forum voting intentions

[Bob Singleton]

David Johnson wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> "Labour's increase in National Insurance is indeed a tax on
> jobs. ...Surely it would be better to tax income generated by
> way of an increase in the higher levels of income and
> corporation tax? "
>
> I suppose the vast majority of taxes are directly or indirectly
> a "tax on Jobs" whatever that means. You could argue that
> higher levels of income tax or corporation tax might result in
> businesses relocating abroad or holding back on investment in
> new jobs/equipment etc.
>
> The term "tax on jobs" was brought out by Cameron and he has
> been hammering it for quite a few days now as he trumpets about
> all the business leaders that support his view. Cameron's view
> strikes me as nonsensical. He implies that it will result in
> loss of jobs. How much will a 1p rise in National Insurance
> cost?. My guess is that it is unlikely to be much more than
> ?15 a month. And I can't believe that this is a key
> decision-making factor in whether you hire or fire people. As
> for the business leaders who support him, these are the same
> tossers who along with Cameron, spoke against the Labour
> introduction of the minimum wage, pay themselves hugely
> compared to their workforce and relocate to Eastern Europe or
> elsewhere on a regular basis. As if they give a toss about
> their workforce and job security.


If you are a company like Tescos for example, that ?15 per month per employee works out at several tens of millions in a year. I'm not defending Tesco and their greed for ever larger profits, but I don't personally think an increase in National Insurance was the best way of going about things.

For the Tories amongst you, by the way, you may be interested to know that one of Cameron's leading advisers on industry (specifically on how to create more jobs in Britain) is James Dyson, the man who invented the dual cyclone bagless vacuum cleaner and who recently closed his factory in the UK and relocated to Malaysia to cut costs. What a great example he's setting, putting his personal greed ahead of the good of the country!



> "And what about the ?40bn or so HMR&C recon is being lost each
> year through tax avoidance schemes? At least the Lib Dems look
> as if they want to do something about it! Getting some of that
> money back would go a long way to plugging the whole in the
> economy."
>
> The Customs and Revenue have been hammering this in the press
> over the past few months, stating that this is the last few
> weeks of the opportunity to come clean about payments going
> offshore. Tax avoidance is just fiddling the tax via a
> loophole before that loophole is closed aind it becomes tax
> evasion i.e. illegal. The large multinationals employ the
> likes of Barclays to have a range of tax avoidance measures up
> their sleeves so that however quickly the government closes
> down one loophole there is always a Plan B lined up.
>
> In short, going after tax avoiders always results in
> substantially less tax collection than is expected.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me), but the Lib Dems, amongst other things, will change the status of non-doms, so that after 7 years they will pay tax on offshore income, they will stop the use of offshore companies to avoid stamp duty on properties, and HMR&C will be given new powers that effectively "tax" companies (ie accountancy firms) who offer help to others in tax avoidance (I'm not sure on the minutiae but I understand that if XYZ Accountants save ABC plc ?500m by avoiding paying tax then XYZ Accountants get "taxed" on the savings they make their client, thus removing some of the incentive to come up with tax avoidance schemes)



>
> "They are quite right in wanting to break banks up, so that
> they are either high street institutions catering for
> individuals and businesses on a day-to-day basis OR they can be
> giant gambling houses but not both!"
>
> I agree with this. However, it is difficult to see how this
> would work in a global environment if other major countries do
> not buy into it. Labour have given their support to a global
> bank levy. Again how this would work without support from the
> key players is difficult to see given the interconnected nature
> of the business.

One of the reasons many British high street banks are owned by Santander is because in Spain banks may either be retail or investment institutions, not both. As a consequence, Spain was not hit as hard by the collapse caused by the sub-prime market in the US, and one of its amjor retail banks was able to pick up a few British high street banks and building societies fr a song. There is no reason why Barclays, for example, cannot be split into two separate entities; one being a traditional high street bank and the other an investment bank. If the investment bank fails, at least it won't affect the high street bank as the two are separate companies.

Regarding the bank levy, this is where for once Gordon Brown is streets ahead of the Tories. The Tories have talked about a unilateral bank levy in a pathetic attempt to curry favour with the voters. However they know that this is totally unworkable (if no other country enforces a levy, the banks will just move abroad). That's why both Brown and President Obama have both insisted the levy be global.

>
> "If only Labour were so radical, but under Blair and Brown
> they've become Tory Lite"
>
> I guess it is relatively easy to be a radical if you have 0%
> chance of being the first or second in the poll. THe best the
> Liberals can hope for is that in the scenario of a hung
> parliament they have some members of the Cabinet and/or some
> policies taken up in return for their support.
>
> The Labour party realised rightly in 1997 that pursuing a
> radical policy would not get them elected. The reason for this
> is quite simple. It is commonly thought that the government of
> the day runs the country. Personally, I don't think that is
> the case. Basically they have limited room for manouevre in a
> world of global multinationals and a global economy that can
> shift its assets, headquarters etc. with relative impunity. In
> addition, as we know, about 90% of the media in this country is
> ferociously Conservative.
>


It's absolutely true that whoever is in power will have at least one hand tied behind their backs due to the global nature of business and money. However, there are still things Governments can do within their boundaries that affect the welfare and happiness of the population, irrespective of whatever is going on beyond our shores. The Labour Government of 1964-66-70 saw one of the most liberal Home Secretaries in Roy Jenkins... a man who, among other things, steered through Parliament legislation that saw an end to capital punishment and the legalisation of homosexuality. The last 13 years has seen increasing repression by way of ever more CCTV cameras in our streets (without any resultant decrease in crime, I might add!), the possibility of identity cards, etc., etc. The fact that Murdoch was so chummy with Blair for so long is probably the biggest indictment of all. As I said Tory Lite

There's an air of honesty about the Lib Dems that is refreshing. They're the only party that haven't ruled out tax increases whilst also cutting spending. Both the Tories and New Labour are glossing over the fact that either VAT or Income Tax will have to increase at some point. Why did Labour only partially reform the House of Lords? It really is time we had an elected second chamber. I also agree with them regarding electoral reform, many of their environmental policies and in getting rid of this stupid notion that 50% of children should be able to go to university.

[Bob Singleton]

David Johnson wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> "Labour's increase in National Insurance is indeed a tax on
> jobs. ...Surely it would be better to tax income generated by
> way of an increase in the higher levels of income and
> corporation tax? "
>
> I suppose the vast majority of taxes are directly or indirectly
> a "tax on Jobs" whatever that means. You could argue that
> higher levels of income tax or corporation tax might result in
> businesses relocating abroad or holding back on investment in
> new jobs/equipment etc.
>
> The term "tax on jobs" was brought out by Cameron and he has
> been hammering it for quite a few days now as he trumpets about
> all the business leaders that support his view. Cameron's view
> strikes me as nonsensical. He implies that it will result in
> loss of jobs. How much will a 1p rise in National Insurance
> cost?. My guess is that it is unlikely to be much more than
> ?15 a month. And I can't believe that this is a key
> decision-making factor in whether you hire or fire people. As
> for the business leaders who support him, these are the same
> tossers who along with Cameron, spoke against the Labour
> introduction of the minimum wage, pay themselves hugely
> compared to their workforce and relocate to Eastern Europe or
> elsewhere on a regular basis. As if they give a toss about
> their workforce and job security.


If you are a company like Tescos for example, that ?15 per month per employee works out at several tens of millions in a year. I'm not defending Tesco and their greed for ever larger profits, but I don't personally think an increase in National Insurance was the best way of going about things.

For the Tories amongst you, by the way, you may be interested to know that one of Cameron's leading advisers on industry (specifically on how to create more jobs in Britain) is James Dyson, the man who invented the dual cyclone bagless vacuum cleaner and who recently closed his factory in the UK and relocated to Malaysia to cut costs. What a great example he's setting, putting his personal greed ahead of the good of the country!



> "And what about the ?40bn or so HMR&C recon is being lost each
> year through tax avoidance schemes? At least the Lib Dems look
> as if they want to do something about it! Getting some of that
> money back would go a long way to plugging the whole in the
> economy."
>
> The Customs and Revenue have been hammering this in the press
> over the past few months, stating that this is the last few
> weeks of the opportunity to come clean about payments going
> offshore. Tax avoidance is just fiddling the tax via a
> loophole before that loophole is closed aind it becomes tax
> evasion i.e. illegal. The large multinationals employ the
> likes of Barclays to have a range of tax avoidance measures up
> their sleeves so that however quickly the government closes
> down one loophole there is always a Plan B lined up.
>
> In short, going after tax avoiders always results in
> substantially less tax collection than is expected.

As I understand it (and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me), but the Lib Dems, amongst other things, will change the status of non-doms, so that after 7 years they will pay tax on offshore income, they will stop the use of offshore companies to avoid stamp duty on properties, and HMR&C will be given new powers that effectively "tax" companies (ie accountancy firms) who offer help to others in tax avoidance (I'm not sure on the minutiae but I understand that if XYZ Accountants save ABC plc ?500m by avoiding paying tax then XYZ Accountants get "taxed" on the savings they make their client, thus removing some of the incentive to come up with tax avoidance schemes)



>
> "They are quite right in wanting to break banks up, so that
> they are either high street institutions catering for
> individuals and businesses on a day-to-day basis OR they can be
> giant gambling houses but not both!"
>
> I agree with this. However, it is difficult to see how this
> would work in a global environment if other major countries do
> not buy into it. Labour have given their support to a global
> bank levy. Again how this would work without support from the
> key players is difficult to see given the interconnected nature
> of the business.

One of the reasons many British high street banks are owned by Santander is because in Spain banks may either be retail or investment institutions, not both. As a consequence, Spain was not hit as hard by the collapse caused by the sub-prime market in the US, and one of its amjor retail banks was able to pick up a few British high street banks and building societies fr a song. There is no reason why Barclays, for example, cannot be split into two separate entities; one being a traditional high street bank and the other an investment bank. If the investment bank fails, at least it won't affect the high street bank as the two are separate companies.

Regarding the bank levy, this is where for once Gordon Brown is streets ahead of the Tories. The Tories have talked about a unilateral bank levy in a pathetic attempt to curry favour with the voters. However they know that this is totally unworkable (if no other country enforces a levy, the banks will just move abroad). That's why both Brown and President Obama have both insisted the levy be global.

>
> "If only Labour were so radical, but under Blair and Brown
> they've become Tory Lite"
>
> I guess it is relatively easy to be a radical if you have 0%
> chance of being the first or second in the poll. THe best the
> Liberals can hope for is that in the scenario of a hung
> parliament they have some members of the Cabinet and/or some
> policies taken up in return for their support.
>
> The Labour party realised rightly in 1997 that pursuing a
> radical policy would not get them elected. The reason for this
> is quite simple. It is commonly thought that the government of
> the day runs the country. Personally, I don't think that is
> the case. Basically they have limited room for manouevre in a
> world of global multinationals and a global economy that can
> shift its assets, headquarters etc. with relative impunity. In
> addition, as we know, about 90% of the media in this country is
> ferociously Conservative.
>


It's absolutely true that whoever is in power will have at least one hand tied behind their backs due to the global nature of business and money. However, there are still things Governments can do within their boundaries that affect the welfare and happiness of the population, irrespective of whatever is going on beyond our shores. The Labour Government of 1964-66-70 saw one of the most liberal Home Secretaries in Roy Jenkins... a man who, among other things, steered through Parliament legislation that saw an end to capital punishment and the legalisation of homosexuality. The last 13 years has seen increasing repression by way of ever more CCTV cameras in our streets (without any resultant decrease in crime, I might add!), the possibility of identity cards, etc., etc. The fact that Murdoch was so chummy with Blair for so long is probably the biggest indictment of all. As I said Tory Lite

There's an air of honesty about the Lib Dems that is refreshing. They're the only party that haven't ruled out tax increases whilst also cutting spending. Both the Tories and New Labour are glossing over the fact that either VAT or Income Tax will have to increase at some point. Why did Labour only partially reform the House of Lords? It really is time we had an elected second chamber. I also agree with them regarding electoral reform, many of their environmental policies and in getting rid of this stupid notion that 50% of children should be able to go to university.

[Sarah Kelly]

Granted-but it still adds up to MILLIONS David.. It infuriates me that whilst being such a prudent Chancellor a) he cant get his facts right,even when he goes before a commission that is going to quiz him on those facts and b) when its pointed out to him,he is still unable to be forthright...

[Sarah Kelly]

Its interesting that you dont feel Labour run the country.....

[Bob Singleton]

Sarah Kelly wrote:

> Its interesting that you dont feel Labour run the country.....
>


Why do you seem surprised when I say Labour don't really run the country? Since the end of WWII, no Government has really run the country without some form of outside interference, be it repaying the US for war loans, having to follow the instructions of the IMF in return for loans to keep the country running, etc., etc.

Do you remember 16th Sept 1992? A date known as "Black Wednesday" when various currency market traders (George Soros being the best known as he made over $1billion as a result of what he did) in effect bet against the Pound Sterling remaining above the minimum level it had to stay at within the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism).

The traders won the bet as the Pound plummeted in value and the Tory government had to withdraw from the ERM. Almost ?1billion was wiped off the money markets and the Government spent over ?25billion trying to prop up the Pound.

This happened because traders were (and still are) allowed to "bet" against currencies rising or falling against other currencies. On 16th Sept, the more traders bet against the Pound, the more other traders sold the Pound. In the space of one day... yes, ONE day... the Government raised interest rates from 10 to 12%, and then 15%. It certainly wasn't Government policy to raise interest rates to 15%, but it had to in order to try and attempt to "save the Pound".

Going back a little further in time, I refer you to the 1973 oil crisis when OAPEC members proclaimed an oil embargo against the US and any other countries who supported Israel during the Yom Kippur war. This led to OPEC itself increasing the price of oil by 70%... an astronomical rise at the time. Nearly 40 years on, we are still feeling the economic effects of that action.

The lending of money to people who could never afford to pay it back in the US (sub prime loans), and the subsequent packaging and repackaging and selling of those debts from one bank to another led to the collapse of several financial institutions (remember Lehman Brothers?) and led to the British Government "nationalising" and/or bailing out various banks and building societies.

There will be many on this forum who will also remind you of the role the European Union plays in deciding what does and does not happen in this country.


Whoever wins the next election will not be in 100% control of the country even if they have a landslide majority. Too many outside interests (global business, money markets, other Governments and supra-national bodies) bear influence on what happens here, whether we like it or not.

[Ned]

Probably nobody.

We have a Tory MP with a smallish majority. I will never vote Tory. I can't see the Labour candidate winning and I don't really want to vote for a party that could do some of the things lot have done in the last four or five years. The Lib Dems are MILES behind and can't even tell you which party they would get behind in the event of a hung parliament, so I won't vote for them.

UKIP? I don't think so.
BNP? Part of me would like to do it just to outrage the PC brigade, but I won't.
Greens? Possibly.

I'm unlikely to vote at all though.

[David Johnson]

I agree that his error in front of the Chilcott enquiry is indefensible.

But the first two years, Britain was not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the two years when we were, taking onboard inflation was -.7 and -.1%. The overall trend from 1997 was an average increase per year. I would guess that spending on replacement projects for MOD is so huge that it is difficult to smooth it out so that it is even for each year.

Cheers
D

[Bob Singleton]

Ned wrote:

[SNIP]

The Lib
> Dems are MILES behind and can't even tell you which party they
> would get behind in the event of a hung parliament, so I won't
> vote for them.

Why should the Lib Dems say who they'll support in a hung Parliament now? Given all the various and myriad factors involved, it would be stupid of them to say anything until everyone can asses the situation.

People have to vote for them on merit, not because they've said they'll support one or other of the major parties should the outcome necessitate it.

If you don't want to vote for them because you don't like their policies, that's fine. But to say you won't vote for them because they won't say who'll they support if no one gains a majority is crass in the extreme, and I really do hope you carry out your promise of not voting at all, because someone like you plainly doesn't deserve the right to vote!

[Sarah Kelly]

i was being whimsical bob!wink!

[Sarah Kelly]

Thank you david..You remind me of another thing that my beloved labour tarnished, the value integrity of independent bodies and commissions etc to accurately report statistics,without them being fiddled ......... egards the Mod budget being huge,granted, tho im sure we entered it in 2002 which is 8yrs and not 4 in real terms...unless my maths is as appalling as my grammar or perhaps your doing a "chilcott" on me?!wink!