What do Labour mean by a "growth strategy"?
Discussion
"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."
Then there will be the impact on sentiment...a self-reinforcing virtuous circle.
All good.
Then there will be the impact on sentiment...a self-reinforcing virtuous circle.
All good.
DonkeyApple said:
nt.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.
If you want to get employment up then it would be far better to lower Employer NIC rates rather than lower CT.Cutting red tape for small firms is going to be an enormous tax cut in essence as it removes an enormous burden.
plasticpig said:
DonkeyApple said:
nt.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.
If you want to get employment up then it would be far better to lower Employer NIC rates rather than lower CT.Cutting red tape for small firms is going to be an enormous tax cut in essence as it removes an enormous burden.
On 29 may I said:
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
etc
In other words, reduce energy costs to industry and households.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
etc
Maybe HMG would like to consider cutting fuel duty as well.
China has the right idea
All very well these suggestions for giving growth some legs, pity it was not on the Governments agenda two years back. Recall that PH were shouting about the need for austerity and telling me that growth would appear as a matter of course. That's two years down the drain.
Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
crankedup said:
All very well these suggestions for giving growth some legs, pity it was not on the Governments agenda two years back. Recall that PH were shouting about the need for austerity and telling me that growth would appear as a matter of course. That's two years down the drain.
It's always helpful to give a link when making such claims so they can be checked. As to two years down the drain, the entire country would be in that position with Ballsup calling the shots.crankedup said:
Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy.
You're not alone, but the IMF contributions are agreed responsibilities and who knows, if Labour and the LibDims (8% latest poll) do marry up after the next election, we may need to go cap in hand to the IMF as per Denis Healey and ask for our money back.crankedup said:
Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
They're ideologically wedded to U-turns while physically wedded to the libdims?In terms of consistency and what was said in the past, see Saturday 19th November 2011. Not quite two years but there was plenty before that if the search function was working well.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.a...
crankedup said:
All very well these suggestions for giving growth some legs, pity it was not on the Governments agenda two years back. Recall that PH were shouting about the need for austerity and telling me that growth would appear as a matter of course. That's two years down the drain.
Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
It is inevitable that at some point the government will look to introduce some further stimulus to the economy, by which time much more deleveraging will have occured (on private and corporate balance sheets) and hence there will be more scope for growth.Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
The frustrating thing for me is that, at this point, the Labour f
kwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.I'm still working on a decent analogy, but so far the best explanation I've come up with is as follows:
You come home from work to find water pouring through the ceiling in your house due to a burst pipe in the loft.
The government policy of austerity is equivalent to focussing on the cause of the problem and sorting out the burst pipe. Once this has been resolved then you can worry about mopping up the water and repairing the ceiling which has been damaged. Clearly you will also need to do so some painting at some point in the future.
The Labour policy of spending and focussing on growth is equivalent to trying to repaint the ceiling while the water is still pouring through - it's not addressing the right problem at the right time, and is likely to make things much harder to clean up in the long term, but at a later date it will be the right thing to do.
Please help me improve this analogy!!
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 9th June 23:43
sidicks said:
The frustrating thing for me is that, at this point, the Labour fkwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.
Which is why they (and their BBC chums) seized on the suggestion by Christine Lagarde that the government should consider stimulus measures if things get worse to say that austerity was a bad policy, despite the fact she also said at the same time:kwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.""...you see the gain that resulted from the fiscal consolidation that was decided on 2 years ago has been that result, the credibility of the UK government and it's ability to borrow at extremely favourable rates."
"And when I think back myself to May 2010, when the UK deficit was at 11% and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided... I shiver."
sidicks said:
It is inevitable that at some point the government will look to introduce some further stimulus to the economy, by which time much more deleveraging will have occured (on private and corporate balance sheets) and hence there will be more scope for growth.
The frustrating thing for me is that, at this point, the Labour fkwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.
I'm still working on a decent analogy, but so far the best explanation I've come up with is as follows:
You come home from work to find water pouring through the ceiling in your house due to a burst pipe in the loft.
The government policy of austerity is equivalent to focussing on the cause of the problem and sorting out the burst pipe. Once this has been resolved then you can worry about mopping up the water and repairing the ceiling which has been damaged. Clearly you will also need to do so some painting at some point in the future.
The Labour policy of spending and focussing on growth is equivalent to trying to repaint the ceiling while the water is still pouring through - it's not addressing the right problem at the right time, and is likely to make things much harder to clean up in the long term, but at a later date it will be the right thing to do.
Please help me improve this analogy!!
Sidicks
I once read that Labours proposed remedy to the financial crisis was like "shagging your way out of aids". It made me laugh...but not as much as the Blue-tie brown-nosing that goes on, on this forum does!The frustrating thing for me is that, at this point, the Labour f
kwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.I'm still working on a decent analogy, but so far the best explanation I've come up with is as follows:
You come home from work to find water pouring through the ceiling in your house due to a burst pipe in the loft.
The government policy of austerity is equivalent to focussing on the cause of the problem and sorting out the burst pipe. Once this has been resolved then you can worry about mopping up the water and repairing the ceiling which has been damaged. Clearly you will also need to do so some painting at some point in the future.
The Labour policy of spending and focussing on growth is equivalent to trying to repaint the ceiling while the water is still pouring through - it's not addressing the right problem at the right time, and is likely to make things much harder to clean up in the long term, but at a later date it will be the right thing to do.
Please help me improve this analogy!!
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 9th June 23:43
crankedup said:
All very well these suggestions for giving growth some legs, pity it was not on the Governments agenda two years back. Recall that PH were shouting about the need for austerity and telling me that growth would appear as a matter of course.
I don't recall anyone one on here ever saying anything of the sort whatsoever.Reducing the increase in public spending will quite obviously mean lower all round economic activity, but compared to the idiocy of Ballsonomics it remains the better way.
I think you'll find most of us were targetting actual cuts, such as you mention to the foreign aid budget. We didn't really have a proper debate about growth stimulus IIRC. On reflection, I side with Donkey Apple rather than TB's corporation tax cuts, though they both have merits.
'My' corptax cuts came with red tape reduction, renewable energy subsidy removal (to which I'd add fuel tax reduction even if temporary) and other steps as well, the upshot of which may well be an increase in tax revenues accompanying the rate cut - as happens - also more money in the hands of households and business coffers to stimulate spending and promote business confidence and hiring, an attractive environment to increase imports of businesses and entrepreneurs, and I still recommend the recipe to the (PH) House
turbobloke said:
'My' corptax cuts came with red tape reduction, renewable energy subsidy removal (to which I'd add fuel tax reduction even if temporary) and other steps as well, the upshot of which may well be an increase in tax revenues accompanying the rate cut - as happens - also more money in the hands of households and business coffers to stimulate spending and promote business confidence and hiring, an attractive environment to increase imports of businesses and entrepreneurs, and I still recommend the recipe to the (PH) House
I know I know, we all have the same tax cutting theory, we're just arguing about how best to slice the cake. Taxes on employment and associated costs, "employee rights" and red tape are the starting point IMO as they stop employers taking on new people. The CT rate isn't nearly such a huge issue for most businesses we talk to. Getting rid of the Maaastricht "social chapter" would be a good idea too.
Yes I guess we agree and the devil is in the detail. Out of interest do you talk to businesses and entrepreneurs abroad who could and might relocate to the UK? There is a lot to be gained from perception and sentiment in this regard. Not forgetting the likely increase in tax take either way.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
All very well these suggestions for giving growth some legs, pity it was not on the Governments agenda two years back. Recall that PH were shouting about the need for austerity and telling me that growth would appear as a matter of course. That's two years down the drain.
Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
It is inevitable that at some point the government will look to introduce some further stimulus to the economy, by which time much more deleveraging will have occured (on private and corporate balance sheets) and hence there will be more scope for growth.Whilst we give away billions of pounds to overseas aid and set ourselves up to give billions of pounds to help out the cretins that are spanish banks, via the IMF. I do wonder what this Tory led Government will dream up next and promote as a great policy. Still its a great time for the Tories to bulldoze through ideology that they have been harbouring for decades.
The frustrating thing for me is that, at this point, the Labour f
kwits will no doubt claim that this is proof that they were right all along (i.e. austerity was wrong) and a policy for growth should have been done much earlier, which I believe will be opposite of the truth.I'm still working on a decent analogy, but so far the best explanation I've come up with is as follows:
You come home from work to find water pouring through the ceiling in your house due to a burst pipe in the loft.
The government policy of austerity is equivalent to focussing on the cause of the problem and sorting out the burst pipe. Once this has been resolved then you can worry about mopping up the water and repairing the ceiling which has been damaged. Clearly you will also need to do so some painting at some point in the future.
The Labour policy of spending and focussing on growth is equivalent to trying to repaint the ceiling while the water is still pouring through - it's not addressing the right problem at the right time, and is likely to make things much harder to clean up in the long term, but at a later date it will be the right thing to do.
Please help me improve this analogy!!
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 9th June 23:43
turbobloke said:
Yes I guess we agree and the devil is in the detail. Out of interest do you talk to businesses and entrepreneurs abroad who could and might relocate to the UK? There is a lot to be gained from perception and sentiment in this regard. Not forgetting the likely increase in tax take either way.
No not really, it's mainly UK based in light manufacturing, merchanting and distribution. I think I said somewhere in this or another thread recently about a client who sells hospital curtains (anti MRSA things) to Health Trusts. He reckons he can now make them here cheaper than buying them in from China but is prevented from doing so by the hidden costs of employment. He's just shelled out a five figure sum on a (female) employee who brought a ridiculous vexatious claim to an employment tribunal... and won. Of course, the sex of people who want to sew blinds for a living is mainly female and he ain't about to risk it again until things change! So more semi-skilled work paying above minimum wage (and don't start me off about the stupidity of the minimum wage!) stays offshore.
Once again, the Labour party demonstrates how it has betrayed the working people in this country...
It's all this detailed stuff that is the problem in my view.
Even sensible people end up arguing about whether to cut left handed living allowance or introduce a zero VAT rating on bottle tops.
Either by design or accident, this is a left wing dream.
I would be in favour of literally starting again. Throw out the entire tax system and replace it with :
25% Income tax
20% Corporation tax
10% Sales tax
£500 per person per year cap on local taxes.
Numbers are plucked out of the air, so might need adjustment.
All flat rate with no deductions, and a very firm commitment not to introduce any new taxes - if it isn't enough then one of the above has to go up. I would ideally like to bind future parliaments to this for 25 years, perhaps by way of a referendum.
Phase II would be to devolve these tax powers to county and city councils with a nationally imposed cap and let them compete, but I'd be keen on stipulating a massive, idiot-can-work-it-out simplification first that would probably decimate the accountancy industry, may lose a couple of businesses and wealthy individuals to other locations, but would make the whole business of paying for government clear and easy.
Even sensible people end up arguing about whether to cut left handed living allowance or introduce a zero VAT rating on bottle tops.
Either by design or accident, this is a left wing dream.
I would be in favour of literally starting again. Throw out the entire tax system and replace it with :
25% Income tax
20% Corporation tax
10% Sales tax
£500 per person per year cap on local taxes.
Numbers are plucked out of the air, so might need adjustment.
All flat rate with no deductions, and a very firm commitment not to introduce any new taxes - if it isn't enough then one of the above has to go up. I would ideally like to bind future parliaments to this for 25 years, perhaps by way of a referendum.
Phase II would be to devolve these tax powers to county and city councils with a nationally imposed cap and let them compete, but I'd be keen on stipulating a massive, idiot-can-work-it-out simplification first that would probably decimate the accountancy industry, may lose a couple of businesses and wealthy individuals to other locations, but would make the whole business of paying for government clear and easy.
Edited by AJS- on Monday 11th June 13:39
DJRC said:
*Destroying the accountancy industry*...ahh my dream! 
It's not a bad dream is it?I've nothing against accountants, but the fact that so many intelligent and educated people are employed in what is basically book keeping is an absurd drag on the economy of almost public sector proportions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff