Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

18 hours ago, toddybad said:

I guess what I'm getting are is that the neo-liberal consensus of the last 30 years, thatcherisn and all that went with it has failed. It's time for a new shift in politics. That may or may not be socialism but what i see from tories here are attempts to push further down a failed track rather than realising that race is run. The economy is really buggered atm and we're thr only country where wages haven't yet recovered from 2008. Change has to come and whatever it looks like, tory or labour, it needs a real and fundamental rethink. 

 

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Oh of course, because all the businesses that were paying a corporation tax of 30% when Britain was booming during the noughties ate suddenly going to up and leave the world's fifth largest economy if they have to pay 26% 

 

You really need to make up your mind.

 

One post you are telling us that capitalism and neo-liberalism has totally failed and needs tearing up - then in the next you are telling us we can whack up corporation tax to higher levels than our competitions because we are one of the great economies of the World and have been booming in that said period of capitalism and neo-liberalism. 

Edited 12 July 2017 by MattP

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Yes there was a massive trend of businesses moving jobs abroad during the early 2000s, out sourcing and offshoring was booming. Actually 2005 is the hardest I had ever found it to get a job in my lifetime. Unemployment was much higher during that period, and I would say the boom was created unsustainably and why I blame Labour in part for the severity of the 2008 downturn. From 2002 onwards they began to spend beyond their means on creating cultivation excellence managers for every council in the public sector. 

 

This country has never had a sustainable plan to support business under successive governments that's why they wont ever want to pay 30% or 25% tax long term. A Labour government will stifle jobs and investment.

 

Do we have a graph of numbers of businesses and start-ups and relocations during the Labour government? I would expect the trend to be the opposite.

 

Not that I agree but on the flip side why is Brexit so bad if we are the 5th largest economy in the world, surely people will want to deal with us! particularly as we have a huge trade deficit. In the long term it would actually be more beneficial for Britain to become more self sufficient.

 

 

Graph Corp Tax Receipts in Relations to Corp Tax

Edited 12 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Yes there was a massive trend of businesses moving jobs abroad during the early 2000s, out sourcing and offshoring was booming. Actually 2005 is the hardest I had ever found it to get a job in my lifetime. Unemployment was much higher during that period, and I would say the boom was created unsustainably and why I blame Labour in part for the severity of the 2008 downturn. From 2002 onwards they began to spend beyond their means on creating cultivation excellence managers for every council in the public sector. 

 

This country has never had a sustainable plan to support business under successive governments that's why they wont ever want to pay 30% or 25% tax long term. A Labour government will stifle jobs and investment.

 

Do we have a graph of numbers of businesses and start-ups and relocations during the Labour government? I would expect the trend to be the opposite.

 

Not that I agree but on the flip side why is Brexit so bad if we are the 5th largest economy in the world, surely people will want to deal with us! particularly as we have a huge trade deficit. In the long term it would actually be more beneficial for Britain to become more self sufficient.

 

 

Graph Corp Tax Receipts in Relations to Corp Tax

You don't think that increases in corporation tax take might be more down to the slowly recovering economy than the rate of tax? There are myriad reasons why this take has increased:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

You really need to make up your mind.

 

One post you are telling us that capitalism and neo-liberalism has totally failed and needs tearing up - then in the next you are telling us we can whack up corporation tax to higher levels than our competitions because we are one of the great economies of the World and have been booming in that said period of capitalism and neo-liberalism. 

The fact the economy is able to see booms and busts is not in dispute - how we use our money to improve the lives of our people undoubtably is.

We seem to have reached an end game where we have low unemployment which should lead to better pay but instead have falling pay, record personal debt, falling public investment, low growth etc. 

Both the economy and our use of money need to be fundamentally rethought. 

 

Edited 12 July 2017 by Guest

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Again the facts are with no jobs, no business and no tax income Labour will be unable to fund their spending binge anyway.

Are you saying that is what they will inherit from the Tories?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

You don't think that increases in corporation tax take might be more down to the slowly recovering economy than the rate of tax? There are myriad reasons why this take has increased:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

No, and by your reckoning the economy is shot anyway! If you have a punitive rate of tax people and companies will do their utmost to avoid it, make it lower and its cheaper to pay the taxt than to pay an accountant to figure out how to avoid it. Its proven time and time again, I don't even know why people keep trying this failed model.

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The fact the economy is able to see booms and busts is not in dispute - how we use our money to improve the lives of our people undoubtably is.

We seem to have reached an end game where we have low unemployment which should lead to better pay but instead have falling pay, record personal debt, falling public investment, low growth etc. 

Both the economy and our use of money need to be fundamentally rethought. 

 

The economy still needs further rebalancing, we need more manufacturing and we need to be more self sufficient as a nation, we have to stop having a trade deficit. Part of the problem created by successive governments since the 1970s is that the whole economy is focused on London/SE. Industry was never modernised in the midlands and the north, that along with trade union militancy led to the eventually demise of mass British manufacturing. There is a lot of growth to be channelled in the midlands and the north, their needs to be more encouragement for businesses and individuals to start up ventures. Myself working in Stoke and Staffordshire since 2010 I have seen the development of one of the largest micro economies in the country and their are some tremendously talented individuals setting up and being successful starting their own businesses, that said there is still little support and encouragement from the government.

 

The fundamental question is where does the money come from if there are no rich and no businesses? Do we just print some?

 

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Are you saying that is what they will inherit from the Tories?

No its what they will create with 26% tax and a £10 minimum wage and the scrapping of zero hour contracts.

Edited 12 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No, and by your reckoning the economy is shot anyway! If you have a punitive rate of tax people and companies will do their utmost to avoid it, make it lower and its cheaper to pay the taxt than to pay an accountant to figure out how to avoid it. Its proven time and time again, I don't even know why people keep trying this failed model.

 

The economy still needs further rebalancing, we need more manufacturing and we need to be more self sufficient as a nation, we have to stop having a trade deficit. Part of the problem created by successive governments since the 1970s is that the whole economy is focused on London/SE. Industry was never modernised in the midlands and the north, that along with trade union militancy led to the eventually demise of mass British manufacturing. There is a lot of growth to be channelled in the midlands and the north, their needs to be more encouragement for businesses and individuals to start up ventures. Myself working in Stoke and Staffordshire since 2010 I have seen the development of one of the largest micro economies in the country and their are some tremendously talented individuals setting up and being successful starting their own businesses, that said there is still little support and encouragement from the government.

 

The fundamental question is where does the money come from if there are no rich and no businesses? Do we just print some?

 

No its what they will create with 26% tax and a £10 minimum wage and the scrapping of zero hour contracts.

I'm only going to bother with two parts of that

1- i wholeheartedly agree regarding the need for business and manufacturing outside of london and the se.

2- business does not create money - it recycles money

[Guest Foxin_mad]

19 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm only going to bother with two parts of that

1- i wholeheartedly agree regarding the need for business and manufacturing outside of london and the se.

2- business does not create money - it recycles money

Of course business creates (or more precisely generates) money, that's the point

 

Money is a tangible value of assets, assets being a workforce, the work done by a work force, raw materials, property. Yes you need money to start a business but, the idea of a business is to make money using your assets.

 

If they 'recycled' money there would be no profits, no tax and no point operating.

 

If not business who does make money, where does it come from and what is the point?

 

I suppose its Corbyn on his Unicorn with his magic money tree?!

 

 

Edited 12 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[leicsmac]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-admits-no-review-of-leaving-euratom-agency-was-ever-carried-out-a3586071.html

 

I dunno...perhaps this should have been looked at?

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-admits-no-review-of-leaving-euratom-agency-was-ever-carried-out-a3586071.html

 

I dunno...perhaps this should have been looked at?

That would have been unpatriotic

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Of course business creates (or more precisely generates) money, that's the point

 

Money is a tangible value of assets, assets being a workforce, the work done by a work force, raw materials, property. Yes you need money to start a business but, the idea of a business is to make money using your assets.

 

If they 'recycled' money there would be no profits, no tax and no point operating.

 

If not business who does make money, where does it come from and what is the point?

 

I suppose its Corbyn on his Unicorn with his magic money tree?!

 

 

It absolutely does not create money. How can it have created the money when it has received it from somebody else (the customer)? 

 

A company uses money to purchase or develop assets. It then sells these assets for a profit. It does not create money as part of this process, however. The money paid for assets comes from an external source. Within a single economy, all money is created through debt creation. The only way your point has any validity is if a customer uses debt (credit card, loan, overdraft) to pay for goods or services. It is actually the bank creating this money though.

 

The only way a business can bring money into the UK economy without taking on debt is to export goods or services outside of the economy. The vast majority of business income, however, does not originate from exports. Even if it did, the money would still have originated through debt.

 

By paying wages, contractors, shareholders etc business recycles money back into the economy.

 

What you are talking about is not money, but wealth. Business can create wealth. It does this by determining how it shares the money it receives. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

[Webbo]

More slanted propaganda.

 

Quote

 

UK unemployment fell by 64,000 to 1.49 million in the three months to May, official figures show.

It meant the unemployment rate fell by 0.2% to its lowest since 1975, at 4.5%, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) added.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579523

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Webbo said:

More slanted propaganda.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40579523

But wage increases continued to fall further behind inflation.

Excluding bonuses, earnings rose by 2.0% year-on-year. However, inflation had hit an almost four-year high of 2.9% in May.

When the impact of inflation is factored in, real weekly wages fell by 0.5% compared with a year earlier.

 

Interesting that despite record employment (a good thing) you tories have in recent days attacked left wing voters for expecting something for nothing (during our student loans discussion for example). I'd suggest that record employment and falling wages suggests people voting to get something for something. Like a fair deal.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

It absolutely does not create money. How can it have created the money when it has received it from somebody else (the customer)? 

 

A company uses money to purchase or develop assets. It then sells these assets for a profit. It does not create money as part of this process, however. The money paid for assets comes from an external source. Within a single economy, all money is created through debt creation. The only way your point has any validity is if a customer uses debt (credit card, loan, overdraft) to pay for goods or services. It is actually the bank creating this money though.

 

The only way a business can bring money into the UK economy without taking on debt is to export goods or services outside of the economy. The vast majority of business income, however, does not originate from exports. Even if it did, the money would still have originated through debt.

 

By paying wages, contractors, shareholders etc business recycles money back into the economy.

 

What you are talking about is not money, but wealth. Business can create wealth. It does this by determining how it shares the money it receives. 

Business is responsible for money creation, banks create money to lend to businesses. If all businesses ceased tomorrow how much money would get created?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Business is responsible for money creation, banks create money to lend to businesses. If all businesses ceased tomorrow how much money would get created?

Banks lend to business and individuals. Business does not create the money, the banks do. 

 

Bank of England's explanation of the monetary system:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj_346mr4TVAhXMOxQKHbGXAX8QFggxMAA&usg=AFQjCNEC40I_RsLixV-7vqDH8EnIWMnFzw

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Banks lend to business and individuals. Business does not create the money, the banks do. 

 

Bank of England's explanation of the monetary system:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj_346mr4TVAhXMOxQKHbGXAX8QFggxMAA&usg=AFQjCNEC40I_RsLixV-7vqDH8EnIWMnFzw

Yes but if businesses didn't exist, banks would not have anyone to lend to and therefore money creation would cease with it. It's not exactly a tenuous link is it?

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yes but if businesses didn't exist, banks would not have anyone to lend to and therefore money creation would cease with it. It's not exactly a tenuous link is it?

 

I mean you could just say banks are businesses and therefore a business does create money. However, foxin_mad clearly didn't mean that businesses create money in the sense of money creation, more wealth and being a cog in the function of money circulation and pushing business away causes problems for that. It's just our resident expert of the monetary system wanted to flex some muscles given it is a quiet day on here.

[Strokes]

Just now, KingGTF said:

 

I mean you could just say banks are businesses and therefore a business does create money. However, foxin_mad clearly didn't mean that businesses create money in the sense of money creation, more wealth and being a cog in the function of money circulation and pushing business away causes problems for that. It's just our resident expert of the monetary system wanted to flex some muscles given it is a quiet day on here.

 

 

 

[Izzy]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But wage increases continued to fall further behind inflation.

Excluding bonuses, earnings rose by 2.0% year-on-year. However, inflation had hit an almost four-year high of 2.9% in May.

When the impact of inflation is factored in, real weekly wages fell by 0.5% compared with a year earlier.

 

Interesting that despite record employment (a good thing) you tories have in recent days attacked left wing voters for expecting something for nothing (during our student loans discussion for example). I'd suggest that record employment and falling wages suggests people voting to get something for something. Like a fair deal.

I guess if unemployment fell to zero under the Tories you'd still find something to complain about.

 

I remember when unemployment was over 3 million and despite a growing population it's now half of that, which has to be a good thing. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I guess if unemployment fell to zero under the Tories you'd still find something to complain about.

 

I remember when unemployment was over 3 million and despite a growing population it's now half of that, which has to be a good thing. 

Oh no izzy, you've fell into the trap. The left need the unemployed to shower in benefits, so they can make them dependent on the state and therefore them. These low payed jobs aren't helping at all  

[Izzy]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Oh no izzy, you've fell into the trap. The left need the unemployed to shower in benefits, so they can make them dependent on the state and therefore them. These low payed jobs aren't helping at all  

Silly me. Thanks for putting me right mate. And here I am thinking low unemployment is a good thing 

[Kopfkino]

31 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I guess if unemployment fell to zero under the Tories you'd still find something to complain about.

 

I remember when unemployment was over 3 million and despite a growing population it's now half of that, which has to be a good thing. 

 

I mean zero unemployment would be a pretty terrible thing  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

 

 

 

Remarkably accurate 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Silly me. Thanks for putting me right mate. And here I am thinking low unemployment is a good thing 

It is a good thing. But all the other indicators around wages, cost of living and personal debt aren't good. It isn't hard to see that both can be true. Whilst it's good employment is high, it's very bad that employment is not having the effect on people's lives that it should.