Precautions in case of a Labour win

SonOf

Turpinr wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-to-investigate-uk-over-human-rights-abuses-against-disabled-people-caused-by-welfare-reform-10478536.html

Unless I read it wrong and it actually said IDS is a nice cuddly man, he was about to be investigated when he resigned, in tears as I recall.
Boris Johnson and Brexit is my nightmare.
Johnson's been sacked twice for lying from jobs gifted to him by nepotism and Brexit is costing us many millions each.
I'm surprised the hard of spending on this site aren't having kittens on the money that's being wasted
The PM doesn't even know how many children he has

Yes, you have read it wrong.

blue_eyes

cfw1994 wrote: »

No wonder we are seeing the biggest exodus of MPs that I believe has ever occurred (#NoProofFound)

For no other reason than it piqued my interest...
I believe the current tally is >50 so far...
2017- 31
2015 - 90
2010 - 149
sourced from wikipedia

thickasabrick

As far as I can tell the proposed pensions stuff from Labour only kicks in for earnings over £80,000, so of little consequence to the "92% of the population" with annual income less than that. 95% if you use HMRC calculations.

That's looking at this article from 2017 from the IFS.
"Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals"

I can't see how proposed nationalisation will decimate current pension values any worse than the "over £60 billion of state assets sold at a discount" already has. It's a zero sum game, income you may get as an investor in ex state owned utlities gets consumed paying the extra to cover the private investors returns. Example "Privatised water: a system in need of repair?"

I'll treat the "might also cut tax free lump sum entitlement" with the same disdain I treat all sensationalist headline grabbing.

mat5664 wrote: »

If Corbyn becomes PM, there will be serious implications for pensions:
- the Nationalisation program will decimate current pension values as will the plans to 'give' shares to workers.

- Labour will probably eliminate higher rate tax relief within days on coming to power

- They might also cut tax free lump sum entitlement.

Still time to take precautions. If you are over 55 you can take tax free lump sum now without impacting on MPAA. Move funds to a safer place etc.

(I didn't vote in the last election, so this is not a party political message, just based on Labour plans).

zagfles

thickasabrick wrote: »

I'll treat the "might also cut tax free lump sum entitlement" with the same disdain I treat all sensationalist headline grabbing.

Like claims the welfare state will be dismantled, the NHS will be sold the Americans etc...expect loads more like that in this campaign, it won't be pleasant.

As least it'll be over by Christmas. Hopefully

[Deleted User]

I can't see how proposed nationalisation will decimate current pension values any worse than the "over £60 billion of state assets sold at a discount" already has.

1. Labour does not want to pay the full market value. That’s confiscation from pensioners and other owners on a very large scale. Not sure how this can be offset by the fact assets were sold cheaply and boosted pensions in the 80s
2. Large Confiscations cause capital flights followed by capital controls
3. In parallel it would increase national debt and interest payments significantly at the time when investors would be cautious about lending to Britain.
4. Your equation is false. You seem to suggest that “cost of privately run corporations = cost of government run corporations plus profit”. In reality government run companies tend to have higher costs as they have different drivers.

That’s only part of the plan. Labour are also planning to partially confiscate all businesses. That would compound the devastating economic effect in a manner we’ve seen when similar policies have been executed elsewhere (eg Venezuela).

SonOf

The irony of Corbyn is that he is positioning Labour as effectively a remain party but at the same time having nationalisation proposals which are not allowed as a member of the EU.

This is very typical of the recent Labour position of saying things that may be popular but in reality, cannot be delivered.

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

The irony of Corbyn is that he is positioning Labour as effectively a remain party but at the same time having nationalisation proposals which are not allowed as a member of the EU.

This is very typical of the recent Labour position of saying things that may be popular but in reality, cannot be delivered.

Very true, which is why Brexit will take place if Labour gets in.

Ganga

I might have read it wrong and i apologize if so but was Corbyn not promising/hinting at another reforendum on brexit if he/they get in to get the votes of all the remainers.If so what was the point of the 2016 vote.

thickasabrick

I'm sure the state will be able to come to some cosy arrangement between the holders of the debt run up by these ex-state owned companies and the shareholders, particularly if you include pension liabilites.

To quote from this article on proactiveinvestors "BT Group is not the only blue-chip with a debt mountain and pension problems".

"BT itself, of course, was once owned by the state, and for much of its history money was spent on the workers and their pension plans rather than on dividends; much the same applies to utility companies such as Severn Trent PLC (LON:SVT), Pennon Group plc (LON:PNN), National Grid PLC (LON:NG.) and British Gas owner Centrica PLC (LON:CNA), all of which have built up sizeable debts and, in some cases, pension deficits as well."

Although to be quite honest, they don't look like good value for the taxpayer if they were nationalised (not up to date figures but for this example will do).
BT - Market Cap £20.23 billion, net borrowing £15.254 billion, pension deficit 11.3 billion
National Grid - Market Cap: £31.37 billion, net borrowing of £27.5 billion, pension deficit £1.9bn.
Centrica - Market Cap £4.22 billion , net borrrowing of £3.5bn and a pension deficit of £ 0.886 bn

Rail companies ... don't even need to look at the financials, the daily news of commuters being fleeced makes that one an easy politicial win.

Water, already posted the link to Privatised water: a system in need of repair?"

Deleted_User wrote: »

1. Labour does not want to pay the full market value. That’s confiscation from pensioners and other owners on a very large scale. Not sure how this can be offset by the fact assets were sold cheaply and boosted pensions in the 80s
2. Large Confiscations cause capital flights followed by capital controls
3. In parallel it would increase national debt and interest payments significantly at the time when investors would be cautious about lending to Britain.
4. Your equation is false. You seem to suggest that “cost of privately run corporations = cost of government run corporations plus profit”. In reality government run companies tend to have higher costs as they have different drivers.

That’s only part of the plan. Labour are also planning to partially confiscate all businesses. That would compound the devastating economic effect in a manner we’ve seen when similar policies have been executed elsewhere (eg Venezuela).

steampowered

I'm more worried about a Conservative government to be honest.

The pound has already dropped by about 30% under the Conservative government, and they have utterly failed to deliver on promises regarding reducing the national debt.