• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wolf said:
100% in agreement with you on this Chris. Costs have to filter down especially amongst SME's. That will ultimately affect the ability they have to pay staff, which could result in cut backs and loss of jobs. So instead of earning the minimum proposed £10p/h that person goes on instead to become another stag in the benefit system and the merry go round continues.

Then there's the point of creating another national Bank to allow for an additional £250billion of borrowing, that borrowing has to be paid back by someone and that has to be tax payers unless they think always these top 5% plus business can fund every single part of there partially costed manifesto. If they do think that then someone has been on the crack pipe.

I like some of the ideas but the numbers don't add up and that's just the numbers they have actually published.
Click to expand...

Add to that the extra taxation on share dividends, businesses giving 1% of their shares to the workforce per year for 10 years. As you say the £10 per hour just adds to the business costs and is paid by price increases. Taxing second homes will probably mean rental houses too and will mean rent increases for tenants. They need to earn £83b in extra taxes just to pay for the budget they've costed, a colossal sum, and then add the things they've not costed eg rail, mail, utilities etc and the scale is totally mind boggling
 
I would assume that offering groups of people cash to vote for a particular party would be illegal. But all of these manifestos seem to be bribes or inducements to vote for a party. Labour are clearly going after younger voters (scrap tuition fees, free bus travel for under 25's etc) and the public sector workers (5% pay rise). The Tories will be going for different groups but ultimately using the same tactics.
 
chrisd said:
Add to that the extra taxation on share dividends, businesses giving 1% of their shares to the workforce per year for 10 years. As you say the £10 per hour just adds to the business costs and is paid by price increases. Taxing second homes will probably mean rental houses too and will mean rent increases for tenants. They need to earn £83b in extra taxes just to pay for the budget they've costed, a colossal sum, and then add the things they've not costed eg rail, mail, utilities etc and the scale is totally mind boggling
Click to expand...
Exactly it all comes back to the age old saying, "nothing is more certain in life than death and taxes".

The plan to renationalise Rail, Mail, Utilities creation of new national Bank and Nationalising part of BT to provide free broadband provision to all may well sound like the socialist utopia people want the cold hard truth is someone has to pay for it and ultimately taxes and costs trickle down and will very much impact the average working person.
 
ColchesterFC said:
I would assume that offering groups of people cash to vote for a particular party would be illegal. But all of these manifestos seem to be bribes or inducements to vote for a party. Labour are clearly going after younger voters (scrap tuition fees, free bus travel for under 25's etc) and the public sector workers (5% pay rise). The Tories will be going for different groups but ultimately using the same tactics.
Click to expand...

That's what they all do, but, the Tory plans seem much less costly
 
When every independent financial organisation who made projections concluded that Brexit would have a harmful impact on the economy they are not really to be trusted as they are mostly project fear as who knows what will happen in the future. When any organisation make a projection about the impact of Labour's manifesto on the economy and it happens to be negative then these are now to be completely trusted and used as evidence that labour can not look after the economy. #factcheck
 
Marginal rates of tax for a basic rate tax payer & small profit business, under labour(once you hits the various limits) :-

Self Employed......... 29.00% (20% tax + 9% NIC)
Employee............... 32.00% (20% tax + 12 NIC)
Ltd company owner. 36.80% (assuming dividends drawn out of company) (21% tax + an effective 15.8% dividend tax) [currently it is 25.08%)

Eye watering comparison, who would ever setup a small Ltd company business and look to employee people and grow a business(and that ignores the current position of employee rights/pensions/red tape etc that is a big worry/expense to business).

And the thought of the actions they are considering on very large business, is just very naïve on the global basis. Large business can operate from anywhere in the world, can import into the UK and not operate from here and so on, they are the most mobile of 'legal person/entities' and will just walk away and import into the UK.

EDIT I have already seen some small business incorporate foreign companies and move 'those' activities abroad...which has meant less income to the UK and employees in the UK due to Brexit. Tip of the iceberg.
 
DRW said:
Marginal rates of tax for a basic rate tax payer & small profit business, under labour(once you hits the various limits) :-

Self Employed......... 29.00% (20% tax + 9% NIC)
Employee............... 32.00% (20% tax + 12 NIC)
Ltd company owner. 36.80% (assuming dividends drawn out of company) (21% tax + an effective 15.8% dividend tax) [currently it is 25.08%)

Eye watering comparison, who would ever setup a small Ltd company business and look to employee people and grow a business(and that ignores the current position of employee rights/pensions/red tape etc that is a big worry/expense to business).

And the thought of the actions they are considering on very large business, is just very naïve on the global basis. Large business can operate from anywhere in the world, can import into the UK and not operate from here and so on, they are the most mobile of 'legal person/entities' and will just walk away and import into the UK.

EDIT I have already seen some small business incorporate foreign companies and move 'those' activities abroad...which has meant less income to the UK and employees in the UK due to Brexit. Tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

Spot on mate!
Boy am I glad that I retired from my own business when I did. There is absolutely no doubt that the only party that helped through the 25 years I ran it were Tory and anyone who thinks the Labour party is the workers friend is, I'm afraid, deluded
 
Hacker Khan said:
When every independent financial organisation who made projections concluded that Brexit would have a harmful impact on the economy they are not really to be trusted as they are mostly project fear as who knows what will happen in the future. When any organisation make a projection about the impact of Labour's manifesto on the economy and it happens to be negative then these are now to be completely trusted and used as evidence that labour can not look after the economy. #factcheck
Click to expand...

I think you've cracked it!

IFS good today or bad today?
 
pauldj42 said:
A lot business’s said the same over Brexit, yet this was laughed at.
Even today you had people lauding the IFS when they stated they didn’t believe Labour could achieve the sums through tax proposals, this is the same IFS that was dismissed when they stated the worst scenario for the economy was a No Deal Brexit.

Very difficult to get to the truth of any of the different party proposals when it’s all being hit with political spin.
Click to expand...

Strange isn't it, seems like the IFS is used as a political football, good when it suits, bad when it doesn't. Good to see the Marxist MacDonald picked up on Breakfast this morning. Only yesterday he quoted the IFS when quoting Tory figures and dissing them this morning and saying they get things wrong when they questioned his.

Would like to see commentators doing more of this when they interview all parties. Who funds the IFS?
 
chrisd said:
A sound idea !

The extra costs to business etc will all filter down and affect jobs and wages. The plans as a whole will put us back to where we were in 2010 "there's no money left"
Click to expand...

...and the quite possible additional costs incurred by many if not most SMEs as a result of a No Deal Brexit - or indeed Johnson's Deal? Where will they go?

Because even if you accept the assertion that great new trade deals will expand opportunity for SMEs - these great new deals are not going to happen overnight - and an additional cost burden will. And they almost certainly won't result in increased wages that many who voted to leave expect.
 
chrisd said:
That's what they all do, but, the Tory plans seem much less costly
Click to expand...

You have had early sight of the costed Tory Party Manifesto? Thought that was coming out on Tuesday?

Did you see that the Tory Party costings of the Labour Manifesto (£1.2Tr I think the figure was) included stuff that isn't in the current manifesto but was in the 2017 one, plus stuff the Labour Party have talked about since and was in neither.

https://fullfact.org/news/conservative-claim-labour-1-trillion/

Neat trick (or a deceit) but beedin' obvious unless you don't think for two seconds

And yes I know that the Labour manifesto costings does not include some major commitments that they have costed separate and not specifically in their manifesto.
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
...and the quite possible additional costs incurred by many if not most SMEs as a result of a No Deal Brexit - or indeed Johnson's Deal? Where will they go?
Click to expand...

Why will "many if not most SMEs" face additional costs due to Brexit?

There are over 5 million SMEs in the UK (2017 figures) of these less than 250000 were importing/exporting to or from the EU or rest of the world so I will say that your claim is BS. Many if not most SMEs will face no additional costs due to Brexit as their business is entirely UK focussed.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
...and the quite possible additional costs incurred by many if not most SMEs as a result of a No Deal Brexit - or indeed Johnson's Deal? Where will they go?

Because even if you accept the assertion that great new trade deals will expand opportunity for SMEs - these great new deals are not going to happen overnight - and an additional cost burden will. And they almost certainly won't result in increased wages that many who voted to leave expect.
Click to expand...

If the EU give us the free trade deal that they will need to I dont see that there need be an additional cost burden. If they treat us like they have in the recent leave process there may be a short term loss but a long term gain
 
ColchesterFC said:
Why will "many if not most SMEs" face additional costs due to Brexit?

There are over 5 million SMEs in the UK (2017 figures) of these less than 250000 were importing/exporting to or from the EU or rest of the world so I will say that your claim is BS. Many if not most SMEs will face no additional costs due to Brexit as their business is entirely UK focussed.
Click to expand...

I was going to post on a similar basis but, of course, many SME's do indirectly import and their costs could increase
 
patricks148 said:
what are they now?? aprt from the over staffing bit

run for profit, poor service, poor investment, rinsing ticketprices for the GP and still costs the tax payer.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody's talking much about the principle of private v nationisation .
I get the impression that some posters on here are owners of businesses, some , if not all, being against the railways nationalisation.
May I ask you this? If you sold your business to me and I ran it and made a profit, you would not expect me to give you some of those profits,would you? On the other hand, if I made a loss, what would you say if I came to you for some more funds to continue running the business.?
Exactly. Go forth and multiply.
But that is what the private train companies do ask of the Government, do they not, when making a loss?
It's wrong . It's having the cheek of the devil.
But why is it considered OK for the Government to pump money into the railways, even under these circumstances of private ownership?
Because they are a vital part of a country's infrastructure and necessary for it to survive as a secure and properly functioning unit, under all circumstances, even in war.
Same applies to utilities like water and power. They are a country's essential assets without which it couldn't function and keep its citizens safe.
So they should, for that reason alone, be controlled by the Government. And they cannot do that properly if owned privately.
Whether they are run inefficiently seems the main argument of those opposed to nationalisation, but it is a minor consideration compared with those reasons above.
To argue otherwise is a call for the Armed forces and Emergency services, Health service etc to be privatised.
Whether anything is run efficiently or not is down to good strong management, free of political correctness, and that is achievable, by good fair personnel -privately or nationally owned.
 
Old Skier said:
Strange isn't it, seems like the IFS is used as a political football, good when it suits, bad when it doesn't. Good to see the Marxist MacDonald picked up on Breakfast this morning. Only yesterday he quoted the IFS when quoting Tory figures and dissing them this morning and saying they get things wrong when they questioned his.

Would like to see commentators doing more of this when they interview all parties. Who funds the IFS?
Click to expand...
No idea mate, but this isn’t new, political parties of all persuasions have being treating us like idiots for years and instead of them being called out we insult each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top