Another Labour Policy - Another Fail

whathavewedone

This is embarrassing for Labour and I think they might actually struggle to find business leaders who are prepared to come out and say that being expected to pay more national insurance will actively encourage them to employ more people and thus help the recovery.

They will probably roll out a number of academics and left wing economists to write to the Financial Times though to rubbish the tories' plans.

The budget deficit does have to be reduced but that doesn't mean that all the parties have to have identical policies about how to go about it. At least now we can see what divides the parties which will motivate more people to vote I should think.

ben500

So the employers of a mere half million workers speak for the entire country do they? How many employed in the UK currently? What about their employers what do they think? Just a load of Tory toadies rallying around the flag in an attempt to boost their "chums" chances of getting in power. Labour says they have been "taken in" have they bollix they are fully aware that the conservatives proposals are full of holes, they don't care they know they will personally be better off under a conservative government than a Labour one sod the rest of us we haven't got private helipads and tennis courts to maintain.

Spartacus_Mills

ben500 wrote: »

So the employers of a mere half million workers speak for the entire country do they? How many employed in the UK currently? What about their employers what do they think? Just a load of Tory toadies rallying around the flag in an attempt to boost their "chums" chances of getting in power. Labour says they have been "taken in" have they bollix they are fully aware that the conservatives proposals are full of holes, they don't care they know they will personally be better off under a conservative government than a Labour one sod the rest of us we haven't got private helipads and tennis courts to maintain.

Christ on a bike.

They are speaking for themselves, not the entire country. They are providing a rebuttal to the Labour offensive that the Tories not implementing the NIC rise would harm the recovery. What is the counter argument to that ?

These people are hardly Tory toadies, they are toadies to whatever party of government is within their sphere of influence whose economic policies can help their business.

Surely the issue has to be where is the Tories credibility in how they are going to achieve this. They want to cut the deficit, quite right too, so where is the money going to come from to fund this ? Osbourne says they have no plans to raise VAT. I do not believe them. Raising VAT is just as bad, if not worse.

The businessmen are going to be happy with a policy that does not put extra cost burdens on them irrespective of their politics. However the fact they support it does not make it credible. To just say they are Tories devalues any serious counterpoint again them.

The Tories have a huge credibility gap on their economic plans. They are being allowed to get away with it simply by saying they have no access to the treasury figures so cannot be specific but it should be alright.

Thanks for trotting out the Labour thoughts like an obedient little bunkerbot.

cogito

Interesting that Labour should be saying that increasing NI is necessary to secure recovery. I'ts not clear to me how taxing jobs will acheive that.

And isn't it beyond dispute that revenues from income tax actually increased after rates were reduced? Maybe they should try that with NI.

Spartacus_Mills

cogito wrote: »

Interesting that Labour should be saying that increasing NI is necessary to secure recovery. I'ts not clear to me how taxing jobs will acheive that.

And isn't it beyond dispute that revenues from income tax actually increased after rates were reduced? Maybe they should try that with NI.

No, it is not clear to me either but the Tories need to be more honest as to where the money is coming from. If they raise VAT that does the same thing in effect. Raising NI makes no sense as it taxes jobs. The employer and employee has to pay it.

The Tories and Labour both say they are going to cut. The Tories have cut before and we remember how grim the early eighties were. Labour claim they will cut smarter but they engineered this financial clusterfukk so they do not deserve to be trusted.

Only Vince Cable and the Lib Dems have offered concrete solutions as to how to pay the debt back.

whathavewedone

To be fair Spartacus, if Darling hadn't cancelled the spending review the tories would not be able to say that they haven't had access to the figures.

Labour aren't saying where they are going to cut either, even though they have got the figures.

The Libdems say that they are the only ones saying that they are being upfront and honest but seem to forget what their policies actually are - eg Vince Cable telling us on Monday that they are going to means test child benefit when they are not. Of course the Libdems can be a lot bolder than the other two because nothing they say will end up as a hostage to fortune because they aren't going to get in anyway.

All 3 parties say that there are going to be bigger cuts than Thatcher made in the 1980s.

I think we all just have to accept the fact that we are not going to know what to expect until after the election. It's a matter of voting for who you trust the most (or voting to get out/keep out the party you trust least) and keeping your fingers crossed.

shaven-monkey

Business leaders don't like paying more tax. Pass on losses to employees but demand same productivity.

In what way is this news?

Linton

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

No, it is not clear to me either but the Tories need to be more honest as to where the money is coming from. If they raise VAT that does the same thing in effect. Raising NI makes no sense as it taxes jobs. The employer and employee has to pay it.

The Tories and Labour both say they are going to cut. The Tories have cut before and we remember how grim the early eighties were. Labour claim they will cut smarter but they engineered this financial clusterfukk so they do not deserve to be trusted.

Only Vince Cable and the Lib Dems have offered concrete solutions as to how to pay the debt back.

Nice to get reasoned discussion on this group.

You point out that raising NI costs jobs. True, but raising other taxes costs jobs. Cutting back government services cuts jobs, efficiency savings cuts jobs - that's where the savings come from. So whatever you do quickly cuts jobs.

So the best you can do I guess is to cream off some of the wealth gains as the economy recovers - a long, slow process. But one that has been done before:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1960_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

(sorry if its difficult to get there but I find it interesting)

One point on the Conservative proposal. It leads to a short term increase in the debt as they arent taxing so much. George Osborne has said that this will come from his efficiency savings in the first year.

But Melvyn King made an interesting point on efficiency savings in a submission I watched to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee. He pointed out that the argument on whether we go for slow (labour) or immediate steps (Conservative) to cut the budget was fairly meaningless. Any efficiency cuts you make will cost some immediate money (redundancy costs, contract cancellation costs) and take at least a year to implement and have any real effect.

I would argue about the blame to be placed on Labour for the Credit Crunch -but not in this thread!

PS If you dont yet, I suggest people have a look at the committee sessions on the Parliamentary channel - intelligent and informative questioning with none of the tedious knock-about.

Spartacus_Mills

Linton wrote: »

Nice to get reasoned discussion on this group.

Cheers

Linton wrote: »

You point out that raising NI costs jobs. True, but raising other taxes costs jobs. Cutting back government services cuts jobs, efficiency savings cuts jobs - that's where the savings come from. So whatever you do quickly cuts jobs.

That is why the Tories are lacking credibility on the NI cut in my view. It is smart electioneering certainly but it is not credible. My guess is from the narrowing in the polls, once the Tories played the austerity card, people do not want to hear the truth.

Linton wrote: »

So the best you can do I guess is to cream off some of the wealth gains as the economy recovers - a long, slow process. But one that has been done before:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1960_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

(sorry if its difficult to get there but I find it interesting)

I will give it a look.

Linton wrote: »

One point on the Conservative proposal. It leads to a short term increase in the debt as they arent taxing so much. George Osborne has said that this will come from his efficiency savings in the first year.

But Melvyn King made an interesting point on efficiency savings in a submission I watched to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee. He pointed out that the argument on whether we go for slow (labour) or immediate steps (Conservative) to cut the budget was fairly meaningless. Any efficiency cuts you make will cost some immediate money (redundancy costs, contract cancellation costs) and take at least a year to implement and have any real effect.

There is very little between the main two parties on this.

The only sage comment I heard on efficiency savings was from Vince Cable - okay I would say that but... - which was if there are efficiency savings to be made then why have they not already been made. Sadly it is a catch all which has little meaning or substance.

Linton wrote: »

I would argue about the blame to be placed on Labour for the Credit Crunch -but not in this thread!

Fair enough. I blame labour for the depth of the mess. It was down to their recklessness but they did act well to make the issue less bad than it should have been.

Linton wrote: »

PS If you dont yet, I suggest people have a look at the committee sessions on the Parliamentary channel - intelligent and informative questioning with none of the tedious knock-about.

Will give them a look. Usually I am at work when they are on.

Kohoutek

ben500 wrote: »

So the employers of a mere half million workers speak for the entire country do they? How many employed in the UK currently?

What do you think the employers of the rest of the country's private sector employees - i.e. the owners of small business, think?

This NI increase will hurt small businesses much more than large ones, but obviously small business owners, unlike CEO of large companies, don't have the mouthpiece of the media.

You're not living in the real world if you think Labour's proposed NI increase would not be very damaging to businesses, and would not cause more job losses. Why doesn't the government save money how businesses save money - i.e. by cutting costs?