| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| G Osborne on deficit reduction | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 29 2014, 11:25 AM (740 Views) | |
| Affa | Sep 29 2014, 11:25 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Chancellor has just told that forgetting to mention the deficit is negligence that should bar a person from high office. Yet I recall that he as Chancellor that confused debt with deficit, and saw no reason to resign for doing so. But my point for posting was made when Osborne said that the country was reducing the deficit the fastest of any major nation. The deficit has not been reducing at a fast rate since 2011 when the economy was still responding to the A Darling recovery plan, and the deficit was cut by a third. Since when it has virtually stalled. I'd be here all day if I were to list Osborne's duplicities. Edited by Affa, Oct 2 2014, 05:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 29 2014, 11:29 AM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He has just made some announcements that will end up with even more people ending up at food banks. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 29 2014, 11:53 AM Post #3 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This rather suggests different: ![]() http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653 And so does this But we do not yet have the 2013 out turn figures |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 29 2014, 11:54 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A figure of £12bn in spending cuts was necessary to cut the deficit. This figure is roughly the same as is spent on Foreign Aid each year. It is also about the same as the 2.5% increase in VAT afforded him, and has since increased in returns. None of these policies would constitute a problem if the economy were performing to create prosperity for working families - Growth in living standards, in earnings, in consumerism, is the only sustainable way. The Chancellor who began by saying how well things were after his measures ended by insisting that hard times must get harder. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 29 2014, 11:55 AM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Projections are not Facts Steve! |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 29 2014, 12:06 PM Post #6 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But 2012 is not a projection and is after your 2011 point but to where we agree
seconded The way to cut benefits and the deficit is to create worthwhile jobs to cut unemployment, he's done so very little on that. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 29 2014, 12:42 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fair enough, 2011-12 dis see a, approx £20bn reduction in the deficit, £12bn of which was due to the VAT increase he brought in that year. If I've not made myself clear, what I am saying is that the Chancellor has done very little to effect Deficit reduction and were it not for windfalls (PO money for eg) the deficit would have been wider than it is. The UK has one of the WORST performances on deficit reduction in the EU. Economists agree that being outside the eurozone affords the UK a huge advantage and yet the country has lagged behind and only recently has shown signs of recovery - mostly due to stimulus of one market, housing. I see no cause for any credit going to GO. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Sep 29 2014, 06:25 PM Post #8 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was Mr Osborne who stood at the despatch box in July 2010 and stated that the deficit would be cleared by 2015. It was Mr Osborne who stated that Alistair Darling threatened Britains triple A credit rating, and three years after taking over as chancellor, he achieved it. It was Mr Osborne who stood at the despatch box in 2010 and told the country that growth would be 2.3 in 2011 ( it was 0.6 ), 2.8 in 2012 ( peaked at 0.7 ), 2.9 in 2013 ( 0.8 ). It was the economic masterplan of George Osborne which cut off growth from the very outset in 2010, and growth never returned back to the May 2010 level for two and a half years. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Sep 29 2014, 06:45 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Agreed and how typical of him a Tory incompetent, to penalise the poorest in society as per usual. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 29 2014, 06:59 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A masterplan indeed - one that enabled him to shelve the economic potential for growth that there was until election year when he could then announce "ain't I brilliant" to all and sundry. If we had a decent press, a genuine public service broadcaster, he could not get away with such damaging Party politics - alas! |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 30 2014, 07:15 AM Post #11 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is true that this Gov. has cut a lot less than promised or should have, but who can believe, based that Labour would have cut at all? Labour is genetically incapable of cuts it's whole ethos is taxing, spending and re-engineering society to fit into it's preconceived image. Milliband did not mention the economy because he has nothing to say and he knows that his natural supporters do not wish to hear the words; "cuts" or "austerity", but the love the words; "borrowing" and "spending" note what brought on the applause. Such applause I have witnessed at every Labour Party Conference since WW2, spending is in their genetic makeup. My question is can I trust a Tory Gov. to eradicate the deficit in the next Gov.? Or should I trust that UKIP will as clearly Labour have no intention. Based on statements made so far and on Brown's claim that a <40% GDP to debt ratio is the safe zone, then it has been calculated that the Tories with a very fair wind will get us there by ~2030 and Labour beyond 2070. Clearly Labour is the Party for the selfish lot who subscribe to the "consume now and let someone else down the line pick up the tab". What sort of Moral Compass is that? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 30 2014, 07:41 AM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No you can't. |
![]() |
|
| jeevesnwooster | Sep 30 2014, 08:04 AM Post #13 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can't trust any of them, I say that with absolute conviction Edited by jeevesnwooster, Sep 30 2014, 08:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Sep 30 2014, 08:06 AM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I often find, when it comes to things like alcohol and sweet things, that I can't even trust myself. |
![]() |
|
| jeevesnwooster | Sep 30 2014, 08:20 AM Post #15 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At least you can drink alcohol |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sep 30 2014, 08:24 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
| disgruntled porker | Sep 30 2014, 08:38 AM Post #17 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well as some people are quick top point out, I'm thicker than a navvie's sandwich, but here is my simplistic take on it. Georgie has nailed his colours firmly to the mast. He's going to make the bottom end of society suffer in order to give more money to the people who already have enough to not need any more. If cuts need to be made then so be it, but use the money saved to good effect for the benefit of the country. Don't just throw it to the money men. If anyone had any doubts previously about the agenda and priorities of this govnt, then they should not have any now! |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 30 2014, 09:10 AM Post #18 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But they're not giving any better off any money are they? Just cutting the absurd levels of income taxation. i guess this is the same syntactic false logic that says the spare room subsidy is a bedroom tax. Every year there's a skills migration out of the country by people that could be creating jobs for others but find our income tax regime unacceptable. Why on earth would we want to make that worse? |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Sep 30 2014, 09:28 AM Post #19 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Defending the undefendable ? The Tories are going to take money from those on low incomes, out of work or on tax credits ( yet again ), and at the same time they plan to take absolutely nothing from the wealthy or high earners. They plan no tax rises of any kind, even though there is plenty of scope for hitting wealthy developers sitting on land, those with multiple homes, and those in top of the range homes valued at over £2 million. I feel that as most low income workers probably dont vote Tory, the idea is that it dosent really matter if we squeeze yet more money out of the poor. Roll on next May and hopefully, fingers crossed, the removals van will be in downing street |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Sep 30 2014, 10:02 AM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The thing is...you are both right. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Sep 30 2014, 11:09 AM Post #21 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Income Tax is only so high, for those that actually pay it, because those that could easily afford to pay it without missing it so often don't. The same is true of Corporation Tax. Close all the loopholes; if we ALL paid what we were supposed to pay we could ALL pay a lesser percentage. And, we would ALL be in it together. All The Best Edited by Pro Veritas, Sep 30 2014, 11:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Sep 30 2014, 11:12 AM Post #22 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That ended with Callaghans speach in 1976. Whether Miliband's omission to mention the economy was accidental or not, what he now has is the Conservative programme on the economy without giving Cameron an opportunity to denigrate Labour's programme. It is now up to Labour to look for the Tory weaknesses between now and the election and add positives to their own programme. Admiral Nelson changed the usual mode of attack and was very successful. Could this prove to be equally successful for Miliband? We will have to wait and see. Edited by C-too, Sep 30 2014, 11:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Sep 30 2014, 11:16 AM Post #23 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cutting the "absurd levels" of taxation means more money left in pocket. Where's the false logic in that may one enquire? How is that not making the already well off even better off? And every year there is a migration into the country by foreign companies making the most of the loopholes in our income tax regime. If entrepreneurs take a hike, there is always someone to fill their boots. No one is irreplaceable. If you don't want to call it a bedroom tax call it what you want. I suppose you don't accept the existance of stealth taxes just because it is not itemised as "Stealth" on your tax returns? Edited by disgruntled porker, Sep 30 2014, 11:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 30 2014, 12:19 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 30 2014, 12:21 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| jeevesnwooster | Sep 30 2014, 12:23 PM Post #26 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This government, instead of cutting has focused on privatisation and ruthless profiteering for themselves and their friends. That is, in a nutshell, the simple, personal ideological objective of each and every one of the Tories and most of the LD's. Labour are close behind too. The country is going down, China and the other rising powers are going to dwarf us and the personal politics of the Tories are: fool the populace enough to get rich quickly, then get the **** out. These are simple facts, if you don't believe me go and look up which politician has an interest ni which corporation, you will find I am telling you the truth. I bothered to look all this information up in 2010, I hope you've all done your digging too that's all I can say. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 30 2014, 12:40 PM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Tax & Spend" Labour. Here is the Chart for 'Spend' ......... Tories Spend More than Labour of the Nations Wealth. If you do not retract, I can also put up the records for Taxation which also shows that the Tories Tax more than Labour. But I agree, 'Tax & Spend Labour' is a beautiful soundbite, and when repeated regularly in the press etc has a wonderful result of the lie assuming the truth. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 30 2014, 04:47 PM Post #28 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But this is rubbish as the bottom end of society contribute nothing, they are the ones who are net gainers. Their complaint is not that they are contributing too much, but that they are not receiving enough. Nobody at the bottom end of society will straighten out the problems with the economy, not only do they not have the means as we have seen at the Labour Conference neither do they have the inclination. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 30 2014, 04:50 PM Post #29 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not see how the graph proves your claim and I would point my finger at the period just before the mess, say 2002 to 2008. I can also put up a Fullfact analysis for you that shows the exact opposite of your claim. So if you wish to pursue this you better get your magnifying glass out and start with some detail. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 30 2014, 04:52 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is your true and nasty colours nailed to mast in full view. Osborne is proposing to squeeze by several £hundred a year each 10million people most of whom are IN WORK. He is a disgrace, no mention of sorting the filthy rich crooks out who are robbing us all blind. Edited by papasmurf, Sep 30 2014, 04:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 30 2014, 04:52 PM Post #31 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would be better if you laced your claims with some examples otherwise it just sounds like the crap they spew out at The Red Nag. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 30 2014, 04:55 PM Post #32 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, but the claim is either true or not and I do not see that you even attempted to refute my claim. Not only do they contribute nothing, nobody is asking them to do so . I see you are struggling with truth now, no doubt you would prefer that it were banned. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 30 2014, 05:47 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most of them are in work RJD and making the rich richer. |
![]() |
|
| jeevesnwooster | Sep 30 2014, 06:39 PM Post #34 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As usual, The Usuals are dead wrong about the poor contributing nothing. The poor really are the 'ragged trousered philanthropists' donating huge amounts of surplus labour and boosting the rich's income exponentially day in day out. People like CJD are just greedy and want to increase the rate of exploitation of the poor
Aw, you're telling me you DIDN'T do your research then? Bully for you, somehow I suspected you hadn't. It means you're not qualified to have an opinion whenever I mention MP's interests in corporations (you do seem to get very indignant at these claims, maybe you have a stake yourself?). *Mark Simmonds, a former shadow health minister, who is paid a quarterly fee of £12,500 as adviser to private health provider Circle Health, contributed to two debates in which he offered support for the Health and Social Care Bill, legislation which is likely to lead to greater use of the private sector to run the NHS. 2. Lord Ashton: Conservative - Shares in Marsh Inc insurance brokers and in Zurich Financial Services AG - In a review for the Department of Health of the NHS litigation Authority - written by Marsh Inc, it recommended involving opening up clinical negligence cover over to private insurers. Zurich Financial Insurers said they didn't have the expertise but the Marsh review envisaged opening up a dialogue which might eventually give them the information they needed. The DoH unsurprisingly accepted the large majority of Marsh's recommendations. Lord Ashton also has shares in a private dental company called Smilepod Hygiene Ltd. 3. Lord Bell: Conservative - Chairman of Chime Communications Group, whose companies include Bell Pottinger, and whose lobbying clients include Southern Cross, BT Health and AstraZeneca. Tim Bell has a conviction for ‘wilfuly, openly and obscenely’ exposing himself ‘with intent to insult a female’ under Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act. For more on this delightful personality, which bears little relevance to the NHS but says so much about the character click here. If that isn't enough then please click here to see their attempts to work with the Ubekistan dictatorship. 4. Lord Blackwell: Conservatives - Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms. Involved in PFI hospitals. Head of the Prime Minister's policy unit under John Major from 1995 to 1997 and was previously a member of Margaret Thatcher's policy unit. Was a partner with McKinsey and Company (involved in NHS bill between 1978 and 1994. Interserve recently won a place on the Welsh Government: Designed for Life supply programme covering the entirety of NHS Wales. See article on him and Interserve here. 5. Lord Blyth of Rowington: Conservative - Senior adviser to investment bankers Greenhill, who have considerable transaction experience and a global network of corporate relationships in the Healthcare sector. Former Boots Chemists deputy chairman. Currently on leave of absence 6. Lord Boswell of Aynho: Conservative - Has shares in Reckitt Benckiser which produces drugs for the NHS amongst other health institutions. NHS is currently suing Reckitt Benckiser for £90 million following an investigation that ruled the company had abused its dominant position in the heartburn market. The company has just paid a fine for £10.2 million in 2010 following a ruling by the Office of Fair Trading which found them guilty of illegal anti-compative behaviour relating to their heartburn product Gaviscon. Lord Boswell's shares have in brackets household part of the company, but in the end it is the same company. He also has shares in GlaxoSmithKline PLC pharmaceuticals. The new CCGs open up increased opportunities for pharmaceutical companies to present their products to the new commissioners. 7. Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: Conservative - The former Conservative Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley is a Director of BUPA, the health insurance, private hospital and care group. Chair of Odgers Berndtson - recruitment company providing people for NHS Management positions. Shares in Broomco Ltd, which is a holding company of International Resources Group Ltd, which owns Odgers Berndston. Do you want me to continue? The list is very long and includes Cherie Blair as well, although I can't ermember off hand, but think she's involved in Circle Health as well, fat slug she is |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 30 2014, 08:05 PM Post #35 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the tax cuts means that a top jobs creator on £200k only has £85k taken out of their salary instead of the £87.5k the Eds wanted it is still taking money from them isn't it (and about £30k more than they'd pay n the USA that'd happily take their job creating skills). So no money given to them at all by Osborne, just like giving people benefits but based on how many bedrooms they need is giving them money and not taxing them. Hence the false logic comment. In the real world giving isn't taxing, taxing isn't giving. |
![]() |
|
| gee4444 | Sep 30 2014, 09:04 PM Post #36 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes they are giving the better off any money. 50% tax on earnings over £150,000 is not absurd. Not to the normal, pragmatic person. The spare room subsidy is a tax in all but name. If the Tories are genuinely interested in freeing up spare rooms then apply the tax disguised as the 'spare room subsidy' to all properties. Numbers for your unacceptable to bear over taxed floonies please. Is it such a big problem? I doubt it. Make what worse? That statement is ambiguous. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 30 2014, 09:20 PM Post #37 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Make worse as in make worse the talent loss. I've seen top notch designers and design managers leave for other countries because they could do better there - and increasing the tax on such makes them more likely to go I honestly don't understand "Numbers for your unacceptable to bear over taxed floonies please. " I'll take a guess though, I do not believe anyone should bear a marginal income tax + NI rate of over 40%. Right now the top rate is 62%. The way to end high salaries for whatever number of overpaid leeches we may have is to make the tax system incentivise those companies that create and maintain worthwhile jobs, right now it incentivises those who send jobs overseas Edited by Steve K, Sep 30 2014, 09:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jeevesnwooster | Sep 30 2014, 10:30 PM Post #38 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For sure I hope that we all like to hear of PRODUCTIVE jobs being filled that require skill, physical+mental ability and rigour. Jobs that need to be done that in whatever small way, move us forward The government just sees $$$$$$$ in their usual, lazy way and without rocking the boat for their rich financier mates, want to incentivise schemes that produce cheap, easy money. Schemes that are unsustainable in the medium-to-long-term and PRODUCE nothing of ACTUAL value. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Sep 30 2014, 10:53 PM Post #39 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to an interview early this morning a Tory minister did not argue against the comment put to him that the lowest paid are £300 a year worse off than in 2008. So despite the reduction of tax on the low paid they are very much contributing to the recovery. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Sep 30 2014, 11:02 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
" not only do they not have the means as we have seen at the Labour Conference neither do they have the inclination." More importantly, nor do they have the wit, I predict that if Labour with no financial plan of action get back in then the next chancellor had best look up the number of the IMF. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





7:36 PM Jul 11