Politics, politics, politics

[Robspur12]

Scara I agree one of the best things about the coalition has been the job creation which is in stark contrast to Thatcher's government. Where I disagree with you is that lots of low paid jobs is not good for the deficit or debt as the government has to pay in work benefits effectively subsidizing the low paying employers. As small to medium sized businesses employ the majority of people I would have prioritized tax breaks for them rather than a corporation tax cut for the big boys.

 

[scaramanga]

Scara I agree one of the best things about the coalition has been the job creation which is in stark contrast to Thatcher's government. Where I disagree with you is that lots of low paid jobs is not good for the deficit or debt as the government has to pay in work benefits effectively subsidizing the low paying employers. As small to medium sized businesses employ the majority of people I would have prioritized tax breaks for them rather than a corporation tax cut for the big boys.

Corporation tax is a benefit for any profit-making company, not just large ones. Changes in employer's NI have reduced the cost of employing people and benefited smaller companies disproportionately compared to larger ones.

Low paid jobs are better than no jobs. Subsidising some of someone's income is better than subsidising all of their income.

Oh and on jobs during Thatcher's time - many of the 'jobs' lost weren't real jobs anyway. They were created and/or propped up by the government just to keep people busy. It reminds me of that old description of what communism is: It's all about digging up coal to make some steel, to build some machines that can dig up more coal, to make some steel, to build some machines that can dig up more coal...... (repeat ad infinitum)

 

[Robspur12]

Corporation tax cut only benefited anyone with a profit over £300000. I agree however, that doing work albeit temporary low paid is better than no work.

I won't respond to the Thatcher comment as it's just scara being scara.

Anyway I have to get back to doing something productive today!

 

[scaramanga]

Corporation tax cut only benefited anyone with a profit over £300000. I agree however, that doing work albeit temporary low paid is better than no work.

I won't respond to the Thatcher comment as it's just scara being scara.

Anyway I have to get back to doing something productive today!

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but my company earns less than £300K profit and our tax rate has been cut:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12828434

 

[inkpenspur]

Tories constantly go on about this. Household debt and the debts of nations are not the same, but even if they were, I guess you paid cash for your house, didn't borrow a penny.

Yeah, but the problem is that Labour look at an interest only mortgage loan... they don't think about how to pay the capital off at the end of the term!

 

[NWND]

I can guarantee you, having worked on regeneration projects the local Council is absolutely central to any plans. They will have put together the plans, sought private and public investment and decided on the schemes, central government mostly sign the cheques. Regen does not happen in a town without effective local government. Yes the money has to be made available but all governments have money and initiatives available for regen if the Councils are competent enough to put bids together. I very much doubt that the Coalition came in with a "regenerate Bradford" plan.

I think your immigration comments are totally disingenuous. Bradford has had one of if not the largest Muslim population in the country long before the last government.

Of course not, but the local authority can't do anything on this scale without backing and funding from central government. Central government had announced the northern powerhouse scheme and made it clear there was money to regenerate Northern cities. The council have taken advantage of that situation. The government did not come in with a regenerate Bradford plan, but they did come in with a regenerate the north plan and sought the involvement of relevant local authorities.

I'd ask that you don't try and talk about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

As to comments regarding immigration, this is a case in point. Yes, there was a large immigrant population in Bradford prior to the Labour government, but it was largely stable and ONS predictions prior to the 00s were that it would stabilise at 120,000 by 2010 and not continue to grow. Instead, by the mid 00s, it was growing at a much faster rate than any other period in time. This was largely due to relaxed immigration controls and a policy of actively encouraging immigration, particularly through study VISA's and marital VISA's. It created a population explosion in a short period of time with mass immigration not seen since the initial influx. This led directly to tensions and violence and this was highlighted among a number of factors, including social and economic decay and isolation, lack of integration and poor local authority planning in a report compiled of the causes.

Even Ed Milliband in the Leader debate admitted "Yes, I know our policy on immigration was wrong, which is why I've changed it."

You seem to want to claim that its just a massive coincidence that Bradford was in the mire and systematic decline between 1997 and 2010 and that the significant and startling improvement and investment since 2010 is absolutely nothing to do with the coalition government that took power in 2010, despite one of their key policies from day one being the regeneration and investment in Northern English cities to create a northern powerhouse.

Your attempts to deny that this pledge and plan has anything to do with the huge regeneration seen in Bradford since 2010 when there was no such regeneration or investment going on prior to this, are verging on the ridiculous.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

We're now in a global economy. If we can't offer competitive tax rates then we just lose the whole tax take.

If we are going to accept this cope out excuse, why make them pay any Tax? It's oh so hard, so let's just give up shall we? I can't avoid tax, being PAYE, so I don't see why these parasites should be able to.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Corporation tax is a benefit for any profit-making company, not just large ones. Changes in employer's NI have reduced the cost of employing people and benefited smaller companies disproportionately compared to larger ones.

Low paid jobs are better than no jobs. Subsidising some of someone's income is better than subsidising all of their income.

Oh and on jobs during Thatcher's time - many of the 'jobs' lost weren't real jobs anyway. They were created and/or propped up by the government just to keep people busy. It reminds me of that old description of what communism is: It's all about digging up coal to make some steel, to build some machines that can dig up more coal, to make some steel, to build some machines that can dig up more coal...... (repeat ad infinitum)

How is a low paid job, better than no job, if the end result is that the worker is still living in poverty? Yeah mining isn't a real job. Tell that to a miner. Manufacturing isn't a real job either? I hope you are canvassing for the Tories Scara because you could single handedly drive hundreds off voters away from voting Conservative.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Yeah, but the problem is that Labour look at an interest only mortgage loan... they don't think about how to pay the capital off at the end of the term!

Nonsense!

 

[scaramanga]

If we are going to accept this cope out excuse, why make them pay any Tax? It's oh so hard, so let's just give up shall we? I can't avoid tax, being PAYE, so I don't see why these parasites should be able to.

You can legally avoid chunks of tax just like anyone else. If you have kids you can take childcare vouchers, you can put more into your pension pot, you can take part in a company salary sacrifice scheme, etc.

Paying into an ISA is also tax avoidance - ever done that?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Scara, you know as well as I do that the the above are largely government sponsored and approved. Not the result of shady and immoral tax experts and requiring a big bank balance in Bermuda. The cheek is that some corporations take up these schemes, yet are on the ear for government concessions on the low levels of tax, that they already pay.

 

[scaramanga]

How is a low paid job, better than no job, if the end result is that the worker is still living in poverty? Yeah mining isn't a real job. Tell that to a miner. Manufacturing isn't a real job either? I hope you are canvassing for the Tories Scara because you could single handedly drive hundreds off voters away from voting Conservative.

A low paid job is work. I know it's hard for a Labour follower to understand, ever since their campaign to create an army of benefit voters, but most people would rather work than not - even if the resultant income was the same.

Mining isn't a real job if the mine is being funded and kept open by the taxpayer - that's just cycling money around the tax system. Once you take inefficiencies into effect then you've created a black hole for taxpayers' money. If other countries can produce what our mines can efficiently and easily then it's far better to pay them and invest the savings into re-education, training and development. If the miners hadn't been so violent, angry and reluctant to retrain they could have had good futures and their families could have been far better off. But they let their families and the country down by acting the way they did.

 

[scaramanga]

Scara, you know as well as I do that the the above are largely government sponsored and approved. Not the result of shady and immoral tax experts and requiring a big bank balance in Bermuda. The cheek is that some corporations take up these schemes, yet are on the ear for government concessions on the low levels of tax, that they already pay.

As taxpayers and corporations our only moral requirement is to pay tax as per the law set out by the government. Anything legal is moral, anything illegal is immoral - it's that simple.

Considering your position on politics, don't you think that taxes should be higher? If so, have you ever offered the government more in tax than they already take? Surely you're under some kind of moral obligation to do so?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

My philosophy is best summed by a line from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." I believe in progressive taxation measures, not on taxes that unfairly burden those least able to afford them. How does being a socialist equate to wanting increased tax across the board? As a firm supporter of the (endangered) mixed economy I believe that corporation tax, should not inhibit business, but that companies should pay their fair share.

 

[P.D.]

On the NHS it's accepted that costs are going to increase for medication, that an ageing population increases costs as well as a growing population. Taking that into consideration is keeping it free at the point of use really a long term solution or are we just delaying the inevitable? I wouldn't be against a small charge for it or charges for GP appointments, penalty charges for being later or not turning up etc. Guess NI is technically supposed to fund it but all tax really just goes into one big government pot these days.

 

[P.D.]

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but my company earns less than £300K profit and our tax rate has been cut:

There used to be different rates for profits of below or above £300K, they have now aligned these. Trouble is the greater than £300K was 28% when the coalition took over and the less than £300K rate was 21%.

They are both now 20% from 1 April 2015 so it's benefitted firms with much larger profits though as you say smaller firms have benefitted more from NI breaks.

See link here - https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax-rates/rates

 

[Robspur12]

Whi

Of course not, but the local authority can't do anything on this scale without backing and funding from central government. Central government had announced the northern powerhouse scheme and made it clear there was money to regenerate Northern cities. The council have taken advantage of that situation. The government did not come in with a regenerate Bradford plan, but they did come in with a regenerate the north plan and sought the involvement of relevant local authorities.

I'd ask that you don't try and talk about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

As to comments regarding immigration, this is a case in point. Yes, there was a large immigrant population in Bradford prior to the Labour government, but it was largely stable and ONS predictions prior to the 00s were that it would stabilise at 120,000 by 2010 and not continue to grow. Instead, by the mid 00s, it was growing at a much faster rate than any other period in time. This was largely due to relaxed immigration controls and a policy of actively encouraging immigration, particularly through study VISA's and marital VISA's. It created a population explosion in a short period of time with mass immigration not seen since the initial influx. This led directly to tensions and violence and this was highlighted among a number of factors, including social and economic decay and isolation, lack of integration and poor local authority planning in a report compiled of the causes.

Even Ed Milliband in the Leader debate admitted "Yes, I know our policy on immigration was wrong, which is why I've changed it."

You seem to want to claim that its just a massive coincidence that Bradford was in the mire and systematic decline between 1997 and 2010 and that the significant and startling improvement and investment since 2010 is absolutely nothing to do with the coalition government that took power in 2010, despite one of their key policies from day one being the regeneration and investment in Northern English cities to create a northern powerhouse.

Your attempts to deny that this pledge and plan has anything to do with the huge regeneration seen in Bradford since 2010 when there was no such regeneration or investment going on prior to this, are verging on the ridiculous.

Which other Northern cities have been regenerated specifically by that plan? I happen to know a lot about regeneration actually. I can tell you there has always been money for regeneration projects all governments do them and package them under different names. It is up to the council to make a case for funding. The coalition did not invent this stuff. Bradford did well this time Newham council benefited from housing action areas back when I have was working in regeneration in 1997. Roehampton in the South has put in for regeneration money to redevelop its Council estate now. Plus I don't get why you think a Labour government would derail this when a Labour council put it together? Look the regeneration of Bradford is a good thing the coalition scheme has benefited Bradford. But previously other Northern cities benefited at different times under different governments. My point is that these kind of projects are not solely the brain child of the coalition.

 

[NWND]

Whi

Which other Northern cities have been regenerated specifically by that plan? I happen to know a lot about regeneration actually. I can tell you there has always been money for regeneration projects all governments do them and package them under different names. It is up to the council to make a case for funding. The coalition did not invent this stuff. Bradford did well this time Newham council benefited from housing action areas back when I have was working in regeneration in 1997. Roehampton in the South has put in for regeneration money to redevelop its Council estate now. Plus I don't get why you think a Labour government would derail this when a Labour council put it together? Look the regeneration of Bradford is a good thing the coalition scheme has benefited Bradford. But previously other Northern cities benefited at different times under different governments. My point is that these kind of projects are not solely the brain child of the coalition.

Leeds has also been regenerated, the trinity centre was completed, and the west and east ends of the city centre are currently under extensive development.

Plans have just been announced for the electrification of the Leeds to Manchester Victoria line and the northern rail contract has been put out to tender with the condition that whoever wins the franchise is obliged to replace the old pacer trains with new rolling stock.

The M62 has had extensive work completed to its infrastructure including intelligent digital traffic management systems.

Halifax has also had its centre completely redeveloped in the last 2 year's.

Yes, all governments will provide funding for urban regeneration but it's the scale and co-ordination of the regeneration and infrastructure improvements I've seen around where I live that seems to directly lie with public plans and statements by central government.

My point is also that even if we accept that Its nothing to do with central government and it's all a variety of local governments co-ordinating with each other, the economy had to have grown significantly to allow such investment on such a scale. It just feels like things are getting significantly better year on year. I'm just worried about moving away from that. But I'm also worried about voting conservative as I'd want them in a coalition with the Liberals again. I think that's worked well.

 

[scaramanga]

My philosophy is best summed by a line from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." I believe in progressive taxation measures, not on taxes that unfairly burden those least able to afford them. How does being a socialist equate to wanting increased tax across the board? As a firm supporter of the (endangered) mixed economy I believe that corporation tax, should not inhibit business, but that companies should pay their fair share.

A more succinct and accurate philosophy is "Taxation is theft"

 

[scaramanga]

But I'm also worried about voting conservative as I'd want them in a coalition with the Liberals again. I think that's worked well.

It's worked much better than I thought it would have.

Much of this is probably down to the Lib Dems shooting their load early on AV. Seeing as that's unlikely to happen this time, added to the fact that they will probably think they're a serious party now that the Greens have taken the student tw4t vote, they're unlikely to settle for making these tea this time.