Labour's economic credibility

[BeElBeeBub]

On September the 28th 1976, my 19th birthday, the joke chancellor of the exchequer dennis healey was forced to turn back from his flight at heathrow to rush back to london to hand fiscal control of this country to the IMF because his policies had bankrupted it and they demanded control as part of the rescue package.



Have you actually read what Corbyn is promising ?



It will take a single plane load of the people he needs to tax the arse off to fund his spending spree to getbonbthat plane and leave to derail his entire budget, which seems to me to be entirely built around borrowing so much they can pay their way clean out of debt.

This isn't about what Corbyn is promising (for the record I am in no way pro Corbyn).



It's about how some here are inconsistent.



Economists make assesments of the impact of Brexit changes on the economy (increased trade friction etc) -> "you can't make predictions, it's too complicated"



Economists make assesments of the impact of Corbyn government on the economy (increased taxes, nationalisation etc) -> "look how Corbyn will crash the economy"



If you have spent the last 3 years dismissing economic forecasts as unreliable you are extremely hypocritical if you suddenly start using economic forecasts to argue your point.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Speaking for myself and my own views, I have always been very clear about this ( sound familiar ) in that the UK will face greater economic challenges in the short to medium term (up to five years or so) as a result of Brexit. However as we progress beyond this point the UK (although I suspect it may well by then exclude Scotland) will be starting to benefit from the economic changes brought about by our newly gained economic freedoms and, to a lesser extent, immigration regulation limiting residential status to those who will contribute to our economy and excluding those who won't.



The EU is shrinking, and will almost certainly, continue to shrink in size as a percentage of global GDP and its protectionist tariff structure will earn it no friends among the successful emerging and frontier markets, which without massive employment, welfare and social overheads is far more competitive in producing essential low-tech product. The UK with a far more free trade oriented market will be better able to trade under such terms by importing low tech products while profiting from its areas of excellence such as financial services, medical developments, robotics, IA, and high tech.

I was about to start to agree with that post, but when you mentioned robotics, a UK company called Flymo had to go to the Norwegians to help them do the electronics and AI stuff to make an antonymous lawnmower. The cost of it was pretty steep as well. Robotic lawnmowers though are at the lower end of AI tech. You see our country lags in this industry badly.

Turning to Labour's proposed economic policies there is far more agreement on the potential economic outcomes simply because they are more obvious and easily understood,



First of all I have no real objection in modest taxation increases and redistribution. I don't object to the principle of state ownership of essential infrastructure such as the broadband network, the rail network, gas and electrical distribution infrastructure, However such state monopolies should not extend to services beyond licensees (eg private companies paying to use the infrastructure but competing in the sale of product using such infrastructure). However market prices must be paid to the private shareholders of nationalisation targets. Anything less is theft of private property

and while fully meeting the dubious ethics and morality of Marxists such as McDonnell and Corbyn, is not acceptable in any economically advanced democratic democracy in the world.



Other proposed measures are either regressive, divisive and gender prejudiced such as revoking reform of womens pensions, which incidentally at a cost of £60 billion can not be afforded under Labour's own economic rules. It does not appear in their manifesto and rather like student loans, makes no contribution to economic productivity, they are simply an election bribes/



Four day, 32 hour weeks are simply going to reduce our already comparatively poor national productivity further pushing up prices both domestically and of our exports, ultimately discouraging inward investment, encouraging capital flight and, with other measures such as a 35% increase in corporation tax, the theft without compensation of public company shares from shareholders, unskilled and unqualified workers on boards is all pure Marxist ideology and will result in greater unemployment, lower wages and a reducing gdp.



Economic illiteracy and Marxist zealotry combined. Marxism has never, and I mean never, been successful  beyond the short term in any democracy. There is always either economic collapse and/or growing authoritarianism resulting in totalitarian control. Just look at Venezuela and Cuba as indisputable examples.

In short, they are good spenders of other people's money. Now we need some answers as to why Flymo could not find a British firm to contract out. I really do believe they looked here first. In my book, the number one priority is how are you going to make money. Once you have made it you can think about spending it! The Lib Dems are just as bad, but they have a different image makeover.

[Churchill]

The experts at the Institute of Fiscal Studies have already stated Labour will have to tax millions of workers more who earn less than £80,000 a year,on top of that they will need to borrow many Billions , sheer lunacy you can't get out of debt by borrowing more money, spending less yes borrowing more no.

[johnofgwent]

Missing the point somewhat.



How can you decry economic forecast that Brexit is bad for the economy with "you can't make predictions" and at the same time say "we predict Labour's policies will be bad for the economy"?

On September the 28th 1976, my 19th birthday, the joke chancellor of the exchequer dennis healey was forced to turn back from his flight at heathrow to rush back to london to hand fiscal control of this country to the IMF because his policies had bankrupted it and they demanded control as part of the rescue package.



Have you actually read what Corbyn is promising ?



It will take a single plane load of the people he needs to tax the arse off to fund his spending spree to getbonbthat plane and leave to derail his entire budget, which seems to me to be entirely built around borrowing so much they can pay their way clean out of debt.

[Major Sinic]

Correct, it is an Impact Assessment.  It looks at what the impact of Brexit would be isolated from events like a trade war between the US and China or another financial crisis.



A forecast for the UK economy would be looking at all the other factors.



An impact assessment looks at the impact of one group of factors.



The assessment shows that Brexit will have a negative impact compared with no Brexit.



If there is an other great depression and everyone's GDP drops by 15% Brexit UK will drop by more than it would have done remaining.



If there is a major boom and everyone's economies jump by 15% the UK's will jump by less than it would have done if we remained.



This was a very robust analysis with impeccable credentials and it showed that even the best possible FTAs with the RoW the impacts would be a net negative.



The dire warnings of Labour's policies are similarly impact assessments.  The claim to analyse the effects of increasing corp & income taxes or nationalising industry X.



Many here are happy to take those assessments.



Yet are also happy to dismiss similar impact assessments of brexit as guesswork.

Speaking for myself and my own views, I have always been very clear about this ( sound familiar ) in that the UK will face greater economic challenges in the short to medium term (up to five years or so) as a result of Brexit. However as we progress beyond this point the UK (although I suspect it may well by then exclude Scotland) will be starting to benefit from the economic changes brought about by our newly gained economic freedoms and, to a lesser extent, immigration regulation limiting residential status to those who will contribute to our economy and excluding those who won't.



The EU is shrinking, and will almost certainly, continue to shrink in size as a percentage of global GDP and its protectionist tariff structure will earn it no friends among the successful emerging and frontier markets, which without massive employment, welfare and social overheads is far more competitive in producing essential low-tech product. The UK with a far more free trade oriented market will be better able to trade under such terms by importing low tech products while profiting from its areas of excellence such as financial services, medical developments, robotics, IA, and high tech.



Turning to Labour's proposed economic policies there is far more agreement on the potential economic outcomes simply because they are more obvious and easily understood,



First of all I have no real objection in modest taxation increases and redistribution. I don't object to the principle of state ownership of essential infrastructure such as the broadband network, the rail network, gas and electrical distribution infrastructure, However such state monopolies should not extend to services beyond licensees (eg private companies paying to use the infrastructure but competing in the sale of product using such infrastructure). However market prices must be paid to the private shareholders of nationalisation targets. Anything less is theft of private property

and while fully meeting the dubious ethics and morality of Marxists such as McDonnell and Corbyn, is not acceptable in any economically advanced democratic democracy in the world.



Other proposed measures are either regressive, divisive and gender prejudiced such as revoking reform of womens pensions, which incidentally at a cost of £60 billion can not be afforded under Labour's own economic rules. It does not appear in their manifesto and rather like student loans, makes no contribution to economic productivity, they are simply an election bribes/



Four day, 32 hour weeks are simply going to reduce our already comparatively poor national productivity further pushing up prices both domestically and of our exports, ultimately discouraging inward investment, encouraging capital flight and, with other measures such as a 35% increase in corporation tax, the theft without compensation of public company shares from shareholders, unskilled and unqualified workers on boards is all pure Marxist ideology and will result in greater unemployment, lower wages and a reducing gdp.



Economic illiteracy and Marxist zealotry combined. Marxism has never, and I mean never, been successful  beyond the short term in any democracy. There is always either economic collapse and/or growing authoritarianism resulting in totalitarian control. Just look at Venezuela and Cuba as indisputable examples.

[Churchill]

There are only two 100% guarantees in this world death and taxes.

[BeElBeeBub]

[size=150]

 Copied from Page 6



This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy.



While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution.[/size]

Correct, it is an Impact Assessment.  It looks at what the impact of Brexit would be isolated from events like a trade war between the US and China or another financial crisis.



A forecast for the UK economy would be looking at all the other factors.



An impact assessment looks at the impact of one group of factors.



The assessment shows that Brexit will have a negative impact compared with no Brexit.



If there is an other great depression and everyone's GDP drops by 15% Brexit UK will drop by more than it would have done remaining.



If there is a major boom and everyone's economies jump by 15% the UK's will jump by less than it would have done if we remained.



This was a very robust analysis with impeccable credentials and it showed that even the best possible FTAs with the RoW the impacts would be a net negative.



The dire warnings of Labour's policies are similarly impact assessments.  The claim to analyse the effects of increasing corp & income taxes or nationalising industry X.



Many here are happy to take those assessments.



Yet are also happy to dismiss similar impact assessments of brexit as guesswork.

[Churchill]

I am puzzled as to why there is any confusion about the tax status of the State retirement pension. As an amount it is included in its entirety within the total income received. It therefore contributes to the total sum of income upon which income tax might be levied. For instance if your income including your state pension exceeds £12500 (2019/20) you will pay income tax at the current rate on all amounts exceeding £12500. That you receive the full amount of your state pension gross, without deductions, is because your notice of tax coding will levy it off other income.

Yes you and Borchester are bang on, that is why I still pay income tax because I have a yearly income over the income tax threshold

[Borchester]

Do they always consider the state pension first against any taxable allowances? That would do it, I suppose.

They, or at Least HMRC do. As I was saying, I was being pedantic but the state pension always heads the list and since it is invariably less than the tax threshold then it looks as though it isn't being taxed. But in practice it all goes into the pot.

[Nick]

are you trying the "this isn't real" approach?...



Those were the direct links from this page:



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting-the-european-union-publications">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... blications">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting-the-european-union-publications



Just to save you havining to scroll down the page and click on the links.



Just note the top level domain there.....







Also note the royal crest and the crown copyright notice on the document that was published by HM stationary office.

[size=150]

 Copied from Page 6



This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy.



While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution.[/size]

[BeElBeeBub]

Do the government always public documents on development websites where people can just upload and delete their own documents?



Can we have something official?

are you trying the "this isn't real" approach?...



Those were the direct links from this page:



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting-the-european-union-publications">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... blications">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting-the-european-union-publications



Just to save you havining to scroll down the page and click on the links.



Just note the top level domain there.....







Also note the royal crest and the crown copyright notice on the document that was published by HM stationary office.

[Major Sinic]

I am puzzled as to why there is any confusion about the tax status of the State retirement pension. As an amount it is included in its entirety within the total income received. It therefore contributes to the total sum of income upon which income tax might be levied. For instance if your income including your state pension exceeds £12500 (2019/20) you will pay income tax at the current rate on all amounts exceeding £12500. That you receive the full amount of your state pension gross, without deductions, is because your notice of tax coding will levy it off other income.

[Nick]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/760484/28_November_EU_Exit_-_Long-term_economic_analysis__1_.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/760484/28_November_EU_Exit_-_Long-term_economic_analysis__1_.pdf



And the technical reference to go with it.



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759763/28_November_EU_Exit_Long-Term_Economic_Analysis_Technical_Reference_Paper.PDF">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759763/28_November_EU_Exit_Long-Term_Economic_Analysis_Technical_Reference_Paper.PDF

Do the government always public documents on development websites where people can just upload and delete their own documents?



Can we have something official?

[Churchill]

You definitely include your state pension in your income when filling in your SA tax return. I think (though i'm not certain) it's just included as "income".

It is classed as " income" as is any other pension you may be drawing , or any other form of income you maybe receiving, e.g income from shares other investments or still employed full or paid part time work

[BeElBeeBub]

Do they always consider the state pension first against any taxable allowances? That would do it, I suppose.

You definitely include your state pension in your income when filling in your SA tax return. I think (though i'm not certain) it's just included as "income".