Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

.string.

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't believe we want to become a tax haven, funnily enough it was the Tory's chief doom maker Hammond that suggested that.

I thought I would refresh my memory on that. For interest have a look at these two links

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-hammond/britain-may-change-economic-model-if-shut-out-of-eu-single-market-hammond-idUSKBN14Z065?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/15/philip-hammond-suggests-uk-outside-single-market-could-become-tax-haven

It's interesting to see how spin developed, the Guardian providing the spinning wheel. Changing the corporation tax is not exactly transforming the UK into a tax haven but the episode was picked up by the Lib Dems and "Labour" and since then the Tories have been accused of turning the UK into a tax haven: A bit of misdirection, but then par for the course.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

The company. I thought that was obvious?

So the company has to spend shareholders' money to purchase shares to give to its employees thereby resulting in a reduction of shareholder value and a reduction in the share price to the disadvantage of existing shareholders.

Which part don't you get?

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

With something this important and with such a narrow margin I'd be all for a re-run every time it seems we've changed our mind until we get some clear majority.

So when there’s a clear majority we stop do we?
Does democracy stop at that point?

I'm not sure we'll ever see a 66/33 split though unless we leave and rejoin. It's just far too divisive and with too much emotion and misinformation. I'm not even sure we'd get a 60/40.

How bizarre. I distinctly remember you telling us that 52-48 was so close as to be statistically insignificant, so surely we can’t be absolutely statistically significantly certain that people have changed their mind without a nice big fat victory. You’re not suggesting that because you’re not sure you’ll get that big win we should throw your deeply held principles out the window?????

wunferall

In another example of the openness and transparency which demonstrates the EU's dedication to democracy (ha ha ha), the EU have decided to keep MEP's expenses secret.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mep-expenses-details-eu-european-parliament-court-edited-a8553731.html

buglawton

Lornapink wrote: »

So Corbyn wants to take 10% of shares away from shareholders. Most shares are owned by us all via our pensions and ISA's.

Any of you here that has spent years making sacrifice to pay into a pension or equity ISA will thus have 10% of your assets confiscated. Up with the revolution comrades.

Moneysaving?

Well Corbyn may have understood one business principle: Workers with 'skin in the game' may be more motivated and be interested in the long term wellbeing of their employer. Plus, interestingly have a representation on shareholder meeting voting?

Enterprise_1701C

buglawton wrote: »

Well Corbyn may have understood one business principle: Workers with 'skin in the game' may be more motivated and be interested in the long term wellbeing of their employer. Plus, interestingly have a representation on shareholder meeting voting?

Will be a little bit tricky if those companies decide it is better to disappear than to put up with the Labour party's thievery. After all, if they decide to take 10% for the workers, what is to stop them coming back and taking another 10% for something else, until there is nothing left.

As someone else has said, there is plenty of opportunity for anyone interested to buy a stake in the company at an often reduced cost.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

So the company has to spend shareholders' money to purchase shares to give to its employees thereby resulting in a reduction of shareholder value and a reduction in the share price to the disadvantage of existing shareholders.

Which part don't you get?

Oh I get it. The company needs to spend some money to give the workers a stake in the company. On face value that's bad for the company, but the reality is that gives the workers some skin in the game, so to speak. They'll feel more valued, better engaged and like their performance matters. Unless you've got churn anyway then happy invested staff are a good thing.

You could make the same argument about medical, dental,, holiday pay, pay rises, heating, etc.

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

So when there’s a clear majority we stop do we?
Does democracy stop at that point?

How bizarre. I distinctly remember you telling us that 52-48 was so close as to be statistically insignificant, so surely we can’t be absolutely statistically significantly certain that people have changed their mind without a nice big fat victory. You’re not suggesting that because you’re not sure you’ll get that big win we should throw your deeply held principles out the window?????

A clear majority just makes the will changing less likely. When you're within the margin of statistical error we'll flip between remain and leave really easily.

There's nothing contradictory in saying the result was statistically speaking, a draw, and asserting that we're unlikely to get a 60/40 split. It's far from ideal but we're so divided on this issue and there's so much bad information available I'm not sure we'll ever get a clear majority whilst still in the EU.

To be statistically significant here, we'd need to be above about a 53/47. That still leaves a reasonable range to do something without a 60/40.

Once we leave, we'll either do brilliantly or terribly and the effect of that could give us a much bigger majority in one direction.

Thrugelmir

buglawton wrote: »

Well Corbyn may have understood one business principle: Workers with 'skin in the game' may be more motivated and be interested in the long term wellbeing of their employer. Plus, interestingly have a representation on shareholder meeting voting?

Many PLC's already run share schemes. Not so easy for private companies. Would you be happy to give away 10% of your family business that's taken years to build. Companies with 250 employees aren't worth multi million sums neccessarily.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

A clear majority just makes the will changing less likely. When you're within the margin of statistical error we'll flip between remain and leave really easily.

There's nothing contradictory in saying the result was statistically speaking, a draw, and asserting that we're unlikely to get a 60/40 split. It's far from ideal but we're so divided on this issue and there's so much bad information available I'm not sure we'll ever get a clear majority whilst still in the EU.

To be statistically significant here, we'd need to be above about a 53/47. That still leaves a reasonable range to do something without a 60/40.

Once we leave, we'll either do brilliantly or terribly and the effect of that could give us a much bigger majority in one direction.

What I find most amusing is that you don’t know that a margin of error relates to a sample and not the population as a whole.