The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Scott_F]

So what exactly is the difference between Boris' election promises of spend spend spend, and Corbyn's election promises of spend spend spend?

Only one of them is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and tax cuts.

 

[markjay]

Only one of them is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and tax cuts.

....while the other is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and 'taxing the rich'?

Which raises an interesting question. How do you increase the government's tax revenues? By reducing the tax rate, or by increasing it? Books have been written about this.

 

[Big Janner]

....while the other is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and 'taxing the rich'?

Which raises an interesting question. How do you increase the government's tax revenues? By reducing the tax rate, or by increasing it? Books have been written about this.

Indeed they have
One thing's for certain, increase taxes for anyone, rich or poor and your revenue drops, as people find ways to not pay, or leave the country.
How about a refining of business taxes as a part of a plan and making sure that big, none UK companies, operating and making huge profits, pay their way

 

[Scott_F]

....while the other is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and 'taxing the rich'?

Which raises an interesting question. How do you increase the government's tax revenues? By reducing the tax rate, or by increasing it? Books have been written about this.

Has he pledged to "tax the rich" if elected or is this just more of the anti-Corbyn ranting found in the likes of the Mail, Express and here ?

I'm aware that he has pledged to target wealthy individuals and corporations who aggressively avoid tax but that's a completely different thing.

Tony Blair (the most right-wing Labour PM in history and initially one of the most popular) increased the top income tax rate to 50%, the Tories cut it and Corbyn has committed to increasing it back to 50% although admittedly with a lower threshold. So it's hardly the arrival of the Red Menace is it ?

 

[Harrythedog]

So what exactly is the difference between Boris' election promises of spend spend spend, and Corbyn's election promises of spend spend spend?

One is made by a man who is presumed to be ready to cosy up to Trump and found guilty in a court of law of misleading the Monarchy
And the other has a record of breaking bread with Hamas, the IRA, Moscow and other terrorists

The choice is yours

 

[markjay]

Has he pledged to "tax the rich" if elected or is this just more of the anti-Corbyn ranting found in the likes of the Mail, Express and here ?

I'm aware that he has pledged to target wealthy individuals and corporations who aggressively avoid tax but that's a completely different thing...

So you are saying that - according to Corbyn - the money for public spending will come from closing tax avoidance loopholes and clamping down on tax evation?

If so then I have two questions:

a. Do you think that a Labour government - or any government - can rely on fighting tax avoidable as a dependable source of income, to the extent that it can commit to public spending on the back of it?

b. Closing tax avoidance loopholes will understandably apply mainly to wealthy individuals and corporations, for obvoius reasons. But when it comes to tax evasion, will Corbyn's plan also apply it to everyone, including less affluent individuals? E.g. cash-in-hand workers, self employed, corner shops, etc? Surely the temptation to increase one's earning via illegal tax evasion isn't the preserve of the rich?

My point is that Corbyn conveniently promises to fund public spending from sources that will not antagonise Labour's target demographics, which are the working men and women of Britain, those who are worse-off financially a variety of reasons, weaker immigrant communities, etc etc.

So Corbyn's message is: we will spend more money on you people, but don't worry the money will come from sources that won't affect you. And this is exactly what Theresa May described as The Magic Money Tree.

 

[flowrider]

Corbyn may not have been elected but he gained additional seats with his brib

One is made by a man who is presumed to be ready to cosy up to Trump and found guilty in a court of law of misleading the Monarchy
And the other has a record of breaking bread with Hamas, the IRA, Moscow and other terrorists

The choice is yours

Surely better to side with USA than terrorists.

 

[Swotty]

One is made by a man who is presumed to be ready to cosy up to Trump and found guilty in a court of law of misleading the Monarchy
And the other has a record of breaking bread with Hamas, the IRA, Moscow and other terrorists

The choice is yours

I take the point, which works well in the above comparison, Harry, but just to clarify .... Boris' action to prorogue on the first occasion was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. That is not being found guilty in a court of law ..... unlawful means "not authorised by law" ... compared with illegal which means "forbidden by law" ... a whole world of difference - the Supreme Court could not find he had committed an illegal act and so contrived imo to deem his action unlawful.

Given that, he did not mislead the Monarch.

 

[flowrider]

So you are saying that - according to Corbyn - the money for public spending will come from closing tax avoidance loopholes and clamping down on tax evation?

If so then I have two questions:

a. Do you think that a Labour government - or any government - can rely on fighting tax avoidable as a dependable source of income, to the extent that it can commit to public spending on the back of it?

b. Closing tax avoidance loopholes will understandably apply mainly to wealthy individuals and corporations, for obvoius reasons. But when it comes to tax evasion, will Corbyn's plan also apply it to everyone, including less affluent individuals? E.g. cash-in-hand workers, self employed, corner shops, etc? Surely the temptation to increase one's earning via illegal tax evasion isn't the preserve of the rich?

My point is that Corbyn conveniently promises to fund public spending from sources that will not antagonise Labour's target demographics, which are the working men and women of Britain, those who are worse-off financially a variety of reasons, weaker immigrant communities, etc etc.

So Corbyn's message is: we will spend more money on you people, but don't worry the money will come from sources that won't affect you. And this is exactly what Theresa May described as The Magic Money Tree.

Any increase in taxation has to be across the board and fair. The problem with increased taxation of only the big companies is the risk that those companies move their operations elsewhere resulting in the loss of tax both from the company and its former employees who are now jobless, this then increases the financial burden on social services.

 

[st13phil]

unlawful means "not authorised by law" ... compared with illegal which means "forbidden by law" ... a whole world of difference - the Supreme Court could not find he had committed an illegal act and so contrived imo to deem his action unlawful.

A distinction, and outcome, completely lost on those who choose to ignore the facts.

 

[Harrythedog]

I take the point, which works well in the above comparison, Harry, but just to clarify .... Boris' action to prorogue on the first occasion was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. That is not being found guilty in a court of law ..... unlawful means "not authorised by law" ... compared with illegal which means "forbidden by law" ... a whole world of difference - the Supreme Court could not find he had committed an illegal act and so contrived imo to deem his action unlawful.

Given that, he did not mislead the Monarch.

I get that Swotty, I was merely pandering to the pedantic

 

[Bellow]

In the end, there will always be dialogue with 'terrorists' - despite the mantra of 'never'. The pursuit of peace may well involve talking to unsavoury actors - or leave them to their atrocities? Braver the man that does than appeases. Pinochet, Botha (and others) knew who their British friends were - and they were not to be found in the Labour party.

 

[Swotty]

I get that Swotty, I was merely pandering to the pedantic

You've been talking to my missus again!

 

[Dryce]

The problem with increased taxation of only the big companies is the risk that those companies move their operations elsewhere resulting in the loss of tax both from the company and its former employees who are now jobless, this then increases the financial burden on social services.

The % of government income that comes from corporation tax is dwarfed by what it gets from PAYE, NI, and VAT. So a % increase in corporation tax has to be disproportionately large to have an effect.

So really the only way to raise significant money using small % changes is through PAYE, NI, and VAT. The problem as has been discussed befoer is that can have a consequential effect on spending and a knock on to the wider economy and to other tax yields.

 

[Dryce]

In the end, there will always be dialogue with 'terrorists' - despite the mantra of 'never'. The pursuit of peace may well involve talking to unsavoury actors - or leave them to their atrocities? Braver the man that does than appeases. Pinochet, Botha (and others) knew who their British friends were - and they were not to be found in the Labour party.

There's a difference between cold pragmatism and real politik and some naive contrarian just trying to stir it up.

I expect our national leaders to have to make hard compromises - and sometimes follow a dual line (say one thing, do another).

The Labour party and Conservative party have done that numerous times in the past.

I have zero confidence that Mr Corbyn has much real understanding of how to do that. He's been able to naively play his own comfortable contrarian games over the decades without having to be actually be called out to make real decisions and face real consequences.

 

[Bellow]

There's a brand new and lucrative tax stream waiting to be enacted. Legalise cannabis and tax it. Licence growers to produce approved strains suitable for both medicinal and recreational use. At a stroke, unsafe illegal cannabis farms will vanish as will the migrant draw for those who know there is work there (even if they don't anticipate just how horrific the 'job' actually is), a healthy new revenue stream for the treasury is created, and the decriminalisation of millions of people who are at risk from being criminalised for using a substance less harmful to health and society that alcohol.
We are promised a bold future - where is it? Same old same old (from some time last century) is all that appears to be on offer. How disappointing.

 

[Dryce]

Only one of them is promising to go all Viv Nicholson whilst simultaneously planning both huge borrowing and tax cuts.

I suspect that they have watched and learned that all they get is stiffed by a chunk of the electorate and the media if they try and preach a bit of thrift - while having been hammered on 'austerity' for a decade after being left with nothing in the bank from a previously profligate and irresopnsible government has made its mark.

So I suspect they've just decided to play the same game and apply the same attitude as their opponents and damn the consequences: spend spend spend. It's a brazen way of putting Labour on the back foot so they can't claim to be the spending 'good guys'.

And yet more narrowing of the middle ground between the parties as they try and pick off bits of the floating electorate.

 

[Kamisuma]

So you are saying that - according to Corbyn - the money for public spending will come from closing tax avoidance loopholes and clamping down on tax evation?

If so then I have two questions:

a. Do you think that a Labour government - or any government - can rely on fighting tax avoidable as a dependable source of income, to the extent that it can commit to public spending on the back of it?

b. Closing tax avoidance loopholes will understandably apply mainly to wealthy individuals and corporations, for obvoius reasons. But when it comes to tax evasion, will Corbyn's plan also apply it to everyone, including less affluent individuals? E.g. cash-in-hand workers, self employed, corner shops, etc? Surely the temptation to increase one's earning via illegal tax evasion isn't the preserve of the rich?

My point is that Corbyn conveniently promises to fund public spending from sources that will not antagonise Labour's target demographics, which are the working men and women of Britain, those who are worse-off financially a variety of reasons, weaker immigrant communities, etc etc.

So Corbyn's message is: we will spend more money on you people, but don't worry the money will come from sources that won't affect you. And this is exactly what Theresa May described as The Magic Money Tree.

Sorry, but the Magic Money Tree grows at the bottom of my garden according to my children.

 

[AMGeed]

Food for thought. As if there aren't enough reasons already not to vote for Corbyn.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Food for thought. As if there aren't enough reasons already not to vote for Corbyn.
View attachment 90149

I'm no lefty but does giving Boris way more power then her make you feel secure?