General Election 2017

[Yoda]

Exactly, the money is there it's just going to the wrong people! WHY is it so hard for people to realise!!

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Ask the government, they're the ones that set it up with the CCG's thinking Doctors would be the best people to run them assuming they would be best to know what to do with the money.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Ask the government, they're the ones that set it up with the CCG's thinking Doctors would be the best people to run them assuming they would be best to know what to do with the money.

Ask the government? [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Like Corbyn abides by the Labour Party's decision, through a vote, to keep Trident?

Smears on Corbyn don't work - try finding something positive to say about The Tories instead to tell people instead.

Does he? I thought he told his best mate at Glastonbury that he would get rid of it.

I know any criticism of Corbyn is just a smear in your eyes but you really need to lose the man love or your going to be seriously disappointed.

 

[Yoda]

Ask the government? [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

I know, I know. Like they'd ever give a straight answer.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Does he? I thought he told his best mate at Glastonbury that he would get rid of it.

I know any criticism of Corbyn is just a smear in your eyes but you really need to lose the man love or your going to be seriously disappointed.

That's what he said to Paxman on record.

I don't love him, I like him because of the people he annoys. Plenty of people do though, that's your problem. I'd be worried about that too if I were you, so I understand your keen interest in him.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Billy Bragg, who I believe to be pretty chummy with Jezza, whom I used to watch live often aswell as admire and respect is getting some interesting replies to his FB postings. Divided is the word I would use.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

At the moment, I don't get why our tax revenue is one of the lowest in Europe at just 34% of our GDP when our services are crying out for investment. I don't buy this whole lower tax rates brings in more revenue, in the short term it can boast the economy, but nothing other than short term, and our extremely low tax rates in comparison to Europe still only brings in 34% of our GDP. So economics of low tax = more revenue just doesn't stack up. It is a falsehood that too many believe.

As the world gets smaller, multinational corporations get bigger and more powerful, governments have to stand strong over tax. If we go down a continued path of undercutting tax rates to make one country more attractive than another, then we condemn ourselves to perpetual bankruptcy because economies will always crash. We have to stop undercutting our corporate and higher tax rates, and maintain a comparable tax strategy to similar sized economies. Cutting CT to below 19% is obscene given the cuts and in comparison to other countries tax rates. It is time for a change of thinking because it is an unsustainable economic model at present.

Good comment , amongst the childish rabblings in this thread. yay, grown up debate!!

One thing I heard recently and upon checking out is correct, I wonder what your views are on the following. Raising Corporation tax to Labour proposed 26% is likely to reduce revenue received?

At 20% more revenue will be raised through this taxation. Reducing it to 17% may even boost revenue further.

Thoughts?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's what he said to Paxman on record.

I don't love him, I like him because of the people he annoys. Plenty of people do though, that's your problem. I'd be worried about that too if I were you, so I understand your keen interest in him.

Yet he said the opposite according to his good friend and supporter.

That's why I always had a soft spot for Farage.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Good comment , amongst the childish rabblings in this thread. yay, grown up debate!!

One thing I heard recently and upon checking out is correct, I wonder what your views are on the following. Raising Corporation tax to Labour proposed 26% is likely to reduce revenue received?

At 20% more revenue will be raised through this taxation. Reducing it to 17% may even boost revenue further.

Thoughts?

I posted this earlier, in this thread I think and it was largely poo-pooed.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-effect-of-labours-corporation-tax

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I posted this earlier, in this thread I think and it was largely poo-pooed.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-effect-of-labours-corporation-tax

How can it be poo-pooed.

The effect of this is difficult to quantify, but to get an idea we can look at the time when corporation tax was last at the 26% proposed by Labour. That was in 2011/12, and the tax at that level raised around £41 billion.(£44.5 billion in todays money). However in fact, with the rate cut to 20%, the tax revenues have now soared to almost £50 billion a year. Whilst I am sure there may certain circumstances, the bottom line is lower tax rate, higher revenue.

The lower the rate, the more growth, the more revenue. Basically taking less tax = more growth = more tax. Not sure how it works for income tax, but the revenue would suggest it works for corporation tax.

There has to be a point where its too low and revenue will go down, but it would appear hiking it 6% could actually cost the revenue income.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Oh how The Antiques Road Show has changed

 

[Bold Seagull]

Good comment , amongst the childish rabblings in this thread. yay, grown up debate!!

One thing I heard recently and upon checking out is correct, I wonder what your views are on the following. Raising Corporation tax to Labour proposed 26% is likely to reduce revenue received?

At 20% more revenue will be raised through this taxation. Reducing it to 17% may even boost revenue further.

Thoughts?

A lower percentage of tax to increase revenue has to rely on economic growth at a greater rate than the growth if you left the tax rate as it is. The tax revenue can look good for a short period during high growth, but that cannot be maintained mid to longer term. So ultimately, the short term economic gain of an investment boost through lower taxation cannot last indefinitely, so your tax revenue will reduce, hence we've missed every target in clearing the deficit. Had your theory worked, we would have a surplus budget by now and could be paying off the debt.

One of the key points in this strategy is immigration. You cannot have the economic growth that requires foreign investment, expansion etc. to increase your revenue above that at what it would have been at a higher tax rate without growing the population - hence immigration has grown year on year during austerity. The economic model simply doesn't work without this growth, the GDP growth required goes hand in hand with population growth.

 

[Bold Seagull]

How can it be poo-pooed.

The effect of this is difficult to quantify, but to get an idea we can look at the time when corporation tax was last at the 26% proposed by Labour. That was in 2011/12, and the tax at that level raised around £41 billion.(£44.5 billion in todays money). However in fact, with the rate cut to 20%, the tax revenues have now soared to almost £50 billion a year. Whilst I am sure there may certain circumstances, the bottom line is lower tax rate, higher revenue.

The lower the rate, the more growth, the more revenue. Basically taking less tax = more growth = more tax. Not sure how it works for income tax, but the revenue would suggest it works for corporation tax.

There has to be a point where its too low and revenue will go down, but it would appear hiking it 6% could actually cost the revenue income.

But your argument his hypothetical that the growth in GDP between 2011/12 to now was due to tax cuts. If that growth would have occurred anyway, because we're a fantastic place to invest etc. then the tax revenue would have been far higher had a higher rate of tax been maintained. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the only way an economy grows is to lower taxes every couple of years? Its a regressive model that has no long term vision and ultimately, is almost like a pyramid scheme in that it looks great for a while, but ultimately you cannot magic growth from nowhere to cover your lost percentage points.

 

[BLOCK F]

Again, this is a myth people seem to want to believe, that the NHS is unfundable. Put the money in, you'll have a fine NHS. Our % spend of GDP is well below similar economies. You are led to believe it is down to reform or nothing can solve it. Getting up to 10%+ like other comparable countries manage would certainly help!

I've posted a few of these stat links now. Interesting that those countries with higher tax regimes take a greater percentage of GDP as tax revenue and are able to commit a larger percentage of GDP for healthcare. The 'magic money tree' is actually a progressive tax strategy. Not revolutionary, because so many other countries are managing it.

Our percentage of GDP spend is 9.1%

United States 17.1
Sweden 11.9
Switzerland 11.7
France 11.5
Germany 11.3
Austria 11.2
Netherlands 10.9
Denmark 10.8
Belgium 10.6
Canada 10.4
Japan 10.2
Norway 9.7
Finland 9.7
Portugal 9.5
Australia 9.4
Costa Rica 9.3
Italy 9.2
Ecuador 9.2
United Kingdom 9.1
Spain 9.0

Bold one, I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing with each other.
One of the points I am making is about how the NHS should be funded in future. If it is agreed that more dosh is required, let there be a grown up non political consesus about the best way forward. Maybe a mixture of state funding and individual health insurance; this is a system used in quite a few countries, I believe. At the moment, we have the lefties saying the righties want to destroy the NHS and the righties get defensive, saying where is all this money going to come from that you want to pour into the organisation. The lefties then say put up taxes on the rich(whoever they are) and the righties say people won't stand for more taxes (although they say they will, as long as it isn't themselves!) and so it goes on and on and nothing constructive gets done.
I still say that with the ageing demographic and oldies seemingly living for ever (my old man is 100), just throwing around more money is not a sustainable long term solution.The NHS was formed in July 1948 and since then, the population has vastly increased as has life expectancy; that together with huge advances in medical science and higher expectations, the NHS is expected to do things not dreamt of in 1948.
For starters, I should like to see reforms in primary and social care.
Anyway, must go now, have to get some shopping for my ancient relative and then go and visit!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

A local opportunity to see JC in the flesh tomorrow

 

[Titanic]

"We are the many, they are the few" eh?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

"We are the many, they are the few" eh?

Not hard to grasp, surely?

The many refers to the mass membership of the Labour party.
The many refers to the huge number of people of all ages and backgrounds willing to work for Labour and be active in promoting change.
The many refers to the legion of younger people who voted for the first time, or switched, at the last election and voted Labour.

The interests of the many, not the few, will only be served by a Labour manifesto and by a Labour government.

 

[Titanic]

I guess it will probably be true at the meeting at least... can't see many Tories turning out.

 

[ManOfSussex]

A local opportunity to see JC in the flesh tomorrow View attachment 86729

Cheers for that. I've registered.

Looks I'm missing The Lions Test tomorrow morning now.

 

[Titanic]

Cheers for that. I've registered.

Looks I'm missing The Lions Test tomorrow morning now.

Talk to Jezza nicely, you'll probably get a seat on the front bench!