Labour ?

That is indeed the issue. As ever, the answer probably lies somewhere between the Labour and Conservative positions, both of which are more extreme than they've often been. 

The answer is getting the balance so that people and companies have the drive to generate income, which in turn provides the tax income source, while ensuring that those who need support get what they need. Easier said than done of course.

I read somewhere that societies with less of an extreme between those at the top and the bottom are happier than those with greater extremes - yet the current government's policies are increasing the gap, despite their ostensible support for the JAMS. Rather like the ridiculous Big Society of Cameron, the JAMS seem to have been kicked out. Maybe the KLF have got involved. Now all we have is the equally vacuous Strong and Stable. And a likely PM who doesn't seem to know the difference between a learning disability and a mental illness. No wonder she's not been allowed to meet real people until now. And when she does, she demonstrated her inability to go off script. No wonder she's too scared to meet Corbyn face to face. Whether people say about him, he can deal with whatever's thrown at him, and relate to real people. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

I read somewhere that societies with less of an extreme between those at the top and the bottom are happier than those with greater extremes - yet the current government's policies are increasing the gap, despite their ostensible support for the JAMS. Rather like the ridiculous Big Society of Cameron, the JAMS seem to have been kicked out. Maybe the KLF have got involved. Now all we have is the equally vacuous Strong and Stable. And a likely PM who doesn't seem to know the difference between a learning disability and a mental illness. No wonder she's not been allowed to meet real people until now. And when she does, she demonstrated her inability to go off script. No wonder she's too scared to meet Corbyn face to face. Whether people say about him, he can deal with whatever's thrown at him, and relate to real people. 

That's what we need... the Justified Ancents of Mu Mu.

As above, it is all bollox. There have been plenty of studies over the years that show whatever the Governments position on personal and corporate tax, the tax take stays broadly the same. Increase the rates and the wealthier individuals and companies don't pay it, thereby leaving us mortals to get shafted again. Decrease it and although the return per capita is lower, more folks pay it.

But HH just how far should state provision extend?

JamieWednesday posted:

As above, it is all bollox. There have been plenty of studies over the years that show whatever the Governments position on personal and corporate tax, the tax take stays broadly the same. Increase the rates and the wealthier individuals and companies don't pay it, thereby leaving us mortals to get shafted again. Decrease it and although the return per capita is lower, more folks pay it.

That's the Laffer curve, or whatever it's called. I read something once called Laffer's Last Laugh. For every economist who says one thing you'll be able to find loads who contradict it. They all think they are right, until they are proved wrong, when they blame it on something unexpected. 

JamieWednesday posted:

fatcat posted:

JamieWednesday posted:

Corbyn's latest plan is to increase the tax on trades in bonds and derivatives to equate to equities. However, the costs in equities trading are well known and understood, and accepted because relative to the potential high return, they're manageable. However, levying the same costs on something that generally is expected to get a lower return means that pro-rata those costs will represent a much higher piece of the action. E.G. imagine you've got something returning 10% p.a. and something else returning 3% p.a., a 1% p.a. charge for each represents a much bigger cut into the lower return than the higher one, right? Well that's what's going to happen with low return pension funds, the exact sort of things most voters have.

Now, think of the fights that pension scheme members and Unions put up when it's suggested that members raise the amounts they contribute, and those are percentages are just on the contributions. Scale that up to increased percentage point costs/taxes on the trades of the entire fund itself, that's a disaster in waiting. And people may think, 'well that's a just a little extra on the costs, no biggy' but scale that up in a compound calculator over the lifetime of your pension fund (70 years, age 20 to 90) and it's a complete fk up. If I were the Tories I would be runnimg a calculator right now to estimate the costs to everyone's pension scheme, 'cos it's a huge tax rake and I bet folks wouldn't want to pay the same in higher income tax. This is BIG tax by stealth and Corbyn will play it as a Fat Cat Banker's tax and it's not, it would be all of us that are going to get raped by it.

Course, he won't win so actually fairly academic. But he is a knob.

You’re right he is a knob, he should be going a lot further. Nationalising the pension industry would definitely be a vote winner. At present it’s run by a bunch of crooks.

Let’s take your example of a 70 year pension. Lets say the final fund value is £100,000 and the average value over the 70 years £40,000. If that was my pension company they’d be charging on average £400 per annum, (1% of fund value), that’s £28,000.

Regarding the transaction charge. Let’s say a pension company buys a £100 million worth of 25 year bonds, the tax payable on the transaction at 1% would be £1 million, seems a lot doesn’t it. However, as they charge 1% per annum for managing the £100 million of bonds, the total charge for spending £100 million of somebody else’s money is £25 million.

I could go on.

Ah, but if they were charging 1% and enabling you to make say 8% in an equities baised fund, and save you the job of doing it yourself, would that equate to good value? Whereas if they're charging you 1% in a bond based fund to make 3%, it feels different I suspect.  And of course funds don't just buy a single tranche of FI, they buy and sell many. And with many funds now using derivatives to gear up the potential results on their 'low risk' funds, the tax will be even greater with so many such transactions. I maintain a transaction tax on low risk pension funds is going to be felt and be felt more pro rata than within equities funds.

I agree with much of what you say, but most industries rely on the laissez faire or ignorance of their customers to at least some extent. As far as investment/pension fees go, the age old advice of shopping around is a good one to follow. There are major tracker fund providers out there, such as the one who represent themselves as the Blessed Mother, who charge 1% p.a. For a tracker! Go online for 30 seconds and the same thing is available for peanuts elsewhere...Ridiculous. And that's not even being 'managed'.

I think you’re over reacting. In the scheme of things, looking at the overall big picture, it’s insignificant, not worth worrying about. I have a pension fund that was largely funded by my employer and subsidised by tax allowances, I regard my pension as largely free money. If the government take away a bit of my subsidy, I’m not really bothered.  Over a period of 50 years there are so many peaks and troughs, so many gains and losses, why worry about one little loss, next year something might happen to wipe out the loss.

When I first joined a pension scheme 30 years ago, the financial advisor employed by my company calculated I’d have a pot of over million pounds. Well that’s not going to happen, but I’m not blaming anybody, or complaining, that’s just the way it is. I have a serps pension, the benefits of that where changed a few years ago, no idea if I gained or lost, but at least I’ll get something.

From the Labour manifesto

We’ll restore confidence in the workplace pension system and put people rather than profit at its centre. Labour will end rip-off hidden fees and charges, and enable the development of large efficient pensions funds, which will mean more cash for scheme members and lower costs for employers.

What’s not like about that.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

But HH just how far should state provision extend?

I don't know. But certainly as one who has worked in local authorities for years, I know many services are on their knees. When essential services can only be provided if volunteers step in, things have gone too far. But that begs the question as to what's essential of course. One person's essential public library is another's unnecessary waste of money. 

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true.

Is it really such a tragedy? Many respond above all to personality , in soaps, on Question Time, in shops.

General point about a clear philosophical divide very much accepted.

One of May's policies to appeal to these 'working class voters' is giving them the right to a year's unpaid leave for caring duties. As my wife pointed out, all this will do is make employers less likely to employ older women in case they need to care for elderly relatives, as it's almost invariably women who do this. And who are these 'working class voters' anyway? 

As MDS says, it's refreshing to have a real choice. More taxes or worse services. 

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

Sadly most people won't have seen unbiased reporting about the two manifestos.  It's not that the media entirely tell people how to vote, but the media is very good at reinforcing people's views.  I'd like to think people will vote on policies, but I suspect the election has already been decided on a May vs Corbyn basis.  

That's why she's scared to have a debate. Who would you rather have to dinner?

Hungryhalibut posted:

That's why she's scared to have a debate. Who would you rather have to dinner?

Fox or carrot?

But surely I should vote for her cause her heels are nicer!

Quite so. Nice and sharp for grinding the needy into the dirt. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Quite so. Nice and sharp for grinding the needy into the dirt. 

Especially those needy foxes!

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

Sadly most people won't have seen unbiased reporting about the two manifestos.  It's not that the media entirely tell people how to vote, but the media is very good at reinforcing people's views.  I'd like to think people will vote on policies, but I suspect the election has already been decided on a May vs Corbyn basis.  

I agree, Eloise. I know the media generally now seem to gear their questioning in such a way, not to give the political interviewee an opportunity to answer the question, but to extract some sort of admission/phrase that can be amplified into a polarised/binary sound-bite. I've been particularly disappointed in a number of BBC interviewers doing this with Labour interviewees.  This is not in my view helping the audience to better understand what the parties stand for and intend to do, a role I think the media should try to perform. If I want to watch gladiatorial politics I can watch PM's questions or BBC's Qestion Time. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

One of May's policies to appeal to these 'working class voters' is giving them the right to a year's unpaid leave for caring duties. As my wife pointed out, all this will do is make employers less likely to employ older women in case they need to care for elderly relatives, as it's almost invariably women who do this. And who are these 'working class voters' anyway? 

As MDS says, it's refreshing to have a real choice. More taxes or worse services. 

I probably shouldn't say this but I steer clear of employing younger women due to the time off whilst pregnant,  and everything else that goes with it, this policy will now put me off employing older women.

Crumbs, I'm surprised you'd admit to that, as it runs counter to legislation. But by whatever means people get round it, I'm sure they do. Good old Theresa, another policy to further equality.... or not. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Crumbs, I'm surprised you'd admit to that, as it runs counter to legislation. But by whatever means people get round it, I'm sure they do. Good old Theresa, another policy to further equality.... or not. 

I have had a number of unpleasant experiences with employees blatantly exploiting the system, so I have decided to ensure my fingers don't get burnt anymore....

I have noticed JC wants to increase Corporation Tax, so that is a policy I am definitely not so keen on,  my company pays enough tax as it is.

Asking Companies to pay more is not in my opinion going to encourage growth.

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

Sadly most people won't have seen unbiased reporting about the two manifestos.  It's not that the media entirely tell people how to vote, but the media is very good at reinforcing people's views.  I'd like to think people will vote on policies, but I suspect the election has already been decided on a May vs Corbyn basis.  

I agree, Eloise. I know the media generally now seem to gear their questioning in such a way, not to give the political interviewee an opportunity to answer the question, but to extract some sort of admission/phrase that can be amplified into a polarised/binary sound-bite. I've been particularly disappointed in a number of BBC interviewers doing this with Labour interviewees.  This is not in my view helping the audience to better understand what the parties stand for and intend to do, a role I think the media should try to perform. If I want to watch gladiatorial politics I can watch PM's questions or BBC's Qestion Time. 

Agreed. 

I'm really pi**ed off with Laura Kuenssberg and her snipping at all politicians. The sooner someone wipes that smirk off her face the better.

I've never signed up to the view that the parties are the same - even New Labour was a change in direction compared with the previous Conservative administration.  With regard to Labour's manifesto refreshing in that it is different (somewhat) if I were the Head of Risk Mgt (or whatever the job is titled) my main concern would be whether the proposed tax increases actually raise the revenue intended.  History suggests possibly not? 

They won't. Gotta provide stuff that other nations wish to buy and/or borrow it. On top of existing tax take.

Dont really like any of them. We need a 6th way...Any forum members fancy the job?

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I've never signed up to the view that the parties are the same - even New Labour was a change in direction compared with the previous Conservative administration.  With regard to Labour's manifesto refreshing in that it is different (somewhat) if I were the Head of Risk Mgt (or whatever the job is titled) my main concern would be whether the proposed tax increases actually raise the revenue intended.  History suggests possibly not? 

There are reasons to expect they will. One of the points which has been overlooked in most commentary I've heard is that increased public spending (positively) affects tax take. This was certainly overlooked in what the chap from the IFS said yesterday.

There's also the fact that the question about paying for nationalisation is a bit wrong too - as the Labour spokesperson said on the world at one yesterday, purchase of assets which produce a return has to be accounted for differently, especially under current interest rate conditions. But her point didn't seem to get taken up in later commentary.

Though I understand you're not keen on economists, there's a reasonably short explanation of these kinds of things here (not a commercial link) - https://mainlymacro.blogspot.c...bers-add-up.html?m=1

Hungryhalibut posted:

Crumbs, I'm surprised you'd admit to that, as it runs counter to legislation. But by whatever means people get round it, I'm sure they do. Good old Theresa, another policy to further equality.... or not. 

It's something all employers, particularly smaller ones, tend to do, it's inevitable I'm afraid.  

Which party is “promising” to :-

Negotiate Brexit in a friendly way (despite Junckers)

Let "the people” decide on the outcome whether to Leave or Remain

Raise taxes so that we can collectively invest in the NHS, our schools and our infrastructure

Keep Trident and our influence at the international negotiating table

Sell arms to all our friendly allies, including Saudi Arabia

Maintain the “Triple-Lock” on State pensions (I know, I’m being selfish on this one!)

Make Scotland feel an integral part of the UK (we really do love you !)

They will get my vote.........