Can they afford it? Yes...another election thing

[Wibblywobblyfoo]

I agree more with labours manifesto. But can't see how they can afford to carry it all out without a shed load of tax or debt.
Can they?

The Money Has Gone.

It's not just in the public sector it's in the private sector. In my industry (which contributes an awful lot to the economy) everyone works three times as hard as they used to, for less money and security.

IMO there have been some very poor decisions about encouraging people to retire early, giving them wonderful pensions and now we have to pay for it all.

Point being that, while wanting to redistribute as fairly as possible, maybe there just isn't quite as much as we all hope. Not even if you tax the rich, who will just piss off abroad (companies) or retire early (individuals).

"user1471545174 Thu 08-Jun-17 09:46:12
Jimmymum you're entirely within your rights to be concerned both about how you subsidise some unworthy people and the overall tone of where you live. Please don't let these middle class people bully that out of you"

another class post.

it would be funny if it wasn't so obvious this is how tory voters feel.

The articles say its conservatives that are thick and racist to boot.

I must immediately hand in my notice as I can't be trusted in my job and kick my half Muslim kids out of my house the little brown fuckers.

Such bullshit honestly and people wonder why others don't enter a debate.

It is easy to vote for the free money. It does make you wonder why all the governments before haven't already tried to tax a few wealthy people in order to fund an increased state bill, but have instead pursued policies which try to grow the whole economy to increase the tax take.

As one of the "few", I know that we will pay far less into the state under a Corbyn government than a Conservative one. By taking early retirement I'll be able to give more time back to the community, but the jobs that have depended on us will be gone, as will our tax. Which is why the IFS etc have said that Labour's numbers simply don't add up. An increase in tax could give rise to a drop in the amount of tax collected. The City isn't going to hang around to pay a Robin Hood tax. The books simply don't balance.

governments know people will balk at paying more tax, even a teeny bit more, that's why they promise people they wont make them do this

so ladymuck, would you rather take early retirement so you can give up paying a bit more tax, even though you could afford it?

seems rather dramatic

We will be able to afford JC dreamland for a few months maybe even a year. The money will dry up very quickly, I am surprised people think its that easy to just magic up Billions of new taxes at no cost. The country will tank very fast and the so called JAMs will very quickly have the full weight of the magic moneys trees poisoned chalice fall on their shoulders. We could be a couple of decades recovering if we ever do.

I know some of 'the few'. I would say they don't think 'I'll give up so so as not to pay tax.'

They look at their decreased payslip and think, 'Hmm, it's not worth the sacrifice/missing out on family life/commuting hell anymore.'

And yes, can contribute in many other ways but it won't be to the exchequer.

walkingonlego, gov borrowing has increased since the tories came into power, they have been magicking up money by borrowing more than labour ever did.

kateemo Thu 08-Jun-17 09:39:4
How on Earth are other countries who do all of these things (and much more) written in the Labour manifesto able to do it? They must be cleverer?

This

Why is it funny, ssd? Jimmymum is working class, the people she is criticising are working class, I am working class.

Are we here to amuse you? (Yeah, Goodfellas nick).

A genuine question for those talking about the effect of a Labour win on banking and other industries leaving London.
As far as I can see (new bilingual schools popping up all over the place) Paris is one of the cities which is expecting to get a lot of ex-London business. And even if Macron gets some of his reforms through, France is still significantly to the left of what Corbyn is proposing.
Where are the bankers going to go where taxes will be so much lower and businesses so much better off than the UK under Labour? Is this not a Brexit issue pure and simple?

Railways! They should be in public ownership. Public ownership doesn't mean incompetent management. The railway break up and privatisation, which I saw in detail, from the beginning, from the inside, in two very sensitive and informative roles, was the biggest giveaway of public property in our industrial history.

The rip-off, essentially, is this: railway infrastructure, its planning, development and ongoing maintenance, is paid for from the public purse, the taxpayer, you and me.Train operating companies (ToCs) pay HMG to run trains on it and that profit making activity is devoted to, primarily, delivering dividends to shareholders, and only as a secondary benefit, services to train passengers. What the ToCs pay HMG for the privilege of running trains bears no relation to the actual cost of what they’re doing to the infrastructure they never made any investment in in the first place, and pay nothing realistic for now.

Does anyone get this? This is why privatisation of public services is always a rip-off. Unless the people who want to benefit from running the service have invested in creating the supporting infrastructure in the first place, they have no moral right to profit from running the service. For railways, the whole of the railway operation, infrastructure, trains, renewals, plant leasing, should be vested in one non-profit company owned by the government, as trustees for the taxpayer. The corporate governance should be free from political control, civil servants and pols know nothing about running railways. People with records of failure in other industries (does anyone remember Ian McGregor, Gerald Corbett?) should never, ever be appointed. This should be the model of public ownership of public services, for the public good. It would still be open for private companies to provide privately-run services, but they should have to develop their own infrastructure at their own expense, no revisiting PFI.

This works in other countries, it could easily work here. It’s a sensible economic argument as well as a moral one. This isn’t Marxism, it’s plain common sense.

Oh tabby some of them are in public ownership. Not the UK public obviously. But the French public because they can be trusted unlike us middle headed Trots...

ssd Google 'deficit'.

How on Earth are other countries who do all of these things written in the Labour manifesto able to do it?
Because they are different countries with different people different histories, different cultures and different mindsets. The UK population does not have a high tax big state culture. Of course you can change our society but you would have to start from scratch (possibly default on our debts) as the money from the rich tax payers and corporations would no longer be here. So you are basically talking about 2 or 3 generations of poverty/a very hard life until we create a new society, if it was even possible to recover.

Public ownership doesn't mean incompetent management ROFLMFAO

WalkingOnLeg0, agree
Changes in culture don't come overnight. Northern Europe have worked through many generations to create what they have now

Guessing most posters too young to remember what a roaring success British Rail was.