Election night 2019 / aftermath II

[Ponty]

I can’t let this go as you appear determined to add a snipe in every post.

I understand it completely. My best friend of nearly 50 years happens to be an IFA, he understands it extremely well and has explained it all very clearly.

By the way, I don’t dislike my best friend.

No snipe intended, you are simply incorrect when it comes to effective tax rates, thinking some people only pay 7.5% for example. This appears to have given you a false impression of the tax affairs of a certain group of people. I’ve got lots of friends who do lots of things but it doesn’t mean I’m an expert because they’ve tried to explain something to me. I was however, amongst other things, a company secretary for 15 years, so I’ll just leave it there. All the best and Happy Christmas!

 

[matt j]

Sorry, that is horribly cynical of me. Maybe it will result in loads of manufacturing jobs in Stoke that offset this.

Don't casually dismiss the demand for commemorative cups and plates celebrating Brexit Day. Fire up the kilns!

 

[Brian]

No snipe intended, you are simply incorrect when it comes to effective tax rates, thinking some people only pay 7.5% for example. This appears to have given you a false impression of the tax affairs of a certain group of people. I’ve got lots of friends who do lots of things but it doesn’t mean I’m an expert because they’ve tried to explain something to me. I was however, amongst other things, a company secretary for 15 years, so I’ll just leave it there. All the best and Happy Christmas!

Blimey.

What I said was, as a so-called ‘company’, people pay themselves a small salary plus a larger amount in dividends, on which they are able to they pay a lower rate of tax ~8%. So it’s actually 7.5%. At no point have I said people are paying an overall effective tax rate of 7.5%, which appears to be what you are suggesting I said.

Maybe if you got off your defensive high-horse for a minute you may not jump to incorrect conclusions.

 

[Ponty]

Blimey.

What I said was, as a so-called ‘company’, people pay themselves a small salary plus a larger amount in dividends, on which they are able to they pay a lower rate of tax ~8%. So it’s actually 7.5%. At no point have I said people are paying an overall effective tax rate of 7.5%, which appears to be what you are suggesting I said.

Maybe if you got off your defensive high-horse for a minute you may not jump to incorrect conclusions.

I’m sorry, but you’ve just demonstrated my point brilliantly that you don’t understand the topic. Nothing more to be said.

 

[35451]

Okay, Denise not just a beacon of Tory entrepreneurship but turns out she’s a saint. Sorry for any offense caused.

No offense, just trying to reconcile the facts with your not wishing to share the country with 'people like that'. Her and her husband are from Sheffield and are both long term Labour supporters.

Google suggests They have donated over £400k to Labour funds in last 10 years.

 

[stevec67]

And yet study after study over decades have consistently found the same things:

-- Immigration has minimal effect on wages because what downward pressure it does have is offset by the growth from adding more workers to an economy.
-- What effect it does have is mostly on low-skilled, low wage jobs.
-- You are much more likely to have your wages affected by immigration if you are in fact an immigrant.

That's as may be. Now let's look at the perception as seen from the street on the way to the ballot box.
An independent plasterer has seen his rates fall. So have those of his mates. This much is observed fact. He doesn't see the wider economy.
I don't believe that low wage jobs are affected in the UK in this case as they are protected by min wage.
I don't see how the last point can be true without affecting indigenous workers doing the same jobs. It's only going to work if there are whole sectors like say agriculture that employ only immigrants.

So what you say may be true. I doubt it is the case across all 3 points on this occasion in the UK. Even if it is, this is not the perceived case and this belief has driven both brexit and the last election. I therefore respectfully suggest that you are either mistaken, partially mistaken, or absolutely right but nobody believes you. Certainly not in Sedgefield, Grimsby or Wakefield.

 

[misterdog]

Last year I phoned my GP surgery with a painful non emergency and was told they couldn’t help for 3weeks, when pressed the receptionist recommended I visit A&E!

My GP works on same day appointments.
Or there are other alternatives available.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/09/a-e-alternatives-where-to-go-non-emergency

 

[gassor]

So what you say may be true. I doubt it is the case across all 3 points on this occasion in the UK. Even if it is, this is not the perceived case and this belief has driven both brexit and the last election. I therefore respectfully suggest that you are either mistaken, partially mistaken, or absolutely right but nobody believes you. Certainly not in Sedgefield, Grimsby or Wakefield.

Immigration fell dramatically in importance between the ref and the recent General Election. According to Ipsos Mori less than 10% thought it the major issue of the GE.

 

[Dave H.]

Financial Hub can be, in fact is, quite divorced from where companies are located for tax purposes. Hubs like New York, London, Frankfurt and Hong Kong are just where trading takes place and capital is raised. Quite different.

Which defeats the original argument. If capital is so geography-agnostic, then CT rates >0% anywhere in the world would mean £0 tax take in that territory so long as at least 1 place in the world which was accessible to capital had 0% effective CT (or whatever the rate is in the Caymans, for example).

Clearly that isn’t what actually happens. If it were, we could raise CT to whatever we liked, or drop it by 10% tomorrow, and it wouldn’t make any difference either way.

The impossibility of raising taxes without ruining the economy still doesn’t add up.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Immigration fell dramatically in importance between the ref and the recent General Election. According to Ipsos Mori less than 10% thought it the major issue of the GE.

That might be because they assumed Brexit would sort it, though.

 

[Ponty]

Which defeats the original argument. If capital is so geography-agnostic, then CT rates >0% anywhere in the world would mean £0 tax take in that territory so long as at least 1 place in the world which was accessible to capital had 0% effective CT (or whatever the rate is in the Caymans, for example).

Clearly that isn’t what actually happens. If it were, we could raise CT to whatever we liked, or drop it by 10% tomorrow, and it wouldn’t make any difference either way.

The impossibility of raising taxes without ruining the economy still doesn’t add up.

The issue is moving it. For example, Ireland attracted all the US tech companies with a very low tax regime. The problem they have, by directing all the European revenues through Ireland, is the trapped cash they have accumulated. It’s trillions of dollars. They can’t move it back to the US without a whopping tax bill. Trump, of all people, is attempting to repatriate this cash to invest in the US.

 

[gassor]

That might be because they assumed Brexit would sort it, though.

Immigration had been falling in importance to voters well before the GE (since the ref in fact) and the trajectory continued downward on the same path in the run up to the election. So I can't agree with your assumption.

 

[matthewr]

That's as may be. Now let's look at the perception as seen from the street on the way to the ballot box.
An independent plasterer has seen his rates fall. So have those of his mates. This much is observed fact. He doesn't see the wider economy.
I don't believe that low wage jobs are affected in the UK in this case as they are protected by min wage.
I don't see how the last point can be true without affecting indigenous workers doing the same jobs. It's only going to work if there are whole sectors like say agriculture that employ only immigrants.

So what you say may be true. I doubt it is the case across all 3 points on this occasion in the UK. Even if it is, this is not the perceived case and this belief has driven both brexit and the last election. I therefore respectfully suggest that you are either mistaken, partially mistaken, or absolutely right but nobody believes you. Certainly not in Sedgefield, Grimsby or Wakefield.

Well firstly, by definition, minimum wage jobs *are* low wage jobs. And "independent plasterer" is a skilled, well paid job.

And secondly this has happened to all jobs -- in my job as a computer programmer it used to be really easy for the hordes of averagely skilled programmers to get high paying jobs and now not so much (Plot Spoiler: they all went contracting so they could boost their income by paying less tax).

But mostly I am tired and cannot muster another Science vs Wot I Reckon rebuttal so I shall leave it there.

 

[stevec67]

Matthew, it's not Wot I Reckon. That doesn't matter a toss. It's Wot The Voters Reckon, as demonstrated last week. Like I said, you can be as right as you like, but if no bugger believes you, as demonstrated last week, you are just as lost.

 

[matthewr]

I don't believe that low wage jobs are affected in the UK in this case as they are protected by min wage.

I don't see how the last point can be true without affecting indigenous workers doing the same jobs. It's only going to work if there are whole sectors like say agriculture that employ only immigrants.

That doesn't look like what voters reckon to me.

 

[cooky1257]

The welfare state is subsidising business, a minimum wage should be set so that "in work" benefits don't exist.
People need to wake up, the stigma of working and claiming should be shifted to cheapskate employers, in fact I would go so far as to tax businesses a top up rate/charge equal to the amount of welfare support claimed by its employees.

 

[Seanm]

That's quite a leap, blaming four defeats on the people who delivered three election victories. They don't need a lurch to the right but they do need credible policies and people.

Well, not really. The theory is logical enough: areas of the country that had got a raw deal since the war and been actively dismantled by Thatcher expected some remedial attention from a Labour government (especially given, yes, 3 victories), and it never came. The numbers back up the theory. Why wouldn’t they blame Labour? Especially when it’s often Labour councils that are directly implementing cuts and often doing very little to engage with communities or do anything to help. What’s really dismaying for a supporter is not that Corbyn tanked the party’s vote in places like Bishop Auckland but that he failed to reverse the trajectory:

“Labour Majority in Bishop Aukland:

1997: 21,064
2001: 13,926
2005: 10,047
2010: 5,218
2015: 3,508
2017: 502
2019: Lost

It's convenient & politically-lucrative for many to scapegoat Corbyn. It won't change the fact many of Labour's #GE2019 losses have been decades in the making.”
https://twitter.com/hichamyezza/status/1207350122838921218?s=21

It’s a while since I posted this, which gives the context:
https://newleftreview.org/issues/II105/articles/tom-hazeldine-revolt-of-the-rustbelt

 

[matthewr]

“Labour Majority in Bishop Aukland:

1997: 21,064
2001: 13,926
2005: 10,047
2010: 5,218
2015: 3,508
2017: 502
2019: Lost

There are some really interesting graphs kicking around that show the correlation between class and the Labour vote over that period and the line of best fit gradually moving from 45% of correlation with a strong r squared number to nearly flat.

Although I would suggest this is more Thatcher's fault than Blair's.

 

[vuk]

@matthewr

that new avatar is a great look for your labour leadership run, but what if the cleveland browns grab you as replacement coach first?

 

[matthewr]

@matthewr

that new avatar is a great look for your labour leadership run, but what if the cleveland browns grab you as replacement coach first?

The Keir Hardie of the NFL is clearly Ryan Fitzpatrick.