the snap general election thread

Spidernick

Herzlos wrote: »

Though I have to say - if we're all getting richer, why is our credit card debt climbing so fast? Is that masking the drop in earnings?

Could this be part of the answer to the apparent discrepancy? Many people these days don't seem willing to live within their means and so rack up a lot of credit. They used to then pay it off by borrowing more on the equity in their house, given that interest rates are so low, but I'm not sure if that's still possible?

I can see both sides of the argument around this to be honest. If you look at the average salary today, my understanding is that this is no higher and possibly lower than it was ten years ago, yet, as Conrad points out, we seem to be spending more on 'luxury' items then ever before.

michaels

Spidernick wrote: »

Could this be part of the answer to the apparent discrepancy? Many people these days don't seem willing to live within their means and so rack up a lot of credit. They used to then pay it off by borrowing more on the equity in their house, given that interest rates are so low, but I'm not sure if that's still possible?

I can see both sides of the argument around this to be honest. If you look at the average salary today, my understanding is that this is no higher and possibly lower than it was ten years ago, yet, as Conrad points out, we seem to be spending more on 'luxury' items then ever before.

No wonder Labour policies are so appealing :rotfl:

Moby

.string. wrote: »

Labour Candidate to voter:
We will give you free groceries backdated to last year
We will introduce a negative tax rate
We will reverse the Tory kitten tax and make camels free on the NHS
We will abolish speeding tickets and hospital parking charges

Voter: That's fantastic! But, er, how will you pay for that?

Labour Candidate:. We will borrow the money

Voter:. But isn't that spending money you don't have?

Labour Candidate: Oh no! We will obtain lots of IOUs from you.;

Tory candidate to voter: Our manifesto gives you no figures, doesn't say anything about income tax or national insurance, says nothing about the brexit plan but I think you should vote for us anyway!

Voter: Why should I trust you?

Tory candidate: Just look at our record.

Voter: You mean the one in which you said you'd reduce immigration ...while it's actually gone up and you'd get rid of the deficit by 2020 and then trashed that target?

Tory Candidate:.....but we'll provide 'strong and stable govmt'!

Voter: Is the U turn on Social Care an example of that? Is the U turn on Nat. Ins. in the last budget another example?

Tory Candidate: Ok ...but remember this vote Labour and you'll get a leader who supports terrorists killing British people?

Voter:...and your evidence of this is?

Tory Candidate: Everyone knows Corbyn talked to Gerry Adams.

Voter: Yes I know but he did it openly....I also know that other politicians did it as well... but did it secretly.

Tory Candidate: Come come my good man how can Jeremy Corbyn possibly be Prime Minister....his face just doesn't fit in the places that matter!

Voter: Times...they are a changing!

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Most public sector workers move up their pay bands each year even within the same job so a 1% pay rise still means they have 4-5% more take home pay each year which means they are not auffering the fall in real incomes that private sector workers are.

The original theory behind that was sound. You promote people with the ability to do a job and pay them less than the going rate for the job on the basis they will move up a scale after they gain the necessary experience to do it well (this is also common in some parts of the private sector) In most cases the scale is limited from a minimum to a maximum. Some progression was based on time served but increasingly it was performance related.

However you are totally wrong about the present situation as the Government ordered all public sector employers to stop using progression pay, although many had done so already due to the pay caps which acted differently on some pay scales from others.

Read it in Osbornes own words below.

http://www.e-reward.co.uk/news/osborne-calls-time-on-automatic-progression-pay-in-public-sector

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Voting Labour is the easiest of all political positions to adopt given the attractive silver bullet appeal of spending and taxing our way to the promised land.

Have you read the annex to the Labour Manifesto spelling out the financial issues? I suspect you will disagree with it but at least comment on the facts.

CKhalvashi

Conrad wrote: »

You've spent months posting on the dangers and doom of Brexit, and yet now all of a sudden, increasing corporate taxes on business that could relocate to low tax Dublin is nothing to worry about?

I doubt it's going to be cheaper to move jobs to Dublin, as office rental rates are (to the best of my knowledge) rapidly increasing. I think the stage we're at now, those businesses that are going to go will go (largely due to need), however that is nothing to do with corporate tax rates.

Incidentally, why do those businesses not move already to either Ireland or Cyprus? Both have large numbers of English speakers and both have much lower corporation taxes.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Have you read the annex to the Labour Manifesto spelling out the financial issues? I suspect you will disagree with it but at least comment on the facts.

With respect their costings don't deserve the time of day. They've deliberately claimed they'll raise tens of billions from tax increases open to widely different interpretation of what they'll generate & that may well actually raise less revenue & other stuff that is plucked out of the air (the usual stuff like "clamping down on tax avoiders"). Other things aren't costed at all.

Let's be serious for a moment. Unless you're a backwards moron (& I don't believe you personally are btw) you don't NEED to scrutinize the figures. Labour are proposing spending hundreds of billions of pounds & claiming it'll have no impact except on the evil richest 5%. A child can see that is total fantasy. It deserves to be laughed at & dismissed like the utter nonsense it is.

If they want to spend hundreds of billions & actually have it costed they'd need a large income tax raise across the board and a ton of extra borrowing. Anybody who tries to tell you different is a liar hoping you're a gullible idiot.

Yah_Boo_Sux

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Incidentally, why do those businesses not move already to either Ireland or Cyprus? Both have large numbers of English speakers and both have much lower corporation taxes.

Just a little research would have given you the answers instead of lazily relying upon others. But anyway, read on.

Ireland?
Well there is a chance, admittedly remote ATM but who knows in the future, that Ireland may no longer wish to be an EU member. Much has been written since the UK's EU referendum & certainly enough to potentially dissuade serious thoughts of moving there.

Cyprus?
Again uncertainty. Of a different type perhaps; the island remains split following the illegal Turkish invasion. As a disputed island it is therefore not an ideal choice.

CKhalvashi

Fella wrote: »

If they want to spend hundreds of billions & actually have it costed they'd need a large income tax raise across the board and a ton of extra borrowing. Anybody who tries to tell you different is a liar hoping you're a gullible idiot.

Yes, lets think about this seriously a minute.

£100bn over the lifetime of a parliament is (ironically and actually very helpfully for my argument) just over £350m a week.

So, it's £1 a day per person in the UK. I'm pretty sure that those earning more than £80k and big businesses would make that up quite easily, and will also pay the EEA membership fees we will have under a Labour-led coalition.

So yes, I think Labours plans are realistic when the numbers are actually broken down on that level.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Incidentally, why do those businesses not move already to either Ireland or Cyprus? Both have large numbers of English speakers and both have much lower corporation taxes.

UK stock exchange listing. Majority of corporations based in Eire are US. Eire provides their European head office and also their route to avoid US federal taxes by keeping the cash off shore. How much longer though. Eire is concerned that (a) the EU Commission is going to rule against their tax arrangements. (b) the UK offers a better place to operate from. Once the tax benefit is removed.

In business terms Cyprus is remote.