news & politics:discussion

[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. 

[Justiceforcedave]

Corbyn may have been useless in many ways, but I always enjoyed his suggestion that the top-earning executives in a company should have their wages capped at 20 x the lowest earners in the company.

[kaosmark2]

24 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

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. 

That's not actually how the overall economy works though. Even if its taxed, the wealthy getting wealthier doesn't keep the money flowing in the economy.

It's only relevant if you believe in the theory that the British financial sector needs to compete with other countries for high-rollers and big risk-taking "talent" in terms of individuals, which actually just leads to an international race to the bottom. Bonus caps work. High tax rates work. This won't trickle down to ordinary people.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

Corbyn may have been useless in many ways, but I always enjoyed his suggestion that the top-earning executives in a company should have their wages capped at 20 x the lowest earners in the company.

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

Edited January 31, 2024 by kaosmark2

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

MPs shouldn't be allowed second jobs, not only do they not have time (they should be too busy sorting out the country), but it also opens them up to conflicts of interest and makes them even bigger targets for lobbying (which should also be banned).

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

MPs should have their entire income (across all jobs and expenses) capped at 3x the lowest earners in the country. 4x for cabinet.

They'll go work in the city instead.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

MPs shouldn't be allowed second jobs, not only do they not have time (they should be too busy sorting out the country), but it also opens them up to conflicts of interest and makes them even bigger targets for lobbying (which should also be banned).

There's various professions, notably legal and medical, where a minimum number of hours are required in order to maintain their professional standing and licence. I don't think those are usually a conflict of interest, and I'm fine with them getting the going rate for doing those minimum hours.

Obviously sh*t like Gideon Osborne with his 9(?) jobs, or Marvin Rees flying around the world at Bristol's expense to fund his "consultancy" career, or the various side businesses lots of senior Tories have are a conflict of interest, and should be banned on at least 2 fronts.

I just wanted to emphasise that there's occasional exceptions that should be allowed for.

[fraybentos1]

MP's salaries should be tripled because this means more tax take for the exchequer and through the miracle of trickle down economics, poor people will benefit. Have i got this right?

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

They'll go work in the city instead.

If triple a normal salary is too low for a MP to work in parliament, that means they were looking to exploit their political standing for their own gain, and I'm fine with them f**king off.

[kaosmark2]

I'm mostly too young to remember '97, but the vibe I got as a kid and my historical understanding is that Blair managed to offer hope, positivity, and people were genuinely excited for New Labour, not just the end of the Tories?

I know there were plenty of problematic decisions taken by the Blair govt, but ultimately, the quality of life for the average person in the UK went up, the quality of public services went up, and fewer children starved. I'll always fight for Labour to hold progressive values, but I do think there's a big deal to be said for what was achieved.

However, with Starmer's I'm not getting any sense of positive feeling towards him generally. I'd liken it more to 2010, where the economy is floundering, people are grumpy with the sitting government, and those in swing seats will shift to the other major party basically by default.

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

[cellar]

12 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

MP's salaries should be tripled because this means more tax take for the exchequer and through the miracle of trickle down economics, poor people will benefit. Have i got this right?

Correct, also reduce IRs to 0% again so poor old George can afford his mortgage please.

[cellar]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't actually think this banker's bonus policy makes much material difference either way to the state of the economy. But it's sh*t optics to see Starmer reversing yet another pledge and selling yet more of Labour's soul for what is probably some lobbying around economic "experts/figures" publicly showing "trust" in Labour. I think it's mostly just a sad indictment of modern politics.

I'd be interested to see the figures on impact to the economy. I'd guess it doesn't make much difference, but you never know with these things. 

The optics are big though, and removing the cap in first place was regressive, not to mention encourages the wealth divide.

[fraybentos1]

I'll have to add to my list of those that can't call themselves left wing:

• landlords
• people who think banker's bonuses shouldn't be capped due to the increased tax take to the exchequer

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, cellar said:

I'd be interested to see the figures on impact to the economy. I'd guess it doesn't make much difference, but you never know with these things. 

The optics are big though, and removing the cap in first place was regressive, not to mention encourages the wealth divide.

I think on the scale of the national tax revenue, it's fairly irrelevant both ways, and on the scale of "this attracts talented people who will benefit the economy" it's fairly irrelevant as well. It's not really something you can ever really attach meaningful figures for because there's no way to do an isolated control without there being thousands of other factors also impacting it.

I agree that the optics matter more, and that it's a regressive move.