Brexit, for once some facts.

[PeterL]

est you find yourself being expelled from the party!

Tom

Only just spotted, apologies for not reading your post completely before I got fed up with it. - I am not and never have been a member of the Conservative Party. In the past (long time ago) have voted both Labour and Liberal. My Uncle was even a Shop Steward at Cowley!

How about you then... can you display an open mind?

 

[flecc]

The Daimler V8 was a good engine in its 2.5 and 4.5 guises but this is what company records said.

"Limited investment in tooling for the 2.5-litre engine led to limited production capacity, with a maximum weekly output of 140 engines. This prescribed maximum output was never achieved during the production of the engine."

But Daimler only had it for one year (1959) before the company was sold to Jaguar. They, Jaguar, invested in engines from their very healthy sales income and could have done in the Dart engine production if they'd chosen to. Clearly they didn't see it worth bothering, discontinuing it four years later. It seems it was only the Daimler name they were interested in having.
.

 

[Danidl]

But that very policy reduced revenue. Top earners move abroad, pay clever accountants, invest offshore and find ways around high tax levels. The extra tax revenue available ( obviously it can be increased) would never pay for stuff Corbyn expects. Look at his manifesto. If it were so was so easy why has this government not done so ? The earners you are targetting are well under the type we see in government ( The Ashcrofts etc)
The middle earners are the voters, thats exactly why Corbyn will never get in ( or if he does not last long)
Raising tax to raise revenue does not produce anywhere near the results expected. That is proven. And if not done carefully can and will produce recession.

.. if high value people choose to move abroad, then strip them of citizenship. Citizenship of a liberal Western democracy is very highly valued. It is easy for us who have it to ignore its value. What is needed is a rethink of the rule of domicile. That a person can reside in a country for 182 days and claim residence elsewhere and so avoid taxes is so outdated..and dates from the age of sail. it bluntly should be pro rata. Be Present for 24 hrs cumulative, should pay 1/365 of the yearly tax.etc. since they have to be somewhere then the other country gets the remainer, or the territorial waters or airspace,.. which can be 200 miles off land or the airspace of the designated air traffic controller.

 

[flecc]

Do you really think that the Unions would have allowed them (BL) to outsource engines?

They did, Austin Princess R with a bought in Rolls Royce 4 litre engine. Also the Austin Champ military version with an RR. B series 4 cylinder.

Using other's engines had long been well known in the motor industry, many makers of commercials not making engines at all, ditto motorcycles, and all with the same unions for their work forces.
.

 

[Georgew]

A proud Englishman! I love my country and irrespective of all the political (nonsense) am happy to live here. It is not, in my eyes, the picture many on here paint. It is controversial, to me, for someone to suggest that our PM is in cahoots with or supports someone intent on removing Palestine from the map. I wasn't suggesting myself as being an apologist, Tom argues against his country - not me!

I've just read this.....and I'm astonished...astonished...... I tell you, to find that behind my back Dundee has been moved to England.....and here was I planning to nip up there to buy some coffee beans.

 

[Zlatan]

.. if high value people choose to move abroad, then strip them of citizenship. Citizenship of a liberal Western democracy is very highly valued. It is easy for us who have it to ignore its value. What is needed is a rethink of the rule of domicile. That a person can reside in a country for 182 days and claim residence elsewhere and so avoid taxes is so outdated..and dates from the age of sail. it bluntly should be pro rata. Be Present for 24 hrs cumulative, should pay 1/365 of the yearly tax.etc. since they have to be somewhere then the other country gets the remainer, or the territorial waters or airspace,.. which can be 200 miles off land or the airspace of the designated air traffic controller.

Yes, you might be right but the fact is at the moment raising tax does not necessarily increase tax revenue for all reasons mentioned. It is simply not as simple as left assume. Putting your measures in place, raising taxes, lowering threshold would make the government of day even less popular...and could quite easily slow the economy, especially if Labour did stick to leaving EU...they,d be out within a couple of years.
The real solution is to foster growth and increased tax through greater earnings then we attract foreign investment and retain high earners. You can not operate a non capitalist successful nation in a capitalist world .
Yes, I accept there are severe changes needed to make " trickle down" work but without increased revenue where does money for anything come from. Its the socialist dream. It does not work. The economy needs to work and work well for us all to benefit. It seems when it slows the poorer suffer first and worse but that does not alter the fact for us all to do well the well off have to. Its a necessary evil. Its how capitalism works. Centralisation of capital for investment. Greed oils the wheels, money is the machine. Take away our desire for things or greed to accumulate more and the economy must stagnate.

 

[flecc]

The real solution is to foster growth and increased tax through greater earnings then we attract foreign investment and retain high earners. .

That's exactly what we've been doing for ages, but it hasn't worked because the bulk of the greater earnings have gone to those who avoid paying enough tax, or any tax at all.

So we've gone much further into national debt, are unable to maintain our services like the NHS at even a working level and don't have enough money to invest in the infrastructure to bring it up to date.
.

 

[Georgew]

Yes, you might be right but the fact is at the moment raising tax does not necessarily increase tax revenue for all reasons mentioned. It is simply not as simple as left assume. Putting your measures in place, raising taxes, lowering threshold would make the government of day even less popular...and could quite easily slow the economy, especially if Labour did stick to leaving EU...they,d be out within a couple of years.
The real solution is to foster growth and increased tax through greater earnings then we attract foreign investment and retain high earners. You can not operate a non capitalist successful nation in a capitalist world .

Tax avoidance is only possible because it is allowed....I note it is only the very wealthy who can do this...it is something confined to the rich. If any Government was serious they could eliminate this by making it illegal......it would make Lord Ashcroft very annoyed of course.

Raising taxes need not make the Government unpopular as the example of the Scandinavian countries show. People there appreciate the social support structure made possible by increased taxes.

You seemed to be equating raising taxes with the demise of capitalism....heaven knows why. It is quite possible to raise taxes in a capitalist country.

"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.

In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£191,279 as of 2016),[7]. In 1974 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax.[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom

Compare this to the situation today.

 

[oldgroaner]

Apart from the obvious links to the happenings of WW2 and the need for all politicians to at least be seen as supportive of Israel, I'm not aware if any clandestine reasons, are you?

Do you imagine that there aren't any?
That would be a leap of faith, for it would make their attempts to "cuddle up" seem not to be worth while.
Why do they need our politicians to be their friends?

Enough to have one of them make private visits not authorised by the Boss? and make arrangements on her own none existent authority, or was she?

You have to ask this was truly the case and she wasn't actually working on orders, but once spotted was "plausibly deniable"

 

[oldgroaner]

yet you and OG seem to know that something sinister was (going on).

Another standard Tory ploy is imply that someon made a statement that they didn't.
I did not say that something sinister was going on, did I?

 

[oldgroaner]

True - Horse Power vs Horse S**t perhaps. a welcome break perhaps?

Perhaps you could take your own advice?

 

[Zlatan]

I said myself severe changes need implementing to make trickle down work, lets face it , it should not be trickle...more pour.

Using the 70's as an example is rather short sighted...it was not a good decade economically.
We are taxed enough. Lets just make sure we all pay what we should and that trickle down becomes pour.

We have plenty of examples of raising tax reducing revenue , so I,m not sure why Scandanavian countries are involved. I think both Brown and Lawson ( and probably Osborn) saw reduced revenue from raising tax thresholds.
We have IHT and CGT both at 40%...how much higher do you want them. ???

 

[anotherkiwi]

I've just read this.....and I'm astonished...astonished...... I tell you, to find that behind my back Dundee has been moved to England.....and here was I planning to nip up there to buy some coffee beans.

Welcome to the colonies!

 

[Georgew]

I said myself severe changes need implementing to make trickle down work, lets face it , it should not be trickle...more pour.

Using the 70's as an example is rather short sighted...it was not a good decade economically.
We are taxed enough. Lets just make sure we all pay what we should and that trickle down becomes pour.

We have plenty of examples of raising tax reducing revenue , so I,m not sure why Scandanavian countries are involved. I think both Brown and Lawson ( and probably Osborn) saw reduced revenue from raising tax thresholds.
We have IHT and CGT both at 40%...how much higher do you want them. ???

Trickle down economics has long been discredited...it simply doesn't work.

"Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. In fact, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up."
https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

I mentioned the Scandinavian example as you said higher taxation made any Government less popular......and I gave a counter-example.......I do things like that.

 

[Zlatan]

That's exactly what we've been doing for ages, but it hasn't worked because the bulk of the greater earnings have gone to those who avoid paying enough tax, or any tax at all.

So we've gone much further into national debt, are unable to maintain our services like the NHS at even a working level and don't have enough money to invest in the infrastructure to bring it up to date.
.

No , I dont think we have. You might have seen plenty of investment in London , the Shard etc etc but what has happened anywhere else to stimulate growth and competiveness. Nothing. We don't even try to compete with anything...The whole country needs investment in Infrastructure ( our roads are worst in Europe) Industry needs re-establishing and more investment.
I,m hoping ( expecting) we will have to do this over next decade if we leave. We,ve been stagnating for years.

 

[flecc]

We have plenty of examples of raising tax reducing revenue , so I,m not sure why Scandanavian countries are involved.

It's about fairness, people in Sweden for example are happy to pay very high tax rates for two reasons. Firstly theirs is about the most even society in the world with a much smaller gap between the lowest and highest earnings and living standards than other countries. Secondly they see the tax money they all pay coming back usefully in kind, keeping their society so well balanced.

The UK is so far away from that ideal it's little wonder taxation is resented here.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Sorry George, I cant see your reply.

 

[Zlatan]

It's about fairness, people in Sweden for example are happy to pay very high tax rates for two reasons. Firstly theirs is about the most even society in the world with a much smaller gap between the lowest and highest earnings and living standards than other countries. Secondly they see the tax money they all pay coming back usefully in kind, keeping their society so well balanced.

The UK is so far away from that ideal it's little wonder taxation is resented here.
.

Yes, I can see that. Suspect our upkeep is rather more and I,ll bet Sweden does not have as many Ashcrofts...( who give Capitalism a bad name. We need to be good but fair with capitalism)

 

[flecc]

No , I dont think we have. You might have seen plenty of investment in London , the Shard etc etc but what has happened anywhere else to stimulate growth and competiveness. Nothing. We don't even try to compete with anything...The whole country needs investment in Infrastructure ( our roads are worst in Europe) Industry needs re-establishing and more investment.
I,m hoping ( expecting) we will have to do this over next decade if we leave. We,ve been stagnating for years.

I didn't reply to a post on national investment patterns, this is what you wrote that I replied to:

The real solution is to foster growth and increased tax through greater earnings then we attract foreign investment and retain high earners.

That strategy hasn't paid off anything like enough, as you acknowledge, and I can't see how leaving the EU will improve matters. For a least 2 to 5 years I'm expecting it to get worse.

But I fully agree that the real need is investment of a very large scale across the country if we are ever to truly succeed. Given the scale of opposition, even within government, to HS2 and a third runway at Heathrow I'm not hopeful.
.
.

 

[Georgew]

..........<snip...The whole country needs investment in Infrastructure ( our roads are worst in Europe) Industry needs re-establishing and more investment.
I,m hoping ( expecting) we will have to do this over next decade if we leave. We,ve been stagnating for years.

Dream on.

"British infrastructure projects seeking funds from the European Investment Bank will need to insure the bank against the risks of Brexit, its president said at the weekend, as he warned that Britain’s departure from the EU would damage its ability to fund infrastructure.

"He echoed warnings last week from the National Infrastructure Commission that the UK’s efforts to overhaul energy and transport infrastructure would be damaged by ejection from the EIB, as he signalled the bank would take a larger role in future in financing eurozone projects."

Speaking to the Financial Times on the sidelines of the IMF annual meetings, Mr Hoyer insisted that lending to UK projects would continue “while the UK is a shareholder and a member”, but said it was inevitable that lending to the UK would fall from recent levels of about £7bn a year."
https://www.ft.com/content/aaaaa9cc-b1b2-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8