How will Corbyn fund nationalising the Railways, higher taxes?

[Isitmebut]

To my knowledge the old British Rail was not annually making money.

We currently have record investment going into the railways, but Mr Corbyn appears to believe that under State ownership, the UK with £1.6 trillion of National debt and an unfunded pension liability of around £1 trillion on top, can put onto the State/taxpayer the risks/costs of acquiring rail lines, funding all investment and running them - when the State has a piss poor record of this.

I can understand why Corbyn and the public sector trade unions might want to do this, as its jobs for the boys and (unlike factories that closed in the 1970's) every time you 'sit around a table' you always get what you want whether the company is making a honking great loss or not - but how is it in the interests of the taxpayer with such an open liability, when the UK has such a huge national debt and still spending more than we earn?

Corbyn says it is a popular policy, but when will we hear how ££££ financially viable it is???

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.”

Isitme - 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.

Yes their regulations are excessive, but what about our productivity weakness relative to the USA?? You can't blame excessive regulations on that!

And why the attacks on Labour?? We are talking about a current productivity problem under a conservative govt. which has reduced those horrible NHS managers and cut public sector jobs. Our productivity issues are, according to experts, something caused by low investment by our businesses, who are busy paying themselves (and shareholders - obviously most of the time they are the same) huge dividends.

And socialists need to care about businesses because the tax system is a key way of manipulating investment.

I'm afraid your link doesn't match your rhetoric:

"The EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, said some of the cuts were the result of the "inevitable" global restructuring, a constant drive to improve productivity and offshoring work to reduce costs. But it said it was concerned the UK was becoming"less welcoming" in areas such as taxation and regulation."

Usual business guff - don't blame businesses seeking cheap labour costs, blame the govt. for putting up national insurance. Which saves more money??

Honestly - how can manufacturing jobs resist the tide of low paid labour? By concentrating on the top end of the market. We now have car manufacturing in the UK with Jaguar LR, Aston Martin, McLaren etc all returning to the UK and creating jobs. Low paid jobs without engineering experience are cheaper to have in China, regulation or not - the USA saw similar job losses due to offshoring.

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.

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?

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.

The quality in China has been rapidly catching up and will soon equal the quality of manufacturing in the UK. The Germans have managed to keep their manufacturing because they subsidize it and tend to follow the lowest levels of environmental policy set by the EU.

The unions in Germany are also very much more pro business than unions in the UK which seem to still be the stomping ground of extreme socialism.

As to productivity numbers, I never follow them but look at number of orders and other manufacturing data to get an idea of how well the economy is doing. What politicians don't understand about the economy is that manufacturing os a sure way to create wealth. Services and agriculture create wealth for the owners, with the service sector being reliant on the manufacturing sector.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html

Lowest in Western Europe at least.

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?

Working, on JSA or using foodbanks.

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'.

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.

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.

I don't think PISA is a good indicator, as according to them the USA should be an economic basket case with no one creating anything, and China should be a world leader in innovation...but that's not the case, is it?

And one of the reasons why business leaders bemoan people unfit to work is because they are unwilling to train them! They expect to have workers ready to step into a role without providing any training. Well tough shit!

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?

Can you provide some evidence of that, please? Thanks.

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.

*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;*

Jeez Louise, where have I said this? Labour made mistakes - I'm sure. I don't think that just because a business says "I did this because of X" they necessarily are telling the whole truth. But the truth is that the USA has very high corporation tax relative to the UK & Europe but better productivity, jobs, investment etc. Why?

My point is that simply letting business get on with it, with no/low taxes, is a bad idea. My point is not that Labour made all the right calls! I am trying to say that high corporation taxes can work well to spur investment, and that our companies are widely agreed to be earning lots and lots and paying themselves and shareholders lots, not setting themselves or the country up for long term growth.

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.

Why would we only start to lose jobs between 1997 and 2005? I think we've been losing them to everywhere for a long time. And % vs. actuals is important..remember under Labour other sectors of the economy boomed so % decline may be hiding static actuals.