May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[phutoie2]

8 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I remember John Major remarking that Blair was pushing through right wing policies which his (Major's) government would never have got away with.

He wasn't called Maggie in trousers for nothing.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not mine, I just reposted it. Thought it a good reminder of why people should never take things at face value. Here is another one.

 

"But here’s an odd thing, and one that has not been widely reported. As it happens, companies are paying an increasing amount of tax. Even more significantly, they are doing so as the rate of corporation tax falls. There are two things that we can learn from that. The corporate sector is paying its “fair share”, and arguably more than it really should. And if lower rates generate more cash for the Government, perhaps we should think about bringing them down further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html

 

Off course there are always those that want to believe that in the face of a financial storm that companies and individuals will sail on regardless rather than take refuge in an offshore port.

we already have the lowest corporation tax in the OECD (except Ireland). I don't see companies moving away from other countries with a REASONABLE rate (I think 25% to 30% of the cuff). Be wary of causation. Sometimes causes are different to what someone wants to pull from statistics. There are many reasons to locate a factory in a particular location including taxes, work force, training, grants, infrastructure, customs etc.

 

Capital and Labour are already out of balance and we will have a tidal wave of robotics, automation and AI to digest.

 

At a time like this, asking the aged to use their own capital for essential care while slashing corporation tax is an obscenity.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

we already have the lowest corporation tax in the OECD (except Ireland). I don't see companies moving away from other countries with a REASONABLE rate (I think 25% to 30% of the cuff). Be wary of causation. Sometimes causes are different to what someone wants to pull from statistics. There are many reasons to locate a factory in a particular location including taxes, work force, training, grants, infrastructure, customs etc.

 

Capital and Labour are already out of balance and we will have a tidal wave of robotics, automation and AI to digest.

 

At a time like this, asking the aged to use their own capital for essential care while slashing corporation tax is an obscenity.

Not sure if you noticed, the quote was from March 2015. A couple of weeks later the rate was reduced from 21% to 20% which led to an increase in business tax  revenues to the government. It was this increase that prompted the further 1% reduction this year but with the current chaos it is unlikely that we will ever know if it produced any benefit. As I said, things should not be taken at face value and raising the rate may not bring about the benefits that may appear to be obvious.

I suspect for Labour it is the concept of taxing business that appeals rather than what they would actually get out of it.

 

I certainly wouldn't disagree that asking the elderly to fund their own essential care is an obscenity.

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not mine, I just reposted it. Thought it a good reminder of why people should never take things at face value. Here is another one.

 

"But here’s an odd thing, and one that has not been widely reported. As it happens, companies are paying an increasing amount of tax. Even more significantly, they are doing so as the rate of corporation tax falls. There are two things that we can learn from that. The corporate sector is paying its “fair share”, and arguably more than it really should. And if lower rates generate more cash for the Government, perhaps we should think about bringing them down further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html

 

Off course there are always those that want to believe that in the face of a financial storm that companies and individuals will sail on regardless rather than take refuge in an offshore port.

Companies employ accountants - and the job of those accountants is to find every way to reduce the tax paid by the company.

 

It would be nice to think that companies and their accountants are less concerned about the amount paid when the tax rate is lower, but I'm sure nobody believes this to be the case. 

[rockingrobin]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not mine, I just reposted it. Thought it a good reminder of why people should never take things at face value. Here is another one.

 

"But here’s an odd thing, and one that has not been widely reported. As it happens, companies are paying an increasing amount of tax. Even more significantly, they are doing so as the rate of corporation tax falls. There are two things that we can learn from that. The corporate sector is paying its “fair share”, and arguably more than it really should. And if lower rates generate more cash for the Government, perhaps we should think about bringing them down further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11498135/Why-lower-corporation-tax-means-more-for-Treasury.html

 

Off course there are always those that want to believe that in the face of a financial storm that companies and individuals will sail on regardless rather than take refuge in an offshore port.

Is the article not advocating Reagonomics , Laffer Curve.

The article premise may be correct , but does not go on to debate other reasons for the possible increase in revenue such as business not being able to forward  losses from years prior financial crash. Low interest rates stimulating eonomic growth and thus more businesses to pay tax 

[Grouse]

I've been pondering; scary, I know, but there you are.

 

Could it really be the case that TM is trying to recast conservatism along the lines promoted by Chamberlain ( no, not Neville) and Burke? Is she seriously saying than liberalism and individualism has gone too far? If it's true, I might be up for that! Getting rid of modern day feudalism (zero hours contracts) compares with historical feudalism of huge landowners followed the feudalism of huge mines and mills and metal bashing shops. It is true that liberalism has gone too far. The right to draw huge salaries and the devil take the hindmost! But I thought that was traditional conservatism; not so, that's tradional liberalism (small government and individual freedom over all).

 

Anybody recommend a good read on Whigs / Liberals, Tories / Conservatives? Could be left/right is outmoded. Maybe the somewheres / anywheres / nowheres is more accurate.

 

Time for a Grouse!

[SheungWan]

As requested......(sort of)

 

[sandyf]

They say that the devil is in the detail, has this little detail come straight from the devil.

 

"No, the problem with the Tory manifesto is the plan to withdraw free care visits from pensioners who own their own home. At present, pensioners are entitled to care at home if they have less than £23,250, excluding the value of their house. The manifesto proposes to change this to £100,000, but including the value of the house. Given that most houses in Britain are worth at least twice as much as this, this means a lot of people could lose out. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-has-blundered-into-scaring-pensioners-over-social-care-a7746516.html

[SheungWan]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

I've been pondering; scary, I know, but there you are.

 

Could it really be the case that TM is trying to recast conservatism along the lines promoted by Chamberlain ( no, not Neville) and Burke? Is she seriously saying than liberalism and individualism has gone too far? If it's true, I might be up for that! Getting rid of modern day feudalism (zero hours contracts) compares with historical feudalism of huge landowners followed the feudalism of huge mines and mills and metal bashing shops. It is true that liberalism has gone too far. The right to draw huge salaries and the devil take the hindmost! But I thought that was traditional conservatism; not so, that's tradional liberalism (small government and individual freedom over all).

 

Anybody recommend a good read on Whigs / Liberals, Tories / Conservatives? Could be left/right is outmoded. Maybe the somewheres / anywheres / nowheres is more accurate.

 

Time for a Grouse!

All that TM is doing is trying to corral the Brexit populism which is a risk to her control of the Conservative Party and knock out the right-wing which seeks to lead the populist uprising and famously identified by John Major as 'The Bastards'. As far as the Labour Party is concerned the populists are running this election round under Corbyn. It is the post-election story which will be crucial. Speculating old musings about liberalism, individualism and the like is for the birds.

[pitrevie]

56 minutes ago, sandyf said:

They say that the devil is in the detail, has this little detail come straight from the devil.

 

"No, the problem with the Tory manifesto is the plan to withdraw free care visits from pensioners who own their own home. At present, pensioners are entitled to care at home if they have less than £23,250, excluding the value of their house. The manifesto proposes to change this to £100,000, but including the value of the house. Given that most houses in Britain are worth at least twice as much as this, this means a lot of people could lose out. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-has-blundered-into-scaring-pensioners-over-social-care-a7746516.html

Given that the Chancellor has already told us Brexit knocked a 100 billion pound hole in the public finances and given that it was the older generation that predominantly voted Brexit it looks as if they are being asked to pay the bill. Lots more cuts to come I have no doubt. The Tory hard right have only just begun.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, pitrevie said:

Given that the Chancellor has already told us Brexit knocked a 100 billion pound hole in the public finances and given that it was the older generation that predominantly voted Brexit it looks as if they are being asked to pay the bill. Lots more cuts to come I have no doubt. The Tory hard right have only just begun.

The chancellor could just as easily make savings, by reducing our Foreign aid contributions. Especially to countries that are spending vast amounts on their 

nuclear ambitions.

 

 

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

The chancellor could just as easily make savings, by reducing our Foreign aid contributions. Especially to countries that are spending vast amounts on their 

nuclear ambitions.

 

 

Perhaps you should pass that on to the OAP's who are now going to pay a whole lot more and get a whole lot less.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

All that TM is doing is trying to corral the Brexit populism which is a risk to her control of the Conservative Party and knock out the right-wing which seeks to lead the populist uprising and famously identified by John Major as 'The Bastards'. As far as the Labour Party is concerned the populists are running this election round under Corbyn. It is the post-election story which will be crucial. Speculating old musings about liberalism, individualism and the like is for the birds.

Well, I've never been accused of being a bird previously; I don't have the legs for it!

 

Seriously, I'm thinking TM is not in the Thatcher mold and is trying to be a true One Nation Tory. Do we BELIEVE her?

 

I'm encouraged that the Con Party concedes there will be payments to Europe. Maybe after thumbing her nose at "Tha Bastards", she will try for some kind of trade deal. They have already said the immigration target is just a general aim with no time limit. Note she is also targeting non EU hirings

[Grouse]

57 minutes ago, nontabury said:

The chancellor could just as easily make savings, by reducing our Foreign aid contributions. Especially to countries that are spending vast amounts on their 

nuclear ambitions.

 

 

You sound just like Trump!

 

I'm appalled they would make Alzheimers sufferers pay the bill (maybe they think they will have forgotten by election time), and then slash corporation tax!

 

The soft power that comes from International aid is subtle and useful. Some adjustments and retargetting are certainly required.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Grouse

[dick dasterdly]

23 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not sure if you noticed, the quote was from March 2015. A couple of weeks later the rate was reduced from 21% to 20% which led to an increase in business tax  revenues to the government. It was this increase that prompted the further 1% reduction this year but with the current chaos it is unlikely that we will ever know if it produced any benefit. As I said, things should not be taken at face value and raising the rate may not bring about the benefits that may appear to be obvious.

I suspect for Labour it is the concept of taxing business that appeals rather than what they would actually get out of it.

 

I certainly wouldn't disagree that asking the elderly to fund their own essential care is an obscenity.

So why do you think the 'tax take' increased after reducing the rate payable?

 

I'm sure you don't believe it was because the companies concerned directed their accountants to not worry as much about the tax paid as the rate was lower?

[nontabury]

In defense of foreign aid.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Given that the Chancellor has already told us Brexit knocked a 100 billion pound hole in the public finances and given that it was the older generation that predominantly voted Brexit it looks as if they are being asked to pay the bill. Lots more cuts to come I have no doubt. The Tory hard right have only just begun.

I can understand how its relatively easy to determine the voting patterns between poor and wealthy (consequently educated and uneducated) according to the area - but surely its a lot harder to determine age?

 

Or perhaps the old are concentrated in those areas that voted leave?

[SheungWan]

52 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Well, I've never been accused of being a bird previously; I don't have the legs for it!

 

Seriously, I'm thinking TM is not in the Thatcher mold and is trying to be a true One Nation Tory. Do we BELIEVE her?

 

I'm encouraged that the Con Party concedes there will be payments to Europe. Maybe after thumbing her nose at "Tha Bastards", she will try for some kind of trade deal. They have already said the immigration target is just a general aim with no time limit. Note she is also targeting non EU hirings

Notwithstanding my comments above about Thatcher needing to control the hard Brexiteers in the Cabinet in the event of any agreement with the EU, there is (or appears to be) an (equal?) chance of going for broke and hard Brexit. Up in the air. However, TM's 'one nation' blah needs to be seen primarily in the context of  the resultant hard jolt fallout and managing the political repercussions by wrapping herself in the flag. The nowhere/somewhere speech was an earlier indication of all that. She isn't thumbing her nose, she's covering her you-know-what.

[dick dasterdly]

50 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You sound just like Trump!

 

I'm appalled they would make Alzheimers sufferers pay the bill (maybe they think they will have forgotten by election time), and then slash corporation tax!

 

The soft power that comes from International aid is subtle and useful. Some adjustments and retargetting are certainly required.

The foreign aid budget is used to promote trade sales to other countries - in other words, bribes to the wealthy in said foreign countries to buy British armaments and the like.  I should add IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is the case .

[citybiker]

On the issue of the 'Brexit Bill, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, TM has given another clear indication that significant factor's must be taken into consideration.

A paying member of 40+ years.
Shares in the European Investment Bank & wishing to retain them.

Junker already knows the TM is no push over however as Barnier is the chief tactical negotiator I don't see this going as planned by either side irrespective of the outcome.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-brussels-must-pay-its-own-brexit-bill-of-billions-of-pounds/ar-BBBkMfc?li=BBoPWjQ

Lastly, I did admire TM in her manifesto speech replying to blood sucking journalists.

1, compared to Thatcher-rebuffed and do one.
2, Mayasim, media tittle tattle.

As a leader she's uncharasmatic and not as naturally comfortable dealing with the media however the woman isn't taking any nonsense, a firm strong principle leader who's prepared to make hard difficult decisions......

Plan for peace prepare for war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pitrevie]

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I can understand how its relatively easy to determine the voting patterns between poor and wealthy (consequently educated and uneducated) according to the area - but surely its a lot harder to determine age?

 

Or perhaps the old are concentrated in those areas that voted leave?

I really don't see what point you are trying to make  but the age voting pattern has been confirmed by several surveys. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by pitrevie
deleting surplus words

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, citybiker said:

On the issue of the 'Brexit Bill, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, TM has given another clear indication that significant factor's must be taken into consideration.

A paying member of 40+ years.
Shares in the European Investment Bank & wishing to retain them.

Junker already knows the TM is no push over however as Barnier is the chief tactical negotiator I don't see this going as planned by either side irrespective of the outcome.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-brussels-must-pay-its-own-brexit-bill-of-billions-of-pounds/ar-BBBkMfc?li=BBoPWjQ

Lastly, I did admire TM in her manifesto speech replying to blood sucking journalists.

1, compared to Thatcher-rebuffed and do one.
2, Mayasim, media tittle tattle.

As a leader she's uncharasmatic and not as naturally comfortable dealing with the media however the woman isn't taking any nonsense, a firm strong principle leader who's prepared to make hard difficult decisions......

Plan for peace prepare for war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not sure how anyone who supported remain, and is now supporting leave can be described as principled?

[mommysboy]

24 minutes ago, citybiker said:

On the issue of the 'Brexit Bill, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, TM has given another clear indication that significant factor's must be taken into consideration.

A paying member of 40+ years.
Shares in the European Investment Bank & wishing to retain them.

Junker already knows the TM is no push over however as Barnier is the chief tactical negotiator I don't see this going as planned by either side irrespective of the outcome.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-brussels-must-pay-its-own-brexit-bill-of-billions-of-pounds/ar-BBBkMfc?li=BBoPWjQ

Lastly, I did admire TM in her manifesto speech replying to blood sucking journalists.

1, compared to Thatcher-rebuffed and do one.
2, Mayasim, media tittle tattle.

As a leader she's uncharasmatic and not as naturally comfortable dealing with the media however the woman isn't taking any nonsense, a firm strong principle leader who's prepared to make hard difficult decisions......

Plan for peace prepare for war.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

One good thing from my perspective was the decision to be up front about social care issues for the elderly.  In doing so she showed integrity, fairness, and pragma, although a cynic might argue that it is merely an attempt to win the younger vote.  I'm not so sure the latter is true but will always be deeply suspicious of the Tory right, who will 'see her off' one way or another unless she follows their undemocratic agenda.

 

But one thing I need to point out: it is not enough to have a leader that is principled and with conviction- the cause has to be similarly just!  Or to put it another way: good jockey on the wrong horse.

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by mommysboy

[citybiker]

I'm not sure how anyone who supported remain, and is now supporting leave can be described as principled?

Willing to accept, respect and move on for the best national interests.

As a PM (in waiting) leading by example?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not sure how anyone who supported remain, and is now supporting leave can be described as principled?

This was my concern. 

 

I believe she was a reluctant remainer, so it is not inconceivable that she is ok fighting the leave cause, however, if she is now intent on a hard Brexit that would lead me to question her integrity.

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

So why do you think the 'tax take' increased after reducing the rate payable?

 

I'm sure you don't believe it was because the companies concerned directed their accountants to not worry as much about the tax paid as the rate was lower?

Yes, I'm not convinced about this theory either and would appreciate some rigor. Obviously if the rate was reduced to zero, the take would be zero. So where is the inflexion point? Is the take not influenced by output? Is output not affected by consumption and exports? No, I smell a rodent here...

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

This was my concern. 

 

I believe she was a reluctant remainer, so it is not inconceivable that she is ok fighting the leave cause, however, if she is now intent on a hard Brexit that would lead me to question her integrity.

 

 

Agree, reluctant. This was the party line; she was Home Secretary and had to follow it.

 

She wants a fair deal on exit but if the negotiations get nowhere then there is a risk of the egg coming out hard-boiled! (hard Breggsit).

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not sure how anyone who supported remain, and is now supporting leave can be described as principled?

Some must have taken the time to take a good look at the EU and realize what a mistake it was to join in the first place!   

[mommysboy]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Some must have taken the time to take a good look at the EU and realize what a mistake it was to join in the first place!   

Honestly, I find this argument the least convincing.

[Grouse]

It just might be the case that she wants to side line the hard right Tory Bastards and wants a sensible Brexit.

 

She has always said she wants a trade deal and after the shenanigans with the car manufacturers she needs one

 

She is softening up the people to expect payments to be made to the EU

 

She has already demonstrated flexibility on immigration. 10s of thousands is now flexible target with no time frame. Immigration will go up and down according to the economy

 

She is talking of doubling training fund contributions for each NON EU employee.

 

In aggregate ( not road stone) what does that tell you? 

 

Either she a great liar or she's thinking centre right and retain as much of the upside of the EU as possible 

 

Hmmmm