the snap general election thread

Yah_Boo_Sux

gfplux wrote: »

Brilliant.
So that's where the money goes....Britain doesn't Have as much.

So found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)
And this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

Using 2016 figures
Numbers are in billion USD. SO A BIT OF FAG PACKET MATHS.

UK GDP 2,649,893. X 34.4% = $911,563 billion
FRANCE GDP 2,488,284 x 47.9% = $1,191,888 billion

You will see FRANCE has a lower GDP but takes much more in Tax.

So BRITAIN has $280,325 billion LESS to spend.

That would be $280,325,000,000,000 LESS.
As this is based on the total tax take Does it mean British people and British business feel well off in comparison to their French neighbours.

Frankly hardly believe these figures. So I am pretty sure someone will be along shortly to put me right.
Thanks.

No, the French do indeed pay comparatively more in taxes. Why else do you think so many are anti-EU? Over 60% of French are opposed to the EU in some form, more even than in the UK.
Well now you know why.

gfplux

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Hello right back at ya gfplux.
But if you're really not trying to be rude, why ignore the official and very recent statistics showing that a huge majority are indeed happy? If not hijack a thread why the response?

Also I live in Britain (not so far from London) & I can tell you definitively that my experiences confirm the statistics. No one I know thinks that either public transport OR roads here are in any way unacceptable.
Perhaps your experiences are different. In Luxembourg I know congestion is a major problem (and yes, I have driven there) yet you are worried about here? 32 hours per year an average Luxembourger spends in traffic jams according to the EU.
Strangely that is exactly the same figure as the UK.
I suggest it may be more appropriate then to worry about your own.


Quite why you're trying to imagine a non-existent problem puzzles me. You yourself could indeed have started a thread if you so wished but chose instead to pointlessly continue.
You are of course entitled to your opinion but ignoring facts as you have does not validate that opinion.
Enough said now, I think.

A link to "the official and very recent statistics" will settle the matter. Thank you.

gfplux

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

No, the French do indeed pay comparatively more in taxes. Why else do you think so many are anti-EU? Over 60% of French are opposed to the EU in some form, more even than in the UK.
Well now you know why.

The British pay much less in tax but 52% (official recent referendum) are opposed to the EU!
How does that compute?

Yah_Boo_Sux

gfplux wrote: »

A link to "the official and very recent statistics" will settle the matter. Thank you.

I am currently on my phone. Google search UK train satisfaction - the latest iteration is from autumn 2016 posted iirc Jan 2017.
Otherwise I
will post when able.

Yah_Boo_Sux

gfplux wrote: »

The British pay much less in tax but 52% (official recent referendum) are opposed to the EU!
How does that compute?

Work it out youself?
France 60 percent against and more in tax.

michaels

gfplux wrote: »

Brilliant.
So that's where the money goes....Britain doesn't Have as much.

So found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)
And this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

Using 2016 figures
Numbers are in billion USD. SO A BIT OF FAG PACKET MATHS.

UK GDP 2,649,893. X 34.4% = $911,563 billion
FRANCE GDP 2,488,284 x 47.9% = $1,191,888 billion

You will see FRANCE has a lower GDP but takes much more in Tax.

So BRITAIN has $280,325 billion LESS to spend.

That would be $280,325,000,000,000 LESS.
As this is based on the total tax take Does it mean British people and British business feel well off in comparison to their French neighbours. They should do.

FRANCE is a good comparison as the population numbers are similar. I have done the numbers in the same way for Germany but could be unfair as Germany has a much larger population than Britain.

Frankly hardly believe these figures. So I am pretty sure someone will be along shortly to put me right.
Thanks.

So for example we could have higher taxes and us them to subsidise train fares and trqin driver wages. Problem is that typically train commuters and train drivers earn more than average and taxpayers less so it will be regresive - and is thus typically a Labour policy aim.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

FRANCE is a good comparison as the population numbers are similar.

Why is London France's largest 7th City? Tax an the cost of employing people being a major consideration perhaps.

GDP comparisons aren't meaningful. If the UK taxed North Sea oil and gas heavily. There would be no production or future exploration. France benefits hugely from overseas tourism more than any other country in the world.

WengerIn

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why is London France's largest 7th City? Tax an the cost of employing people being a major consideration perhaps.

GDP comparisons aren't meaningful. If the UK taxed North Sea oil and gas heavily. There would be no production or future exploration. France benefits hugely from overseas tourism more than any other country in the world.

It isn't. BoJo just pretends it is.

GDP comparisons aren't meaningful because of the exchange rate problem.

BobQ

Moby wrote: »

Neither Abbott or McDonnell will ever be voted leader of the Labour Party. They will fall with Corbyn. Starmer, Cooper, Chukka, Jarvis, David Miliband may come back?

Its possible but if Corbyn loses big time and then refuses to resign we may see the Labour Conference change the rules so that Abbott and McDonnell do become leader or someone else of a similar persuasion. We could even see Corbyn re-elected with a mandate to deal with the "problem" of the Labour right.

After the coming election we may find that the Labour share of the popular vote is below 25% at which point anything could happen.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Given that the membership voted in Corbyn as leader, I'm inclined to the view that they are (collectively) as dumb as bag of rocks, and will pick anybody that promotes the standard pseudo-radical BS about austerity and suchlike.:)

But who knows?

Of course, David Miliband isn't even an MP and can't come back. In fact, I don't even think he lives in the UK anymore. Isn't he in New York, doing his Thunderbirds thing?

I think the bigger question is after the next election why would any of these people want the job? Of the more moderate and sensible possibilities some have left Parliament, some will lose their seats, and those that remain will look at the membership and the remaining shadow cabinet, with Len McC in the wings and ask why should they bother.