What do Labour mean by a "growth strategy"?
Discussion
Blue62 said:
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.
Ignore - it looks like I got a reply from a dreamworld inhabitant, rare on here so maybe of passing interest but no more than a nanosecond.
They also happen to be quite wrong about influence as well, which will cheer them up no end, and their happiness makes me happy too.
Have a nice day y'all.
They also happen to be quite wrong about influence as well, which will cheer them up no end, and their happiness makes me happy too.
Have a nice day y'all.
Derek Chevalier said:
el stovey said:
We are looking increasingly exposed and isolated by slavishly sticking with this austerity policy, which by now everyone can see isn't working.
What makes you think it isn't working?Blue62 said:
Ouch! Rapier like.
Nothing more than a statement of reality is needed when replying to mild trolling from dreamworld. There was nothing sharp to respond to so being blunt was sufficient.For the benefit of those interested in reality:
- Brazil recently cut energy taxes to stimulate the economy, take a look at what happened to Brazil's economy compared to the UK
- a leaked EU strategy paper states that subsidies across the EU for solar and wind power should be phased out as quickly as possible
- CMD was recently warned to rein in ‘Wind Turbine Toryism’ as senior Conservative MPs prepare to publish an alternative programme for Government
- a recent government-commissioned panel ruled in April that fracking should go ahead throughout the UK
- corporation tax has already been reduced in terms of an existing budget commitment to make the UK the fourth most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G20 nations by 2014 but even better would be the most competitive
- through the red tape challenge, pointless and costly burdens on business are already being cut but more needs to be done
One glance at my list of recommendations against what's already happening and it's clear that the trends are all towards my way of thinking, rather than the opposite viewpoint, so on the basis of evidence in the real world any other approach has little and decresing influence - thank goodness for that
el stovey said:
Derek Chevalier said:
What makes you think it isn't working?
1)The economy shrank 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of 2011 and another 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012.2)We're in a double-dip recession
3)The situation is unlikely to improve any time soon.
el stovey said:
Derek Chevalier said:
What makes you think it isn't working?
1)The economy shrank 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of 2011 and another 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012.2)We're in a double-dip recession
3)The situation is unlikely to improve any time soon.
2) Neither your 1) or your 2) managed to attribute GDP changes solely to measures addressing the deficit, as opposed to the unfolding eurodisaster
3) How much of the immediate future is in UK hands in terms of euro contagion from the EUSSR?
Happy82 said:
I believe Labour growth strategy is as follows
1. Increase number of public sector jobs
2. Increase taxes on private sector to pay for above jobs
3. As tax intake decreases due to loss of private sector business, increase taxes on private sector
4. Repeat above until 5.
5. Once that pesky anti-Labour private sector is gone, become the Soviet UK
That's basically it. Gordon Brown, who is at heart a Stalinist (and incidentally demonstrates the close philosophical similarities between Stalinism and the more dictatorial elements of the Church, at least as they used to be) found what he believed was a magic plan for prosperity under a left wing government. He would increase the number of public sector jobs to get more money in circulation and stimulate demand. He would let the financial sector and expat squillionaires basically do what they liked so long as they generated tax revenue. He would effectively nationalise British Industry by making it's principal client the public sector. 1. Increase number of public sector jobs
2. Increase taxes on private sector to pay for above jobs
3. As tax intake decreases due to loss of private sector business, increase taxes on private sector
4. Repeat above until 5.
5. Once that pesky anti-Labour private sector is gone, become the Soviet UK
In this way, there would be little difference, ultimately, between the Chinese regime and the British regime except that in Brown's eyes he retained more control over what is going on. Democracy is irrelevant to this, Brown knows what's best for us, and in any case I trust you noticed that we are now governed, for our own good, by an entirely undemocratic administrative regime in Brussels.
Unfortunately it didn't work because the wealth it produced was not real but was based on bogus inflated asset values. By bailing out RBS, and similar measures, Brown neither saved the Banks nor the World. He allowed international financiers who had taken advantage of his naivety and strung him along all the way to force RBS, a bust company, to make good on its debts, using public money, and get away with their loot. That money did not 'recapitalise' RBS. It went straight to the billionaire creditors who had drawn it into a poker game it did not understand. Brown knighted Freddy Goodwin for his efforts, though all he was, was a dupe.
Balls is a doughhead who was deeply involved in all of this and his only plan is to try to do the same again. I do not understand why politicians and the public fail to distinguish between stimulating growth and funding inefficiency. Labour want to keep taxes high and spend money through their favoured schmes. They talk about infrastructure, but its really about Labour cronies creating quangoes. What they need to do is reduce VAT.
RichardD said:
cardigankid said:
Lots of good stuff
(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
I don't quite get that last bit. Reduced VAT is to stimulate what exactly? ....Retail?(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
Sure, that encourages UK domestic demand, but does little for export.
I still think growth measures should target enabling businesses to be more internationally competitive.
Johnnytheboy said:
RichardD said:
cardigankid said:
Lots of good stuff
(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
I don't quite get that last bit. Reduced VAT is to stimulate what exactly? ....Retail?(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
Sure, that encourages UK domestic demand, but does little for export.
I still think growth measures should target enabling businesses to be more internationally competitive.
turbobloke said:
Agreed.
Me too, which was why I questioned it. On the local news here, the "Caravan Tax" has been a big thing lately. While I don't know the percentages, adding a tax on items made in the UK (if you can avoid it), seems rather daft.
Probably one of the best lines I've heard from Cameron was one of the pre election debating sessions where he said something along the lines of borrowing from China to buy Chinese goods was madness..
An economy with too many shopping centres full of shops with six figure rental amounts selling Chinese goods with three figure percentage mark ups (I'm picking on clothing here) hasn't ever seemed particularly sensible....
Which is why increasing VAT but reducing corp. tax seemed to me a good rebalancing strategy.
turbobloke said:
Johnnytheboy said:
RichardD said:
cardigankid said:
Lots of good stuff
(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
I don't quite get that last bit. Reduced VAT is to stimulate what exactly? ....Retail?(ending with)
What they need to do is reduce VAT.
Sure, that encourages UK domestic demand, but does little for export.
I still think growth measures should target enabling businesses to be more internationally competitive.
RichardD said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed.
An economy with too many shopping centres full of shops with six figure rental amounts selling Chinese goods with three figure percentage mark ups (I'm picking on clothing here) hasn't ever seemed particularly sensible....Which is why increasing VAT but reducing corp. tax seemed to me a good rebalancing strategy.
What was wrong was that we were all borrowing to borrow goods that we were not producing, a direct result of the Brown philosophy and that of the governments, including the Tories, who preceded them. Sort that. Keep shopping, particularly, I would say, for cars.
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.
What was wrong was that we were all borrowing to borrow goods that we were not producing, a direct result of the Brown philosophy and that of the governments, including the Tories, who preceded them. Sort that. Keep shopping, particularly, I would say, for cars.
Agreed (What was wrong was that we were all borrowing to borrow goods that we were not producing, a direct result of the Brown philosophy and that of the governments, including the Tories, who preceded them. Sort that. Keep shopping, particularly, I would say, for cars.
) and why I gave the extreme example of some clothes shops, an example of "wealth by bubble" if ever there was one! Something that retail does depend on is people having the disposable income. Or in other words a surplus.
Which begs the question of as time goes on, is this nations surplus going to stay the same, go up or go down.........
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
Derek Chevalier said:
What makes you think it isn't working?
1)The economy shrank 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of 2011 and another 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012.2)We're in a double-dip recession
3)The situation is unlikely to improve any time soon.
Being in recession initially was certainly due to the previous government but a double dip recession is a result of this government's economic policy. For the UK, the recession is also deeper because of decades of concentration on financial services and an economy driven on debt (started with deregulation by Thatcher and continued by New Labour) and a lack of diversity in the UK economy.
I'm not basing my view on political ideology, I voted Conservative in the last election but at some point the government has to stop blaming Labour for every thing that's wrong. To me the governments slavish concentration on austerity is resulting in a lack of public confidence and spending, leaving us faced with the very real prospect of stagnation and inflation which will deepen the problem considerably.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff