What do Labour mean by a "growth strategy"?
Discussion
cardigankid said:
Before we all go on a witch hunt, can I point out that Retail is not intrinsically bad. It drives technology among other things. Would you prefer to have techniology driven by something less tacky? A war for example? Then we can all benefit from the latest and wizziest developments in poison gas.
Nothing wrong with a good war. As long as it's between countries where at least one of them buys plenty of its weapons from the UK (both would be preferable obviously). Not sure if it has already been said - but there will be no growth. Not for the forseeable anyway.
Regardless of which government is in power.
The only reason our state is seen as a major world power is through an economy built upon borrowed money.
Money that doesn't exist and never has.
Now we've all turned our backs upon the very people who have given us all the lifestyle we now have, it is only going to go one way and that is downhill.
Without our financial industry we would probably all be picking potatoes out in the fields.
Regardless of which government is in power.
The only reason our state is seen as a major world power is through an economy built upon borrowed money.
Money that doesn't exist and never has.
Now we've all turned our backs upon the very people who have given us all the lifestyle we now have, it is only going to go one way and that is downhill.
Without our financial industry we would probably all be picking potatoes out in the fields.
Tonberry said:
Not sure if it has already been said - but there will be no growth. Not for the forseeable anyway.
There may well not be, but there could be - and while it's likely that more eurotrash will pollute our economy at some point, there's plenty that could be done before and after. Growth is foreseeable though not so clearly through the eyes of CMD and the LibDims.thinfourth2 said:
Tonberry said:
Without our financial industry we would probably all be picking potatoes out in the fields.
Total and utter 100% rubbishStop the banker worship
Is there not some point to be made though? None at all?
Andrew Haldane said:
According to the National Accounts, the nominal gross value-added (GVA) of the financial sector in the UK grew at the fastest pace on record in 2008 Q4. As a share of whole economy output, the direct contribution of the UK financial sector rose to 9% in the last quarter of 2008. Financial corporations’ gross operating surplus (GVA less compensation for employees and other taxes on production) increased by £5.0bn to £20bn, also the largest quarterly increase on record. At a time when people believed banks were contributing the least to the economy since the 1930s, National Accounts indicated the financial sector was contributing the most since the mid-1980s.
thinfourth2 said:
Tonberry said:
Without our financial industry we would probably all be picking potatoes out in the fields.
Total and utter 100% rubbishStop the banker worship
I do believe that the Bankers have become a convenient scapegoat for poiticians to point the finger at in the hope that no one spots they they are equally to blame.thinfourth2 said:
Total and utter 100% rubbish
Indeed. Potatos won't grow in all parts of Britain. 
But in fairness, the UK needs to suck the balls of the financial services sector while it builds up all the other sectors and rebalances our farcical economy. Once they do that they can go and drill every banker a new orrofice.
thinfourth2 said:
Tonberry said:
Without our financial industry we would probably all be picking potatoes out in the fields.
Total and utter 100% rubbishStop the banker worship
el stovey said:
To me the governments slavish concentration on austerity
Despite all the talk of austerity the government is still running a deficit of around 8% of GDP and in fact spending rose by 1.6% in Qtr ending March 2012.It is a nonsense to say that the government cannot place any blame on previous governments, this is not a problem of inadequate short term stimulus but of deep seated problems in UK competitiveness combined with problems in our core export markets.
There will be no short term fixes and I fully expect that if Labour are returned to power in 2015 that the deficit by then will still be high by historical standards (though lower than now) and debt to GDP ratio will be approaching the 100% mark (before you add in off balance sheet liabilities such as pensions)
Until there is a change in attitude, and people realise that the UK has no god given right to remain among the major developed economies, that to stay near the top requires fundamental reform of all areas holding back growth, regulation, planning, education, infrastructure, the list goes on.
An extra few billion of spending in some 'plan for growth' or not is an irrelevance really.
JagLover said:
el stovey said:
To me the governments slavish concentration on austerity
Despite all the talk of austerity the government is still running a deficit of around 8% of GDP and in fact spending rose by 1.6% in Qtr ending March 2012.Loss of unaffordable Labour largesse is seen as the problem when in fact the largesse was the problem and its loss is part of the solution.
Really, Balls hasn't a clue what to do other than to borrow more and p
s it away on grandiose 'investments' like before.
This sudden belief in Keynsian economics also winds me up and I don't know why the other parties aren't shooting him down in flames about it. Sure, Keynes postulated that in a downturn you should borrow to invest, but the counterside of that argument is surely that in the good times (ie the Chinese-led boom of the early 2000's) you repay debt and not, as Balls, Brown & Darling did, borrow to the max on every credit card they had. Pure opportunism by Balls & Millibland.
s it away on grandiose 'investments' like before.This sudden belief in Keynsian economics also winds me up and I don't know why the other parties aren't shooting him down in flames about it. Sure, Keynes postulated that in a downturn you should borrow to invest, but the counterside of that argument is surely that in the good times (ie the Chinese-led boom of the early 2000's) you repay debt and not, as Balls, Brown & Darling did, borrow to the max on every credit card they had. Pure opportunism by Balls & Millibland.
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
DonkeyApple said:
Re the start up point, once a firm reaches the point of having a corp tax liability it is no longer a start up but an established business.
By no means all start-ups have this lag you refer to. Not being a corporate stats guru I can only refer to my ltd co start-up which made a profit from year one and as such if there had been less corptax, expansion would have been a bit quicker each year in the early years with sentiment and incentive playing a key role. If a start-up doesn't pay corptax that's largely irrelevant as the more immediate impact is on profitable concerns that do, self-targeting in a way. However the simplest approach remains best in my view, reduce it for all and get rid of Labour's red tape.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/today-i...
"Britain’s tax burden is still too high and tax cuts are desperately needed to boost economic growth. This year’s corporation tax receipts are a good example of how tax cuts can pay for themselves. There were large increases in tax revenue from onshore corporation tax, coinciding with the government’s cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax. Reductions in the corporation tax rate have brought the government higher revenues as more companies choose to invest in the UK. By stimulating growth and investment, tax cuts really can pay for themselves."
turbobloke said:
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
DonkeyApple said:
Re the start up point, once a firm reaches the point of having a corp tax liability it is no longer a start up but an established business.
By no means all start-ups have this lag you refer to. Not being a corporate stats guru I can only refer to my ltd co start-up which made a profit from year one and as such if there had been less corptax, expansion would have been a bit quicker each year in the early years with sentiment and incentive playing a key role. If a start-up doesn't pay corptax that's largely irrelevant as the more immediate impact is on profitable concerns that do, self-targeting in a way. However the simplest approach remains best in my view, reduce it for all and get rid of Labour's red tape.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/today-i...
"Britain’s tax burden is still too high and tax cuts are desperately needed to boost economic growth. This year’s corporation tax receipts are a good example of how tax cuts can pay for themselves. There were large increases in tax revenue from onshore corporation tax, coinciding with the government’s cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax. Reductions in the corporation tax rate have brought the government higher revenues as more companies choose to invest in the UK. By stimulating growth and investment, tax cuts really can pay for themselves."
That's about reducing taxation across the board to stimulate spending.
What we were looking at earlier was giving tax rebates in return for specific targetted action.
It was about attracting businesses and entrepreneurs to the UK and it was raised (by me) earlier in the discussion. The idea of making corptax as attractive as possible to businesses is what I've been advocating all along, not because of one or two of the benefits that would accrue but because of all of them.
On Friday I said:
Why zero...just cut for all and aim for better than 4th place in the G20 corptax league tables by 2014 
Max out business and entrepreneur relocations here.
Help profitable start-ups and existing employers.
Your focus was on targeting, my focus pointed out that this wasn't necessary.Max out business and entrepreneur relocations here.
Help profitable start-ups and existing employers.
On Friday DA said:
But, we want to target very specific types of companies, mainly labour intensive so the best incentive is to reduce tax based on PAYE head count on minimum wage of higher full employment.
Also on Friday but a bit earlier I said:
...the objection seems to be some lack of perfection in targeting. As a parallel, business start-up support as per the last Conservative administration, could be seen as 'not working' because some start-up businesses didn't survive, but it worked precisely because many others did survive and prosper.
My suggestions were posted on Thursday, for the record:1. Abandon pointless and costly spending on wind turbines
2. End all daft 'green' subsidies ripping off the taxpayer
3. Get shale gas extraction going and be fracking quick about it
4. Use windymill savings and cheaper energy asafp to reduce costs to businesses and households
5. Cut corporation tax further
6. Ditch red tape and reduce other costs on businesses - home grown Labour legacy tape first
No mention of targeting or focusing, just cut the f
king tax and slash the sodding red tape turbobloke said:
On Friday DA said:
But, we want to target very specific types of companies, mainly labour intensive so the best incentive is to reduce tax based on PAYE head count on minimum wage of higher full employment.
Also on Friday but a bit earlier I said:
...the objection seems to be some lack of perfection in targeting. As a parallel, business start-up support as per the last Conservative administration, could be seen as 'not working' because some start-up businesses didn't survive, but it worked precisely because many others did survive and prosper.
My suggestions were posted on Thursday, for the record:1. Abandon pointless and costly spending on wind turbines
2. End all daft 'green' subsidies ripping off the taxpayer
3. Get shale gas extraction going and be fracking quick about it
4. Use windymill savings and cheaper energy asafp to reduce costs to businesses and households
5. Cut corporation tax further
6. Ditch red tape and reduce other costs on businesses - home grown Labour legacy tape first
No mention of targeting or focusing, just cut the f
king tax and slash the sodding red tape CT is low enough, but leaves scope to give hefty reductions for suitable activities that enhance and benefit the economy.
For example, as well as offering reductions to small firms which employ more people, I would also aim reductions at small to medium firms who relocate in key blighted areas and employ a % of local staff from within that area.
The trouble with a blanket reduction is that it won't per se create more wealth or employment or improve blighted areas of the UK. When you look at lower CT jurisdictions in Europe what you find is that companies HQ in these zones but it is simply a plaque on the wall. As such a blanket reduction in CT will bring in companies from abroad but only in legal terms not actually in production or employment.
At the same time UK companies are not employing more people etc because CT is too high. They are holding back because of concerns over the economy and as importantly the absolute fag of all the red tape.
Cutting red tape for small firms is going to be an enormous tax cut in essence as it removes an enormous burden.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff