UKH

Boris Johnson has announce the proposed cut in corporation tax will be put on hold and said,

"Before you storm the stage, let me remind you that this saves £6bn that we can put into the priorities of the British people including the NHS,"

What happened to the  "We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund out NHS instead"

I hope in tonight's TV debate someone asks this question.

Dave

Not sending money to the EU and more to the NHS are still to come.

The two are not incompatible. However, since you're only slagging Boris to a very receptive audience, there doesn't seem any point in developing your argument into another Brexit doomloop.

What was interesting, but I was not surprised to note, was the complete lack of, as Boris puts it, business leaders "storming the stage" at the loss of their upcoming tax break. I literally cannot find a negative comment in the business press or from my circle. It appears that entrepreneurs and investors are much more concerned about removing uncertainty from the economic backdrop and seeing society function smoothly than they are about tax cuts.

Hold up!!!

I thought, according to the Tories mantra, "since we reduced CT, we've received more money into the treasury".

Wasn't it their philosophy that reducing taxes made people pay more! I'm very confused now.

Maybe they believe they're finally on the left hand side of the peak of the Laffer curve...

On the slight tangent of ‘questions you wish someone would ask’, why is Boris getting a comparatively free ride on announcing a policy platform that reverses policies his own party have been rigidly sticking to?

Much as I think Corbyn’s useless at least he can legitimately claim that putting him in government would enable him to change things. The Tories could have put more money in to the NHS and hired more police any time they chose to, they just didn’t want to. 

Probably everyone is working on the assumption that Boris' word is worthless, so the cuts will happen anyway.

Because the tory policies of the last 9 years have been deeply unpopular, and if he is reversing many of them then its a bit churlish to complain. He can also use the "we've listened to the people, and because our unpopular policies have got public finances in order so we can afford it now" defence or "well I wasnt pm then so its not my fault". 

Nine years of a destructive austerity policy and it's churlish to complain? Wow, just wow. Victim blaming personified. 

Boris is a serial liar. His only concern is with his own career. It is not in the least churlish to complain about his overturning of policy to suit his electoral prospects. Apart from anything else there is no certainty that he will hold to this policy, as MG said. 

Ok, further explanation needed. Tory policies are deeply unpopular (on here at least) and for good reason. I'm not saying we cant complain about BJ or his policies, but the defence used for the u turn will be that he is being nice now because we can now afford it (which in reality we cant). Unfortunately there are many who think he is doing a great job.

BJ cares not a jot about anyone but himself; he will quite happily throw Cameron and May under a bus if it progresses his career and power.

Apologies if anyone thought for a picosecond that I support BoJo. I used speech marks to try to indicate that would be the message he would give out.

I suspect this new spendy spendy approach to policy will last approximately until his buddy Dominic tells him he can change it and get those tax cuts done, so he can stop the f*ck business" idiocy and get back to more familiar "f*ck the NHS" ground. i would give it to approx christmas.

I think the problem was with the 'churlish' bit - gave a bit of space for misinterpretation. I didn't think you were victim-blaming - I assumed it was more a case of 'Well he's finally getting something right, let's not complain about that'. Words, eh?

As long as that? 😁

Dither and delay, Bob. Dither and delay. All Corbyn's fault, obviously.

That might well be true, but I thing I heard the mantra trotted out this weekend, so a quick turn around.

I'm sorry I hadn't realised there was still any left to be cut (as in rate already down to 0%)

and how do we know the £6bn will go into the NHS.  We don't.  It'll go into a black hole for someone else to spend; there's never been any direct relationship between the tax (e.g. vehicle excise duty) being spent on what it was designated for (e.g. road safety, pollution control etc).  It makes an argument that you can't possibly argue against becuase you'd then be evil.  Perhaps he should just say "the £6bn is protect our children" and then it would be utterly transparent and there'd be no pretence.

I assume an advisor has decided that the NHS is a vulnerable spot for the Conservatives. It's become the big mantra of labour. This will make the Labour position harder. No party seems to care about the economy at the moment. It's just electioneering. . 

Clarification understood. 

No, please, not again. Do I have to go around this again for the second time this week? The UK government CAN afford to invest. In fact I would go as far as to say that we're very close to the point where the government quite literally can't afford not to invest (be that training, infrastructure, green new deal stuff).

I direct you to an earlier thread: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/election_day_2-712152

TLDR -- money is not scarce, resources are the constraining factor. Stop falling for the household analogy. It is wrong.

Otherwise, good stuff nothing to argue with.

No change of that happening with BJ or JC. Corbyn answer to everything is “ nationalise the railways” and BJ plan is effectively no deal in 2020. 
 

Too bad for dropping the CT cut though. We should be decreasing CT and increase income tax but looks like he’s going to do the exact opposite.

I'm interested you think that. Certainly income tax needs to be raised at all levels if services are to be maintained. But I don't know any businessmen who think 19% is too high in a world where populists are stirring the crowd.

Interesting game. Go through Corbyn's speeches and substitute the word "Jew" for "Few" (or "the wealthy") and see how uncomfortable it makes you feel. This has little to do with his well advertised anti-semitism. It's a very chilling reminder of where his brand of populism can lead.

For balance, you could do the same 3 years ago with the word "immigrant" on the other side of the divide.

Its just a matter of incentives. Businesses are good for the economy, jobs, they produce useful goods and services, etc etc. Slightly higher net incomes for individuals are not as useful.

(I totally appreciate that this would be unpopular)

I totally agree and this is exactly the feeling I get when I listen to Corbyn. Classic politics of demonisation of a group. It’s despicable.
Ho and yes, indeed, the palpable antisemitism as well (which is matched by the tories Xenophonobia and Islamophibia)

At this point I’m resigned to the fact that Tory populism will cause greater immediate harm to people in a much weaker position to defend themselves , so if I lived in England  in a constituency with Lib dems are nowhere, I would probably resign to vote Labour as a marginally less damaging option in the short term. Purely an utilitarian time-buying option.

Living in Scotland (we’ll sort of, I spend half of my time between Scotland and Cyprus these days, my carbon footprint is awful) I’ll vote pointlessly SNP. I don’t really support independence but they are the only grown ups that respect basic human rights and democracy, don’t see any other choice anymore. 

I’m in despair at the state of the country frankly. To be fair I think we are at the end of the road and democratic options to correct things are exhausted.

They are still at it big time I’m afraid. Worse, they are now way beyond simply scaremongering and have already turned to actions.

True, but Trump’s huge corporate tax cut which he had intended to stimulate investment did nothing of the sort. It simply inflated shareholder wealth by facilitating huge share buybacks and accelerating dividends. That his trade war discouraged investment at the same time is only half the story.

As the “Jew” (50% literally and 100% figuratively) that isn’t going to happen for me.

I’m backing independence to give sensible-minded Brits an escape route.

Fair point. However in my view it can only go hand in hand with an income tax increase. As such it would immediately dilute any temptation to artificially increase dividends for a short term payday.

Well it’s 100% figuratively for me as well with the added bonus that I work in finance, which is probably the equivalent of being the Antichrist in Corbyn’s world.
But I guess I’m an immigrant and too many of my friend and family are so could never vote Tory. 

Looks like we are broadly in agreement and both have fairly good selfish reasons for our choices.

I don’t see ever being allowed by the powers at be I’m afraid.

In any case you’ll be more than welcome to live on Skye since you mentioned you have a house there if I recall. It’s actually a pretty decent place to do business !

Yes, it's a wonderful place.

I've not done very well today with the clarity of my posts.......we can indeed afford to invest; as you say we cant afford not to. However, BoJo's election promises are not for the most part investments but mere spending promises. We should as a nation be investing in our transport, utility and education, not vanity projects and tax cuts.

I still dont believe many of them will hapeen; the fact BoJo has promised them makes them unlikely to happen.

Why the f*ck would you do that?

In some circles you'd be accused of anti-Semitism for that.

I think you misunderstood, what he points out is that Corbyn has this rather troubling tendency to castigate a group of people (which he calls “the few, a sufficiently loose definition to include anybody a bit too annoying) as “the enemy of the people” a well trodden tactic of totalitarian regimes.

When you start down this road it’s only a matter of time before you start down the path of China, where you get to be “disappeared” as soon as you get a bit too rich or too inconvenient.

Mind you the tories have been doing exactly the same with “foreigners” and “citizens of nowhere”, worse they are actually acting on their threats with what can only be described as a system of systematic persecution and looks more and more like a system of apartheid.

I frankly fail to see the difference between Corbyn and Boris, different side of the same coin.

The fact you've completely misunderstood me underlines how blind you are to the dangers of Corbyn's (and other's) populist stance. At the risk of going full Godwin, just do as I suggest and ask yourself which historical figure his speeches remind you of.

I didn't misunderstand you, I knew what you meant.

But by the same token you know what he means, it's not about a particular race, religion, ethnic group, colour, downtrodden group, it's about those in power Your "adaption" points directly at a specific religion, and while RtB's comment seeks to blame the Tories equally, I'd say you're both missing the point, this "Few" aren't some underdog sector of society, they are the leaders, the media controllers, the mega-rich, with influence. Your comparison is way off the mark and very disingenuous, and not far of being offensive.

What BnB wrote didn't offend me (100% literal) at all. It immediately reminded me of one of the simple ways of seeing whether something was anti-semitic; change all the occurrences of "jew" to "black" and see if it sounded/felt racist.

I was actually more worried by your use of "I'd say you're both missing the point, this "Few" aren't some underdog sector of society, they are the leaders, the media controllers, the mega-rich, with influence."

Sounds a bit too familiar to me.

It’s not about religion, it’s about the politics of hate. Whether it’s directed at “the rich”, “foreigners”, “communists”, “Jews”, or “the working class” it’s all the same bullshit and we know how it ends.

it’s perfectly acceptable to want to curb the influence of some mega rich. However this has to be done within the respect of human rights. It cannot be a witch hunt.

Nothing Johnson proposes removes uncertainty, it just traps us in this no man's land between what we had which we're smashing up and what might be in some years time.

Personally I'd read the indifference differently. People understand what he needs to say to win an election where he needs lots of working class support and what the Conservative party will be minded to do in reality wrt tax are unlikely to be one and the same thing. Being a shameless liar has upsides and downsides, people will project what they want to believe onto him.

jk

I think it can be, if you are hunting actual witches... Which is to say, there is a difference between vilifying an innocent group and calling out a guilty group. What's been said above about swapping words to be replaced by "Jew" is about as sensible as saying you are uncomfortable with some of Churchhill's speeches because when you replaced the word "Nazi" with "Jew" is sounds terrible!

I’ve not read any of JC’s speeches but I’d be surprised if he is saying we need not respect the human rights of “the few” he’s on about.

Cool , sorry for getting radgy. Agree with all of that

I didn't say it did. I simply relayed what (I believe) business leaders are looking for.

I didn't make a comparison. I asked you to do so. And since you are (almost) offended by what you saw in your mind's eye, it's doubly shocking that you defend it.

Corbyn and Farage are peas from the same pod. They both purvey the politics of hate. And you are going to vote for this bile while pretending to be offended by a reasoned argument.

Then I invite you to do so before you criticise my suggestion. It's enlightening.

Well I don’t think being rich makes you systematically guilty of anything.

I’m comfortable with asking the rich to pay more tax, I’m comfortable with going after tax evaders, I’m comfortable with having strict rules as to how they can use their wealth to influence politics. On many of these issue I’m often on the left leaning side.

What I am not comfortable with is saying we’re going to use the full force of the state to screw with their lives indiscriminately for political gain.

Their slogan says it all « for the many, not the few »

Well sorry, I also care about the few. I want a government that works in the common interest of everybody, and gets everybody working together, not matter their race, origin, religion, or their bank account balance. We should be aligning the interests of the rich with the interests of the poor, instead of opposing them to each other’s.

Do you have any favorites you could recommend?

Then I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. No worries, I'm probably too dim or jaded on this occasion, likely both.

jk

Agreed.

Likewise.

Likewise.

Sounds great but I'm not entirely convinced either side is going to achieve that goal so in the absence of perfection, on balance, I'd rather go with "the many" rather than "the few".

I’m not shooting for perfection, I’m shouting for boring liberal democracy like we had and many countries still have.

So you have to ditch both side. Unfortunately I appreciate that we’re stuck with FPTP so this may not be possible.

I don’t really have a solution to suggest I’m afraid, appart from expatriation.

I wouldn't of expected you to be offended, I was merely pointing out that some people might be offended, it doesn't mean it's offensive to everyone.

It might sound familiar, but how else do you talk about a small number of people who have massive influence in our political and social lives?

Are we not to talk about them, because they're a small group? The Tory party are getting donations by the million, what do these people want in return?

This seems to be a very touchy subject and one where the media have really expounded the plight of billionaires, and yet there are thousands of people using food banks on a regular basis, they should be getting het up about those people a little more, in my opinion.

Worry about those many, and stop bending the rules to make sure the few get a smooth ride. Check out Russian money laundering in London, and tell me that's all fine, simply because they're rich.

Really?

Ignoring your whataboutery regarding Russian citizens, one of the real problems with Corbyn's "few" is its fungible nature. He can rail against billionaires and claim that his manifesto only touches them, but an informed observer can calculate the personal cost of this wholesale attack on the middle class, on lifelong savers, on pensions. Meanwhile the attacks on business will cost jobs, they will raise prices, they will destroy investment. All of a sudden, it is the "many" who find themselves paying for this folly in higher prices, job cuts and confiscated savings.

This would be my concern with the financial side of the Labour plans. It's all very well for Corbyn to make out that it's all the super-mega rich who are going to pay for all this, but they are also the group best positioned to dodge whatever changes he brings in by relocating themselves or their assets or by tying everything up in legal process.

So what happens then? His sights have to drift downwards, don't they. And let's not forget by his own admission they're going to need a *lot* of cash for these plans.

And meanwhile in Germany they have 150 billionaires as compared with 97 in the UK. As we want to be like Germany according to what was said yesterday how do we attract /grow more billionaires?

Clearly they are handy for paying tax  and propserity.

?? Per capita thats pretty similar ??

True...fair point

My point is that the drift-down to the “many” is explicit in the manifesto. It’s in the changes to CGT which will hit all long-term savers without exception. It’s in the impact on prices of confiscating business profits. It’s in the job losses that will follow the frightening away of investment.

There no need to wait to find out that 5% of the population (are 5% of us really billionaires?) won’t cover half Corbyn’s madness. The “many” will feel their own pain immediately. 

....and where do the profits go? The wealthy. Some of which can (and do) avoid tax.  Money in the pockets of the less well-off invariably get spent in the economy, thus improving it more than it would in the pockets of the the wealthy.

Well all depend on who owns the shares. 

Easily the biggest owners are pension funds. 

These range from the self employed , to local authority pension schemes .

The amount of money available from these outweighs anything that individuals own.its huge 

A big driver in a successful economy. 

Even pension funds use hedge funds for example. 

I’ve said we should also increase income tax as we do that.

On all incomes. And ideally, all incomes should treated the same. You make money you pay the same tax as everybody else no matter how you earned it. Arguments about double taxation fall as  CT falls and there are less reasons to have lower rates in dividends.

Moreover, it is a mistake to think that Corporation tax is primarily a tax on the owners. It is also indirectly a tax on the employees. There is a strong relationship between levels of CT and wages.

As for tax avoidance, if you do that then it pretty much renders useless most of the ways people and companies avoid tax. Corporate tax optimisation/avoidance/evasion would  become bad value for money, and it’s much harder for owners to avoid income tax themselves. As it would then be their responsibility being is engaged.

You are quite wrong on this. In the U.K. anyway, they are not even in the top 5, holding barely 3% of U.K. shares by value.

The biggest owners by far are foreign investors (more than half, mostly Europeans and Americans). Second come individual investors.

The 5% are the ones in the region of 80 to 85K region, and above.
I need to watch the loon on Question Time last night again.

We're virtually numb already!

Are you talking about FTSE or what?

Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is estimated to own 1-2% of all shares globally. But I don't know what their stake in UK markets is. They've exited most oil and gas related funds as they considered it a bit like investing in a market they were already heavily involved in and wished to maintain some diversity. 

I'm sure the ratios of investors will vary between pension funds, private, foreign..  across the 100, 250, aim... etc. 

All quoted shares of all companies incorporated in the U.K.

Let’s not overdramatise either, Labour plans would just make the U.K. look a bit closer to France. More state directed, more unemployment, higher taxes but also better benefits / protections. Not exactly a disaster. A Brexit cancellation would also be likely to offset things by quite a margin.

The disaster is more likely to come from the psychological  effect of Corbyn on investors and businesses than from the implementation of his policies.

Top 5% is one in 20.  
 

Those people are not distributed across the country evenly. 
 

£80k PA in Cornwall will buy you a house every 5 years. 
£80k PA in London won’t even get you a flat over 25 years. 
 

A single person on £80k is rich. A single earner supporting a household of 4 may be ‘richer’ than a lot of people but depending on where they live, won’t be living life as a millionaire. 
 

They’re not distributed evenly across ages and careers. Someone who is 60 years old should be earning somewhere in the region of £60k+. A graduate maybe £20k. The 60 year old will also have been earning for many many years and saved.

Its a blunt tool, it’s pointing the finger, and it’s not solving the problem. 

Last time I looked Labour policy was to tax the rich (the “few”), not exterminate them. 

Describing this as the “politics of hate” is just silly.

It's never official policy.

You missed one point. The senior Labour politician or union leader earning £100k+, perhaps a pension or two, living in their million pound house in London which is already paid off etc.. has nothing to worry if they suddenly lose 5 or 10% more of their salary. It's a policy that will hit those from 35 to 55 yrs most.

So what are the different % 

The  tax rate across the whole working population is higher. 

What labour are doing is saying you can have all this and it will not affect your tax to  the other 95%. 

That is disingenuous 

it’s the big issue that I have with the manifesto. 

A cheap trick or gamble. Alienate 5% and hope enough of the other 95% vote for you. 

For a median salary take home pay is higher in France than in UK. There is more “employer NI” equivalent though. Who actually pays it in the end is not clear. I overall it comes down to broadly the same.

I agree. Personally I wound want to see higher income taxes and lower taxes on businesss, combined with lower public spending, except for the weakest (reverse benefit cuts, which is actually cheap)

So basically no party is proposing that. It wound he electoral suicide but that’s what would be needed really. We need high surpluses and debt reduction. Blood sweat and tears for 20/30 years and then maybe we don’t leave future generations completely screwed.

• Rest of the world 53.9
• Individuals 12.3
• Unit trusts 9.5
• Other financial institutions 8.1
• Insurance companies 4.9
• Pension funds 3.0
• PNFC 2.2
• Investment trusts 2.1
• Banks 1.8
• Public sector 1.1
• Charities church etc 1.0

I was looking at pensions in the broadest aspect not just pension funds. People use unit trusts for example as part of their pension portfolio.

Are you telling me that taxing people who earn more that £80K, is against their human rights?

We already have tax bands, are we already impinging on people human rights?

As I’ve said before, I’ve got no problem with higher income taxes in fact I’m in favour of it.

Me too, but where does human rights come into it?

Yes your right, Corbyn who's fought for the rights of people and against war all of his life, is preaching the politics of hate. Where do you get your information form?

Let's start with the chief Rabbi, shall we?

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50552068

Theyre really not doing themselves any favours. 
 

From their manifesto. “A labour government would immediate recognise the state of Palestine”. Buried in with a lot of words about creating a peaceful Middle East. 
 

I’m not surprised Jewish people are worried. 

Sounds like rhetoric to me.  However, I think there is a serious point that demonising anyone earning 80k plus, which Labour are implicitly doing, isn't helpful.  Marginal tax rates at £100k+ are already high at 60%, which tends to get forgotten too.

Why should this be such a f*cking worry? Why does supporting Palestine instantly bring out accusations of anti-Semitism. FFS!!! read the IHRA guidelines

I'm a regular critic of how Labour antisemitism has been dealt with in the party and I think the nature of the chief Rabbi's intervention is very unfortunate. The tories have had a much bigger problem with racism (mostly Islamophobia but including the odd anti-semite) and have done less than Labour to fix it. Labour MPs and prospective MPs have a hugely better record than their conservative equivalents on racism. Some Labour MPs have been amongst the strongest campaigners against antisemitism in the UK and strong critics of their own party response to antisemitism. Hence, to intervene in an election in this way should have been done equally for the two main parties as a minimum and should not 'tar' all Labour 'with the same brush'. I have no issue with him criticising JC and the problems in the party (in fact he would arguably be failing in his duty not to do this) but the partiality of what he said is very dangerous terrain for a religious leader. Even on the leadership front Boris has been way more guilty of racism and dog whistle politics than JC.

He's a big fan of the Tories though too, so not exactly impartial.

I think this is a big mistake and might very well backfire on British Jews, besides stoking up an atmosphere of fear within the Jewish community.

I'd like him to produce some evidence for his claims too.

And for a little more balanced view

https://www.facebook.com/Jews4Corbyn/photos/rpp.190492825076961/35622721183...

And I haven't had time to read this but it might be worth a read.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/is-jeremy-corbyn-really-anti-semitic/...

The Chief Rabbi seems pretty blasé about talking for everyone, as if all Jews think alike!

Why don't these Jewish people get their voices heard?

Jews4Corbyn are at least as biased as the rabbi.

I think it says that on the tin.

Are you suggesting though they would tolerate AS in favour of Corbyn? I doubt it.

He could always call himself, Chief Rabbi Conservative Voter