Cameron yes he was. And given the chance to do it again he would fill his pockets. Again. Torys are not patriots they are just interested in filling their pockets by stealing from the working man and giving to their friends.

shit his bills

£211 Million in dividends paid out to the shareholders of Northumbrian Water in 2016. Mostly based in China and Canada. Seems to me that if an industry is profitable, then it is also profitable to buy it and use that money to repay the capital costs of it's purchase, or any small interest on a loan to do so. £211 million just gone from the UK economy which could be invested back in jobs, or in savings to customers to be spent within the local economy - increasing manufacture and retail jobs in the process.

+Mike Cronnie Thanks for arguing McDonnell's point, that Tori figure went so jittery

absolutely!! fat cats get fatter and the profits stay out of the public coffers why cant people see through this oh and heres a tax cut so we get less from you ill gotten gains!

They increased the income tax PA to £12,500. Raising it to £20,000 would be ideal.

IThinkItsForYou yeah

John McDonnell idea that giving Bonds (interest paying Government debt bonds) for shares is not debt because Labour will get income from Utilities? Consumers pay that "income" then? Who will Proffit? Nathan Rothschild's fortune comes from trading Government Bonds & Rothchild's Banker Macron is now president of France. UK would be destroyed by English hater McDonnell

Prime Monster Jeremy Staling is really silly Dave Long ping pong

This changes nothing k

He really isn't.

Because they r keeping it for themselves and their friends 😡

What hope is there when McDonnell so clearly displays how out of his depth he his and you all just cheer him on.

The fully-costed manifesto is mostly brilliant and investment is exactly what you need in an economy with a deficit. I'll wait for you to tell me why he's out of his depth without spouting empty platitudes...

He's budget only balances because he is assuming a linear relationship between tax rates and tax takes. Totally economically illiterate. He pretends that rising corporation tax will only affect corporations when obviously it will affect prices and wages where those corporations are in a competitive market, as well as everyone's savings and pensions. On borrowing to buy back privatised companies he wants to use the profits to fund the acquisitions. But at 5% profit, that would take 20 years. And that is not including all the interest we'd have to pay on that borrowing. He sometimes pretends it isn't even borrowing because it is capital expenditure. He also sometimes says that instead of the profits going to private owners, he'll use it to reduce the rip off charges. So he is spending those profits 3 times over. It doesn't add up. Whenever these things are pointed to him he gets aggressive, lectures people on making it up, or chastises them for not knowing the basics that, by all appearances, he just learnt himself the night before his homework was due on Wikipedia. The man is a dangerous moron.

Your first point ironises the rest of your argument. You're looking at their proposals in a very linear way. With things like a raised minimum wage, you'll have increased spending. A relief from tuition fees, you'll see increased small business startups and a competitive market at that level because of increased confidence with enterprise. As pointed out, the money you save from taking industries back under public ownership is currently immeasurable but will be significant. Also, simply look at the increase of corporation tax in the context of the other European countries and the rest of Labour's proposals, it's not economically illiterate as demonstrated by countries like Germany. I'm going to link you now to two articles. I don't really have the enthusiasm to type out the excellent points they make because I don't think a KZfaq comment will convince you: www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/labour-corbyn-general-election-nationalization piece on their nationalisation proposals newsocialistblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/labours-alternative-models-of-ownership-report/ another on the models of ownership report just published

It is Labour who are assuming that if you increase tax by x you get x times more tax. Not me. Raising the minimum wage will increase the tax paid by those on the minimum wage. But it will either decrease the corporation tax paid by their employers, or increase the prices we all pay for the fruits of their labour, or more likely a combination of the two. When will you people learn that you cannot create wealth by tax or dictate. What money do we save by renationalisation? Assuming the company carries on just as profitably under public control (a very unlikely outcome) it would take 30 to 40 years just to pay off the debt used to purchase it. I did not say it was economically illiterate to charge a higher rate of corporation tax. I said it was economically illiterate to assume raising it by a factor of X will increase the amount of tax collected by a factor of X. I will read the articles you have linked to. But I made some quite specific points in answer to your challenge and you haven't actually rebutted them.

Lol Sarcasm!

+Phil Dobson not being sarcastic at all. he would make a better chancellor than phillip hammond who has done fuck all since he was given the job other than break a fairly major pledge and make a few budget speeches.

Shirkers? you calling doctors, nurses, firemen, soldiers, and police 'shirkers'? Oh noo you say, but the 'rest' And you? what are you then?Ohh I'M a STRIVER I AM he says,

Really? His policies wouldn't raise enough to cover the Labour's spending commitments (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/analysis-do-labours-manifesto-pledges-add/). Labour are essentially offering a free lunch. It may sound good but should arouse suspicion.

the best labour member since tony benn

Phoenixfire five did you even watch the video John says how government privatised public water and handed out the profits to shareholders, also they explained they would get money from qe

With you there.

Is that how you think this is going to work out? What about Bill the Farmer from the shires who gets Dementia, he and his wifes house is worth £215,000, so he has to pay 115,000 towards any care (over 5 years care will cost approx 200,000) , EXCEPT you can't sell part of your house, you have to sell ALL of it, you bank 100,000, pay 115,000, he dies a slow agonising death and his wife is left widowed and god forbid she gets dementia... Now further north, someone with a house worth 80,000 pays nothing. I'm sure that will go down well with the middle class Tory voters. Nothing is good about this dementia tax, MAJOR own goal.

VALIS Machine Bill the farmer doesn't have to pay in his lifetime and his wife lives in what has become her house her lifetime or if she needs care it is now net value £100,000 so she doesn't have to pay anything and their children etc will get the £100,000.

h

With a bit of luck, that's what you'll get. Even the most ardent Tory supporters are raging at their manifesto, it's bombed worse than the Luftwaffe

101publicenemy you can say that if you're then going to rent the house and make money out of it as these bonds will be making money go from businesses that already make profits

101publicenemy These Bonds will be making money for oligarchs such as Rothschilds & Soros who made their fortune on such Government Bonds. Soros backs socialists so only fair to chuck him half a trillion as a starter

What he means that it is borrowing that will not increase the budget deficit because the money coming back in will cover the outlay and interest, and as they are profitable industries, like Rail industries who already receive heavy tax payer subsidy to the tune of £5Bn and share are issued to the companies despite their huge losses, Those subsidies will stop and the money lost in dividends will be reinvested back into the state. Some may be cost neutral to renationalise, others may make a profit for the state which can be reinvested back in the form of price cuts for customers, or to eliminate the deficit and begin to pay off the debt through an increase in the GDP.

If you have a mortgage that costs you £600 per month, and an rental income of £700 per month, is that bad borrowing?

You really don't understand how bonds work. Unlike an individual taking out a mortgage, a government can create bonds from nothing. These are extremely safe as they are guaranteed by a state. These are then swapped for the shares in the company, effectively nationalising it. As the bonds have a value relative to the assets of the state they take on the value of the assets bought. So its debt neutral. Its first year economics. Politicians really need to stop this myth that state economics are in anyway comparable to an individuals shopping.

Its not borrowing from anyone. A government can create bonds from nothing. You swap these for a companies shares and the bonds take on the value of the asset bought. McDonnell is completely correct that its debt neutral. Green is just trying to confuse stupid people that dont understand state economies arent like doing your weekly shop.

A bond is a debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity. That is borrowing.

Well said Damian is a legend

Borrowing to invest in growth on a plan that will turn a profit is more sensible than trying to cut your way to prosperity. If your van breaks do you simply sell everything off and give up, or do you borrow the money for a new van so you can keep on making an income and a profit?

You inflate both sides of the balance sheet, fam. The government gains a profit-making public service company (asset), against government bonds (liability)

Mike Cronnie that is not the point. Would you trust a math teacher who says one plus one does not equal two? The textbook definition of government borrowing is issuing bonds. Does not matter how you spend the money, it is recorded as a borrowing. Even in banana republics they record this as government borrowing. It is so frustrating that Labour has been hijacked by a bunch of charlatans and May knows she doesn't even have to turn up for debates. There is no democracy anymore. Corbyn needs to get lost and David Miliband needs to come back.

Philosoraptor labour manifesto does not set anything for nationalisation. So I presume he is going to just steal it from current shareholders. UK economy will literally collapse when all investors flee.

Ohh, please, don't spread fake news. Economics is the study of capitalism. Everything in economics is based on rationality and incentives. That is why no real economists would back a communist candidate. I would know this because I am an economist. The most famous economist over the last 40 years is Milton Friedman. His Free to Choose series is available on KZfaq. He would hate Corbyn.

The have you listened to the fart next to him? They haven't even coated their manifesto. So how does he even have an argument? Labours manifesto will invest half a trillion and we'll only be a further 50 billion in debt. But we will have a rebuilt country, rather 50 billion than 70 billion to further reduce corporation tax, EVEN THOUGH ITS THE LOWEST IN G7 FFS

Labour will not produce one new industry but give half a Trillion to Oligarchs then pay dividends on the Bonds whilst consumers pay. Oligarchs such as Rothschilds & Soros made their fortune on such Government Bonds

You don't need a magic money tree for public ownership my friend. John McDonnell is walking circles around Damian and he isn't even mentioning the best part about nationalisation and their other policies: the money you SAVE from regulation and bringing industries back under public ownership.

Our railways are already nationalised, it's just it's other countries running them LOL Take them back. Economic sense.

w9 s2 torys are selling weapons to Isis and Saudi, angering and displacing millions and then opening the borders for them. And then they go on about bringing immigration down to tens of thousands

w9 s2 Yes more UK needs to scrap Trident to invest in housing Islam Only Labour will do this so everybody in Aberdeen must vote Labour. Only Glasgow has reputation for sham marriages of Pakistani men to E. EU girls. Every city should have that reputation