[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***

[portslade seagull]

I agree that we will need to pay more tax 'further down the food chain'. And there is evidence that plenty of us are willing to consider that, as long as we believe that it will result in the better public services that that we all want. But convincing people to do this won't be easy as long as they think those at the top are 'getting away with it'. So starting at the top is a political, rather than fiscal, necessity. Also taxing wealth is about avoiding concentrations of power, not just moblising resources.
.

Why should we pay more tax for pie in the sky ideas. I don't want to

 

[BLOCK F]

I agree that we will need to pay more tax 'further down the food chain'. And there is evidence that plenty of us are willing to consider that, as long as we believe that it will result in the better public services that that we all want. But convincing people to do this won't be easy as long as they think those at the top are 'getting away with it'. So starting at the top is a political, rather than fiscal, necessity. Also taxing wealth is about avoiding concentrations of power, not just moblising resources.
.

I don't think it will be easy to convince those lower down the food chain to pay more taxes regardless of what they think is happening at the very top.In any case, the very rich will always be the very rich.
At what level of income do you believe it would be reasonable for individuals to pay more tax? And it would have to be pretty hefty to make a difference and pay for all the pie in the sky socialist dreams of a Corbyn McDonnell Government. Trouble is, I don't think the man in the street would have much confidence in a hard left regime spending their taxes wisely.
As far as taxing industry, well, go too hard and you will soon see the consequences and most likely, it will be the ordinary citizens of this country who will suffer most.
Don't get me started on the wholesale nationalisation plans. If privatisation isn't working, for God's sake set a framework so it does. The answer is not to spend billions on transferring huge organisations to public ownership. Blimey, some of us can remember having to wait up to a year to have a phone line installed!

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

It's all public money so quite easy to find the breakdowns. Last year figures show the goverment borrowed £40 billion odd pounds to pay for all the shortfall in outgoings.

All governments need to borrow to pay for stuff and keep everything running before they get in taxes income etc. It is offset by assets (buildings) and interest rates are low right now. The Government expects this borrowing to keep increasing a lot up until at least 2020 (if Brexit doesn't cause any financial problems). The Tories have borrowed more than all Labour governments before them but some of that is explained by differences in the country (its grown) compared to 20 years ago. A lot of the austerity measures only make small dents into overall government spend, you need to increase your income and worth to keep up with it. Governments will argue how this is achieved but the bottom line is all spend and borrow more than they have incoming at any moment. Probably like most of its citizens.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...et-its-money-and-what-does-it-spend-it-all-on

Thanks for that. I think my focus was on the overall concept that Conservatives borrow more than Labour, which seems at odds with their base political ideas. The reasoning behind that simply isn't outlined by any figures. Like you say, they all spend more than they borrow/have coming in, it just seems interesting to consider why there's a trend over the last 100 years that the Conservatives borrow more. Is that because there simply isn't enough in the tank because Labour spend more so they are constantly picking up after them? Is it because Labour have sold off too many assets when in Government? Or is it simply that the Tories just need more money as they spend more, despite claims of austerity?

I just don't imagine there will be data to support any of these conclusions on such a mass scale, particularly taking into account inflation and other variables such as country growth and status throughout their periods in Government.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

What promises was that as the word "COULD" was used just like all the scaremongering we get now by leaving.There's a lot more to the EU than the monetary side of things and what they're creating that many here and in Europe don't like.
Not everything is about the economy even though I'm sure we'll prosper much more out of the EU and hopefully get some backbone back that's badly missing.

The liberals will keep on crying regardless but it's time they grew up !!

You are discussing a different point to mine. All governments spend a lot of money and borrow a lot of money, its what makes its country function, keeps its citizens safe.

We live in the western world all in liberal open society's, its what allows you to post whatever you want online. I am sure everybody cry's sometimes, even grown ups like us.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Thanks for that. I think my focus was on the overall concept that Conservatives borrow more than Labour, which seems at odds with their base political ideas. The reasoning behind that simply isn't outlined by any figures. Like you say, they all spend more than they borrow/have coming in, it just seems interesting to consider why there's a trend over the last 100 years that the Conservatives borrow more. Is that because there simply isn't enough in the tank because Labour spend more so they are constantly picking up after them? Is it because Labour have sold off too many assets when in Government? Or is it simply that the Tories just need more money as they spend more, despite claims of austerity?

I just don't imagine there will be data to support any of these conclusions on such a mass scale, particularly taking into account inflation and other variables such as country growth and status throughout their periods in Government.

There is data to show that the past Liberal/Tory and Tory Government have spent more than all the post war Labour Governments. But yes their is probably more to it than just two big figures. For example the first Blair government had a very small deficit but the Brown government bailed out the economy when the US set off a world wide economic crash. Its all spin (magic money trees) when you look into the figures, Labour governments have always repaid more than Tory governments as well. The past few elections as well Labour has fully costed its manifestos but still keep getting hit with the same stick. The Tories spending plans are not often scrutinised in the same way.

I think when it comes to elections though people often vote how they are feeling, May almost lost the last election, telling NHS staff they were well paid and saying the country was broke had no magic money tree. Governments spend and collect money, its down to what the voters want it spent on and if the elected governments then do what they say.

 

[beorhthelm]

Thanks for that. I think my focus was on the overall concept that Conservatives borrow more than Labour, which seems at odds with their base political ideas. The reasoning behind that simply isn't outlined by any figures. Like you say, they all spend more than they borrow/have coming in, it just seems interesting to consider why there's a trend over the last 100 years that the Conservatives borrow more.

there isn't a trend, its the monetary amount of the current debt being so much more than all previous combined. its not accounting for inflation. it is such a large amount because Brown embiggened the state, in particular welfare with tax credits and such. when economy shrank and revenues fell from 2008 all the budgeted, projected costs remained.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Why should we pay more tax for pie in the sky ideas. I don't want to

I've been paying more tax year on year for the last 8 years for no ideas. I'm quite happy to give some different ideas a go.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

there isn't a trend, its the monetary amount of the current debt being so much more than all previous combined. its not accounting for inflation. it is such a large amount because Brown embiggened the state, in particular welfare with tax credits and such. when economy shrank and revenues fell from 2008 all the budgeted, projected costs remained.

Data suggests that the trend is there and has been there over a 100 year period... That includes all the periods up to the Brown Government where the Conservatives still borrowed substantially more than Labour Governments. At least that's what I've gathered from the data I've seen.

 

[portslade seagull]

I've been paying more tax year on year for the last 8 years for no ideas. I'm quite happy to give some different ideas a go.

Not noticed any difference to be fair. You must be on 100k a year to be suffering that much.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not noticed any difference to be fair. You must be on 100k a year to be suffering that much.

I wish!

 

[Weststander]

Some contradictions in many recent posts.

Apparently Conservative governments HAVE ALWAYS borrowed more year on year than Labour governments. As a matter of fact, other than paying interest, that goes on public spending.

But we are also told on repeat that Conservative governments shrink the state, reduce public spending to give tax cuts to the rich and business, make public sector cuts, attack public sector pension benefits and award lower pay rises to public sector workers.

Necessarily, they both cannot be correct.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I won't deconstruct that one in detail, as I have no idea what I think. As a fellow grumpy old man, I also find myself resenting the sense of entitlement in the younger generation. Though i also understand that there are pressures and worries now that we never had to contend with.

But I'll have a go at a few responses to your general rant(s).

There is plenty of evidence that inequality in itself is problematic. Cause and correlation are contested of course, but the link between a more equal society and many other positive indicators (including GDP growth if that floats your boat) is strong.

It is not just about where we are now- it is the trends and where we are going, without some kind of policy intervention. Inequality in wealth is becoming more important than income inequality, as returns on wealth now outstrips returns on Labour (eg working, no matter how hard, will never help you catch up with someone that inherited wealth). We live in an increasingly 'rentier' economy where more and more income is returns on wealth than return on labour. And wealth inequality is growing and will continue to grow to grow without substantial intervention

Assuming you do accept that climate change is real, as well as other environmental concerns, there are big questions raised about how long we can continue growing our economy, versus more emphasis on redistribution.

Poverty, well-being, happiness. Call it what you will, but there is more to it than the simple income lines. What makes us feel happy is far more than our income, so inseurity in work, in housing and other factors in our economy are as important to many as pure poverty measures.

Inequality is not just a problem of those at the bottom. The accummulation of ever greater wealth at the top creates an inequality of power than undermines democracy. We see that with manipulation of the media (printed in UK, TV in US). With the ability to influence politics etc. It is telling, for instance, that current rates of tax are lower on income derived from wealth (unearned) than on Labour. And attempts to change that are inevitably shouted down in the media (inheritance tax as an example - a deeply regressive tax that is seen as politically toxic to increase)

I have some personal experience of how the wealthy protect themselves by exerting influence pover policy makers and it has convinced me that the concentration of wealth creates a genuine challenge to democracy, and will not end well if not challenged.I know many will say 'it has ever been thus' but I am not sure that is entirely true. The extremes we are seeing in terms of personal wealth and size and dominance of corporations the globalised nature of wealth and new technology all increase risks.

Any real challenge to the status quo is going to meet with massive resistance. As we have seen. First they will fight. Then will try and co-opt (witness the massive increase in corporate stalls at the Labour conference this year) and then someone will win...

You'd be a fool to think that the type of changes being proposed by Labour - and the type of movement and tactics that will be required to actually make that change happen - does not bring huge risks. It does, and could go very wrong. No doubt. But my view is that the alternative - allowing things to continue - may be riskier.

This is all in addition to other factors, such as the collapse in the global multuilateral system and the rise of the far right across the world, which also makes me think that a genuinely progressive government in the UK will be a good thing.

Agree. Several levels up from the usual level of discourse on here though. For that reason, I'm out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Pigs are not a good analogy. They are unable to sweat so they wallow in mud to cool themselves down. They actually defecate in a separate area to keep themselves clean.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-joy-of-pigs-smart-clean-and-lean/2126/

Yes, but however, you get my point, right?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Some contradictions in many recent posts.

Apparently Conservative governments HAVE ALWAYS borrowed more year on year than Labour governments. As a matter of fact, other than paying interest, that goes on public spending.

But we are also told on repeat that Conservative governments shrink the state, reduce public spending to give tax cuts to the rich and business, make public sector cuts, attack public sector pension benefits and award lower pay rises to public sector workers.

Necessarily, they both cannot be correct.

Apparently someone read something somewhere....then there was a link to the Guardian....oh and someone else mentioned the Telegraph.....I'll go by the adage of lies dam lies and statistics..oh well we have the other lot next week

 

[Gwylan]

Apparently someone read something somewhere....then there was a link to the Guardian....oh and someone else mentioned the Telegraph.....I'll go by the adage of lies dam lies and statistics..oh well we have the other lot next week

Here's the link that you're looking for

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/

 

[Weststander]

Here's the link that you're looking for

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/

Which therefore means by definition that Tory governments spend more on the public sector.

[Taxation receipts, due to stealth taxes (rather than headline lower rates of income and corporation tax) from both Labour and Tory governments in the last 21 years, have risen .... therefore tax cuts cannot be another explanation].

Being apolitical for a moment, I suspect that the underlying and unstoppable rises in public sector spending is going in the main on funding pensions and health for an ageing population with far greater life expectancy. Hamstringing other budgets.

Flying in the face of propaganda the other way.

 

[beorhthelm]

and tax credits/in work benefits, about £25bn a year added. https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/tax-credits-spending-in-real-terms.fw_.png

 

[LamieRobertson]

Which therefore means by definition that Tory governments spend more on the public sector.

[Taxation receipts, due to stealth taxes (rather than headline lower rates of income and corporation tax) from both Labour and Tory governments in the last 21 years, have risen .... therefore tax cuts cannot be another explanation].

Being apolitical for a moment, I suspect that the underlying and unstoppable rises in public sector spending is going in the main on funding pensions and health for an ageing population with far greater life expectancy. Hamstringing other budgets.

Flying in the face of propaganda the other way.

and tax credits/in work benefits, about £25bn a year added. https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/tax-credits-spending-in-real-terms.fw_.png

 

[Weststander]

This political thread descended into reasoned discussion.