrue and impossible to deliver at all

We have plenty of differences but if you are playing this with a straight bat I cant believe you can argue against my basic point of Lowbank just passing off other peoplrs lies with no factual knowledge of what hes claiming

[AndrewJB]

You cannot nationalise lots of companies. It’s not allowed.

You cannot have a regional investment bank, that’s not allowed.

Germany has a regional bank but it was created by the US and UK after WW2. So is exempt from EU law.

That’s why we cannot save British steel or Thomas Cook but Germany could save Condor, the German arm of TC.

Nothing in the EU rules prevents nationalisation. I’ve told you this before, but you insist on making this false claim. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... eu-rules-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

Post #2781 - I mentioned impact of JC/JMcD rules on all defined contribution pensions - including the workers making contributions to NEST under the recently introduced pension contributions rules.

But, MPs and senior civil servants still get their pensions paid for by the taxpayers. "From the many - but only for the few" is a good way to describe MPs own pension arrangements.

MPs' pension arrangements are for even fewer than you might think. Remember the row rumbling away about surgeons being reluctant to work full time because once their pensions go over a certain figure (£1m in the pot), they are working for nothing? MPs have found a solution to this problem. Their pensions too are high enough that many of them were going to be subject to this extraordinary tax; so they exempted themselves from it. MPs have passed special laws so that they pay less tax than us on the same income.

Was that in the Labour manifesto? It should be. As, of course, it should be in all the other parties' manifestos. It's an outrage.

[aggi]

You cannot nationalise lots of companies. It’s not allowed.

You cannot have a regional investment bank, that’s not allowed.

Germany has a regional bank but it was created by the US and UK after WW2. So is exempt from EU law.

That’s why we cannot save British steel or Thomas Cook but Germany could save Condor, the German arm of TC.

That's not true though is it? There's a world of difference between nationalisation and state aid. You've fallen into the same trap as Ringo in believing that they're the same thing.

You can't nationalise a failing company and prop it up through subsidies but that isn't what labour are proposing.

[aggi]

It was excellent btw because it showed the leaders and the audience honed in on their weaknesses.

Sturgeon - independence ahead of anything else, with a Conservative esq cavalier attitude to what happens afterwards

Corbyn - desperate not to be asked about Brexit, so he was and came across as exactly how he didn't want to (ie trying to come across as neutral and you can't be neutral on this)

Swinson - no doubt revoking Article 50 outright is divisive and it showed, and the coalition is hard to justify

Johnson - racism and trust

Course, you could argue that we could really do with a positive type debate, but we saw those sorts of things at the various manifesto launches.

Why can't you be neutral? I don't really understand the issue with this.

The country was split pretty evenly on whether to leave or remain, having the PM not take a position seems reasonable

[Paul Waine]

MPs' pension arrangements are for even fewer than you might think. Remember the row rumbling away about surgeons being reluctant to work full time because once their pensions go over a certain figure (£1m in the pot), they are working for nothing? MPs have found a solution to this problem. Their pensions too are high enough that many of them were going to be subject to this extraordinary tax; so they exempted themselves from it. MPs have passed special laws so that they pay less tax than us on the same income.

Was that in the Labour manifesto? It should be. As, of course, it should be in all the other parties' manifestos. It's an outrage.

Hi dsr, a "like" is not the best response to your post. It is, of course, outrageous that MPs have exempted themselves from the pension taxation rules that apply to just about everyone else in the country.

Jeremy Corbyn, as all long-standing MPs, will be a particular beneficiary of these very advantageous special pension rules. For balance, so will Ken Clarke and others.

A special "tax avoidance" deal is reported to have been made for the doctors/surgeons so that they will continue to operate this winter. While this is good news for anyone waiting for an operation it is again another example of "one rule for us" and a much tougher set of rules for the rest of you.

[Paul Waine]

Nothing in the EU rules prevents nationalisation. I’ve told you this before, but you insist on making this false claim. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... eu-rules-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good link, Andrew. I appreciate you finding this.

A little copy/paste for anyone who might not open the link. I've added underline and bolded to pick out what I understand are the key points we are debating.

New Stateman (America Edition) - 15-Nov-2019

Would Labour’s plans to nationalise BT Openreach be legal under EU rules?
Nothing in EU rules prohibits nationalisation - they do however have implications for how you run nationalised and privatised services alike.

Would Labour’s plans to nationalise BT Openreach fall foul of the European Union’s competition rules? That’s the question being asked by some of our readers and pushed by the Conservatives.

The answer is “well, it depends on what they want to do with it afterwards”. There is nothing in the EU’s rules – or in the level playing field commitments that any meaningful free trade agreement with the EU would require – that prevents a government taking Openreach, or any other bit of the economy, into public hands. It does however, place limitations on how you could run Openreach, or any other bit of the economy, in public hands.

While the proposals on what Labour would actually do with Openreach aren’t as detailed as I would like, they look to be planning to run Openreach effectively in the same way the government currently runs railway tracks and roads – in which the government provides, maintains and develops rail and road, but private cars, trains, trucks and lorries roll over them – which wouldn’t fall foul of level-playing field rules.

If you had a situation in which the day-to-day running of Openreach made it impossible for other broadband providers to operate, then that could open a future government up to a court challenge under the rules of the single market or under any free trade agreement with the European Union. But this wouldn’t force the government to sell off Openreach, just to tweak it.

As I wrote this morning, while we can assess and reach a firm judgement one way or the other on the desirability of free at the point of use broadband, we can’t be as clear about the value of nationalising Openreach – at a cost of £20bn according to Labour, and perhaps more according to BT itself – until we have a better idea of how Labour proposes to run Openreach.

Equally, until we have that detail, we can’t say with any confidence what it would mean for the future institutional relationship with the EU that a Labour government would be able to tolerate.

[Paul Waine]

On Friday a few of us exchanged info on JC/JMcD's tax plans.

Some may be interested in extracts from Saturday's Times Money section:

I've added underlines to highlight some items.

Labour’s plan: 67% tax rate and VAT on school fees

Labour plans to overhaul income taxes for higher earners by lowering the 45 per cent tax threshold to £80,000 and introducing a new super-tax rate of 50 per cent for those earning more than £125,000.

The existing tax-free personal allowance is £12,500. A 20 per cent basic rate of tax is levied on earnings up to £50,000 and anything above this is taxed at 40 per cent. Those earning more than £150,000 pay a top rate of 45 per cent.

Under Labour’s plans anyone earning between £125,000 and £150,000 faces the biggest tax hit of 10 percentage points more than they do now.

The manifesto made no mention of changes to national insurance (NI) and did not say whether the personal allowance would be removed for those earning more than £100,000. If it was, those earning between £100,000 and £125,000 would effectively be paying a tax rate of 67 per cent including NI contributions.

Any married couple with one earner who does not pay tax and one who earns below £50,000 currently qualifies for a tax break worth £250 a year.
A lower earner is allowed to pass on £1,250 of their unused allowance to their partner to reduce their tax bill. A lower earner is allowed to pass on £1,250 of their unused allowance to their partner to reduce their tax bill. The Labour party plans to scrap this break, affecting about one million people.

The biggest effect is likely to be on dividends. Labour’s proposed tax regime would ensure that any dividends paid on investments that aren’t held in a pension or Isa were charged at the same rates as income tax. This will particularly hurt pensioners who bolster their incomes with dividends from shares. This is because they may already have the state pension and a small private pension that boosts their income. As they would have no tax-free allowances, all dividends would be charged at their marginal rate of tax, so they are likely to have to pay 20 per cent (basic rate) tax.

[Paul Waine]

So, it's not just those in the "top 5%" will be paying additional income tax.

Married couples with one earner with income less than £50k and the other a non-tax-payer will pay an additional £250.

And, pensioners with state pension and small private pension with some additional dividend income on savings held in shares will pay 20%, whereas previously the first £2,000 would have been free of tax.

[AndrewJB]

So, it's not just those in the "top 5%" will be paying additional income tax.

Married couples with one earner with income less than £50k and the other a non-tax-payer will pay an additional £250.

And, pensioners with state pension and small private pension with some additional dividend income on savings held in shares will pay 20%, whereas previously the first £2,000 would have been free of tax.

I know a number of people who set up limited companies and work as consultants, in some cases for the same companies they worked at before as salaries employees. This a salary of around £100k can have an array of costs set against it- things ordinary workers would just bare - and with one family, salaries are paid out to both parents, and also both teenaged children. Corporate income tax is paid on what remains, and then they can take the rest as dividends, and in this way avoid a lot of tax ordinary people can’t. If I know a few people who do this, there are probably quite a few. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Labour will get more revenue out of people who do this.

[taio]

It seems Labour will today commit to a £58 billion compensation package to WASPIs but they haven't costed this and said how it would be funded in their manifesto. A gargantuan promise in financial terms with no mention of how it would be financed on top of their other eye-watering spending commitments. If true, the idea Labour's manifesto was fully costed is a complete joke and supports the view that their policies are just pie in the sky.

[AndyClaret]

It seems Labour will today commit to a £58 billion compensation package to WASPIs but they haven't costed this and said how it would be funded in their manifesto. A gargantuan promise in financial terms with no mention of how it would be financed on top of their other eye-watering spending commitments. If true, the idea Labour's manifesto was fully costed is a complete joke and supports the view that their policies are just pie in the sky.

Yep, after shaking the magic money tree bare, uncle John has found £58bn down the back of the sofa.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Yep, after shaking the magic money tree bare, uncle John has found £58bn down the back of the sofa.

Is this the same tree they shake to build 50 new hospitals? It’s all very confusing. Is there a bar chart you could post claret Andy?

[taio]

Is this the same tree they shake to build 50 new hospitals? It’s all very confusing. Is there a bar chart you could post claret Andy?

They haven't committed to build 50 new hospitals.

[AndrewJB]

The issue around Russian interference in our politics - especially in light of the millions the Tories have recently received in donations from friends of Putin, and Johnson’s bizarre refusal to publish the report seem to be what fuel the distrust for the Tories right now. All Johnson has to do is publish, and he could re-establishment trust with a lot of voters.

[Paul Waine]

I know a number of people who set up limited companies and work as consultants, in some cases for the same companies they worked at before as salaries employees. This a salary of around £100k can have an array of costs set against it- things ordinary workers would just bare - and with one family, salaries are paid out to both parents, and also both teenaged children. Corporate income tax is paid on what remains, and then they can take the rest as dividends, and in this way avoid a lot of tax ordinary people can’t. If I know a few people who do this, there are probably quite a few. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Labour will get more revenue out of people who do this.

Hi Andrew, I agree, a business can claim expenses that an employee can't claim. Travel to clients, for example, whereas employees can't claim travel to work - except when they are working away from their regular place of work. Businesses can also claim office expenses, so, you can claim (some of) heat and light if you work from home.

On the splitting the businesses revenues across "all the family" - you may want to take a look at IR35. This tax rule came in some years ago. The people you know "who do this" may tell you a little about how IR35 works - and how they can no longer do as you describe, unless all "employees" are legitimately doing valuable work in the business.

It's also become a lot more challenging for a former employee to return to work for their ex-employer as a consultant. Many employers will no longer take this risk - similarly many employees, if they understand the tax rules. This may be one reason why "zero hours" employment contracts are frequently used.

EDIT: From Wikipedia (search: When was IR35 Introduced):

Kitty Ussher speaking for the Chancellor replied, "The intermediaries legislation, commonly known as 'IR35', was introduced with effect from 6 April 2000 to counter the avoidance of employed levels of tax and national insurance by individuals providing their services through intermediaries.

Was Kitty Ussher MP for Burnley at this time?

[AndrewJB]

It seems Labour will today commit to a £58 billion compensation package to WASPIs but they haven't costed this and said how it would be funded in their manifesto. A gargantuan promise in financial terms with no mention of how it would be financed on top of their other eye-watering spending commitments. If true, the idea Labour's manifesto was fully costed is a complete joke and supports the view that their policies are just pie in the sky.

If the court action by the women is successful, any government will owe the money. Wouldn’t you say it’s a matter of fairness though, first and foremost? Wrong for a government to change the rules on people like that? Or is fairness only for billionaires?

[taio]

If the court action by the women is successful, any government will owe the money. Wouldn’t you say it’s a matter of fairness though, first and foremost? Wrong for a government to change the rules on people like that? Or is fairness only for billionaires?

I would say that if a Labour government wishes to make a £58 billion commitment which is obviously enormous they should say how they are going to sensibly fund it. Especially when adding it to a shopping list that the IFS has already said was simply not credible. They should tell us how they are going to fund it or tell us what they are going to do a u turn on to the value of £58 billion. They have no economic credibility.

[dsr]

If the court action by the women is successful, any government will owe the money. Wouldn’t you say it’s a matter of fairness though, first and foremost? Wrong for a government to change the rules on people like that? Or is fairness only for billionaires?

I saw an article by Polly Toynbee who (as you would expect) complains about this particular aspect of equal rights for women. She argues that the government was desperately slow in bringing in the sex equality acts and equal pay acts, which came in about 1972, but ridiculously quick to bring in this particular rule - even though it's 50 years later.

There is no reason why equal retirement ages shouldn't have been in for fifty years. It may be rough on these women that they have to work longer than they thought they would; but equally, it would be rough on me to have to work extra years so they can retire younger.

[If it be your will]

Nothing in the EU rules prevents nationalisation. I’ve told you this before, but you insist on making this false claim. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... eu-rules-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not if the nationalised companies behave in a manner that doesn't cause 'market distortions', no, there isn't. That is, so long as the majority state-owned entity behaves exactly like a private company, in fair competition with other private companies, after competitive procurement processes, without subsidy or long-term strategic vision beyond winning the contracts and maintaining profitability - by driving down costs, seeking loopholes in the regulations, and ignoring non-regulated externalities - and acting without democratic accountability, in a broken-up non-monopolised system open to free and fair competition at every stage, you're fine.

Sort of removes the whole point of the entity being nationalised in the first place, though, doesn't it?

[AndrewJB]

I would say that if a Labour government wishes to make a £58 billion commitment which is obviously enormous they should say how they are going to sensibly fund it. Especially when adding it to a shopping list that the IFS has already said was simply not credible. They should tell us how they are going to fund it or tell us what they are going to do a u turn on to the value of £58 billion. They have no economic credibility.

That goes for all the parties, and so far the Tories are making the least sense with big spending increases and big tax giveaways. You can’t square the circle. The Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant wages (for all but the rich), so even less credibility on their part. And nothing from them on dealing with global warming, apart from planting trees - which might be like the 200k starter homes they built a total of zero.

[AndrewJB]

Not if the nationalised companies behave in a manner that doesn't cause 'market distortions', no, there isn't. That is, so long as the majority state-owned entity behaves exactly like a private company, in fair competition with other private companies, after competitive procurement processes, without subsidy or long-term strategic vision beyond winning the contracts and maintaining profitability - by driving down costs, seeking loopholes in the regulations, and ignoring non-regulated externalities - and acting without democratic accountability, in a broken-up non-monopolised system open to free and fair competition at every stage, you're fine.

Sort of removes the whole point of the entity being nationalised in the first place, though, doesn't it?

Luxembourg are looking at making rail travel free. How have they sneaked that past the EU? There is scope.

[taio]

That goes for all the parties, and so far the Tories are making the least sense with big spending increases and big tax giveaways. You can’t square the circle. The Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant wages (for all but the rich), so even less credibility on their part. And nothing from them on dealing with global warming, apart from planting trees - which might be like the 200k starter homes they built a total of zero.

It doesn't go for all parties at all, unless the Tories and Lib Dems commit to this £58 billion funding and increasing wider public spending to the levels Labour is proposing.

[Spijed]

It doesn't go for all parties at all, unless the Tories and Lib Dems commit to this £58 billion funding and increasing wider public spending to the levels Labour is proposing.

At the same time how are the Tories going to fund the increased spending in the NHS that they propose without increasing taxes?

[taio]

At the same time how are the Tories going to fund the increased spending in the NHS that they propose without increasing taxes?

Labour is proposing to spend even more.

[martin_p]

At the same time how are the Tories going to fund the increased spending in the NHS that they propose without increasing taxes?

Or proposing increased spending and lower tax/national insurance?

[Spijed]

Labour is proposing to spend even more.

True, and it shows all sides have no idea how to pay for anything!

[If it be your will]

Luxembourg are looking at making rail travel free. How have they sneaked that past the EU? There is scope.

Haven't a clue. I haven't looked it up.

I'm assuming they're planning to simply reimburse private rail companies the fees passengers would otherwise have paid. That's (sort of) allowed.

That's just a top-of-my head guess, like.

[Paul Waine]

If the court action by the women is successful, any government will owe the money. Wouldn’t you say it’s a matter of fairness though, first and foremost? Wrong for a government to change the rules on people like that? Or is fairness only for billionaires?

Hi Andrew, the court action was unsuccessful a few weeks ago - though maybe there is the possibility of an appeal to supreme court (I'm sure someone will correct if I've got this wrong). A judge said that equalising pension ages was correcting discrimination against males. The judge, herself, was female. (In fairness, we should note that judges have their own special pension arrangements).

I've also seen it said that the equalisation of pension ages was a requirement of EU rules - and the UK delayed the change until the last date possible.

What I'm surprised about is how anyone was unaware of the changes being made. I'm in that age group, as are many females I know. For most people, once you get to your 50+ you are interested in and thinking about your pension. I don't know whether individual addressed letters were sent by DWP (or other gov't authority), I suspect not, otherwise I'm sure this would have been mentioned. But, many employers (and unions) would have made sure all their staff (and/or union members) were aware, including teachers, civil servants, local gov't employers.

I'm also sure that many women who feel they are losing out are genuine when they said they didn't know about the change/that it would apply to them.

[Paul Waine]

Luxembourg are looking at making rail travel free. How have they sneaked that past the EU? There is scope.

Is that all the way across Luxembourg?

I'm not sure, but at a guess, London travel area is bigger. All over 60s get free travel all across London, though you need to wait until 9:30 (w/days) to use the trains for free. Many refer to the concession as a "Boris card" - because Boris was the mayor at the time. To be fair, BJ was only offering the same concession that Ken Livingstone, who he was competing to replace as mayor, was also offering.

EDIT: London is 50% greater area than Luxembourg. Populations London (a range of figures) up to 9 million; Lux 0.5 million. Of course, question is how many over 60s in London? I've not got an estimate for age distribution. Apparently, London has larger proportion of younger people than rest of UK. Makes sense, a large number of people move to London for work.

[taio]

True, and it shows all sides have no idea how to pay for anything!

It's about the extent to which the parties increase public spending and Labour is clearly making the greatest commitments that the IFS says simply aren't credible. The IFS said that before Labour committed a further £58 billion of expenditure with no plan to pay for it. How can they possibly say their manifesto is fully costed and then commit to this enormous cost which wasnt included in their manifesto which was published only a few days ago?

[Dy1geo]

Whilst it’s an admirable policy funding the WASPI women where is the money coming from and with each spending pledge Labour is looking more and more financially incompetent. Labour won in 1997 pledging to continue the Tory spending plans for the first three years and we saw a budget surplus in 2000.

To be a good European we have to keep the annual deficit to a maximum of 3% of GD how is that going to be achieved. The irony is we have many now on the left stating that we have to have this borrowing to make up for the Austerity etc but also remain in the EU with its rules

[AndrewJB]

It doesn't go for all parties at all, unless the Tories and Lib Dems commit to this £58 billion funding and increasing wider public spending to the levels Labour is proposing.

Of course it does. Why hold one party to costing their spending but not the others? So far we’ve seen nothing from the Tories about how they intend to fund their extravagant promises, apart from some borrowing within limits. Last time around they didn’t bother at all.

[Erasmus]

To Paul Waine. Hi Paul, you seem to be a reasonably-minded Conservative supporter, so I would like to get your thoughts on the question I posed yesterday. You have been critical of the Labour Party's radical policies for dealing with the chronic problems of underfunding of public services with all the attendant issues of poverty and deprivation. But if you don't want to follow Labour's proposed measures, what alternative solution would you suggest? Surely we can't allow the underfunding of education, the NHS, care for the elderly etc to continue can we?

[AndrewJB]

Whilst it’s an admirable policy funding the WASPI women where is the money coming from and with each spending pledge Labour is looking more and more financially incompetent. Labour won in 1997 pledging to continue the Tory spending plans for the first three years and we saw a budget surplus in 2000.

To be a good European we have to keep the annual deficit to a maximum of 3% of GD how is that going to be achieved. The irony is we have many now on the left stating that we have to have this borrowing to make up for the Austerity etc but also remain in the EU with its rules

Labour has set out where new tax money will come from.
Infrastructure investment boosts the economy many times more pound for pound than tax breaks do, so we’ll see a rise in tax receipts from ordinary people too as wages grow.

[taio]

Of course it does. Why hold one party to costing their spending but not the others? So far we’ve seen nothing from the Tories about how they intend to fund their extravagant promises, apart from some borrowing within limits. Last time around they didn’t bother at all.

Because the other parties haven't committed to spend £58 billion outside their 'fully costed' manifesto that's was deemed simply not credible before this latest commitment. The proposal from Labour really are eye watering including with comparison to other parties.

[AndrewJB]

Haven't a clue. I haven't looked it up.

I'm assuming they're planning to simply reimburse private rail companies the fees passengers would otherwise have paid. That's (sort of) allowed.

That's just a top-of-my head guess, like.

The national rail company there is state owned, so I’d imagine the government provides it with money to pay for its upkeep in the absence of fares. State aid.

[Spijed]

Because the other parties haven't committed to spend £58 billion outside their 'fully costed' manifesto that's was deemed simply not credible before this latest commitment. The proposal from Labour really are eye watering including with comparison to other parties.

But how can you fund ANYTHING if you don't plan to raise taxes?

[taio]

But how can you fund ANYTHING if you don't plan to raise taxes?

By maximising tax receipts through things like record employment and economic growth.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

They haven't committed to build 50 new hospitals.

Sorry you are right its 40.

[taio]

Sorry you are right its 40.

Yes, but not over the next parliament.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Yes, but not over the next parliament.

Sounds useful.

[taio]

Sounds useful.

They'll build a few in the next parliament but of course building a hospital takes long time. Obviously it's useful to have a longer term plan to improve NHS estates to support the NHS 10 year plan.

[Dy1geo]

Labour has set out where new tax money will come from.
Infrastructure investment boosts the economy many times more pound for pound than tax breaks do, so we’ll see a rise in tax receipts from ordinary people too as wages grow.

The benefits from the investment in the economy that Labour is proposing if successful will take a few years to come through in the form of tax receipts.

Other expenditure such as the WASPI women proposal will see an immediate impact on expenditure that need funding. We are already paying around £86bn in debt repayments and that is on the low rates the current government can obtain. The issue is if the bond markets gets nervous and start demanding higher yields, the spread on Italian to German 10 yr bond rates is roughly 1.5%.

If the Labour government found that it couldn’t fund its programme on taxes and planned borrowing due to falling tax receipts would you be happy to see cuts being made to stay within the 3% Maastricht rules.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I know a number of people who set up limited companies and work as consultants, in some cases for the same companies they worked at before as salaries employees. This a salary of around £100k can have an array of costs set against it- things ordinary workers would just bare - and with one family, salaries are paid out to both parents, and also both teenaged children. Corporate income tax is paid on what remains, and then they can take the rest as dividends, and in this way avoid a lot of tax ordinary people can’t. If I know a few people who do this, there are probably quite a few. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Labour will get more revenue out of people who do this.

There are already strong rules to prevent this, deemed IR35 legislation.

If I do consultancy in the public sector, which I do, and the public sector body deems it to be “disguised employment”, they deduct income tax before paying me. They decide - not me in my tax return. I thus have to be very careful that the agreement I have is for proper consultancy (i.e. nobody tells me what to do, how to do it, and I have multiple clients at the same time).

The existing rules are fair - Labour’s plans are not. I would pay thousands in extra tax but not get the benefits of holiday pay, sick pay, pension top ups etc (and if I am sick there will be months afterwards with no pay while I tender for new contracts, taking on the “big four” so it can take a while to win one). A month off with flu could leave me totally incomeless for a year. But then when I do win new work, I get taxed as an employee under Labour. No doubts it will force me out of business, too big a risk.

So where is the fairness in that? Very small business owners will be hammered.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

They'll build a few in the next parliament but of course building a hospital takes long time. Obviously it's useful to have a longer term plan to improve NHS estates to support the NHS 10 year plan.

I reckon it will definitely happen.

[taio]

I reckon it will definitely happen.

How many hospitals they upgrade or build remains to be seen. But I think they'll do more than Labour developing hospitals. Especially now they've just committed to the £58 billion which would probably pay for 40 hospitals and more.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

How many hospitals they upgrade or build remains to be seen. But I think they'll do more than Labour developing hospitals. Especially now they've just committed to the £58 billion which would probably pay for 40 hospitals and more.

Definitely.