http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24799507

 

;)

Given how off these forecasts have been for, oh, every year for the last six, I'll wait until it's actually happened thanks.

What flaws and confusion? Danny's talking about how easily the policy cuts through in terms of simplicity. I'd have thought if anything you'd have appreciated the aim of NOT having a compulsory living wage but instead offering tax breaks to small businesses for doing them.

 

Energy Prices - Noble idea but announced long before it should have been, now energy companies will shaft the consumers even more between now and 2015 to compensate for the lost revenue, it should have been announced when campaigning for 2015 began so the energy companies didn't have time to steal more money

 

Living Wage - Not applying to all companies, full of PR and spin when the reality is not every company will have to pay it

The Lib Dems have held back the recovery

 

We wanted to cut the tax rate from 50% to 40% and slash corporation tax by a further 5p in the £ than we have done but the Lib Dems kicked off about both, claiming it was 'unfair' when infact businesses and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country

 

Were we allowed our full conservative agenda re tax, the recovery would have started earlier and be even quicker

You do know that tax cuts don't happen immediately? The cuts would've come in at the exact same time. The recovery wouldn't have started sooner.

Happily, the Labour grassroots' backlash to this weak policy is starting already:

 

http://labourlist.org/2013/11/cut-to-the-c...he-living-wage/

 

Hopefully the leadership goes away, relaunches it as mandatory in a few months (assuming they get over their pathetic fears of a few discredited businessmen saying something) and then it might actually gain some traction with people.

Living Wage - Not applying to all companies, full of PR and spin when the reality is not every company will have to pay it

So are you admitting you were wrong on it before and it should actually be rolled out universally?

You do know that tax cuts don't happen immediately? The cuts would've come in at the exact same time. The recovery wouldn't have started sooner.

 

True but people feel richer and will loosen the purse strings in anticipation of a hefty tax cut

 

If i was going to pay 10% less tax in x year onwards i would buy that new car and fancy tv even before the tax cut came in as it would give me confidence

Energy Prices - Noble idea but announced long before it should have been, now energy companies will shaft the consumers even more between now and 2015 to compensate for the lost revenue, it should have been announced when campaigning for 2015 began so the energy companies didn't have time to steal more money

 

Living Wage - Not applying to all companies, full of PR and spin when the reality is not every company will have to pay it

The whole point of the policy is to encourage companies to pay the living wage. Just because you're too fucking stupid to get the difference between 'encourage' and 'impose' doesn't mean the British public is.

 

(Or you might not be, but it's really tiresome how you show so little objectivity in this debate. You complain that a living wage imposed would destroy jobs and small business. Labour then goes and takes account of that by helping small business to encourage them to do it. You then complain that the policy is flawed and you try to argue the policy is claiming to do something it isn't when that wasn't the intent.)

So are you admitting you were wrong on it before and it should actually be rolled out universally?

 

I think the Living Wage should apply only to companies with x amount of turnover and above, the Tesco/Amazon/Next/Sainsburys of this world and be voluntary to other companies, but if that is what labour are going to do then it would not be a vote winner as the majority of people in the UK are employed by small businesses

The whole point of the policy is to encourage companies to pay the living wage. Just because you're too fucking stupid to get the difference between 'encourage' and 'impose' doesn't mean the British public is.

 

(Or you might not be, but it's really tiresome how you show so little objectivity in this debate. You complain that a living wage imposed would destroy jobs and small business. Labour then goes and takes account of that by helping small business to encourage them to do it. You then complain that the policy is flawed and you try to argue the policy is claiming to do something it isn't when that wasn't the intent.)

 

I DON'T disagree with Labour's proposal, but I agree with what Danny said several posts back

Happily, the Labour grassroots' backlash to this weak policy is starting already:

 

http://labourlist.org/2013/11/cut-to-the-c...he-living-wage/

 

Hopefully the leadership goes away, relaunches it as mandatory in a few months (assuming they get over their pathetic fears of a few discredited businessmen saying something) and then it might actually gain some traction with people.

A few discredited businessmen? Can you really not see how imposing a living wage on small businesses on the line would just be counterproductive without giving them encouragement and help? The minimum wage policy was fine because it came during a boom. It's a bit airy fairy to just totally dismiss that there are some people out there that would really struggle to just bring in a living wage immediately, and they're hardly the 'discredited' CBI lot that tend to be running fairly big businesses anyway.

I think the Living Wage should apply only to companies with x amount of turnover and above, the Tesco/Amazon/Next/Sainsburys of this world and be voluntary to other companies, but if that is what labour are going to do then it would not be a vote winner as the majority of people in the UK are employed by small businesses

The whole point is that it is a tax break to encourage those small businesses to voluntarily pay the living wage. Are you wilfully missing the point here?

What flaws and confusion? Danny's talking about how easily the policy cuts through in terms of simplicity. I'd have thought if anything you'd have appreciated the aim of NOT having a compulsory living wage but instead offering tax breaks to small businesses for doing them.

 

Well, it's partly that, but also that, as it stands I think a lot people just aren't going to believe this policy. I know you're a fan of clever nuances to policies, but I do strongly believe that, to the average person, those nuances just look like a typical politician putting in get-out clauses so that they can wriggle out of actually doing their promise if they get elected. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (though that hasn't stopped me in the past in this forum, so meh), I really do think the biggest problem for Labour right now is not economic credibility, it's more that people simply don't believe a word that Labour politicians say and don't trust them to keep any of their promises (that's a problem for all parties to some extent, but especially Labour purely because their voters are typically more apathetic and so need a lot more convincing to think there's any point in paying attention to politics).

 

With the energy price freeze, even there a lot of people are saying they don't believe a Labour government would actually do it (and the polls show that overwhelmingly people would want it and they're also not buying the Tory scaremongering about it being Marxist or causing blackouts, but the biggest obstacle is that a lot of people just don't think they'd actually do it), but that atleast has convinced SOME people because of how clear and 100%-committed they were about it. I just don't think something as ambiguous as this will convince people even to that extent.

Edited November 4, 201311 yr by Danny

The whole point is that it is a tax break to encourage those small businesses to voluntarily pay the living wage. Are you wilfully missing the point here?

 

What i said goes further than Ed is going

 

Is he making it mandatory for the likes of Tesco and Amazon? no, they will presumably be subject to the same tax breaks the hairdresser or butcher's shop in the high street will be, whereas I would make it mandatory for companies with a turnover of say £10m a year to pay the living wage, Ed is not

 

And what would these tax breaks Ed has in mind be? how much and what type of tax? would an employer really be financially better off by bringing in living wage or would it just be the equivalent of a state subsidy?

 

 

A few discredited businessmen? Can you really not see how imposing a living wage on small businesses on the line would just be counterproductive without giving them encouragement and help? The minimum wage policy was fine because it came during a boom. It's a bit airy fairy to just totally dismiss that there are some people out there that would really struggle to just bring in a living wage immediately, and they're hardly the 'discredited' CBI lot that tend to be running fairly big businesses anyway.

 

I have no problem with genuinely small businesses getting tax breaks in order to be able to pay it (though I stuggle to see why the Tescos of this world raking in millions in profits need tax breaks just to pay someone 8 quid an hour), but if they're able to make those tax breaks available for all small businesses then there's no reason not to make a living wage compulsory.

I kind of agree with Danny. I'm a strong advocate of the Living Wage (and campaign for my university to pay it to their staff since we know they have the funds to do so) but I can see how it could cause a short term spike in unemployment if it were enforced universally. My preferred option would have been to announce it as compulsory whilst explaining exactly how the extra revenue would be partially used to compensate small businesses struggling to pay it. I remain fairly hopeful that will eventually be the case, and given the partial backlash to the energy prices freeze for appearing a little rash I'm glad that we've gone for the soft approach rather than leaping into something we may have to backtrack on.

True but people feel richer and will loosen the purse strings in anticipation of a hefty tax cut

 

If i was going to pay 10% less tax in x year onwards i would buy that new car and fancy tv even before the tax cut came in as it would give me confidence

But people don't feel any richer for the simple reason that they are not. Most of the recovery remains confined to London and the south east and real wages continue to fall.

 

The proportion of GDP which goes in wages haas been steadily falling (not just in the UK) which means a lot of people are not benefitting from the recovery. The people benefitting most are the people who never really suffered in the first place.

 

*Waits for Craig to raise the utterly discredited trickle down theory*

But people don't feel any richer for the simple reason that they are not. Most of the recovery remains confined to London and the south east and real wages continue to fall.

 

The proportion of GDP which goes in wages haas been steadily falling (not just in the UK) which means a lot of people are not benefitting from the recovery. The people benefitting most are the people who never really suffered in the first place.

 

*Waits for Craig to raise the utterly discredited trickle down theory*

 

My post was about people who were paying 50% tax and then got awarded 5p cut, which the tories wanted to make 10p but Lib Dems vetoed

 

ALL taxation is far too high in this country

 

But i do feel that it is a necessary priority taxation wise to cut the top rate not just from 45p to 40p but beyond that, giving the wealthy and wealth creators more money should feed its way back into the High St with increased spending

 

Giving a poor guy an extra £20 a week in his pocket is very noble and a worthwhile aim but he wont spend as much in the shops as someone with an extra £1000 a week in his pocket

The Lib Dems have held back the recovery

 

We wanted to cut the tax rate from 50% to 40% and slash corporation tax by a further 5p in the £ than we have done but the Lib Dems kicked off about both, claiming it was 'unfair' when infact businesses and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country

 

Were we allowed our full conservative agenda re tax, the recovery would have started earlier and be even quicker

 

Ah so it's all the Lib Dems fault that we're in such an economic mess, rather than the ol' one-two combo of Tory and Labour policies combined. Riiiiiiight.... obviously theyve been manipulating behind the scenes for the last 30 years..

 

Wasn't it a certain M. Thatcher that introduced a certain tax called VAT....and Poll Tax...and as I recall she was roundly seen off, unlike the VAT which has stuck (effectively it's another 20% tax on everyone, even those on benefits). Hooray for ignoring that when it's convenient to pretend to be the party of lower taxes eh?

 

Given the debt hasnt actually dropped at all since Smarmy Dave got in, one might have thought keeping taxes on those can better afford it would actually help the country not to get even deeper in the proverbial do do. I believe VAT was dropped to boost the economy by a wise man. It saved us all, of course. Or was that just an election tax boost. Hmmm, I wonder if policies like that might catch on in the future.

 

Ps I'm being sarcastic B-) Just in case it's not obvious.... :lol:

My post was about people who were paying 50% tax and then got awarded 5p cut, which the tories wanted to make 10p but Lib Dems vetoed

 

ALL taxation is far too high in this country

 

But i do feel that it is a necessary priority taxation wise to cut the top rate not just from 45p to 40p but beyond that, giving the wealthy and wealth creators more money should feed its way back into the High St with increased spending

 

Giving a poor guy an extra £20 a week in his pocket is very noble and a worthwhile aim but he wont spend as much in the shops as someone with an extra £1000 a week in his pocket

The last point is possibly the most inane thing you've come up with so far.

 

Giving someone £1000, funnily enough, costs more than giving someone £20. 50x more in fact. It's been proven again and again that the poor guy with £20 will spend a higher proportion of his money than the richer one with £1000, which is more likely to be invested and never seen again. The latter is therefore an incredibly good way of draining money out of the economy.

Ah so it's all the Lib Dems fault that we're in such an economic mess, rather than the ol' one-two combo of Tory and Labour policies combined. Riiiiiiight.... obviously theyve been manipulating behind the scenes for the last 30 years..

 

Wasn't it a certain M. Thatcher that introduced a certain tax called VAT....and Poll Tax...and as I recall she was roundly seen off, unlike the VAT which has stuck (effectively it's another 20% tax on everyone, even those on benefits). Hooray for ignoring that when it's convenient to pretend to be the party of lower taxes eh?

 

Given the debt hasnt actually dropped at all since Smarmy Dave got in, one might have thought keeping taxes on those can better afford it would actually help the country not to get even deeper in the proverbial do do. I believe VAT was dropped to boost the economy by a wise man. It saved us all, of course. Or was that just an election tax boost. Hmmm, I wonder if policies like that might catch on in the future.

 

Ps I'm being sarcastic B-) Just in case it's not obvious.... :lol:

Debt has risen more in the last three years than it did in the previous ten, in fact. Oops.