George Osbourne Planning Tax credit cuts: Fair?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Spot on. It's sheer hypocrisy.

 

I'm wondering if Labour and the LibDems have laid a trap for the Tories. Corbyn and McDonnell make no secret of their disdain for the unelected nature of the Lords. Now they've got Cameron singing from the same hymn sheet, in public at least.

 

Cameron should have stuck to the line about convention being broken and should not have mentioned the Lords being unelected. Could have let a rather nasty genie out of the bottle there because Tory instinct would be to reverse the Lords reforms since 1999 in an instant if they could. Basically exactly the opposite of what Cameron has just said.

 

To be fair to the Tories, this is the first time that the Lords have voted down a finacial bill from Commons since the convention was introduced.

 

I'm not supported the Tories or the bill, but our democracy relies upon the conventions being respected, and it's right and proper for any government to look at the future role of the Lords in light of their action.

[999tigger 10]

Did I say I was surprised?

 

UC is a terrible deeply flawed implementation of a basically good idea: simplification of the benefits system.

 

So I don't mean UC but rather the concept behind it.

 

Tax credits reform is overdue and much needed. I 100% back the need for it but I can't support the Tory implementation of the reform, nor for that matter Labour's alternatives.

 

And it follows that I support the basic ideas that are driving IDS's (and the Treasury) plans I can't imagine worse implementations of what has been put forward. And I'm severely disappointed with the opposition's response.

 

But you have to come up with a concrete workable alternative or its all rather pipe dreams.

[truman 10]

1. The value is in them having the money you invested in the shares for the time you had them, lets say ten years. During that time the company could have invested that money to open new stores and increased sales. Lets say during those ten years it opened ten stores. Without your initial loan of money it could not have done that. It may also have generated profits and assests which add to its balance sheet making the company more valuable.

 

2. So when you sell your shares you get your money back,someone buys your shares for what they think they are worth. The risk you take is that during that time an unsuccessful company could have lost money and your shares could lose value or become worthless. The new shareholders take your place. When a company gets mature then the initial share investment becomes insignificant and a company develops its own assets and will be considered string enough to be given loans in its own right. Thats because the ongoing business is worth money in excess of the original investment.

 

3. The advantage of shareholders funds is its cheap money which doesnt command interest and is paid back through the price of the share. There are advantages and disadvantages to how a company will finance itself, but they normally use a mixture of bank loans, debentures and shares. As you said if a company creates more shares it will weaken the price becayse its splitting its value between more shareholders, just as if it buys back shares it will mean fewer owners.

 

Apple was started on $250,000 seed money in 1977, its now worth more than $1 trillion

and has $203 billion in a cash warchest.

 

If toy had invested $990 on Apple's initial public offering (IPO) date on Dec. 12, 1980 would have generated over $300,000 after stock splits and excluding dividends.

 

I understand all that but it's only the initial shareholders who's cash actually went into the company..any subsequent dealings are "outside" of the company..

[999tigger 10]

I understand all that but it's only the initial shareholders who's cash actually went into the company..any subsequent dealings are "outside" of the company..

 

can you rephrase that so I know where you are coming from? I will have a guess.

 

Companies will carry on issuing shares as a source of financing. This is inside the company i.e between existing shareholders. They might do that to expand and where they have cheaper money or no one else will lend to them.

 

New shareholders are in the same boat as original investors with their capital being at risk or benefitting from the company doing well.

 

If by subsequent dealings you mena things like bank loans, then the liability for them is taken on by the company. The knock on effect is it will reflect in the share price, so its indirectly connected.

[Cyclone 10]

I understand all that but it's only the initial shareholders who's cash actually went into the company..any subsequent dealings are "outside" of the company..

 

The original shareholders (say one still existed today) would own a hugely valuable asset, which they could sell on. They sell it on at todays prices, someone is still making a huge investment then and risking capital.

 

Or if shares are issued mid life for a company, then new investors put money in, risking capital, and the company uses that money to expand/do stuff/whatever.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 13:57 ----------

 

To be fair to the Tories, this is the first time that the Lords have voted down a finacial bill from Commons since the convention was introduced.

 

I'm not supported the Tories or the bill, but our democracy relies upon the conventions being respected, and it's right and proper for any government to look at the future role of the Lords in light of their action.

 

To be fair to the Lords, this was NOT a financial bill. If it were, it wouldn't have even gone to the Lords...

 

Perhaps if the government don't want to try passing financial bills hidden as social bills, then this wouldn't have happened.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 13:57 ----------

 

Correct except it was about a finance bill, which is new ground. Politicians are hypocrites quelle surprise.

 

It wasn't though. Financial bills don't actually go to the lords at all.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

To be fair to the Lords, this was NOT a financial bill. If it were, it wouldn't have even gone to the Lords...

 

Perhaps if the government don't want to try passing financial bills hidden as social bills, then this wouldn't have happened

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the bill was concerned with public funds so it was a financial bill.

 

Here's what Lord Butle, a non-party cross bench peer said:

 

“The fact is [it] was established 100 years ago that the House of Lords doesn’t oppose the House of Commons on tax and financial matters. The government would have a quite legitimate grievance if it did. It would be really an example of the House of Lords getting too big for its non-elected boots.”

[I1L2T3 10]

But you have to come up with a concrete workable alternative or its all rather pipe dreams.

 

Which is exactly why I'm disappointed with Labours response.

 

I know what I'd do but its a whole different approach and I don't want to derail this thread by discussing it.

[Cyclone 10]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the bill was concerned with public funds so it was a financial bill.

 

Here's what Lord Butle, a non-party cross bench peer said:

 

According to Radio 4 last night Financial Bills don't even GO before the house of Lords. This was concerned with financial matters, but the government have passed it off as a social bill. Hence why it went to the HoL.

[I1L2T3 10]

To be fair to the Tories, this is the first time that the Lords have voted down a finacial bill from Commons since the convention was introduced.

 

I'm not supported the Tories or the bill, but our democracy relies upon the conventions being respected, and it's right and proper for any government to look at the future role of the Lords in light of their action.

 

Totally agree. I'm just questioning the Tory language about unelected peers. Anyone listening to that would think they want an elected second chamber. I can absolutely guarantee that they don't want that, not for a minute.

 

It really exposes Cameron's limitations that he had to resort to that language.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 14:41 ----------

 

According to Radio 4 last night Financial Bills don't even GO before the house of Lords. This was concerned with financial matters, but the government have passed it off as a social bill. Hence why it went to the HoL.

 

Haha, didn't realise that.

 

Foot shot off.

[spilldig 185]

Having taken a break from commenting on this to try and digest exactly what is going on I have to say this is one of the most disgusting, opportunistic and depressing political episodes I can remember. We have the spectacle of

 

1. A PM who doesn't understand what policies he is trying to get implemented, brutally exposed for it by a less than spectatular opposite number at PMQs

 

2. A Labour front bench who basically detest the idea of the (unelected) Lords using the Lords to break parliamentary convention to defeat the government. Not sure if this is an act of stupidity or genius by them yet.

 

3. The Tory party who actually like the idea of an unelected Lords (let's face it they would get all the hereditary naturally Tory-supporting peers that are still alive back into the Lords if they could) promoting the idea of an unelected Lords as a bad thing just because it suits them to use that argument now.

 

4. The Tories trying once again to rush in policy that is not joined-up, not properly costed and could be interpreted as vindictive. Bedroom Tax Part 2.

 

5. The depressing sight of the parties once again diverging on welfare. To his credit IDS does have ideas that in theory should bring the parties closer together if implemented properly, but we have the depressing sight of Labour using welfare as a flashpoint again.

 

Terrible times really.

 

On point number 2, I hate to admit it but I think it was an act of genius on their part.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 16:14 ----------

 

You don't think tax fraud happens?

 

Of course tax fraud happens.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 16:14 ----------

 

To be fair to the Tories, this is the first time that the Lords have voted down a finacial bill from Commons since the convention was introduced.

 

I'm not supported the Tories or the bill, but our democracy relies upon the conventions being respected, and it's right and proper for any government to look at the future role of the Lords in light of their action.

 

Agreed .

[exxon 10]

On point number 2, I hate to admit it but I think it was an act of genius on their part..

 

I did think that myself. You put forward a proposal to make welfare cuts. It's in the manifesto. You vote it through in the Ccommons. But then those nasty guys in the Lords stop you in your tracks.

 

You've tried to do all you promised but the cuts have to be delayed and watered down. The backlash is stopped in its tracks because there is nothing to lash out about.

 

So all is well until someone points out that the government didn't achieve the promissed cuts. The government point out it was stopped from doing so by an unelected chamber. What's not to like?

[gomgeg 10]

The conservatives have been happy enough with how the Lords work in the past...

Just happens to be this time that they're not getting the free ride they'd like, and suddenly it's "unconstitutional" for the Lords to do exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

And how many finance bills did the Lord block when Labour were in power?

And without knowing the figures the Tories probably had a majority in the Lords.

And if they had I would also have been against that.

They are unelected you know. Failed politicians, I still can't believe Lord two bogs, cronies and a load of blokes in fancy dress who's only qualification is that they believe we are all descended from Adam and Eve, unbelievable.