Labour are deluded.

[Churchill]

The top 5% earners already pay over 90% of the tax revenue but are still vilified. Labour want to now hit the corporations that provide these top 5%. When they up sticks the Corporation tax, PAYE tax and NIC's are going to go. Welcome back to the winter of discontent.



If labour provide free broadband, who is going to employ the people who will be laid off from Virgin Media and all the other ISP's? Thousands of people thrust onto the dole, but hey it's all good, the great unwashed will have their benefits, their cigarettes, their booze and SKY TV.  tоварищ Corbyn will be the messiah and worshipped for taking the country back to the 70's, somewhere his voters have never been.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies are not impressed with either the Tory or Labours policies the numbers don't add up on their spending plans the Tories have not gone into enough detail, but Labours plans are not feasible at all.



The IFS  state for their spending plans are not deliverable the public sector does not have the capacity to do it apparantly Labours borrowing plan would see the nations dents rise to 3% of the National Income, they would not be bale to balance the budget.



Their plan to give 10% of shares to workers could actually depress wages, as for Corbyn's claim they would only need to tax those earning over £80,000 is a red herring , in order to raise £80 billion of tax revenue they want they would need to tax millions of others.



I am not an economist or understand fully but I know from past experience they would have to tax everything and anything to raise the telephone numbers of cash to need to do some of what they dream of doing, which will not be good for the workers and seriously damage the UK's economy which is sheer fiscal incompetence, Nay Lunacy

[Borchester]

No, it doesn't exist, you've just made it up 😂. It's like electrochromic glass, it's not real.  :shrg:

No. I am right and you smell of poo. :hattip



I have to say that I like the sound of this electrochromic glass stuff. Something else I must look into

[Baron von Lotsov]

My problem is Youtube. Click on one commie and the AI thinks you want to listen to the lot. I dare not try and educate myself on trickle down economics or it will cover my computer with the crap like a rash.



Anyhow, in short it means they have all the money, and they set it up so their mates get a bung and then they bung their species in the food chain until maybe just single pennies roll into worker's pockets. It's a fairy tale, and it neatly disguises the real picture that none of these Luddite economists have a clue about. I met them the other day on some Cambridge University student debate thingy. I'll quote you it for fun:



"Uh oh. Looky at the comments. The capitalism fellaters weighing in."



Cambridge seems not what it once was.

[Nick]

Trickle down economics works ok, just not quickly or as well as handing the cash directly to the chaps and chapesses at the bottom.

No, it doesn't exist, you've just made it up 😂. It's like electrochromic glass, it's not real.  :shrg:

[Borchester]

No one is saying it works, you are denying that the principle ideas to exist. There are some states in the US that used it. It went badly but it exists.

 Trickle down economics works ok, just not quickly or as well as handing the cash directly to the chaps and chapesses at the bottom.

[Nick]

Ah yes, well it is a political concept alright, but not an economic one. So if it were honest it would be trickle down politics, which is a kind of Marxian idea and sure does have its supporters in Uncle Sam. They are called Democrats. All Marxist governments screw up because Marx was technically wrong in the sense of economics. It was impossible for the system to work. The trickle down idea is so you can imagine an analogy. Actually Keynes went one step further and modelled the economic system with water and pipes with valves on them, like a water computer!

I give up.

[Baron von Lotsov]

No one is saying it works, you are denying that the principle ideas to exist. There are some states in the US that used it. It went badly but it exists.

Ah yes, well it is a political concept alright, but not an economic one. So if it were honest it would be trickle down politics, which is a kind of Marxian idea and sure does have its supporters in Uncle Sam. They are called Democrats. All Marxist governments screw up because Marx was technically wrong in the sense of economics. It was impossible for the system to work. The trickle down idea is so you can imagine an analogy. Actually Keynes went one step further and modelled the economic system with water and pipes with valves on them, like a water computer!

[Nick]

Yes because it is a crucial point. OK I admit I've been fooled by this sort of thing myself, hence I check this out automatically. Americans are particularly bad and inventing pseudo-scientific words which are a complete misnomer. Trickle down economics is like the classical case in the department of economics. You see economics as an academic study has a lot of credibility because it is all peer-reviewed. If you can find a paper on economics that is published in a reputable economics journal on it and it has been peer-reviewed then I'll eat my hat. Money does not "trickle" as if it were some fluid coming from the pockets of the rich. It always* moves via transactions, which are contracts. Water does not do this, very unsurprisingly.



* except when it is thieved.

No one is saying it works, you are denying that the principle ideas to exist. There are some states in the US that used it. It went badly but it exists.

[Baron von Lotsov]

You keep banging the rocks together!!

Yes because it is a crucial point. OK I admit I've been fooled by this sort of thing myself, hence I check this out automatically. Americans are particularly bad and inventing pseudo-scientific words which are a complete misnomer. Trickle down economics is like the classical case in the department of economics. You see economics as an academic study has a lot of credibility because it is all peer-reviewed. If you can find a paper on economics that is published in a reputable economics journal on it and it has been peer-reviewed then I'll eat my hat. Money does not "trickle" as if it were some fluid coming from the pockets of the rich. It always* moves via transactions, which are contracts. Water does not do this, very unsurprisingly.



* except when it is thieved.

[Nick]

No mix-up.



I see this quite a bit. Another one is is electrosensitivity. It sounds like a scientific term, but it is not because the effect is bogus and unscientific. Trickle-down economics likewise pretends to be a recognised economic term, in that what it describes is real. However it is nothing of the sort, and is a political term. You've been fooled by the bullshters. To avoid being fooled again, if you don't understand a word or term, i would do a quick look-up if i were you. I did before pulling you up on it, just to check what I thought it was. It's part of the American "right-ons" political lexicon. They are full of sht and far more than even the BBC.

You keep banging the rocks together!!

[Baron von Lotsov]

You're getting mixed up with whether something works and whether it is recognised terminology.

No mix-up.



I see this quite a bit. Another one is is electrosensitivity. It sounds like a scientific term, but it is not because the effect is bogus and unscientific. Trickle-down economics likewise pretends to be a recognised economic term, in that what it describes is real. However it is nothing of the sort, and is a political term. You've been fooled by the bullshters. To avoid being fooled again, if you don't understand a word or term, i would do a quick look-up if i were you. I did before pulling you up on it, just to check what I thought it was. It's part of the American "right-ons" political lexicon. They are full of sht and far more than even the BBC.

[Nick]

You still don't believe me. It goes to show how much you know.

You're getting mixed up with whether something works and whether it is recognised terminology.

[Churchill]

I agree they cannot just take over companies as they did back in 40's and 70's even if Labour do win the GE with a large majority a just slap a compulsory purchase order on a company job done, they would probably end up in Court for years with the owners and share holders fighting them every step of the way.



More of our money down the drain

[Nick]

"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country." Jeremy Corbyn



Wurzel is going to be a bit stuck without the power companies.

Don't think he knows you can't just compulsory purchase someone else's company. Makes me laugh that FB is full of sub 30 year olds peddling Labour crap thinking JC is the messiah.

[Borchester]

Just as a precaution in case Corbyn and Labour win the GE which I don't think they will, two Energy suppliers have now registered their companies off shore,

 

National Grid has opened offshore holding companies in Hong Kong and Luxembourg, while SSE has incorporated in Switzerland, it  would not stop a government taking control of their operations but would protect shareholders and Pension funds.



I think others will be doing the same , or putting in place escape plans to leave the UK quickly

"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country." Jeremy Corbyn



Wurzel is going to be a bit stuck without the power companies.