news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

so maybe next time Hamas might think rape and murder is not a great idea.

maybe some in Hamas think it's going pretty well.

[steviewevie]

Labour Middle East Council

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Skip997]

11 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 States that recognise palestine 👇 

 

Very interesting, but hardly surprising split.

[steviewevie]

and yet UNRWA gets most of it's funds from western countries it would seem, especially US/EU/Germany....which is why them stopping funds could be devastating.

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

 

 

 

[Neil]

sturgeon "trustme i'm a politician". 

(a liar same as johnson).

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

 

 

 

 

it's a weird decision..the cap was very popular. Maybe they're trying to woo the all important banker vote.

Edited January 31, 2024 by steviewevie

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's a weird decision..the cap is very popular. Maybe they're trying to woo the all important banker vote.

If more bonuses get paid then more tax will be earned on those bonuses.

You can oppose a policy but not want to spend political capital/time to reverse it. 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

If more bonuses get paid then more tax will be earned on those bonuses.

Bankers, not somehow managing to avoid paying more tax?

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If more bonuses get paid then more tax will be earned on those bonuses.

You can oppose a policy but not want to spend political capital/time to reverse it. 

What a pathetic defence. You do realise you do not have to defend every single thing Labour says. You can say 'I do not agree with this'.

More tax generation as a positive on uncapped banker bonuses 🤣 embarrassing

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Bankers, not somehow managing to avoid paying more tax?

Then tighten the tax rules but that’s a separate point. If we want to fund things like the green investment plan (which a lot of people kick off about) then Labour will need money from all sorts of places. Bankers larger bonuses seems like a good place to get some of that funding. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Ozanne

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If more bonuses get paid then more tax will be earned on those bonuses.

You can oppose a policy but not want to spend political capital/time to reverse it. 

one way to look at it.

I guess UK economy still very reliant on financial services, and Labour want to do anything they can to help UK economy and get growth so they can borrow/spend...and show that they're business friendly and aren't going to disrupt anything with scary lefty policies...

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Then tighten the tax rules but that’s a separate point. If we want to fund things like the green investment plan (which a lot of people kick off about) then Labour will need money from all sorts of places. Bankers larger bonuses seems like a good place to get some of that funding. 

It's simple the "defense" budget would easily cover the green investment plan

[Crazyfool01]

19 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If more bonuses get paid then more tax will be earned on those bonuses.

You can oppose a policy but not want to spend political capital/time to reverse it. 

It’s the Low earners that put most back in to the economy though isn’t it ? 

[steviewevie]

still looks like another uturn/flipflop...and hardly going to win over disillusioned leftwing voters...but f**k'em.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Skip997 said:

It's simple the "defense" budget would easily cover the green investment plan

we're going to need a bigger "defense" budget.

War is coming.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

one way to look at it.

I guess UK economy still very reliant on financial services, and Labour want to do anything they can to help UK economy and get growth so they can borrow/spend...and show that they're business friendly and aren't going to disrupt anything with scary lefty policies...

That’s also part of it, financial services makes up a big portion of the U.K. economy and are currently seeing a drain of people to other countries. So this helps with that and can also generate more via tax on those bonuses without raising taxes on working people. 

 

3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

It's simple the "defense" budget would easily cover the green investment plan

Ha yes it would but that party wouldn’t win an election. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

still looks like another uturn/flipflop...and hardly going to win over disillusioned leftwing voters...but f**k'em.

Meanwhile the PM has laughed at the thought of a guy being unable to pay his increased mortgage payments…

[Guest]

 

[kaosmark2]

10 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

It’s the Low earners that put most back in to the economy though isn’t it ? 

It kinda depends on how you define it. By most metrics yes, as low earners generally spend not hoard any bonuses, so even though low earners are directly taxed at a lower rate, they spend it and it cycling through VAT on purchases and paying other people tends to generate more revenue. 

AFAIC the "bankers bonuses attract talent which buffs the economy" is just trickle-down Reagonomics theory that has been long-disproven. I think this is Labour selling out to backdoor lobbying unnecessarily.

[Guest]

Just add it to the ever growing list of things people demand Labour repeal (but never actually think about themselves), by 2028 they might be able to put some of their own ideas in place. 

[cellar]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

AFAIC the "bankers bonuses attract talent which buffs the economy" is just trickle-down Reagonomics theory that has been long-disproven. I think this is Labour selling out to backdoor lobbying unnecessarily.

Yeah absolutely this. Bankers basic salaries have risen to counteract the capped bonuses (of which there is an argument to be had against there) so that we still compete with US (and we do). But a more practical problem with uncapped bonuses in the financial sector is that it massively increases risk-taking behaviour, which we obviously all want to avoid. It's odd, because the very concept of an uncapped bonus scheme goes against the principles of some of the renumeration regs within the industry - feels like there's a conflict there somewhere.

Poor form from Labour anyway, especially given its under 3 months since they held the opposing view. But not really surprising anymore.

Edited January 31, 2024 by cellar

[fraybentos1]

28 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

one way to look at it.

I guess UK economy still very reliant on financial services, and Labour want to do anything they can to help UK economy and get growth so they can borrow/spend...and show that they're business friendly and aren't going to disrupt anything with scary lefty policies...

 A really daft one though

Also London is doing just fine as a financial services hub, it's hardly needing a helping hand.

By Ozanne's logic Labour should hold the position of 'double banker bonuses' because it'll mean more tax is taken from them. Daft.

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It kinda depends on how you define it. By most metrics yes, as low earners generally spend not hoard any bonuses, so even though low earners are directly taxed at a lower rate, they spend it and it cycling through VAT on purchases and paying other people tends to generate more revenue. 

AFAIC the "bankers bonuses attract talent which buffs the economy" is just trickle-down Reagonomics theory that has been long-disproven. I think this is Labour selling out to backdoor lobbying unnecessarily.

If Labour can generate more taxes through bankers bonuses then it’ll mean there is less chance they will have to look at putting taxes up on normal working people because naturally those bonuses will be large.

There probably has been some lobbying which Labour have listened to but in the end I think they have tried to look at the bigger picture which does include the fact they won’t have unlimited amounts of time to change every Tory policy they don’t like (especially policies that people won’t have given any though too). It’s pragmatic.