What do Labour mean by a "growth strategy"?
Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
The only way this thread has left me unsatisfied is that we still don't know what a growth strategy is, or should be.
1. Abandon pointless and costly spending on wind turbines2. 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
Johnnytheboy said:
This is the nub of it: I don't think Labour realise that to be pro-growth is to be pro-business. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?
Should be - also the suggestions I gave would leave more money for households to spend, and without more borrowing to fund it.Business confidence would grow with cheaper energy, reduced corptax and less red tape, there might even be more jobs and more taxes paid overall. Which is the idea.
P-Jay said:
I've not heard anything from the left of the house about what their growth strategy actually is, but I haven't heard anythign from the right ether.
I dunno, I thought the majority of the budget were good, simple ideas to reinforce and grow the areas we're good at - R&D tax breaks, corp tax reduction, higher rate reduction, etc.We're never going to compete with aggressively up and coming economies in manufacturing -thosecountries that are willing to earn f
k all individually, lay true environmental waste to their countryside, low value to life, etc.History shows that none of these countries can do it indefinately either -we did it 100 years ago, in more recent times it went through Korea, then Taiwan, now China. Can forsee India or Brazil taking up that mantle soon. The populace simply won't accept it for long...
So let's focus on what we do best. High technology, research and development, design and highly skilled manufacturing for export.
Three things I believe would help, massively supporting sustainable economic growth:
Aggressive governmental support for British business winning contracts abroad, stop playing the f
king white knight.Slashing of corp tax.
Transfer of carbon bulls
t funds to true infrastructure building - power, transport and telecoms.All IMHO of course.
Instead of cutting corporation tax per se, it would be smarter to leave it as is for one man bands and cut it on a scale related to how many genuine employees there are.
Also combine this with slashing and I means totally slashing red tape for all companies that employ less than a dozen or so. And govern that number across all businesses owned/ run by people.
The big problem is that many owners would rather do a couple extra hours a day or not grow their business because of the absolute arse of employing staff.
If the Govt really wanted to help it should shut down its Business Department which does nothing and open a Business Department that specifically did the employment crap for small businesses. Actually have a department which ran this side for small firms. The small company then doesn't lose the valuable time in the paperwork or carry the risk of error etc.
As a firm grows it is then moved off this benefit but receives a lower corporate rate in exchange.
The key to our future growth lies in the tiny businesses that are embedde in all areas of population. Make it viable for each one to employ someone and that means a govt dept to simply run the bky bullst aspect of employment for them and leave the employer free to train up and teach that new employee.
Also combine this with slashing and I means totally slashing red tape for all companies that employ less than a dozen or so. And govern that number across all businesses owned/ run by people.
The big problem is that many owners would rather do a couple extra hours a day or not grow their business because of the absolute arse of employing staff.
If the Govt really wanted to help it should shut down its Business Department which does nothing and open a Business Department that specifically did the employment crap for small businesses. Actually have a department which ran this side for small firms. The small company then doesn't lose the valuable time in the paperwork or carry the risk of error etc.
As a firm grows it is then moved off this benefit but receives a lower corporate rate in exchange.
The key to our future growth lies in the tiny businesses that are embedde in all areas of population. Make it viable for each one to employ someone and that means a govt dept to simply run the b
ky bullst aspect of employment for them and leave the employer free to train up and teach that new employee. DonkeyApple said:
Instead of cutting corporation tax per se, it would be smarter to leave it as is for one man bands and cut it on a scale related to how many genuine employees there are.
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
turbobloke said:
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.
We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
A start up doesn't pay any CT in the first place. We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
SMEs can only expand if there is potential trade. Where that is the case having reduced red tape and costs for employment is a huge advantage. Once tey grow to a certain size they are given a lower tax rate.
This incentivises small businesses to grow not maintain a status quo. It also begins to combat serious employment issues.
What do Labour mean by a "growth strategy"?
its just a sound bite, nothing more, they are all using it at the moment ,the French the Americans, none of them have a clue what to do so just use it to sound like they have a plan,
I really do worry when you lot start to thinking that politicians have a clue what they are doing
its just a sound bite, nothing more, they are all using it at the moment ,the French the Americans, none of them have a clue what to do so just use it to sound like they have a plan,
I really do worry when you lot start to thinking that politicians have a clue what they are doing
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.
We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
A start up doesn't pay any CT in the first place. We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
SMEs can only expand if there is potential trade. Where that is the case having reduced red tape and costs for employment is a huge advantage. Once tey grow to a certain size they are given a lower tax rate.
This incentivises small businesses to grow not maintain a status quo. It also begins to combat serious employment issues.
I have a client who knows for a fact they can now set up a factory and make their product cheaper in the UK than where it is made currently (guess where!
). And there wouldn't be a six week delay whilst it's shipped over. So why don't they? Simple. They just lost a ridiculous and on the face of it completely vexatious employment case brought by a stroppy female ex-employee and it cost the £30,000 plus legals. The prospect of employing thirty more, mainly female, staff with all the expense, HR nonsense and human rights crap that comes with it is simply not worth the not inconsiderable extra profit they could generate.Clearly, if the Govt want semi-skilled manufacturing jobs created then they have to sack the idiot Cable and get on with it. Until then China will keep the contract.
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.
We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
A start up doesn't pay any CT in the first place. We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
SMEs can only expand if there is potential trade. Where that is the case having reduced red tape and costs for employment is a huge advantage. Once tey grow to a certain size they are given a lower tax rate.
This incentivises small businesses to grow not maintain a status quo. It also begins to combat serious employment issues.
SME expansion is already identified as in the article.
Your approach assumes that size implies expansion potential when it may also imply imminent decline and loss of jobs. Each situation will be different so if some degree of selection has to be used, go for identified expanders as per the artice.
Otherwise for simplicity just go for a further cut in corporation tax.
turbobloke said:
DonkeyApple said:
Instead of cutting corporation tax per se, it would be smarter to leave it as is for one man bands and cut it on a scale related to how many genuine employees there are.
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
AJS- said:
Just reduce the overall tax and regulatory burden.
Which is what I suggested in the first place 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
motco said:
el stovey said:
The public sector might not directly produce wealth but all the employees are buying stuff...
The 'stuff' was mainly made in Britain historically, but now it's made in China or somewhere other than Britain. Not so good...1)UK Employee - will you work for the same pay as a Chinese worker. No.
2)UK Consumer - will you pay more for British made goods. No.
It reminds me of a friend of my dads who still thinks Margaret Thatcher is satan and shut down the coal mines for a laugh. I asked him how much coal he buys - none. When did you last buy coal - the sixties. QED.
All good. The trouble is that it's been a trend (since 1997 in PH lore, but I'd go back a lot further) to tax, and plan the st out of everything, and this has become so ingrained that even deregulation and privatisation are seen as some sort of complex, bureaucratic art where the most worthy candidates are picked out and complex subsidies, exemptions and opt outs given, bizarre new structures imposed from regulators and quangos and the happy upshot for politicians is that success is attributed to good privatisation, while failure is the fault of profit hungry companies.
Really deregulation and cutting tax are every bit as simple as they sound, and should be done quickly and totally for best results, IMO. Better still if they are done by people with no interest in or understanding of the industry they are deregulating.
Take the railways for instance. A total cluster fk of expensive idiocy. It actually probably really would be better from an overall utility point of view to have just kept them nationalised and have done with it. We pay X amount in taxes every year and have a dog earred stty railway system that gets you around the country at a cheap price and a reasonable speed.
Instead we have this disastrous mish mash of christ knows what, and the upshot is that I don't even bother with trains if I have to go somewhere in England, because I didn't book on the 3rd Sunday in the March before my last birthday but one, so they can only sell me an Apex Super Saver Pizza Class return for 7/16ths a pound per kilometer, but includes a free sandwich and chocciatto if we pass through Tewkesbury.
They should have just sold the whole frigging lot to whoever wanted it, and let them do what they want.
With the best will in the world it's all too easy to get distracted by various technocratic arguments (see my long conversation about banking with Donkey Apple in another thread!) and forget that the best things happen when the government is not involved, so the key thing is always to get the government out.
t out of everything, and this has become so ingrained that even deregulation and privatisation are seen as some sort of complex, bureaucratic art where the most worthy candidates are picked out and complex subsidies, exemptions and opt outs given, bizarre new structures imposed from regulators and quangos and the happy upshot for politicians is that success is attributed to good privatisation, while failure is the fault of profit hungry companies. Really deregulation and cutting tax are every bit as simple as they sound, and should be done quickly and totally for best results, IMO. Better still if they are done by people with no interest in or understanding of the industry they are deregulating.
Take the railways for instance. A total cluster f
k of expensive idiocy. It actually probably really would be better from an overall utility point of view to have just kept them nationalised and have done with it. We pay X amount in taxes every year and have a dog earred stty railway system that gets you around the country at a cheap price and a reasonable speed.Instead we have this disastrous mish mash of christ knows what, and the upshot is that I don't even bother with trains if I have to go somewhere in England, because I didn't book on the 3rd Sunday in the March before my last birthday but one, so they can only sell me an Apex Super Saver Pizza Class return for 7/16ths a pound per kilometer, but includes a free sandwich and chocciatto if we pass through Tewkesbury.
They should have just sold the whole frigging lot to whoever wanted it, and let them do what they want.
With the best will in the world it's all too easy to get distracted by various technocratic arguments (see my long conversation about banking with Donkey Apple in another thread!) and forget that the best things happen when the government is not involved, so the key thing is always to get the government out.
turbobloke said:
DonkeyApple said:
turbobloke said:
That appears to favour the status quo, not growth potential.
We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
A start up doesn't pay any CT in the first place. We need to encourage start-ups and to get SMEs expanding.
If we really must be selective, targeting by size doesn't look to offer a better return compared to, say, targeting by rapido green shoots.
http://realbusiness.co.uk/news/5-of-smes-are-key-t...
Even there the 5% figure shows that reach may be too narrow. As such I'd opt for favourable terms on start-ups in addition to the 5%.
Provenance of the report cited is topical
SMEs can only expand if there is potential trade. Where that is the case having reduced red tape and costs for employment is a huge advantage. Once tey grow to a certain size they are given a lower tax rate.
This incentivises small businesses to grow not maintain a status quo. It also begins to combat serious employment issues.
SME expansion is already identified as in the article.
Your approach assumes that size implies expansion potential when it may also imply imminent decline and loss of jobs. Each situation will be different so if some degree of selection has to be used, go for identified expanders as per the artice.
Otherwise for simplicity just go for a further cut in corporation tax.
By financially incentivising small firms to expand through employment (while removing much of the onerous red tape and risks associated with employment for small firms) we benefit from releasing trapped companies that are able to expand but choosing not to while not giving anything to static firms or one man bands.
It also has the added advantage of combatting another very big issue in the UK and that is the cash in hand, off the book employee who is still classifying themselves as unemployed for financial purposes. Currently small firms are highly incentivised to employ labour by the back door as it cuts their costs, time and risk. By incentivising firms to place more people on the payroll formerly by giving CT reductions you will help reduce this significant issue.
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.
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.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.With a start up once you have offset costs and your salary any taxable net profit is going to be hit for only around 20 odd %. I just don't see that as any kind of hurdle or disincentive.
We don't want to reduce tax to small firms which cannot expand or have no wish to expand, that's just a tax cut for owners etc and doesn't resolve the issue.
You want to use cuts to incentivise small firms that can expand to go out and do so.
The cutting back of red tape will be benefit enough to all the other static firms but only reward tax cuts to those firms doing what you want them to do which is employ more essentially.
We've seen first hand over the last decade or so what blanket incentives do, they fail to redress the problem and in fact usually create more undesireable behaviour.
DonkeyApple said:
But you want to use the reduction to incentivise growth and increase employment, so making it a blanket reduction wouldn't be beneficial.
Why not?- somebody thinking of a ltd co start-up will be incentivised compared to facing a higher rate of corptax
- a start-up not which is not profitable sees no immediate gain but sentiment will be positive and it's no loss to anybody anyway
- a start-up which is profitable will benefit
- rapidly growing young companies will be encouraged to grow and hire
A likely counter-example is an already-established company with higher staff numbers which may well be able to save a few existing jobs but what's to say such an outfit isn't bloated from the bubble and on a downward path, yet this is the SME sub-category you seem to want to support.
The targeted approach arose from a post after my original suggestion which included a futher across the board tax cut and I still remain convinced this recipe would promote growth as effectively as anything else:
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
On the windymill front there may be contracts to see out but nothing new should be paid for as it's simply a pointless gesture and a waste of money.
turbobloke said:
Why not?
- somebody thinking of a ltd co start-up will be incentivised compared to facing a higher rate of corptax
- a start-up not which is not profitable sees no immediate gain but sentiment will be positive and it's no loss to anybody anyway
- a start-up which is profitable will benefit
- rapidly growing young companies will be encouraged to grow and hire
A likely counter-example is an already-established company with higher staff numbers which may well be able to save a few existing jobs but what's to say such an outfit isn't bloated from the bubble and on a downward path, yet this is the SME sub-category you seem to want to support.
The targeted approach arose from a post after my original suggestion which included a futher across the board tax cut and I still remain convinced this recipe would promote growth as effectively as anything else:
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
On the windymill front there may be contracts to see out but nothing new should be paid for as it's simply a pointless gesture and a waste of money.
Thank God you're too busy posting on here to do any damage in the real world.- somebody thinking of a ltd co start-up will be incentivised compared to facing a higher rate of corptax
- a start-up not which is not profitable sees no immediate gain but sentiment will be positive and it's no loss to anybody anyway
- a start-up which is profitable will benefit
- rapidly growing young companies will be encouraged to grow and hire
A likely counter-example is an already-established company with higher staff numbers which may well be able to save a few existing jobs but what's to say such an outfit isn't bloated from the bubble and on a downward path, yet this is the SME sub-category you seem to want to support.
The targeted approach arose from a post after my original suggestion which included a futher across the board tax cut and I still remain convinced this recipe would promote growth as effectively as anything else:
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
On the windymill front there may be contracts to see out but nothing new should be paid for as it's simply a pointless gesture and a waste of money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff