UKH

Seems like there are two big choices to make in the Election. But who do you believe?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50572454

This following slap-down of Labour's ludicrous claims today about the NHS suggests that Brexit vs NHS isn't the choice before voters. And that Corbyn is as big a fibber as Johnson.

See also "no tax rises for those earning under £80k" (unless you a person living in the UK who is a) married, or b) has a pension, c) has savings d) owns a house e) is dying)

Here's the FT on the NHS sell-out claims in a 451 page "expose" https://on.ft.com/33pOOS2

To summarise - "out of the 451 pages there only seem to be a few relevant paragraphs.

• On page 41 it says that the US is not keen on warning labels on food.

• On page 43 it repeats the US desire to improve the “media narrative” on chlorine-washed chicken.

• On page 119 there are some words hinting at the US desire for longer drug patents. That’s pretty much it."

When asked by the BBC whether Labour had any proof that ministers had actually offered NHS access as part of a trade deal, the answer came back "No".

None of them, they are all prepared to lie to get into power. Some are worse than others however.

It's ludicrous because it's not a choice between one OR the other outcome: one party will probably give us disastrous Brexit AND underfunded NHS, whereas the other may get us out of Brexit AND provide better funding for the NHS.

... or, alternatively, because the choice is presented as between two positives, whereas the positives of any kind of Brexit remain resolutely thin on the ground, to the point of being illusory.

Yes, thin on the ground, and capable of fooling people whilst it's in the distance - a mirage is a good metaphor.

Your slap down may suggest that NHS sell off isn't a choice, and maybe labour should move off that mantra, but that's not the only NHS issue.

Underfunding, either of the NHS or social care, means the number of people waiting for treatment has doubled again. It was 4m in 1997, labour got it down to 2m, now we're back at 4m. Add in the lack of home grown nurses and doctors, shortage of GPs, huge A&E waiting times. There are plenty of other choices for the voters

Does that first party begin with T?

Nothing ludicrous about them.  It's stated US policy to push up drug prices and get access for US industries like healthcare and use trade deals as a lever to do it.  This is part of the price of moving from the EU to US sphere of influence.

That's if we get a trade deal at all.  Trump could well get impeached or lose next US election and if that happens the Democrats are not going to be at all friendly towards Trump supporting Tories like Boris.  We could well be back at the stated Obama position of the UK joins the queue for trade negotiator time after a more comprehensive deal with the EU is concluded.

I agree with much of what you say. The "evidence" presented by Labour that I have seen that BJ is about to sell the NHS to Donald Trump seems to consist of statements of the bleeding obvious and nothing of any substance (if anyone has any damning evidence then perhaps they can publish it). At the same time it is true that the NHS is under resourced and the Tories aren't going to do much about it.

Love this thread. Everyone ranting about selling of the nhs(poor distraction technique), because they are completely unable to challenge BnBs claim Labour will be putting up taxes for everyone; rich, poor, young, old... Everyone will pay more. There is no escape, if you plan to spend billions it has to come from somewhere. You'd think with trillions of nations debt, voters would have learnt something by now. 

No problems here re paying more tax (and I earn just marginally above minimum wage!) the public sector is in crisis! Schools, hospitals, prisons etc etc. I would though, like some reassurance that Labour aren't going to go completely crazy, a moderate approach would be welcomed here. 

A sensible approach;

Stick 1-2% on the base rate every year, for 5 years. Fund public services directly with the increased revenue. Allow people to learn or correlate that what they pay improves them. 1% isn't much so any improvement in services will be slow. There are 30 years of progressively lowering taxes to catch up on. 

You’re not wrong. Tax will rise for everyone under Labour’s plans. And prices and competition for jobs, for that matter.

But I want to make clear that this isn’t the point I was making in my earlier reply. It was that Corbyn is as big a fibber as Boris. This whole “expose” is a ruse to cover up Andrew Neil’s exposure of a) Corbyn’s lies on the breadth of his tax effects and b) the weakness of his defence against charges of anti-semitism.

Does the environment not count as a big choice then? I would have thought it's far and away the biggest of the lot, myself.

Especially as Tory Austerity over 10 years has caused this, or should we gloss over that in much the same way that the Tory Party/voters are doing quite well at sweeping their own racism under the carpet?

Come on now. Corbyn is not the saint the fan club make him out to be but he’s a universe apart from Boris. 

That’s like saying Scafell Pike is as big a mountain as Everest. 

Not really, unless you have a magic plan where we can live and walk to a place of work that will financially support a family and make provisions for old age?

Or we could all move to London and have the rest of the country as a huge allotment?

Breaking news: Over the 451 pages of Labour's "dossier", the acronym "NHS" appears a total of 4 times. That's at least once every 125 pages. This "dossier" proves the absolute opposite of what Corbyn is claiming.

"They show the US is interested in discussing drug pricing - mainly, extending patents that stop cheaper generic medicines being used." 

"The US currently pays two and a half times more for drugs than the NHS does."

Absolutely no risk whatsoever of big pharmaceutical companies trying to hike prices then... 

"The documents make reference to the US wanting "total market access" as a starting point for trade talks generally - only excluding areas that are specifically placed on a so-called negative list."

What was it Trump said - "nothing is off the table". 

BBC quotes. 

But it's not the honest and open politics that he claims either. I hope he's able to find a seat on any trains he uses, as he travels around electioneering. 

Are you really implying that you need me to demonstrate that Boris is a bigger (as in, more frequent, of larger magnitude and consequence and more patronisingly transparent) liar than Corbyn? Really?

I agree with most of the FT analysis but the elephant in the room is those 'small items' matter to the US, who are the biggest single importer in the world. If Boris wants an easy trade deal such compromises will be on the table. As such Boris is lying one way (such a deal will take years) or the other (the NHS will be part of the deal) and Labour are right to point this out. Worse in terms of Boris lies... he knows  US compromises for a US deal are incompatible with those needed for an EU deal.

According to an article I have just seen on LBC:

 Corbyn says he has found proof that the NHS will be part of trade talks between the UK and US after Brexit. But the man who originally got hold of the document said there's even worse

Nick Dearden is the Director of Global Justice Now, who received the papers after putting in a Freedom of Information request.

The government originally refused to give any details, before sending a heavily-redacted version of the 451-page document. A whistleblower then sent the full version to both Global Justice Now and the Labour Party.

Nick pointed out a line in the document saying that the phrase NHS shouldn't be used because they recognise that it would cause controversy. He said: "Part of the reason the NHS is only mentioned four times is that we have told people not to use the phrase very much."

Do you think UKC needs convincing of Boris’ mendacity? I’m just providing an appropriate counterpoint. Your comment is as revealing as it is astute. Boris lies nakedly and without shame while Corbyn lies from behind a cloak of virtue.

Global Justice Now’s mission statement is “to campaign for a world whose resources are controlled by the many, not the few”. Does that perhaps suggest a suspiciously close relationship with Corbyn?

If you want someone to defend Corbyn’s saintly image then you’re barking up the wrong tree. There are degrees of malice and deceitfulness though, even as someone who doesn’t think much of Corbyn I recognise that. 

Maybe. According to wikipedia the organisation has existed since 1970 though, so they’re playing the long game if they’re momentum stooges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Justice_Now

I would say that the fact that it isn’t mentioned much shows the opposite.

If Boris claims NHS is completely off the table, then surely this should have been highlighted in the negotiation report.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out before, if we want to get something from the US in a trade deal, we have to give something in exchange.

The lack of transparency and accountability  is shocking.
The government should set out a clear strategy of what it wants from a trade deal with the US and what we are prepared to give, and get a democratic mandate for it,  instead of conducting these thing in smoke-filled rooms with closed doors.

Worse at lying or worse at getting caught out whilst lying?

There are various "plans": both personal initiatives and government actions. There's no point my listing them here, they're pretty well-known, none of them provide a total solution but they have a cumulative effect. They're not mysterious, they're pretty straightforward and pragmatic. Unfortunately, they involve various sacrifices and lifestyle changes which many people seem unwilling to make - they find it far easier to pour cold water on others' efforts, pronounce them impractical or "magic" or whatever.

If the global temperature rises by 3 degrees or more, we're f*cked. The prioritizing of the NHS vs Brexit with the voting in one small country will be irrelevant. Governments have to set ecology  and the climate right at the top of their priorities now, with everything else far below. Anything else is insanity.

I thought you were all for that, after all you've been making the case for it for years? But, but erm, er, Corbyn!

jk

"Which is more important Brexit or NHS?"

One is a lengthy, persistent and debilitating illness brought about by needless self-harm, and the other makes us well again. I choose the latter.

I am. But it's better politicians just said we can fund x and y better, but it will cost x% on the base rate. 

Open and honest politics?

Labour are lying by saying 95% won't pay more when they clearly will. Plus if you tax it up front on income it makes the tax system so much easier to administer.  

Ok, I'll bite.

As far as I am aware, Labour have only proposed increasing the tax rate for earners over 80k per year and also proposed unitary taxation of corporations. Also increasing corporation tax back to 20% (is that correct?)

Now we can argue until we're sick to the back teeth over whether *we think* these tax takes would "cover the cost" of improved public services but it's a sham argument and one I'm not really interested in.

Ok, here we go again. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OPERATE LIKE A HOUSEHOLD.

Government spend creates money.

The [UK] government does not have to tax or borrow to do this. (Because it is a sovereign government spending in its own sovereign, fiat currency)

The limiting resource on government activity is resources, not money.

Tax removes money from the economy rather than setting the budget (although if you look at the whole spend/tax thing as a dynamic equilibrium then of course the more you tax, the more you can spend without risking significant currency inflation - more on that in a second)

Government borrowing is probably actually a good idea right now. Interest rates are sub economic inflation rate and it gives private entities a safe place to keep their money (government underwrites value of the deposits -- safe, for now). But this doesn't mean that it has to borrow.

So, back to the tax thing. If money is spent on improving public services, for instance by hiring more nurses and policemen, the government gives these public servants (for want of a better word) money. These public servants are then immediately taxed on their earnings, so already a good chunk (at least 32%, IT + NICS) of the government spend is cancelled. They then spend some of their money into the economy. Each time this happens, tax is paid. The remaining money becomes someone else's income, which is taxed when it's earned, and then they spend their income, which is taxed, and so on and so on. The final outlay is not that large, and if I remember correctly, most public sector stuff actually has a multiplier of >1 (health service spend had a multiplier of 3 or 4 last time I checked) so more tax is eventually returned than was spent in the first place.

Obviously, money spent on infrastructure won't be returned in a similar fashion, but in that case an asset is literally being purchased. Which is usually considered a good thing.

Now, just before anybody starts shouting Weimar! Zimbabwe! Venezuela! I'm not advocating infinite spend. It has to be carefully considered, but Labours plans for investment in public services and a Green New Deal seem like good ideas to me (not to mention urgently needed).

I *personally* don't think that such spend will result in significant inflation, certainly not in the near future.

And just to reiterate: not advocating infinite spend. Resources are real constraint, not money.

And another: so why do we have to tax large corporations? Because tax does other things like redistribute wealth, moderate behaviours etc. We still need tax, it's just that the tax take doesn't place an absolute limit on government spend.

[As an aside, I'm not usually a Labour voter and I'm on the fence about the broadband idea. The plan to forcibly seize 20% of all companies >250 people was f*cking stupid, but I think that's been dropped(?). I would even argue for not forcibly renationalising the train companies etc, just regulating them much more. Chances are, if little profit is to be gained it'll be returned to public ownership soon enough, but that's another conversation.]

That the country hasn't collapsed because of it? 

What difference will a couple of hundred bn make, particularly if it's spent on socially positive activities? Probably not much. You might even get a government surplus as everybody gets a bit more money and therefore spends a bit more.

Also, in before the usual "ridiculous", "absolute rubbish" etc.

I despair. 

If all you had to do was borrow and spend then Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Cyprus etc would have the best economies in the world. 

Name one country in the world that is successful fulfilling what Corbyn promises long term whilst only taxing the top 5%?

Worth chewing on that quote 'every country gets the government it deserves '. If Brexit vs. The NHS is the limit of debate don't expect a great result, especially when mixed in with generally poor sources of information,  education 

No one.

The married thing is not relevant for me because we both work.  Its £250 max if one of the couple is below the tax allowance and the other earns enough to use up some of their partners allowance.  It's a fairly specific thing and not applicable to the majority of couples.  A fairly rough estimate is that about 10% of married couples would be losing this. 

It wouldn't be very 'Labour' to fixate on raising revenue from income tax would it. 

Yes, they are being misleading and the not pricing in the big WASPI hit looks amateurish rather than dishonest which would frankly be a better look. That said, I don't see that removing 'nudge' tax perks makes the system harder to administer but then nor can I be arsed getting into the detail of this with you. Labour should be doing better.

Remind me what Johnson's brexit gets me, I presume you're still cheering for that particular shitshow?

Jk

Is he f*ck!

Sumo, is a bigger troll than me.

Perhaps the UK needs better than amateurish just now?

Never have. Never will. I'll vote lib Dem(again), the only party in the last 30 years that has advocated putting up income tax to spend on public services. 

You know this is a disingenuous argument as you've tried it before .

All of those countries use the Euro which means that none of them use a sovereign currency.

To use a UK analogy, it would be similar to saying "well how come Northamptonshire managed to go bankrupt"

Answer - all of the these administrations don't control the supply of money they use to do things.

I can't, but that's because Corbyn isn't proposing only taxing the top 5%. The Labour proposal is to increase the tax rate for the top 5%. But I'm sure you knew that anyway

Trololololol lololol lololol  youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY&

Yes; but-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/27/us-trade-deal-nhs-inv...

You think? After what you credulous wallys have done to it I sure as hell do! Still, we'll just have to make do with what we've got, see if anything is salvageable after the brexit bin fire burns out. 

Never supported brexit? If you say so. I guess as it all turns to shit this is how it'll be now, forever as it always was, someone else's fault. 

Jk

Not true. Otherwise they wouldn't be mired in the debt they have. They borrowed and over spent. 

Incompetent management, over spending. There are similarities. 

Are you suggesting Corbyn"s plan is completely untested globally? There are many countries with better services than the uk, but they all have a common theme, vastly higher tax rates and lower thresholds. There is no free lunch, even in the unite canteen, somebody has to eventually pay. 

Agreed, but if we let Johnson and his cronies in, (along with the religiously far-right DUP !) then they'll screw both us and the environment to get big fat bank accounts for themselves, and won't give a damn whether their grandchildren live in a world that currently only belongs to sci-fi films.

At least we are virtually all agreed that if Corbyn gets in, then he will have to make some sort of peace with the SNP, LibDems and Greens - which will eliminate most (if not all) of his more extreme plans.

There's no if, this couldn't be any bleaker https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/27/key-findin...

Even if my wildest dreams are realised and Johnson somehow only wins with a minority the DUP won't go near this now unless Johnson flip flops again on the border and all that entails but having lost/purged his moderate MPs he can't.

jk

My only "if" was about letting Johnson in.

As for the environment/climate, I'd much rather trust it to a Labour government which had the Greens and LibDems propping it up than I would a Tory one - either with or without their religious extremist allies.

Essentially what you are saying is that the money the government spends it gets back (in some cases 3x over). 
This only happens if tax is paid on all the money that is spent. 
I’d argue that a large %age of what people are spending their money on is servicing debt. Be that consumer or mortgage repayments. 
How does that go back to the government?

Or buying goods online where every person in the goods chain have their wages topped up by tax credits and the company hqs itself in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, or Guernsey etc.. and the UK sees practically no tax revenue at all. The product itself might be assembled in Europe if you are lucky, the components will almost certainly be made elsewhere. 

I think you misread what I wrote. I said that they are mired in debt because they do not use their own sovereign currency. Because of this, they have to borrow from the ECB if they want to spend more than they collect in tax and they have much tighter restrictions on their spending because they can't just run a central bank overdraft like the UK can.

Of course there are similarities. That's what I was saying. Although certainly in the case of Northamptonshire I would be looking at budget cuts from central government first rather than starting with incompetent management.

No, I am not claiming that. How did you jump from my response to "Corbyn's plan is completely untested globally"?

I will give some ground on this, but I think it's more nuanced than you make out:

The UK levies relatively low income tax on middle and high earners for a European country. More so for middle earners.

However, if you consider just employee income tax and employee social security contributions, the difference in total income tax paid per employee between the UK and rest of EU reduces significantly. German employees - I choose Germany as it is known as a high tax country - pay "only" about 10% more income tax than a UK tax payer (for an equivalent wage of £28000). A large proportion of the increase in income tax comes from employer contributions.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14258

2 points from this:

- I think the claim of vastly higher tax rates is a little misleading, as the difference in employee income tax rate is reduced if employer contributions are not considered.

- This suggests to me that maybe employers should be paying higher ssc contributions in the UK. I know that's still taxing an entity, and could be a problem for small/medium enterprises. In that case, it might be worth looking at subsidies for SMEs to cover such issues.

So, ok, I guess fundamentally I agree with your statement "there is no free lunch". But as a physicist I kind of have to.

However, I do not agree with what I have inferred from the rest of your arguments (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that increased government spend must be paid for by all taxpayers.

To re-iterate. And this is UK specific for reasons I stated in earlier posts.

If government increases money supply in the economy by spending (or borrowing if it would rather), there will automatically be increased tax revenue.

Also, because government spends in £ sterling, and also controls the creation of £ sterling, the tax collected in year x-1 does not pre-set the limit for government expenditure in year x (and borrowing is not necessarily required to meet it either). The government can spend as much as it wants, where it wants. I'm not saying infinite spend is a good idea -- it most certainly is not -- I'm just outlining real constraints.

If government expenditure increases and then looks to be causing too much inflation, whatever that value may be - 7%? I don't know - then tax rates must be increased to damp the economy. But a necessary increase of income tax rates with increased spend on public services in the UK is not a certainty, particularly as the UK is suffering from underemployment at the moment -- ie we're far from full productivity. 

Of course, there are other taxes to look at as well, but we mustn't scare business away .

So maybe it's just that there is insufficient investment in public services here when compared with elsewhere, rather than to do with tax take.

Finally (sorry for long post) FWIW, I for one would not mind paying a few more % on my income tax for improved public services. However, I don't believe that the current shower (who may or may not be gone shortly) would improve services even if they did increase income tax.

Good question. My instinct, is that when a private loan is serviced, that money is used to cancel the corresponding liability on the  lender's ledger.

(A quick search makes me feel that I'm barking up the right tree, but feel free to correct me if I'm way out)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/10/31/how-bank-lending-rea...

Lender's make their profits off of the interest paid, so whilst the bulk of the money paid gets "destroyed" when it cancels the liability, an amount is left over which is kept as profit by the lender. That amount can then get taxed and returned to the government.

Value is retained in the commodity (or service) the loan was used to pay for originally.

Like I said, this feels correct, but I'm willing to be corrected.

So you are penalising big employers with your idea of them paying more for employing people?

I can can guess that would lead to them cutting costs and reducing their headcount.

its not really a reasonable and practical policy.  And also where do you put the NHS , are they exempt or included?what about councils who are big employers. Does that mean a rise in rates or tax to pay for this cost?

An extra £2800 in tax for middle earners is one hell of a cost. It is not politically viable.

You purchase the majority of your shopping online and from abroad online? I doubt that.

I'm going to guess that the backlash is because I implicitly said that all government spend goes back to the government. You could argue that it does eventually, but I won't.

I was just trying to point out that the seemingly huge amounts being promised, if spent in the right way/places, would actually cost considerably less than the headline amount almost instantly.

I think what I keep trying to get at is that the tendency of "can't have improved services, where's the money going to come from" should be avoided. Because money is not the issue (described extensively above), productive capacity is.

To respond to the OP -- Brexit or NHS more important? Definitely NHS.

Sorry if I killed the thread everybody

Imagine I get an annual rise of Corbyn off £1k. 

I spend it all today on Amazon, buying a south Korean made tv. Amazon pays how much UK tax? Samsung who made it in S Korea pays how much UK tax? The Hermes driver on minimum wage with tax credits pays how much tax?

Explain to me where that £1000 is entering the UK economy?

Edit. In theory yes you are correct, but consumer spending habits generally don't follow the pay 10-20% more and shop at a local independent... way of thinking. 

The ECB  don't lend money to countries, the Greek etc debt was run up by selling gilts at interest rates they couldn't service on the open finance market. It's still disputed whether the ECB purchasing them subsequently is illegal.

This election is about Brexit, not the NHS.

No, that would be a Referendum. An election is about all sorts of stuff, its just some people mistakenly think that this election is a single issue day out.

That would be the Brexit Party's manifesto.

....it's about Brexit.

For you

I'm a grown-up who thinks about a bit more over a host of other stuff that has the potential to help or hinder me once Brexit is Done.

As I say, this is an Election not a single issue question.

If it's solely about Brexit why are you so bothered about trees and broadband? Are you a bit confused? 

Because they are silly, far fetched Labour manifesto pledges which wouldn't see the light of day even if there were the faintest chance of Labour winning the election.

So it is about other stuff as well as Brexit. You are confused.