Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[blueinsa]

While 11% of shares are owned by individuals, who do you think owns the funds that own the other 89%?

Institutional investors who own the 89% are in the main pension funds, unit trusts and other investment vehicles most of which are ultimately owned by or benefit individuals.

Again, have you seen the pensions crisis that currently grips the nation?

 

[jonmcity]

Im quick because you're busy running off on a tangent, trying to prove an argument by talking about something other than what we are trying to say and that is, companies should accept far more responsibility towards the communities that actually help make them their profits and pay their fair share.

Christ even the Tories now accept and talk about the millions of families who barely manage yet you think they can just go and invest in shares when the truth is, most can barely pay the bills and put food on the table most weeks despite holding down jobs at very profitable companies and firms that want to just trouser profits whilst paying the workers the absolute minimum.

I have zero issue in a CEO earning £Millions every year, none at all but i do when his workforce is on £7.50 an hour!

Well said, Pay scales within business should be open and fair.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Cutting public services to thread-bare levels is not a fundamental tennet of Conservative policy though. It's simply that Conservatives believe fiscal prudence. I do accept that there is some ideological divide, with Labour favouring a larger public sector and the Conservatives a smaller one. But I do not accept that it is fundamental to Conservatives to have our public services on their knees: it isn't.

I'd like excellent public services for all, and every Tory I know wants the same. Your criticism simply ignores the economic climate we've had to operate in (and indeed that which Margaret Thatcher inherited in 1979).

A huge failing of the Tory campaigns of late have been a failure to explain to the public WHY austerity was needed, and what the vision is for once austerity is over. If people were offered a bright future, they might be more accepting of the pain on the road to get there. And we are nearly there; the deficit already down to more manageable levels. May completely lost the plot in so many ways, but forgetting to mention this at all, was one of the biggest sins.

Austerity was never needed and neither is it a justifiable economic system. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Since 1979 are you seriously trying to say there has never been an opportunity for the tories to share their caring side? They haven't as they haven't got one.
The fact that certain people have seen huge rises in wealth counter balanced by huge rises in serious losses in wages for others shows the price paid was not equal.

 

[west didsblue]

Again, have you seen the pensions crisis that currently grips the nation?

Do you think increasing taxes on companies that provide funding from profits into occupational pension schemes will help or hinder this crisis?

 

[jonmcity]

Do you think increasing taxes on companies that provide funding from profits into occupational pension schemes will help or hinder this crisis?

Occupational pension schemes have virtually been wiped out as the companies have seen them as too expensive. They now pay minimum into private schemes. Then when you get to the end annuity's are so low, that you don't get back what you put in before you are dead.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I can understand that point of view, and indeed have some sympathy with it. But I don't accept that austerity was completely unnecessary (not sure you meant to say that, but your 2nd paragraph ("wrongly") implies it). The vast amount of money splurged on propping up the banks was totally unavoidable: there was no alternative, since the big banks going under would have had devastating consequences for all of us. And that having added to the deficit that Brown had already created pre 2008, put us into a position where we simply could not at the time just borrow even more and carry on regardless. That said, I have some room for debate about whether the cuts were too hard and too deep and whether it's time to ease off now.

I agree that we needed stability in the financial sector and that the one charge you can lay against Brown was that he allowed the banks too much leeway to make risky investments without ensuring they had adequate capital bases. We've hopefully learned that lesson now.

But austerity was avoidable. Osborne, in an act of economic illiteracy (he was a Modern History graduate not PPE) set out to reduce the deficit within 5 years. This was madness and never going to be achievable without causing far more damage to the economy than benefit. He should have adopted a much more cautious approach, certainly cutting some spending where that was prudent but also raising taxes to bridge the gap. But stimulus should have been his first action.

His pitch should have been "We're in a serious crisis and there are no quick fixes or short term solutions. We have to cut some spending, increase revenue but also ensure that we take measures to stimulate growth before we do that. I cannot give you any guarantees or timescales about reining back the deficit and it may take many years to do that." Instead he went for the jugular, cut far too much too quickly and strangled growth, the price of which we're still paying today, 2 years after he was supposed to eliminate the deficit completely.

But Brown's deficit was at a manageable level. As a percentage of GDP it was historically low. Only in the Victorian/Edwardian era has it been lower, when we were the wealthiest country on the planet. And we needed that level of deficit because schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure was crumbling.

 

[blueinsa]

Do you think increasing taxes on companies that provide funding from profits into occupational pension schemes will help or hinder this crisis?

Again, im not wanting to actually talk about pensions here but im having to do so because people are trying desperately to move the argument away from what we are saying.

Will companies having to pay their fair share in tax and a real living wage help everyone in our society and the economy?

Yes.

 

[west didsblue]

Again, im not wanting to actually talk about pensions here but im having to do so because people are trying desperately to move the argument away from what we are saying.

Will companies having to pay their fair share in tax and a real living wage help everyone in our society and the economy?

Yes.

It was you that mentioned pensions in response to my post but you don't want to talk about them? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

If you want good public services you have to pay for it. Increased taxation for the rich, and companies is required. The conservatives spend money in the wrong places, i.e. privatising services that ends up costing the tax payer more.

Agreed.....Once privatised you lose control of pricing and service. Look at Electricity and Gas / Rail et al. high Prices and shit service. .... however the difference is that once privatised you cannot improve either

Lots of the public now work for large companies that are swimming in cash, due to inflating prices while deflating wages. The large corporates have been ripping the general public off for years. This wealth needs to be shared more equally.

Deflating wages has another effect though as it places more burden on the tax payer. for example Rents etc increase so the lower paid apply for housing benefit and family tax credits (which we pay for) simply funding the large corporations profit take

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Why not buy some shares? Just a thought.

I don't accept for one moment this "ripping off the general public" line. It's easy words to throw in, with zero evidence. But even if they had, where do you think the profits go? Into share dividends for your and my pension is where these profits go.

Tough choice that, shares or shoes for the kids. ffs.