Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
bazza white said:
No mention of labour stealth taxes as yet. Corbyn promising to go big on green, the motorist is going to get hit. (Unless electric interest free loans for them) fuel is going to get expensive as is car tax.
Comrade, you promise the world first... then once you have the poor souls drooling you get out the big stick.bazza white said:
No mention of labour stealth taxes as yet. Corbyn promising to go big on green, the motorist is going to get hit. (Unless electric interest free loans for them) fuel is going to get expensive as is car tax.
The green agenda on all 3 main parties should be a concern to all motoring enthusiast - the agenda on the left wing being the most severe.Camoradi said:
I'm beginning to wonder if the Conservative strategy of promising lots of uncosted extra spending is as terrible as it first seemed. Labour and the media ridiculed it and tagged it with the "magic money tree" label, and then set about promising even more spending. They seem to be doing the Conservative's job for them, confirming what a lot of people think about their lack of a grasp of the financial stuff ....
Conservative plans are costed, around £20bn per year, which is largely equivalent to 1% of GDP. Labour plans amount to 55bn per year, or 2.5% of GDP. Normally fiscal spend effects GDP on a parity basis (1% spend, 1% GDP growth) - however it's how, when and where it hits the economy. If properly spent and invested; the GDP returns should be higher. Currently (pre-election pledges); we spend around 40bn per annum on fiscal invest, or 2% of GDP (hence conservative plans are a 50% increase in invest, labour more than double).
With low BoE rates, and a normal (conservative) government in power it makes sense to increase borrowing to fund this invest. It's serviceable debt; and takes some pressure OFF the BoE and monetary policy. Labour, however may have multiple issues. They are talking up some banana republic policy; and IF they become increasingly unpredictable - finding buyers for debt (at a serviceable risk premia) are less likely.
The other problem you have is this; IF the economy has capacity / slack (that fiscal invest goes some way to solve); we still have woeful productivity that needs BUSINESS invest to solve. Here is where Labour run into all sorts of trouble. The ranty agenda, appropriations, upping Corporation Tax into orbit is not business friendly. it's very likely that (even if) they could fund their pledges; we'd be haemorrhaging growth and productivity elsewhere. If they go off grid on tax treaty; you can have all the tears you want on lack of forms to get into Europe when firms lose Double Taxation Treaty protection and tax goes up 20, 25%.
It’s pretty parochial and boring stuff, but it makes the world go round.
Here is an example, of how stupid McDonnell and co think we are:
He says “ borrowing to fund” utility privatisation is balance neutral for UK plc):
He thinks:
Borrow + £20bn (liability)
Spend - £20bn on BT shares (assets)
Ok, so we are cash flat (+20-20 = 0)
This is what you teach a 5 year old (just replace borrow with pocket money).
However, we still have to pay back that £20bn (so we have to find £20bn in the future to pay it back); but we do own (or rather did own) £20bn "worth" of BT shares.
Now if those shares go up in value; the government could sell them and pay down the debt; but shares can go down in value (particularly if you mismanage a company). Of course there is no plan to sell the shares, BUT you still have the liability to service – so you do what all governments do is ISSUE more debt to cover it at maturity (roll it over).
It’s basic nonsense. Saying it’s checked and approved is absolute tosh, unless they got an accounting opinion from my 5 year old (they wouldn’t go near my 9 year old; she makes austerity look like a spending bonanza the miser)…
Oh, and the other thing that McDonnell fails to cover off on, if somehow they get in and replace the BT shares with UK government debt in a barter cum asset swap; you probably end up holding –‘ve or very low yielding debt. If it’s in your pension fund, you are getting eroded (you want the investment returns in your pension fund to beat inflation). Actually it’s a straight up bumming with no reach-around.
A cursory glance at whom owns the shares of BT, National Grid tells you all need to know… it’s nearly always (BT largest owner is T Mobile; but then it’s always the same) asset managers (managing of behalf of you and me) – not firms taking directional punts on share prices.
In short, the pledges thus far; are not a stitch up of the capitalist system, the wealthy etc (able to do capital flight); but average people. It’s an outright deceitful policy pledge. The lies used to sell it are a disgrace; you don’t need Russian’s involved in the election to get a perversion – Labour are already doing it.
/Rant off.
Edited by stongle on Monday 18th November 11:01
Is it not worse than that?
If you buy a company the value is the profit/turnover they make?
So if you give away that product you have no value, but you do have a liability.
You've bought Openreach for £20B, the network upgrade is anywhere from £40-120B and your ongoing running costs as well.
BT’s last accounts show operating costs of £2.6bn for Openreach. Estimates of maintenance costs for the current broadband network are put at close to £1bn a year.
And you have compensation to pay to Vodafone/Sky etc. all the other provides who suddenly have no business.
If you buy a company the value is the profit/turnover they make?
So if you give away that product you have no value, but you do have a liability.
You've bought Openreach for £20B, the network upgrade is anywhere from £40-120B and your ongoing running costs as well.
BT’s last accounts show operating costs of £2.6bn for Openreach. Estimates of maintenance costs for the current broadband network are put at close to £1bn a year.
And you have compensation to pay to Vodafone/Sky etc. all the other provides who suddenly have no business.
stongle said:
Conservative plans are costed, around £20bn per year, which is largely equivalent to 1% of GDP. Labour plans amount to 55bn per year, or 2.5% of GDP. Normally fiscal spend effects GDP on a parity basis (1% spend, 1% GDP growth) - however it's how, when and where it hits the economy. If properly spent and invested; the GDP returns should be higher. …………………………………………………..
Surely this depends on what the money would have been used for if the govt hadn't collected it as tax. If I don't buy a sandwich because the govt has increased my tax by that much to buy lunch for ministerial meetings. The direct effect on GDP is negligible. sisu said:
The Farage vs Corbyn are just angry old men shouting at the clouds.
Labour could learn a thing or two from NZ Labour who went through the same Autumnal issue with their leaders. They chose a young lady who was an intern with Tony Blair.
A fresh start and someone who appeals to people under 55.
Prior to the NZ election the Conservatives (National Party) had been governing for the previous 10 years who's policies certainly created a wealth gap. The then PM resigned leaving huge shoes to fill. I can certainly see why the majority was pissed off. Property was unaffordable due to the immigration policy (anyone with money could come in). The main cities are grid locked due to massive under investment in public transport and now they've thrown big money at the problem, the city is a building site.Labour could learn a thing or two from NZ Labour who went through the same Autumnal issue with their leaders. They chose a young lady who was an intern with Tony Blair.
A fresh start and someone who appeals to people under 55.
The Labour PM is young, she is also woefully inexperienced and the waffle she promised has failed to materialised. She couldn't even bring herself to back up the promise to tax property and stock capital gains. The polls have them way behind, again. This despite the opposition leader being a right mentalist
Dr Jekyll said:
Surely this depends on what the money would have been used for if the govt hadn't collected it as tax. If I don't buy a sandwich because the govt has increased my tax by that much to buy lunch for ministerial meetings. The direct effect on GDP is negligible.
This is new money into the system (they are borrowing it to spent). Obviously they need to spend it "as an investment" to generate higher GDP return's. A lot of tax take is debt servcing so it's being paid away to roll over debt. As for tax take, well that's another joke.
I pay you £10 to clean my toilet.
I then take £7 back as tax etc.
I give Burwood £4.5 for doing FA; the other £2.5 is transmission loss.
Edited by stongle on Monday 18th November 11:53
Bullett said:
Is it not worse than that?
If you buy a company the value is the profit/turnover they make?
So if you give away that product you have no value, but you do have a liability.
You've bought Openreach for £20B, the network upgrade is anywhere from £40-120B and your ongoing running costs as well.
BT’s last accounts show operating costs of £2.6bn for Openreach. Estimates of maintenance costs for the current broadband network are put at close to £1bn a year.
And you have compensation to pay to Vodafone/Sky etc. all the other provides who suddenly have no business.
Probably; I'm just picking up on the basic funding premise - it's bIf you buy a company the value is the profit/turnover they make?
So if you give away that product you have no value, but you do have a liability.
You've bought Openreach for £20B, the network upgrade is anywhere from £40-120B and your ongoing running costs as well.
BT’s last accounts show operating costs of £2.6bn for Openreach. Estimates of maintenance costs for the current broadband network are put at close to £1bn a year.
And you have compensation to pay to Vodafone/Sky etc. all the other provides who suddenly have no business.
ks. Corbyn is performing at the CBI saying he's not anti-business; whilst stealing infrastructure and shareholder value.
stongle said:
This is new money into the system (they are borrowing it to spent). Obviously they need to spend it "as an investment" to generate higher GDP return's.
A lot of tax take is debt servcing so it's being paid away to roll over debt. As for tax take, well that's another joke.
I pay you £10 to clean my toilet.
I then take £7 back as tax etc.
I give Burwood £4.5 for doing FA; the over £2.5 is transmission loss.
If the government hadn't borrowed the money someone else might have done, it would have been spent or invested somewhere.A lot of tax take is debt servcing so it's being paid away to roll over debt. As for tax take, well that's another joke.
I pay you £10 to clean my toilet.
I then take £7 back as tax etc.
I give Burwood £4.5 for doing FA; the over £2.5 is transmission loss.
A better toilet cleaning analogy is:
I take the profit you made from cleaning toilets last week as tax.
I then give the same money back to commission you to clean my toilet.
I then boast that I've increased both tax revenue and investment and that my
A quick Google also suggests that BT currently pay around £375 million per year in Corporation Tax. Surely if they are taken into public ownership, this is more money Labour would have to find to fund it? On top of the £260 million claimed running costs (more like £560 million), BT Staff Costs, payments to Sky / Virgin etc?
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to subsidise internet access for those who can't afford it?
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to subsidise internet access for those who can't afford it?
768 said:
I agree with a lot of what he says but to think that Jezza would be able to go to the EU and get a deal is living in cloud cuckoo land. The man couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He is too dogmatic to accept anything else but what he wants and would get eaten alive.VxDuncan said:
Given Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela all have state controlled and censored internet service, it wouldn't surprise me if this "free internet" idea doesn't have a sinister motive...
Really? You actually think a Marxist Govt would want to control what people have access too ?
That they might want to see what people are saying and looking at ?
Well, that would be the end of Pistonheads!
Come the Revolution comrade you’ll be the first in the Milton Keynes Gulag for reprogramming for suggesting that
VxDuncan said:
Given Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela all have state controlled and censored internet service, it wouldn't surprise me if this "free internet" idea doesn't have a sinister motive...
Like a Porn Filter or access to encrypted communications? Sounds like Tory policy to me...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff