The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[sphericalfox]

Probably not but I don't think the PM will be responding to "Political scrapbook's" demand for answers.

 

I'm not saying he should, but it's real rich for our stagnant troll to come on here giving the 'big un' when the Tory parties funding primarily comes from individuals and groups with their hand in honey jar.

[Guest MattP]

I'm not saying he should, but it's real rich for our stagnant troll to come on here giving the 'big un' when the Tory parties funding primarily comes from individuals and groups with their hand in honey jar.

 

As opposed to those political parties who take millions from unions.

 

No honey jar or financial influence there.

[sphericalfox]

As opposed to those political parties who take millions from unions.

 

No honey jar or financial influence there.

 

Did I say there weren't?

 

I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical for a party to start blaring their trumpets of success, when the underpinning monies that put them in power, and will no doubt fund the next electoral campaign, will come from the same self-serving cvnts with their monies safe from the prying eyes and hands of our neglectful HMRC. I should imagine, that the government will ensure if their pals are on that long list of bastards, that they are far down the list, and will pay meagre portions of the millions they owe.

[Guest MattP]

Well whatever the situation of the donors back then (the blog post is nearly a year old) and least we now know the Tories are doing far more and are clearly far more effective at clamping down on tax avoidance than the Labour party ever were.

[sphericalfox]

Well whatever the situation of the donors back then (the blog post is nearly a year old) and least we now know the Tories are doing far more and are clearly far more effective at clamping down on tax avoidance than the Labour party ever were.

 

They've been forced to by largely press campaigns and name-and-shames. They've had fook all initiative to start this.

 

A year old post, and it's still not relevant? I'd say it's still damn relevant considering they're trying to win votes off hypocritical bullschnit for the upcoming election.

[Guest MattP]

They've been forced to by largely press campaigns and name-and-shames. They've had fook all initiative to start this.

 

A year old post, and it's still not relevant? I'd say it's still damn relevant considering they're trying to win votes off hypocritical bullschnit for the upcoming election.

 

Nothing hypocritical about it at all, the public wanted a clampdown on this and yet again this government has delivered it's word. That's the exact reason why the Conservatives are climbing consistently in the polls and Labour are dropping.

 

All parties have accepted funding from businessmen who have been involved in these sort of tax aboidance schemes, to throw mud at one and not the other isn't going to foll anyone.

[sphericalfox]

Nothing hypocritical about it at all, the public wanted a clampdown on this and yet again this government has delivered it's word. That's the exact reason why the Conservatives are climbing consistently in the polls and Labour are dropping.

 

All parties have accepted funding from businessmen who have been involved in these sort of tax aboidance schemes, to throw mud at one and not the other isn't going to foll anyone.

What you are failing to address, is they wouldn't doing this hadn't the press exposed them, yet we all know, and you know too that their buddies won't have to worry too much about being out of pocket, since they've no doubt been rinsing the system since Thatcher was been in power.

 

Saying that they're doing a great job about addressing the situation is hypocritical, given the people who helped them get in power, and prospectively stay in power owe the country millions.

 

All parties will have donors whose past is  probably a bit shady. But the majority of them!?

[MooseBreath]

While the tories can point to real action and real successes, labour are left with desperate conjecture full of would have's and wouldn't have's. Think that says it all to be frank. Labour failed to address tax avoidance, they had their own hands in the cookie jar and were simply trying to buy up votes by increasing welfare dependency and creating a bloating debt ridden mess of a public sector. Can't see why anyone would still support them unless they were one of the people with their hands in tax payers pockets.

[Alf Bentley]

Well whatever the situation of the donors back then (the blog post is nearly a year old) and least we now know the Tories are doing far more and are clearly far more effective at clamping down on tax avoidance than the Labour party ever were.

 

There was a piece in "Private Eye" recently saying that a change had been made in accounting for revenue clawed back from tax avoidance. The government/HMRC had started adding in an estimated figure for tax that "would have" been avoided in future without the deterrent effect of action on tax avoidance. So, the figures showed a large increase in avoided tax clawed back, when in fact it was just a bit of creative accounting.  

 

If you have some objective figures that allow a fair comparison to be made, could you post them? If not, I'll assume this is just creative accounting and government propaganda. By the way, I'd assume the same if it was a Labour government, as they were just as bad at manipulating statistics to make themselves look good.

 

I hope the government does take action on tax avoidance. Osborne announced this in the budget and I applauded that. As with any government, though, I'll believe it when I see it - or see credible, objective data.

 

I also think that right-wing posters on here would have more credibility if they posted objective data rather than accepting government figures unquestioningly....I bet you wouldn't do the same if Labour was in government.

[Guest MattP]

What you are failing to address, is they wouldn't doing this hadn't the press exposed them, yet we all know, and you know too that their buddies won't have to worry too much about being out of pocket, since they've no doubt been rinsing the system since Thatcher was been in power.

 

Saying that they're doing a great job about addressing the situation is hypocritical, given the people who helped them get in power, and prospectively stay in power owe the country millions.

 

All parties will have donors whose past is  probably a bit shady. But the majority of them!?

 

Who mentioned anything about a majority?

 

Thatcher again? Really. Come on, I don't it's a desperate time for your side of the political spectrum at the minute but you've got to start giving some answers, apologies and excuses to why you couldn't clamp down on this when the Tories have without resorting to 1970's namecalling again.

 

The Labour party will actually take donations encouraging tax avoidance whilst doing it so to complain about the Tories on this issue is frankly ridiculous.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html

[Webbo]

 

 

I also think that right-wing posters on here would have more credibility if they posted objective data rather than accepting government figures unquestioningly....I bet you wouldn't do the same if Labour was in government.

What is objective data though? According to some on here any data that doesn't match their prejudice is Tory propaganda. The estimates of amounts of tax avoidance that have been quoted on here in the past certainly weren't objective.

[sphericalfox]

Who mentioned anything about a majority?

 

Thatcher again? Really. Come on, I don't it's a desperate time for your side of the political spectrum at the minute but you've got to start giving some answers, apologies and excuses to why you couldn't clamp down on this when the Tories have without resorting to 1970's namecalling again.

 

The Labour party will actually take donations encouraging tax avoidance whilst doing it so to complain about the Tories on this issue is frankly ridiculous.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html

 

Apologies, that should have said majority of top donors.

 

 

Do you think the world of tax havens began when Labour were in power, or perhaps they really had their heyday back in the early 80's and continued to be a popular destination of profit for companies in the 90's. If Labour did fock all about it, then surely the previous governments were just as lax about millions of public tax revenue going off shore to line the pockets the companies and persons who put these governments in power.

[Webbo]

Apologies, that should have said majority of top donors.

 

 

Do you think the world of tax havens began when Labour were in power, or perhaps they really had their heyday back in the early 80's and continued to be a popular destination of profit for companies in the 90's. If Labour did fock all about it, then surely the previous governments were just as lax about millions of public tax revenue going off shore to line the pockets the companies and persons who put these governments in power.

The Labour party are the ones making a song and dance about it. It's surely a fair question to ask why they didn't do something about it during their 13 years in power, especially as they said they would in 1997.

[Guest MattP]

I'm on a phone Alf so can only read what Davie has posted, if the figures are manipulated I'm sure Mr Balls will soon be out to tell us about it.

 

Apologies, that should have said majority of top donors.

 

 

Do you think the world of tax havens began when Labour were in power, or perhaps they really had their heyday back in the early 80's and continued to be a popular destination of profit for companies in the 90's. If Labour did fock all about it, then surely the previous governments were just as lax about millions of public tax revenue going off shore to line the pockets the companies and persons who put these governments in power.

 

Considering it's now 2014 I couldn't care less how or who started them.

 

Even if the Tories did start it the 70's or 80's then Labour had 13 years to sort them out and didn't, that makes them just as culpable as anyone else involved in it and certainly gives them no moral authority to speak on the situation.

Edited 27 May 2014 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

What is objective data though? According to some on here any data that doesn't match their prejudice is Tory propaganda. The estimates of amounts of tax avoidance that have been quoted on here in the past certainly weren't objective.

 

A start would be data where figures for different periods were compiled using the same calculation method - or an accurate statistical adjustment was made if the method was changed (as it was, according to Private Eye).

 

Not a party political point, I repeat. I wouldn't trust any other party's data, either. They're all "economical with the truth".  I would mostly trust Private Eye as an unbiased source, though.

 

Doubtless, if the figures are dodgy, someone will point this out - and if they're not, then congratulations are due, even if there's still a hell of a long way to go in tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion. 

[sphericalfox]

I'm on a phone Alf so can only read what Davie has posted, if the figures are manipulated I'm sure Mr Balls will soon be out to tell us about it.

 

 

Considering it's now 2014 I couldn't care less how or who started them.

 

Even if the Tories did start it the 70's or 80's then Labour had 13 years to sort them out and didn't, that makes them just as culpable as anyone else involved in it and certainly gives them no moral authority to speak on the situation.

 

I don't care what Labour has to say about, and yes it's rich from them to now squeal given they themselves didn't do anything about it, as the previous governments did nothing it.

 

 

But to praise the Tory's like some bastions of morality when their gain of power was actually paid for by these wankers, and like I said will likely fund the next campaign is either seriously naive or deliberately ignoring the facts like it doesn't really matter.

[Guest MattP]

But to praise the Tory's like some bastions of morality when their gain of power was actually paid for by these wankers, and like I said will likely fund the next campaign is either seriously naive or deliberately ignoring the facts like it doesn't really matter.

 

I'm not praising their 'bastion of morality' - I'm praising the fact they have said they will do something about tax avoidance and (at least according to what has been posted by DavieG) they appear to have been true to their word on that.

[Guest MattP]

Am I the only one desperate to read Rincewind's point of view on the Conservative clampdown on tax avoidance?

Edited 27 May 2014 by MattP

[Webbo]

Am I the only one desperate to read Rincewind's point of view on the Conservative clampdown on tax avoidance?

I predict a " "

[MooseBreath]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27621408

Media starting to pick up on the fact that help to buy isn't causing a housing bubble now. Yet another left-wing criticism of the current government proven wrong.

[Alf Bentley]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27621408

Media starting to pick up on the fact that help to buy isn't causing a housing bubble now. Yet another left-wing criticism of the current government proven wrong.

 

Yes, although the article questions the usefulness of Help to Buy, the stats quoted do seem to show that it is not a significant factor in disproportionate house price rises in London:

e.g. "The killer stat, when it comes to London, is that just 0.6% of all housing transactions funded by mortgages involved a Help to Buy government guarantee. The proportion would be even lower, if the large number of cash purchases in London were included. And in the most red-hot part of London's housing market, Brent - where prices have been rising at annual rate of about a third - there has been just one Help to Buy mortgage".

 

On the other hand, it provides quite a snapshot of modern Britain: London house prices being driven up by the global mega-rich, a regionally unbalanced economy with little use of Help to Buy in depressed regions, while the capital-rich make even more cash by buying properties to let to those who can no longer afford to buy a home or by buying to speculate on capital gains in the absence of decent profits on financial savings/investments:

"London prices, rising at an annual rate of 17%, are being driven by cash purchases being made by foreign investors, by a local economy that is reviving much faster than anywhere else in the UK, by buy-to-let purchases and by old-fashioned speculative fever and fervour. [...] What is striking is that in the more depressed regions of the North East, Northern Ireland and and Wales there were relatively few Help to Buy mortgages deals: collectively those areas represent just 10% of all such subsidised transactions".

 

I remember you previously mentioning government measures to stimulate house-building....well, they don't seem to be working yet, or if they are then new properties are ending up in the hands of people who are using them to make money, not to live in. The price rises show that there is excess demand for housing in London/SE, yet many can't afford to buy the properties on the market and have to rent instead....all part of having a country with massively growing inequality.

 

Last week's elections showed just how divided this country is getting - and how desperate some people are getting for someone, anyone to represent them - and for someone to blame.

[MooseBreath]

Yes, you can hardly blame the government for high levels of demand for housing - generally you'd expect that to be a symptom of things going well - but plenty of questions can be asked of their commitment to addressing fundamental supply side problems. Obviously these things take time, and there are balances to be found, but I'm yet to see any real action or even promises of the real action we need to reintroduce some sanity back into the market.

[Webbo]

Surely the fact that so many foreigners are buying in this country shows that Britain is a good place to invest? What's the alternative to this, no investment and a stagnating housing market? Would you ban foreigners from buying in this country? If they are EU citizens then you probably can't, isn't this what the Euro federalists want?

[Jon the Hat]

The government have also incentivised councils to support house building.  My council have just raised £28M from selling land to developer, central grants and fees from the developer to support infrastructure.  Not a bad return on 298 houses.  Another hundred or so being built up the road.

[Alf Bentley]

Surely the fact that so many foreigners are buying in this country shows that Britain is a good place to invest? What's the alternative to this, no investment and a stagnating housing market? Would you ban foreigners from buying in this country? If they are EU citizens then you probably can't, isn't this what the Euro federalists want?

 

Yes, what with property prices rocketing and a low tax regime, I'm sure it is a good place to place your money to make more money if you're super rich. The word "invest" makes it sound so productive, doesn't it? In reality, given the lack of counter-balancing government measures, those "investments" are helping push house prices through the roof and preventing millions of British people on even above-average pay from buying property in London.

 

A "stagnating housing market"? Lower house prices certainly seems a good idea, though a controlled reduction would be better than a sudden slump. That slump might happen anyway once interest rates go up, simultaneously reducing demand and making other forms of savings more attractive to those currently piling into "buy to let".

 

No, I wouldn't ban foreigners from buying in this country, but a moderate increase in relevant taxes (e.g. capital gains tax, stamp duty on top-end properties, inheritance tax) seems a good idea. The money accruing could be earmarked for investment in public housing, incentives for builders to construct more affordable private housing - or could be put in the general pot for redistribution, given the destructive and rapidly growing gap between rich and poor (often working poor) in this country.

 

I've not seen any primary data, but reports suggest that many of those buying the most expensive properties are from Russia or the Middle East, so not from the EU, though I'm sure others are from the UK or EU. I'm not suggesting bans on anyone, and can't see the EU having a problem with some upward tax adjustments applied to people of every nationality.

 

I presume that you are either a disciple of the old Tory "trickle-down theory" of wealth, whereby the accrual of wealth is automatically good as some of it will trickle down to those less fortunate? More like gravity-defying "trickle-up" these days, though, isn't it?! Or maybe you're very blasé about developments in the housing market...but it must be near impossible to buy even a small property in London unless you're on £50k+ (average price is nearly £500k, maybe £250k for a small place in a dodgy area?). A lot of people in important and responsible jobs earn less than that in London.

 

Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/9776538/Britons-cant-afford-to-buy-homes-but-renting-doesnt-work-either.html

"It’s hardly news that home ownership is an ever-receding dream for increasing numbers of today’s young (and not-so-young). Even after the recent slump in prices, the average house costs over five times the average wage (up from three in 1997). A 21-year-old starting work on a normal income today who manages to save five per cent of her salary, year after year, can expect to have the keys to her own front door – by the time she’s 52".

 

Census data:  http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2012/dec/12/census-housing-at-a-glance (figures only up to 2011, and will have rapidly pursued the same trend in the last 3 years, given falling real incomes and rising house prices)

"The rise of Generation Rent was finally quantified this week, when release of data from the 2011 census showed the proportion of households renting privately has almost doubled – from 9% (1.9 million) of households in England and Wales in 2001 to 15% (3.6 million) in 2011. Meanwhile the number of households with a mortgage has dropped from 39% (8.4 million) to 33% (7.6 million) and overall home ownership fell from 69% to 64%".

 

How will our children and grandchildren afford care when they are old, I wonder? Still, all's hunky dory, isn't it, because Abramovich & co are buying mansions in London and those who got on the property ladder decades back, or who are on high pay or who receive big inheritances are investing in buy-to-let properties for our children and grandchildren to pay out nice profitable rents on, thereby preventing them from accumulating savings.....

 

 

The government have also incentivised councils to support house building.  My council have just raised £28M from selling land to developer, central grants and fees from the developer to support infrastructure.  Not a bad return on 298 houses.  Another hundred or so being built up the road.

 

That sounds like a good move. There was something similar in the last budget, I think - a good idea.

 

Makes it quite ironic, though, that for so long the Tories actively prevented councils from using the proceeds of council house sales to build new housing stock with affordable rents....and that successive governments, Labour and Tory, drastically squeezed central govt funding for councils, using the proceeds to gain kudos by cutting central govt taxes or boosting central govt spending. They've also curtailed the ability of local councils to raise council tax by much more than inflation, I think, further exacerbating the housing crisis, and making it difficult for young people or those on average earnings to afford to buy.