The General Election Thread

[biffvernon]

I trust everybody has read the article by Tony Benn on William Morris in the new edition of Cornerstones?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I trust everybody has read the article by Tony Benn on William Morris in the new edition of Cornerstones?

Everyone else's copy seems to have arrived, mine hasn't but then there's nothing from my own fair hand in it this time...

 

[worms]

1) Who manages interest rates? Is it the Government, or the Bank of England? As it is actually the Bank of England, then how can Brown claim that he managed to keep interest rates low?

Fair's fair, having criticised Brown earlier in this thread, I must point out that he gave the Bank of England the autonomy to set interest rates and target inflation. Of course that was in Act 1, Scene 1 and in the best traditions of Shakespearian tragedy it all went downhill from there.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Table 14 shows that the top 10% of income taxpayers now pay over
half of all the income tax paid, and the top 1% pay 23% of all that is paid.

To put these figures into perspective, in 2008/9 there were 30.6m taxpayers: 0.348m in the starting band, 26.7m in the basic band and 3.6m in the higher band.

I suppose the colour of one's politics will determine how such figures are interpreted but given that the higher rate taxpayers are contributing over 50% of all income tax it seems hardly fair to characterise them as a bunch of tax-avoiding fat-cats.

The flaw in these figures is that they only record those paying tax, and then only income tax. Somewhere outside of these figures are people like the British born multi-millionaire Barclay brothers who own, amongst other interests, the Daily Telegraph, tax-exile Lewis Hamilton and the Candy brothers, worth an estimated £330 million who commute to their Knightsbridge development from Monaco - not an option available to most of us. They do most of their business in the UK, benefit from its infrastructure, spend a lot of time in the UK, but can't afford to contribute themselves. This is not about envy; they have earned their wealth, just as I have, and good luck to them. I just wish they paid their taxes the same way that most of the UK population do.

3.6 million higher rate tax payers equates to about 5% of the population. The richest 5% of the population own 40% of the country's private wealth.

A third of Britains top 700 companies pay no tax at all.

So, we need to cut £160bn from our expenditure just to break even.

Alternatively, the government needs to increase its revenue. One way that this can be done (apart from following the USA example and removing tax-exile status) is by having more people in work and paying tax, more profits being made by businesses as they sell to these workers, and reduced unemployment benefit costs. If Cameron repeats the trick from last time he had a recession to deal with, unemployment will rise. Then tax income will fall and the amount needed for benefits will increase, putting us in an even worse situation.

Japan, which has a deficit of more than 180% of GDP has a credit rating one below the AAA top score.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Everyone, I think, recognises the need for cuts and improvements in public sector productivity. The question is who will be better at these two tasks, and who has the best ideas.

Nobel Prize winner for Economics Paul Krugman said he was "shocked" by Cameron's policies and they would worsen the recession "for sure".

"If spending cuts are made too early and the monetary and fiscal stimuli are withdrawn, unemployment could easily reach four million. If large numbers of public sector workers, perhaps as many as a million, are made redundant and there are substantial cuts in public spending in 2010, as proposed by some in the Conservative Party, five million unemployed or more is not inconceivable. Crime will inevitably rise and there will be widespread social unrest if this happens." - Professor David Blanchflower, until recently on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee.

"I would not trust him with my daughter's pocket money" - not a Labour party comment, but an observation by Jeff Randall.
Cameron's only job outside of politics was with Carlton communication, until 2001, when it went into financial meltdown and nearly bankrupted several football clubs on the way. Telegraph columnist and former BBC Business editor Jeff Randall got to know Mr Cameron well, and said "I would not trust him with my daughter's pocket money... In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative".
Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

 

[Nigel Watts]

Nobel Prize winner for Economics Paul Krugman said he was "shocked" by Cameron's policies and they would worsen the recession "for sure".

Merton and Scholes got the Nobel prize for economics for their work on financial derivatives. Their hedge fund firm, Long Term Capital Management, which operated according to the principles for which they were honoured, went spectacularly bust and their work helped fuel the banking crisis. The moral of the story is that you shouldn't believe everything economists say, even if (or perhaps especially if) they are Nobel laureates.

The brains behind Cameron is Osborne. He may not be as likeable as "Dave" but his political judgment is quite astute. The truth is that there is not a huge difference bewteen Tory and Labour on the subject of cuts and the NI increases proposed by Labour and opposed by the Tories are likely to have an adverse effect on employment, as the business community has pointed out.

I agree that there are some dangers in the new breed of polictians spending virtually none of their time in the world outside politics, but in this the Tory leadership is not alone. Balls and the Milliband brothers - likely contenders for the Labour party leadership after Brown - are in exactly the same mould.

 

[biffvernon]

The brains behind Cameron is Osborne.

:lol:

 

[Feltwell]

The brains behind Cameron is Osborne.

:lol:

At least it's not Boris!

 

[Nigel Watts]

Dave, George and Boris are certainly an interesting trio. All are clearly highly intelligent, but in different ways. Boris won a scholarship to Eton (no mean feat - when I was a prep school we used to be shown Eton scholarship papers and were amazed at their difficulty). Cameron wasnt a scholar, yet at Oxford only Cameron got a first. George was at St Pauls rather than Eton, hence his nickname of "the oik" in the Bullingdon, even though he stands to inherit a baronetcy. Of the three Osborne is clearly the best political strategist and thinker and Cameron seems to have the highest level of emotional intelligence. As for Boris - the only one of the trio I have met and know slightly - he is eccentric, charismatic, witty, more thoughtful than many realise, quite liberal by Tory standards, a good delegator and highly ambitious. He is also doing a real job now. If he proves to be good at it I am sure it can only assist his further progress.

 

[Flyfisher]

This is not about envy; they have earned their wealth, just as I have, and good luck to them. I just wish they paid their taxes the same way that most of the UK population do.

Ah, but they don't pay their taxes in the same way do they (ignoring tax exiles for the moment)? Those 3m or so higher rate taxpayers are paying a far higher proportion of their income than most of the UK population, hence their contribution of over 50% of all income tax revenue. Why is this not the politics of envy? A truly fair system would be a flat tax system where everyone pays at the same rate? Such a system might even tempt back the tax exiles and increase the overall tax revenues, as has happened in many countries where it has been implemented.

The tax exile thing, I agree, is difficult. I suspect most people in this situation have a highly international aspect to their affairs, so what would be a fair distribution of their taxes be anyway? What about a rock star who sells millions of records (i.e. taking people's money) all over the world? Is it really fair that he pays all his tax only to the country he happens to live in? What about contributing to the countries where the records are sold? But, if it is deemed 'fair' for all his taxes to be paid to his country of residence, what's wrong with him choosing which country to live in - or do you think a tax allegiance should be permanently established at birth? What's the difference between Lewis Hamilton moving to Switzerland and some friends of mine moving to Australia? Both moves result in less tax being paid in the UK. "Not about envy"? I don't think so.

 

[MdB]

The top 1% of earners generate 24% of tax income.
The top 10% of earners generate 53% of tax income.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm

 

[Flyfisher]

Alternatively, the government needs to increase its revenue. One way that this can be done (apart from following the USA example and removing tax-exile status) is by having more people in work and paying tax, more profits being made by businesses as they sell to these workers, and reduced unemployment benefit costs. If Cameron repeats the trick from last time he had a recession to deal with, unemployment will rise. Then tax income will fall and the amount needed for benefits will increase, putting us in an even worse situation.

In an ever-growing economy I dare say that might work. Isn't that called a 'boom' economy? Brown obviously thought it was that simple when he declared that boom and bust was over. Hmm.

Again, isn't it all a matter of living beyond our means? If the jobs are not there, they're not there. Government can fund all sorts of schemes (sleight of hand?) to create jobs and reduce unemployment but unless they are 'real' wealth-creating jobs they are being funded from taxes, with no net gain to the country. It's like giving yourself more money to spend each week, even though your actual income remains static. It ends in tears.

 

[biffvernon]

Dave, George and Boris are certainly an interesting trio. All are clearly highly intelligent,

Ah, so little correlation between intelligence and wisdom then.

 

[Nigel Watts]

These are young men. Only time will tell for certain how wise they are, but if the Tories win a majority of seats, as they may, Cameron's achievement will be have been a spectacular one and a massive vindication of his leadership.

 

[biffvernon]

Or conclusive proof of the gullibility of the sheeple.

 

[Moo]

Or conclusive proof of the gullibility of the sheeple.

So - what's new?

 

[Penners]

Or conclusive proof of the gullibility of the sheeple.

If voting for Cameron is evidence of gullibility, how would you classify voting for Brown?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Or conclusive proof of the gullibility of the sheeple.

If voting for Cameron is evidence of gullibility, how would you classify voting for Brown?

S&M - cos it buggers you and me at the same time!

 

[Flyfisher]

OK, Brown is an easy target, but this is still quite amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgwR1pA1k0

(er, possibly not ideal for those easily offended by swearing).

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Well, if we're playing that game, then the nose-picking and eating has to come out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VaP1HB7Vew&feature=related

:shock: