How will Corbyn fund nationalising the Railways, higher taxes?

I'm not talking about Labour. I'm talking about our low productivity now relative to the USA & Europe. Which is the result of businesses taking profits as cash dividends and executive pay, among other things.

Of course you are, you are Labour, everything was fine in May 2010, totally fit for purpose. NOT.

This EY Item club paragraph should tell you all you need to know about Business Investment,under Labour and what happened since and what they build on, as Labour passed over a negative trend;

Following a sharp decline of almost 20% during the financial crisis, business investment in the UK has performed relatively strongly since the economy emerged from recession at the end of 2009. Since 2010, investment by UK firms has more than made up for the ground lost in the recession, reaching 11% of GDP in Q2 2015, the highest level since the end of 2000.

Oh and re Manufacturing, I had looked it up, have a crack yourself, if you can't find it let me know - with your proof we only started losing low paid and manufacturing jobs to the Far East from 1997 to 2005.

Not that we probably had 'low pay manufacturing jobs' in the UK making the likes of 'widgets', for many years.

Within the '1 million UK manufacturing jobs lost' link, LOOK at the reasons given, look at the links below and the different areas government can overload businesses, affecting business investment/hiring etc - as THAT is what they need to plan ahead for BEFORE selling an item.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2918368/What-Blair-really-thinks-about-the-FSA.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389284/The-80-tax-rises-Labour.html

Higher Corporation Tax.

Higher Income Tax compensation (salary) for senior staff, using international remuneration scales.

Higher regulatory/red tape costs.

Higher National Insurance costs.

Higher Fuel Escalator costs,

Higher costs of government intervention e.g. Energy Company ‘price freezes’.

Higher Interest Rate/Borrowing Costs as they ‘normalize’ to historic averages, with or without a Labour Government policy threat rate premium.

Honestly - how can manufacturing jobs resist the tide of low paid labour?

Well in 1979 Manufacturing was around 23% of our economy (down from around 30% in 1971) and in 1997 it was around 23% of our economy, with a recession here and in Europe from 1991 - are you saying Japan, Taiwan and China only stole our jobs in the first 7-years of Labour?

As you yourself have pointed out numerous times, our unemployment is low as a function of not counting under 18s, not counting those in incapacity/sickness/carer's etc etc. And of course we have much much lower benefits than other countries.

When did I say that, prove we pay out lower benefits than those individually received in other countries?

If nearly 1.2 million were claiming Sickness benefits that either didn't turn up for the medical or found fit for work, where are they now?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

Re Productivity, as I've mentioned time and time before, under Labour, we had a very unbalanced economy, where GDP with Government Spending & Consumption a major contributor, well bolstered by spending it on fat government departments and 'creating' government jobs, who then 'consumed'.

That list of BBC reasons for low Productivity cannot be addressed over 5-years when the likes 'education' was mentioned; as in the basics Labour were leaving children in the bottom of 24 countries OECD tests in the basics and had a trending 16-24 year old unemployment rate from 2005 - and not even the Tories would put better educated 11-year old out to work, who started school at 5-years old.

Businesses under Labour would have survived DESPITE Labour, not because of them, so this whole nonsense that Corbyn TAXES companies as Labour/government can INVEST it better - does my head in.

Also British investment might be at a record high for Britain, but it is very very low compared to the rest of the world. Will find some figures for you...

You saw how much investment fell under Labour, that does not turn around on a sixpence while Labour is still in power, but IS now;

I am hearing Corbyn talking about us ‘making things’ when Manufacturing fell from around 23% of our economy in 1997 to 12% by 2010 – with 1 million manufacturing jobs going 2-years before the crash mainly DUE to the weight of Labour’s taxes, red tape – as Brown didn’t look at what makes them tick, and their problems e.g. strong Sterling, and HELP.
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

And why wasn’t Brown looking at the private sector he didn’t understand, he was concentrating on BUILDING a fat, inefficient government and paying out benefits/welfare/tax credits through a global boom – all fixed costs we’d struggle with at the first recession, when tax receipts fell away.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

And what did Labour do from 2008 to 2010 to help citizens with real incomes falling and businesses down on their knees, well all I can see is put up Fuel Duty, Council Taxs etc and more relevant ; a tax on companies/jobs.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

“In his evidence, Mr Darling defended his plans to increase national insurance, saying it was necessary to raise extra money to reduce Government borrowing, which will be £167 billion this year.”

Alyosha .... If Europe has better Productivity than us, it is likely because THEY never built an economy on increasing the private sector payroll as we did, and their private sector businesses struggling from a less growth economy, with higher regs, are much leaner than ours i.e. they have TWICE our unemployment rate and far more temp contract workers.

In the UK the BBC mentions reasons like infrastructure investment and education, both were dire under Labour for 13-years and the Conservatives are trying to correct - and don't start me on the 'mediocre managers' reason when our NHS under Labour hired managers at a higher rate than front line staff.

I don't know where this private sector investment increases are being spent on, I have not looked, but I'd rather know where the £trillions Labour had went, as I see feck all to show for it - and Corbyn/McDonnell believes in a yet bigger State where Labour can spend money better than the businesses that make the money/hire.

Socialists should not worry about company stats, especially as they have such a bad record managing the private sector growth - just give them the conditions to take risks/grow/hire - socialist governments need to concentrate on spending tax receipts wisely, not creating a client state that falls apart at the first recession.

P.S. And McDonnell's speech at the Conference yesterday, gave business leader lots to think about - and none of it investment/job positive.

Labour's plans for economy are 'pure fantasy'

Business leaders blast shadow Chancellor's speech at Labour Party Conference in Brighton
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11897387/Labours-plans-for-economy-are-pure-fantasy.html

Alyosha .... please don't be surprised what I don't know, I can't be the font of ALL knowledge. lol

'Productivity' is both a narrow and misleading measurement IMO; if a factory fires half its staff, and production hardly falls, Productivity of that factory will rise markedly.

Does an economy like the UK that loses a shed load of private sector workers, but then hires a shed load more public sector workers to replace them, become LESS Productive - as that is what happened.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3236690/Number-employed-state-falls-lowest-level-Second-World-War-pay-rises-fastes-rate-decade.html

So looking at that graph, one has to assume that productivity would start to rise, or at least the Business Investment that you are so worried about, right?

Well apparently looking at the figured released today and the report below, companies are investing, probably only slowed by the threat of a company bashing Labour government last May;

www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/uk-economy-to-avoid-threat-of-secular-stagnation/

Record investment levels by firms mean that the UK economy will avoid the threat of secular stagnation. This defies warnings from some leading economists that a lack of appetite to spend among companies in advanced economies will lead to persistently slow GDP growth, according to EY ITEM Club’s special report on business investment released today.

• Business investment currently at highest level as a share of GDP since 2000
• EY ITEM Club’s forecast predicts investment by UK companies will reach a record high in 2019
• Headwinds faced in the East of England include skill shortages and infrastructure restrictions

Following a sharp decline of almost 20% during the financial crisis, business investment in the UK has performed relatively strongly since the economy emerged from recession at the end of 2009. Since 2010, investment by UK firms has more than made up for the ground lost in the recession, reaching 11% of GDP in Q2 2015,* the highest level since the end of 2000.

Looking ahead the EY ITEM Club forecasts investment by firms to rise by an average of 6.4% a year from 2015 to 2019, when it is expected to reach a record high of 12.9% of GDP. Cuts in corporation tax, low borrowing costs, increasing availability of finance, healthy corporate balance sheets, more expensive workers and last but not least, cheaper energy are all expected to contribute to this rise.

Most medium to large businesses need to plan up to 5-years ahead, and currently these figures show a record high investment expectation by 2019, but clearly one year away from ANOTHER threat of an anti business Labour government - and the probability some of those positive factors within the paragraph above would have turned business negative - could dramatically change that business investment/jobs expectations.

Alyosha ..... Socialism 1st, 2nd, 3rd way - or even viewed as some 5th column, it matters not - you all view 'business' through the FTSE 100 (company) prism.

Of the possible hundreds of thousand small, medium, and large companies, how many don't know what to do with their earnings and are paying back shareholders?

I admit I'm surprised (albeit a relative few) companies are paying money back to shareholders rather than putting it to work, but thinking about it, the main reasons might be as stock markets have risen since March 2009 other companies are fully valued/expensive,they have grown organically as much as they can, the economy could level out from here, probably weaken - and maybe being taxed on cash on the balance sheet earning diddly squat in interest.

Socialism always wants to control private sector companies, never their own spending, so view them as both a perpetual cash cow and as an object for social good - rather than understand what makes them tick over and set taxes as high/fair (to the company) - without them taking tax avoidance measures, shrinking, or moving abroad.

The first thing Brown did in 1997 was see the Final Salary pension fund surplus in UK companies etc, he cut the dividend tax relief on all pensions, and now Private Sector Final Salary Pension Schemes are rare - especially compared to the Private Sector employees he increased by around 1 million.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10698432/Final-salary-pensions-10-times-more-common-in-public-sector.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

P.S. Re company investment under socialism, wasn't the top rate of tax on receiving an unearned income (on investment etc) over 90% pre Thatcher????

Alyosha .... Re your;

Let's take the issue of British private business' dreadful record on investment in infrastructure,

Clearly few businesses invest in recessions, never mind the worst for 80-years when finance was not freely available, but socialists never look beyond the word 'profit' - and few Labour MP's have ever run a business, so do not 'see' the effect several taxes/business costs they tend to annually put up annually - which on top of new government regulation, red tape, currency moves (if import raw material and/or export products) means they have problems planning their annual bills, never mind investment.

The govt. could tax profits more, giving companies a big incentive to spend more on investment/training.

So based on the above 'higher taxes' the socialist 'default' position is probably not the best idea, especially considering the far worse government record on wasting taxpayers money.

Specifically on training, Osborne recently announced a tax companies will pay, that they get back if training employees, to level the playing field for companies that train and other just poach - the details of which have to be ironed out for smaller businesses etc.

Unions in Germany work differently - and there's no reason we couldn't encourage a similar model in the UK.

Those German unions were behaving themselves in the 1970's so regional banks/private investment invested creating the white goods etc brand names and reputation they have today - while the UK had the opposite and should any company actually make a profit, the Corporate Tax under socialism was 50%.

As to creating a similar model after the horse bolted in the 1970's, you are joking, as everything I hear from Corbyn's dream team sounds more like they will repeal Thatchers curbs on militant job/economy destroying trade unions of the 1980's - as the Tories look to ensure future public sector strikes have closer to 50% members voting for it - as trade unions still have some of those 1970's style militants who intimidate etc.

There can of course be a law for a Minimum Wage, but no government can ever commercially dictate to to a private company's owner/shareholders what their wage structure has to be - even if providing a competitive tax/regulatory/re tape environment for years ahead - which most ideologically won't, or can't due to the electoral cycle.

As for a start, how does a government know a companies individual competitiveness within the global markets, with either a big State regulatory/tax environment or the opposite?

So militant trade unions equally have a right to squeeze until the company goes tits up.

Away from highly unionised Labour the employees of course have a choice to look for another job, which over time (especially if training time/costs are involved) pay rates will rise - especially as the whole labour market tightens.

Anyone, what is the difference between the trade union/employer relations up in Nissan etc nowadays, to that British Leyland ones of old, as clearly there seems little comparison?