Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

In my opinion that's another thing to blame the remain campaign for I don't remember hearing anything about it and for something that is very high profile now it las very low profile in run up to vote. Saying that I'm not sure it would have made much difference especially to vote outside NI.

People like me have long given up trying to understand the Irish issue.

Every time I heard commentary, the person interviewed would use it as an excuse to launch into prolonged speeches about past injustices.

Selfishly, I voted in my own personal interests, and accepted that the people of NI would do the same. I could never second guess the votes of others. It's stupid to imagine I could.

Lungboy

I think certain issues, like the Irish border, have only really come to light since the vote and people actually started to think about things in detail.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Sorry, I don't follow this at all.





I don't think he is promising everything to every one, and nor do I think most of it will be particularly expensive to do. I've seen a lot of claims from Tory sources (usually claiming to be ex-Labour voters) about how it'll bankrupt us.



I'm not a big Labour fan either, but I honestly can't see how they could do any worse than the Tories at this stage.

I would have thought that the first point was obvious Labour claim it's fully funded nobody else thinks their plans add up.

He's promising much too much abolishing tuition fees keeping triple lock to name two.

The only thing they are not clear on is brexit and they are pretty much saying you can have your cake and eat it.

kabayiri

Lungboy wrote: »

I think certain issues, like the Irish border, have only really come to light since the vote and people actually started to think about things in detail.

I personally have no doubt that the referendum was a great example of stupidity in politics.

Cameron himself made much political capital out of saying it would be a simple, straight forward, question with 2 clear choices.

It never was. It meant something completely different to a Scots Nationalist (eg) compared with an out of work lad in East England.

These politicians basically winged it, hoping that it would all turn out okay.

masterwilde

I think some people need to learn where the governments really get the bulk of their money from for spending/investing in their respective countries.

Hint: its not from tax.

Herzlos

ben501 wrote: »

Who by, Ms Abbott?:rotfl:


I just had a quick look at the manifesto. Plenty of 'We'll spend billions on this and that', but not much about where these magic money trees will be found.


Perhaps you'd care to elaborate for those of us less proficient at searching the web.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/what-would-labours-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details


What bits of it do you think won't work?


Some of it existed before, and most of it works fine elsewhere. We've got free university education up here and are doing pretty well - better educated people tend to be able to get better jobs and pay more tax. One of the big complaints from Brexiteers seems to be how we're not training our own people and have to rely on importing staff, but are horrified at the idea of funding the training for our own people to solve the problem. Education costs in England are getting so bad I can see a lot of people just not bothering, or going elsewhere to be educated. I honestly doubt I'd have a degree and a higher-rate tax paying job if I had to find £9k a year for university.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So he just gets his own people to lie?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/key-ally-of-jeremy-corbyn-caught-on-video-making-pledge-to-wipe-off-student-debts-a3595646.html

I've no idea who he is or why he got that idea, but are we actually going to start holding party leaders to what their members are saying? Can we start doing that for the Tories?
I'm not defending him and what he said is at odds with Corbyn, but I'm just pointing out the double standard.

And one thing they can never understand is that by taxing the high earners higher they lose that tax because they simply relocate. They do not have to hang around in this country. The lower taxes bring in more money because they stay in this country.

The ones that are likely to relocate because of tax costs have likely already done so. Most of the Labour changes are unrolling tax 'giveaways' from the Tories. The older tax rates didn't drive them off, so why would they do so this time?


There should be a lot more focus on dealing with tax evasion and efficiency savings (like not spending more to deny benefits to the disabled than the benefits would have cost).


Plus, some of us higher earners are happy paying a tiny amount more in tax, if it appears to be being spent properly (I don't mind paying a bit more tax so that we can have an educated population, but I don't want to spend more in tax to pay for duck houses for MPs).

Filo25

Herzlos, the problem I have is that giving free university education is a very different thing to improving training. I would suggest that most people end up doing a degree that has very little direct relevance to what they end up doing in permanent employment.

I for instance did an Economics degree and ended up working in accountancy, now there is a little bt of overlap there, but I could basically have started out training as a chartered accountant quite easily with none of the knowledge I acquired during my degree.

Personally I would actually much rather see us spending the money earmarked for free university education on proper technical education, training, apprenticeships etc, maybe if we did that we wouldn't have quite so many people feeling completely ignored and left behind, sadly we still seem to have an obvious snobbery about university education being the only thing that matters.

With regards to Labour's tax plans they kind of added up in the short term but the pretty impartial and respected IFS did say would eventually be likely raining much lower than expected amounts due to changes in behaviour (predicatably).

From a personal point of view I view the 62% marginal tax+NI rate I am in as ludicrous already, before Labour came along and proposed adding another 5% to it, and I fully expect Labour's next manifesto to be more "radical" than the last, including the abject nonsense about nationalising 10% of all UK listed companies with over 250 employees, which surely must be one of the stupdiest pieces of populist nonsense I have ever heard of.

I don't mind paying a bit more to improve services, I think we do need more investment in health, education, transport, social care, etc, what I do hugely resent is the rhetoric coming out of Labour that somehow anyone who has good earnings is part of the undeserving rich and are apparently the only people who are expected to make that sacrifice, the scandinavian societies that so many social democrats aspire to have everyone paying more tax to provide the services that everyone values so much.

The more you target "the few" the more likely they are to clear off, something which is extremely easy for companies to do, and also the super rich, which will just leave the upper middle and middle paying more than ever.

In any case I am no fan of populist nonsense whether it is right or left or nationalist in nature, offering simple solutions to complex problems, so honestly neither main party has much to offer me at present.

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

These politicians basically winged it, hoping that it would all turn out okay.

and they still are taking that approach even now!

andrewf75

ben501 wrote: »

Who by, Ms Abbott?:rotfl:


I just had a quick look at the manifesto. Plenty of 'We'll spend billions on this and that', but not much about where these magic money trees will be found.


Perhaps you'd care to elaborate for those of us less proficient at searching the web.

The same place the Tories magic money trees are found in.

A lot of the problems in this country seem to be the result of lack of spending rather than overspending. Why are people always obsessed with balancing the books over a few years instead of looking a big longer term? I'm not a Labour supporter, but I just think on the whole we should spend more on health, education, public transport etc. The countries with the best standard of living mostly have higher state spending than us.

Herzlos

Filo25 wrote: »

Herzlos, the problem I have is that giving free university education is a very different thing to improving training. I would suggest that most people end up doing a degree that has very little direct relevance to what they end up doing in permanent employment.

I agree that university shouldn't be the only option and that we should be making a lot more vocational/practical courses available (are those free in England?). But I also don't agree that university education should only be the reserve of the wealthy, or that the current student loan set up actually makes any sense (it costs a lot of money to administer, lots of people have debts written off anyway, and those that pay the graduate tax are already paying more tax, so it'd be more cost effective and less stressful to just make it free in the first place).


I'm not sure I get the 62% +NI marginal tax rate. Is that for those earning £59,999/year and losing all the child tax benefits? I don't agree with how the child tax benefit system works either, but I'm not sure how typical it is. Highest rate now is 45%, and by the time you hit the 40% tax band NI contributions drop to 2%. It's all a bit too complicated, too.


As for the taxing the rich more chases them off, sure it does to an extend, but trickle down economics don't work either - giving a tax break to the rich will normally mean the money is squirreled away somewhere (investment funds, offshore accounts, etc), giving a tax break to the poor almost always means the money gets pushed back into the economy (because they'll spend it).


I think we'd do a lot better as a country if we invested properly in public services. It could actually save us a lot of money in the long run (catching issues whilst cheap to fix, improving mobility/efficiency, losing less working days waiting for treatment and so on). For instance, home carers aren't *that* expensive, but by getting rid of them you push someone from needing a few home visits a day into a care home or hospital ward costing significantly more. On paper it looks like cutting their budget saves money but it just pushes the problem onto a more expensive balance sheet.