UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[RandoEFC+]

Not to be too optimistic because it feels wrong after all these years of misery but while Truss and what's his face trash the economy, there are some positive noises coming out of the Labour annual conference.

Starmer's speech today (I haven't watched myself) and the policy platform being put together by the leadership has received enthusiastic support from the "Liberal centre left" which is probably the closest thing to being his core vote, but also a reasonable amount of approval from the traditional Corbynite commentators that have often been outspoken in their criticism of him.

The country could look very different by 2024's general election but Labour are favourites with the bookies and the public expect them to win the next election for the first time. Like I said earlier, my hope is that if the Tories continue to set themselves on fire like they have been and give Labour an open goal, hopefully they can take the opportunity to stand on a solidly social democratic manifesto and implement some genuinely positive change. There's a lot to do but some of the announcements I've read about over the past couple of days are an encouraging start.

The article I posted is a fair analysis in my opinion of how a lot of traditionally "left wing" policies have quite an overwhelming level of support in the country right now and describes some of the policies I'm referring to.

[Dave]

12 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Trickle down economics is based around the premise that the ultra rich and the companies will pay workers more with the higher profits they receive, rather than just pocket the extra cash.

History has shown that time and time again, this sort of "supply side" economics just gives the people in society who already have the most even more. And I'm sure @Inverted would know more than me - but I think companies have a statutory duty to look out for shareholders, not their workers. So big profits with low overhead trumps paying workers more because companies have more.

 

Billy Basic over here but I cannot see the logic in it at all. If you want the economy to improve you need people to spend money. If you give members on this forum £100 we will spend it. Not because we want too, but with the cost of living we no choice. A person making 150k+ a year are more likely to save that money.

If Labour do not win the next election then they may as well fold. The difference in quality of living our generation experiences as opposed to what our parents did is absolutely astonishing. What do the Tories have to do to lose power and stop voting for them.

[Waylander]

6 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

Billy Basic over here but I cannot see the logic in it at all. If you want the economy to improve you need people to spend money. If you give members on this forum £100 we will spend it. Not because we want too, but with the cost of living we no choice. A person making 150k+ a year are more likely to save that money.

If Labour do not win the next election then they may as well fold. The difference in quality of living our generation experiences as opposed to what our parents did is absolutely astonishing. What do the Tories have to do to lose power and stop voting for them.

I agree on spending money by the poorer side of society so thought it was bad that Truss binned Boris scheme for National insurance.

I watched the Andrew Neil show on Sunday evening and he agreed Truss was taking a big risk with taxes and gambling that entrepreneurs would come here to take advantage of the low corporate tax. He acknowledged this was a big risk.

On Labour who are pushing expansion of the Green Economy to boost jobs he thought that was disingenuous as that would create a few thousand jobs at most not hundreds of thousands of jobs.

He said even if they brought back the top 45% rate that would only bring in £2bn in taxes and the fuel subsidies were expected to cost £8bn.

Labour traditionally struggle to win without Scottish votes. The devolution pushed by the last Labour government seems in fact to have damaged Labour. 

 

 

[RandoEFC+]

Jesus christ.

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Jesus christ.

Out of interest: How are pension funds organized in the UK (mandatory with a steady monthly contribution from employees and/or employers or as a private insurance)?

Also does a governmental guaranteed mininum pension exist?

Edited September 28, 2022 by Rucksackfranzose

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Out of interest: How are pension funds organized in the UK (mandatory with a steady monthly contribution from employees and/or employers or as a private insurance)?

Also does a governmental guaranteed mininum pension exist?

There's a state pension.

And there's also the pension scheme through employers - the employer should match the employees contribution.

You can set up private pensions funds to be accessible once you're 55, and get 25% of that tax free. Or get an annuity which is basically a sum you continue to get for the rest of your life.

[Bluewolf]

15 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Out of interest: How are pension funds organized in the UK (mandatory with a steady monthly contribution from employees and/or employers or as a private insurance)?

Also does a governmental guaranteed mininum pension exist?

As Stan say's you can have a private pension and if you are working and do one in the workplace they have to match whatever you are putting in to it... I have both, A private pension and a work pension.. The government pension is determined by your contribution throughout your working life, The more you have worked/paid then the greater the level of pension given to you when you retire.. 

[Gunnersaurus]

On 27/09/2022 at 18:48, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah of course they don't want one, but if they keep offering up rubbish candidates as PM and don't like anyone they actually put up it's kind of hard to say we're a proper democracy without actually giving the people a chance at picking the next PM instead of a group of tory weirdos that can't help but find a candidate worse than the last.

Only the prime minister can call an early election though cant she? 

[Gunnersaurus]

Ow by the way @Honey Honey you still haven't answered my question??

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

Billy Basic over here but I cannot see the logic in it at all. If you want the economy to improve you need people to spend money. If you give members on this forum £100 we will spend it. Not because we want too, but with the cost of living we no choice. A person making 150k+ a year are more likely to save that money.

If Labour do not win the next election then they may as well fold. The difference in quality of living our generation experiences as opposed to what our parents did is absolutely astonishing. What do the Tories have to do to lose power and stop voting for them.

Yeah, what you're saying is absolutely true. It's why "trickle down economics"/supply side economics is generally ill advised - it doesn't actually stimulate the economy. Instead what you're saying is absolutely true, it gives extra money to the people who don't need to spend that money out of necessity and they're much more likely to save that money and not directly reinvest it back into the economy.

I agree with you - if Labour doesn't win the next election it will be an astounding and almost unbelievable failure. For such a long time Tories have just been running the country into the ground - it's been over a decade of their mismanagement. They keep getting rewarded by voters for it, though, and Labour should be appalled that they've managed to somehow reduce themselves into a seemingly permanent opposition party.

[RandoEFC+]

 

Hahahaha what the fuck. 

[Stan]

 

[Waylander]

23 hours ago, Stan said:

There's a state pension.

And there's also the pension scheme through employers - the employer should match the employees contribution.

You can set up private pensions funds to be accessible once you're 55, and get 25% of that tax free. Or get an annuity which is basically a sum you continue to get for the rest of your life.

Good points, I will add a bit more......

Some company pensions are non-contributory although as you say if you do add more they will match it up to a limit.

Annuities are vulnerable to inflation, also pension companies invest in things like Bonds and if rates go up they would be losing money on fixed returns as interest rates rise.

State pension is typically ring-fenced against inflation via the triple lock.

[Gunnersaurus]

 

[Bluewolf]

Nobody stands a chance do they..... 

[Bluewolf]

Interesting article... 

Do the sums add up after chancellor gives only half the story? | Paul Kelso (msn.com)

[Stan]

This helps put things into perspective (if you didn't have it already).

https://kamikwasi.tax/

 

[Bluewolf]

16 minutes ago, Stan said:

This helps put things into perspective (if you didn't have it already).

https://kamikwasi.tax/

 

Fuck me that's a hell of a scroll... my fingers numb now

[Stan]

 

 

[Gunnersaurus]

On 27/09/2022 at 09:05, Beelzebub said:

I never thought I would live through the great plague, recession and war of our times, let alone consecutively. 

Think how @CaaC (John) and @Bluewolf feel. They're been through all that plus Thatchers England the extinction of the dodo and an asteroid hitting the earth 

[Gunnersaurus]

I did ask @Dr. Gonzothis but he appears to have his finger up his ass. 

From what I have read there is no way to force a early general election. My worry is that the conservatives will find a way to stay in power. Perhaps if they get rid of truss really quickly for example people will trust them more for admitting their mistake or something 

[Gunnersaurus]

So I work for a recruitment agency at the moment. I've had a few shifts cancelled recently and I was told today it was because of her budget. I've never know someone do so much damage in such a short space of time. I know it wasn't liz truss's budget but she would have had say in it 

[Honey Honey]

On 28/09/2022 at 20:43, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah, what you're saying is absolutely true. It's why "trickle down economics"/supply side economics is generally ill advised - it doesn't actually stimulate the economy. Instead what you're saying is absolutely true, it gives extra money to the people who don't need to spend that money out of necessity and they're much more likely to save that money and not directly reinvest it back into the economy.

I don't think this is true so much anymore. Maybe in the 80s when interest rates were 14% back when trickle down theory first came up. In some ways that design flaw became a beneficial feature for topline ecomomic reads given savings takes money out of the economy and the environment was highly inflationary at the time. Now the best ROI for the last decade has been in property and the stock market.

I suspect the tax breaks for those who may be on around £150-250k will simply be spent maintaining their existing lifestyle in the face of inflation, nice for them ey.

The millionaires, who may get substantial benefits depending on the way they do their accounts will possibly look for investments they think will survive the current crisis. Or should I say their portfolio managers would.

Still, it's questionable whether this whole thing is trickle down at all. There's certainly no hard intention for it to be that way in the classical sense. 

What the Conservative party seeks is topline growth which is seen as the means to a shrinking state "burden" as they put it. In other words if the economy grows they will cut taxes more and more. The premise isn't necessarily bat shit, its the delivery which is morally questionable, the idea that this can and should be delivered by making the rich richer and fracking the shit out of labour areas. That this gamble of state funds should be made in this way.

Whilst they do look like a dead party walking, Conservative policies have caused recessions or at least single quarter falls through their policies on at least three occasions in the last 40 years. Two of which they pitched as a necessary hardship. This situation here looks similar. 

Worst case Labour scenario is we may well have an election during topline GDP figures of +1.5-2.5%. That is the only threat to Labour and even then it likely isn't a big one.

 

[RandoEFC+]

I think the sheer impact on people's bills and living standards has become so pronounced now that they won't be so easily seduced by those headline figures of GDP and such.

As an economics student at A Level and undergraduate it has always frustrated me how people assess political parties on how they handle "the economy". Obviously you want GDP to be increasing, but if the majority of the population isn't feeling the benefit of it in their day to day lives then what good is it? The state of things at the moment though, I don't think many people will be swayed by "GDP this" and "reduced national debt" that or any of those headline figures if their energy bills and mortgages are still through the roof.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

I think the sheer impact on people's bills and living standards has become so pronounced now that they won't be so easily seduced by those headline figures of GDP and such.

As an economics student at A Level and undergraduate it has always frustrated me how people assess political parties on how they handle "the economy". Obviously you want GDP to be increasing, but if the majority of the population isn't feeling the benefit of it in their day to day lives then what good is it? The state of things at the moment though, I don't think many people will be swayed by "GDP this" and "reduced national debt" that or any of those headline figures if their energy bills and mortgages are still through the roof.

"The population is more productive than ever!"
Because technology is better than ever
Because the number of workers in the population is higher than ever
Because the cost of living is higher than ever and everyone is working more hours
Because everyone has record debt, moving more money through more hands

But hey, the population is more productive than ever!!