RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 01:47 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 01:34 PM

The Public Sector by definition does not produce wealth, it destroys such, but it is a luxury service

Luxury service? What are you on about RJD?

That's funny isn't it? Because we all know that a society where police, justice, healthcare, education and army left to be sorted out by private entities work very well

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 01:47 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 01:34 PM

The Public Sector by definition does not produce wealth, it destroys such, but it is a luxury service

Luxury service? What are you on about RJD?

That's funny isn't it? Because we all know that a society where police, justice, healthcare, education and army left to be sorted out by private entities work very well

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:28 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 01:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

That's funny isn't it? Because we all know that a society where police, justice, healthcare, education and army left to be sorted out by private entities work very well

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

A rather telling omission of bank bailouts, corporate tax avoidance on an industrial scale, tax cuts for the better off (cheers for that one George ) asset price inflation piling that debt onto your beloved future generations and to cap it all subsidizing the workforce so all the above is possible!

But sod that lets get rid of "luxuries" like decent healthcare and an equitable society!

File under I'm going to hell and will enjoy it...........

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 07:37 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 07:01 PM

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 05:15 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 01:34 PM

The Public Sector by definition does not produce wealth, it destroys such, but it is a luxury service we wish not to deny ourselves.

The public sector exists to facilitate wealth creation and as such is a creator of wealth.

Rubbish. Little of what the State provides to oil the wheels of industry and commerce cannot be provided by that sector for itself ........

Of course that is true, demonstrably so, since that is very much how the State operated in centuries passed.
The burden did fall largely onto industry (and the church) to provide the services industry needed to be able to prosper. And replaced by the State making these provisions simply because the State was better placed to do so, and thereby enhanced productivity ....... but that was then, in a labour intensive business community.
What has changed to now allow you to declare the State is not the best placed to provide essential services? Is it this loss of the labour intensive industrial base, has technology changed the criteria that much?

Mercenary describes the society you aspire to be a part of.

Is the Government supposed to oversee that business always comes first?
What of the 'Market' which these days is driven by leisure (non essential) spending as much as by commodities for living?

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:28 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 01:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

That's funny isn't it? Because we all know that a society where police, justice, healthcare, education and army left to be sorted out by private entities work very well

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

A rather telling omission of bank bailouts, corporate tax avoidance on an industrial scale, tax cuts for the better off (cheers for that one George ) asset price inflation piling that debt onto your beloved future generations and to cap it all subsidizing the workforce so all the above is possible!

But sod that lets get rid of "luxuries" like decent healthcare and an equitable society!

File under I'm going to hell and will enjoy it...........

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 09:25 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:27 AM

He and I do not think such will change unless there is a charge for Appointments. Give people something free of charge and they always abuse it as for them it is not worth much.

What happens to people who cannot pay the charge?

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:13 AM

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 09:25 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:27 AM

He and I do not think such will change unless there is a charge for Appointments. Give people something free of charge and they always abuse it as for them it is not worth much.

What happens to people who cannot pay the charge?

Medicine is a caring profession . Let the GPs themselves decide who should pay in such circumstances. The truth is that the majority of people, those who smoke , drink, have meals out, or who enjoy holidays , can easily pay the small sum that will be asked for , and exclusions can be made for chronic conditions that require regular visits. It wouldn't take too much thought to devise a fair system for the poor. Its not a financial block that some people have , but a mental or party political one.l We need to think through the ways to save the system and improve it , not undermine it or destroy it.
Lateral thinking and having an open mind, with all the options properly discussed, even those that will be seen as unpopular in the short term helps.
Automatically condemning something that may be workable to our advantage without full and open discussion is always disadvantageous IMO
I say give it a try to see what happens.

Steve K

Dec 7 2014, 12:03 AM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

You clearly need to go to Specsavers on Monday then

You said "In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing." and the graph shows that GDP that years was down on 2009 and that was down on 2008. A total contraction of ~ £400B

You said "We are borrowing more and more" but the data shows we are borrowing 6.5% of GDP compared to 11% in Labour's last financial year (2009-2010)


You may find this link helpful.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

Steve K

Dec 7 2014, 12:03 AM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

You clearly need to go to Specsavers on Monday then

You said "In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing." and the graph shows that GDP that years was down on 2009 and that was down on 2008. A total contraction of ~ £400B

You said "We are borrowing more and more" but the data shows we are borrowing 6.5% of GDP compared to 11% in Labour's last financial year (2009-2010)


You may find this link helpful.

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

Steve K

Dec 9 2014, 12:25 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

Well the rate of increase is slowing but your point does stand

What to do? We have Labour saying they will reduce the deficit by borrowing more as in their book every pound spent on welfare creates a multiple of pounds in the economy as no one would ever spend welfare on imports and we have the Tories saying that they have to reduce welfare to socially unacceptable levels as they won't address the wealth divisions that create the need for welfare. And of course UKIP saying they can make it OK because in their arithmetic 2+2 really does equal 5. And the Libs just want to whine.

We have to create worthwhile work in the UK. It isn't going to be easy especially with an electorate that in worrying numbers believe in free money, snake oil remedies and there's always someone else to blame. And yes to some extent I am doing the latter.

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 09:00 AM

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 07:37 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 07:01 PM

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 05:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Rubbish. Little of what the State provides to oil the wheels of industry and commerce cannot be provided by that sector for itself ........

Of course that is true, demonstrably so, since that is very much how the State operated in centuries passed.
The burden did fall largely onto industry (and the church) to provide the services industry needed to be able to prosper. And replaced by the State making these provisions simply because the State was better placed to do so, and thereby enhanced productivity ....... but that was then, in a labour intensive business community.
What has changed to now allow you to declare the State is not the best placed to provide essential services? Is it this loss of the labour intensive industrial base, has technology changed the criteria that much?

Mercenary describes the society you aspire to be a part of.

Is the Government supposed to oversee that business always comes first?
What of the 'Market' which these days is driven by leisure (non essential) spending as much as by commodities for living?

Again twaddle. I wish that those services we agree should be provided by the State are provided to a high quality and at good value, we easily accept third rate and the left are not interested in anything other than the amount spent. The more the left can raise by way of taxation and spend on State services is for them the only matter of interest and they cannot see the harm they have done. They do not seem to care about those that are unemployed and their chances of obtaining real work. In fact I doubt whether there are many on the left who care to understand what real jobs are as they confuse the State with the economy. Labour have now tailored their message to Public Sector Employees and their Clients.

Quote:

 

Again twaddle

Quote:

 

The more the left can raise by way of taxation and spend on State services is for them the only matter of interest

Steve K

Dec 9 2014, 12:25 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

Well the rate of increase is slowing but your point does stand

What to do? We have Labour saying they will reduce the deficit by borrowing more as in their book every pound spent on welfare creates a multiple of pounds in the economy as no one would ever spend welfare on imports and we have the Tories saying that they have to reduce welfare to socially unacceptable levels as they won't address the wealth divisions that create the need for welfare. And of course UKIP saying they can make it OK because in their arithmetic 2+2 really does equal 5. And the Libs just want to whine.

We have to create worthwhile work in the UK. It isn't going to be easy especially with an electorate that in worrying numbers believe in free money, snake oil remedies and there's always someone else to blame. And yes to some extent I am doing the latter.

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 02:35 PM

Steve K

Dec 9 2014, 12:25 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

Well the rate of increase is slowing but your point does stand

What to do? We have Labour saying they will reduce the deficit by borrowing more as in their book every pound spent on welfare creates a multiple of pounds in the economy as no one would ever spend welfare on imports and we have the Tories saying that they have to reduce welfare to socially unacceptable levels as they won't address the wealth divisions that create the need for welfare. And of course UKIP saying they can make it OK because in their arithmetic 2+2 really does equal 5. And the Libs just want to whine.

We have to create worthwhile work in the UK. It isn't going to be easy especially with an electorate that in worrying numbers believe in free money, snake oil remedies and there's always someone else to blame. And yes to some extent I am doing the latter.

If we really do want to balance our economy towards more production away from debt fuelled consumption then we need a complete sea change in attitudes. The left believe that somehow we can have a large Public Sector competing for and consuming significant resources and at the same time make the UK an attractive place to invest for manufacturing. You cannot. You have to find an acceptable balance and that is not tipping in the correct direction as our State consumption and as a consequence tax levels are far too high. It makes me smile when the lefties describe corporation taxes as if they are confined only to the owners of such organisations, they are not they are a tax on us consumers. If we really want to have a better material standard of life then best realise that our poor productivity is the current ongoing problem and the solution, but it also applies to those working in the Public Sector who for some strange reason think they are immune. The lefties need to get their heads out of their proverbials and wake up to the reality of the World in which we must compete for jobs.

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 11:47 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:28 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

A rather telling omission of bank bailouts, corporate tax avoidance on an industrial scale, tax cuts for the better off (cheers for that one George ) asset price inflation piling that debt onto your beloved future generations and to cap it all subsidizing the workforce so all the above is possible!

But sod that lets get rid of "luxuries" like decent healthcare and an equitable society!

File under I'm going to hell and will enjoy it...........

You forgot to mention the handcart, don't worry, I will be pushing it with gusto.

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 09:02 AM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:28 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 06:51 PM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:50 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I think you understand my economic point even though you would like to dress up the Public Sector to being more than it actually is "the luxury we afford ourselves from taxation", unfortunately our Politicians, particularly of the left think such luxuries should be paid for by future generations. You know quiet well that the UK cannot rebalance it's economy away from debt driven consumption towards greater production without moderating the size of the State expenditure, tell me if you don't.

A rather telling omission of bank bailouts, corporate tax avoidance on an industrial scale, tax cuts for the better off (cheers for that one George ) asset price inflation piling that debt onto your beloved future generations and to cap it all subsidizing the workforce so all the above is possible!

But sod that lets get rid of "luxuries" like decent healthcare and an equitable society!

File under I'm going to hell and will enjoy it...........

Clearly you miss the point, but that is to be expected and I have no time left to waste on your education. Talk about getting the wrong end of a stick!

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 12:10 PM

Steve K

Dec 7 2014, 12:03 AM

Lewis

Dec 6 2014, 06:53 PM

Well even your graphs prove what I have said was correct.

You clearly need to go to Specsavers on Monday then

You said "In 2010 when the incompetents took over the country was growing." and the graph shows that GDP that years was down on 2009 and that was down on 2008. A total contraction of ~ £400B

You said "We are borrowing more and more" but the data shows we are borrowing 6.5% of GDP compared to 11% in Labour's last financial year (2009-2010)


You may find this link helpful.

The deficit is gradually going down but the national debt continues to grow.

£0.76 trillion in 2010.
£1.26 trillion in 2014.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

I think two things are clear. 1. Everything went haywire after the international financial meltdowm in 2008. 2. The Tories have faild to arrest the climbing national debt.

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 PM

If we put aside our party politics, perhaps no government would have succeeded in doing so, without raising taxes, direct or indirect, or by cutting drastically public spending. Perhaps that is the only real answer for all of us to accept. Simply , our annual rise in GDP is not being matched by the rise in the GDP per person, in other words we are all getting poorer in real terms, as statistics are tending to prove or as Labour claim.
I don't think any government or party has the answer to our current problems or any government is going to produce the solutions by offering more, or fiddling with the figures.
The positive solutions are all unpopular, and therefore blameworthy for the opposition to make political capital out of, be they right or left of politics, so it seems unlikely to happen, and we continue to blunder on.

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 01:38 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 PM

If we put aside our party politics, perhaps no government would have succeeded in doing so, without raising taxes, direct or indirect, or by cutting drastically public spending. Perhaps that is the only real answer for all of us to accept. Simply , our annual rise in GDP is not being matched by the rise in the GDP per person, in other words we are all getting poorer in real terms, as statistics are tending to prove or as Labour claim.
I don't think any government or party has the answer to our current problems or any government is going to produce the solutions by offering more, or fiddling with the figures.
The positive solutions are all unpopular, and therefore blameworthy for the opposition to make political capital out of, be they right or left of politics, so it seems unlikely to happen, and we continue to blunder on.

First off, to attempt to ignore party politics in this is not going to happen - they are all going to exploit where they can ........ often unfairly, and more often falsely.

You come close to realising what needs to happen, even though you somehow dismiss that it can happen - the country has to utilise its resources and potential and return to prosperity - growth!
Despite going the austerity rout to reduce the deficit, a policy that chokes off growth, the Chancellor when he finally did invest and saw some growth was very quick to go public and tell that this growth would eventually balance the economy.
Growth will do it without the need to raise the tax burden - it just needs more tax payers (fewer on benefits) and jobs that pay a wage where taxes become due. Growth where business turnovers increase, profits increase, and corporation taxes exceed the miserable 7% of income they currently contribute to the treasury.

Having created over a million more jobs and seeing no increase in tax revenue isn't success!

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 10:26 AM

It is not easy to take the politics out of this debate

We see news stories every day of hungry people, poverty, food banks, squeezed incomes and a standard of living crisis, and at the same time the richest in Britain have got richer.
Theres no standard of living crisis for some people, sales of rangerovers booming, champagne sales not affected at all, the top-end property market doing very well, infact the very wealthiest have been given a huge tax reduction.

We have a deficit problem, and in a fair society we should all have to contribute according to what we can afford, but this is not what is happening, we are not "all in this together", the top end is overheating whilst many people on the lowest incomes are desperate.

Yet when we suggest a Mansion Tax, ot taxing people who sit on land assets, we are accused of indulging in the politics of envy.

Sorry, but to me you cannot take the politics out of the economic debate, if someone on £170 per week can endure the bedroom tax, then someone on £100,000 PA who lives in a 5 bed detached house can endure the Mansion Tax, and be hit with other asset taxes.

Spreading the burden of debt reduction seems a fair thing to do, the use of all tools at the governments disposal, including taxation aswell has budget cuts, public purse strings and the private sector, in particular multi nationals raking in billions, many of whom have wonderful accountants, many of which have funds on the Cayman Islands.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 AM

None of it will work !

If you want to sort this mess out you have to reverse globalisation and stop the free movement of capital, it doesn't matter if people get rich as long as the capital stays where it was generated.

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 11:05 AM

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 10:26 AM

It is not easy to take the politics out of this debate

We see news stories every day of hungry people, poverty, food banks, squeezed incomes and a standard of living crisis, and at the same time the richest in Britain have got richer.
Theres no standard of living crisis for some people, sales of rangerovers booming, champagne sales not affected at all, the top-end property market doing very well, infact the very wealthiest have been given a huge tax reduction.

We have a deficit problem, and in a fair society we should all have to contribute according to what we can afford, but this is not what is happening, we are not "all in this together", the top end is overheating whilst many people on the lowest incomes are desperate.

Yet when we suggest a Mansion Tax, ot taxing people who sit on land assets, we are accused of indulging in the politics of envy.

Sorry, but to me you cannot take the politics out of the economic debate, if someone on £170 per week can endure the bedroom tax, then someone on £100,000 PA who lives in a 5 bed detached house can endure the Mansion Tax, and be hit with other asset taxes.

Spreading the burden of debt reduction seems a fair thing to do, the use of all tools at the governments disposal, including taxation aswell has budget cuts, public purse strings and the private sector, in particular multi nationals raking in billions, many of whom have wonderful accountants, many of which have funds on the Cayman Islands.

So how much more are you prepared to pay in tax?

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 12:20 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 11:05 AM

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 10:26 AM

It is not easy to take the politics out of this debate

We see news stories every day of hungry people, poverty, food banks, squeezed incomes and a standard of living crisis, and at the same time the richest in Britain have got richer.
Theres no standard of living crisis for some people, sales of rangerovers booming, champagne sales not affected at all, the top-end property market doing very well, infact the very wealthiest have been given a huge tax reduction.

We have a deficit problem, and in a fair society we should all have to contribute according to what we can afford, but this is not what is happening, we are not "all in this together", the top end is overheating whilst many people on the lowest incomes are desperate.

Yet when we suggest a Mansion Tax, ot taxing people who sit on land assets, we are accused of indulging in the politics of envy.

Sorry, but to me you cannot take the politics out of the economic debate, if someone on £170 per week can endure the bedroom tax, then someone on £100,000 PA who lives in a 5 bed detached house can endure the Mansion Tax, and be hit with other asset taxes.

Spreading the burden of debt reduction seems a fair thing to do, the use of all tools at the governments disposal, including taxation aswell has budget cuts, public purse strings and the private sector, in particular multi nationals raking in billions, many of whom have wonderful accountants, many of which have funds on the Cayman Islands.

So how much more are you prepared to pay in tax?

The truth of it is that no one actually wants to pay more tax, but if David Cameron or any leader came clean, and told us that some tax increases spread fairly and evenly would reduce the need to make such drastic cuts, or allow us to give a bit more money to the NHS, or allow us not to cut JSA for people with families, then I think most folks would understand.

The main point I am making here is that not all the tools available to address the deficit are been used, cutting budgets is certainly one method, but so is taxation, and especially if certain sections of society are doing really well when others are going hungry.

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 12:40 PM

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 12:20 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 11:05 AM

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 10:26 AM

It is not easy to take the politics out of this debate

We see news stories every day of hungry people, poverty, food banks, squeezed incomes and a standard of living crisis, and at the same time the richest in Britain have got richer.
Theres no standard of living crisis for some people, sales of rangerovers booming, champagne sales not affected at all, the top-end property market doing very well, infact the very wealthiest have been given a huge tax reduction.

We have a deficit problem, and in a fair society we should all have to contribute according to what we can afford, but this is not what is happening, we are not "all in this together", the top end is overheating whilst many people on the lowest incomes are desperate.

Yet when we suggest a Mansion Tax, ot taxing people who sit on land assets, we are accused of indulging in the politics of envy.

Sorry, but to me you cannot take the politics out of the economic debate, if someone on £170 per week can endure the bedroom tax, then someone on £100,000 PA who lives in a 5 bed detached house can endure the Mansion Tax, and be hit with other asset taxes.

Spreading the burden of debt reduction seems a fair thing to do, the use of all tools at the governments disposal, including taxation aswell has budget cuts, public purse strings and the private sector, in particular multi nationals raking in billions, many of whom have wonderful accountants, many of which have funds on the Cayman Islands.

So how much more are you prepared to pay in tax?

The truth of it is that no one actually wants to pay more tax, but if David Cameron or any leader came clean, and told us that some tax increases spread fairly and evenly would reduce the need to make such drastic cuts, or allow us to give a bit more money to the NHS, or allow us not to cut JSA for people with families, then I think most folks would understand.

The main point I am making here is that not all the tools available to address the deficit are been used, cutting budgets is certainly one method, but so is taxation, and especially if certain sections of society are doing really well when others are going hungry.

I may have said before that I would not be opposed to paying more tax if it reduced the deficit and led to a more balanced economy. But there has to be some trimming of the state. It shouldn’t be higher than 40 %. It may be that this should be counter cyclical, higher state spending in a bust and less state spending in a boom

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 12:00 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 AM

None of it will work !

If you want to sort this mess out you have to reverse globalisation and stop the free movement of capital, it doesn't matter if people get rich as long as the capital stays where it was generated.

The problem with "stopping globalisation" is the electorate rather like the cheap goods and affordable food that that brings.

I don't mind someone earning £100k if they are worth it in the benefit they create for wider society in terms of worthwhile jobs etc. In fact I get really angry that those on such that create jobs will pay a marginal income tax rate of over 60% .

What continues to make me most angry is those insisting we must not tax unearned or static wealth because to them a mansion tax is immoral but taxing employer created jobs at 13% is just wonderful. Utter lunacy in terms of long term impacts.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 01:11 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 12:00 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 AM

None of it will work !

If you want to sort this mess out you have to reverse globalisation and stop the free movement of capital, it doesn't matter if people get rich as long as the capital stays where it was generated.

The problem with "stopping globalisation" is the electorate rather like the cheap goods and affordable food that that brings.

I don't mind someone earning £100k if they are worth it in the benefit they create for wider society in terms of worthwhile jobs etc. In fact I get really angry that those on such that create jobs will pay a marginal income tax rate of over 60% .

What continues to make me most angry is those insisting we must not tax unearned or static wealth because to them a mansion tax is immoral but taxing employer created jobs at 13% is just wonderful. Utter lunacy in terms of long term impacts.

What is static wealth though?

A "mansion" may be worth 2 million in central London and 200K elsewhere.

Its only perceived wealth, a value that is bestowed on something that bears no relation to anything.

I think its best to stick to taxing earnings and consumption.

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 01:27 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 01:11 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 12:00 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 AM

None of it will work !

If you want to sort this mess out you have to reverse globalisation and stop the free movement of capital, it doesn't matter if people get rich as long as the capital stays where it was generated.

The problem with "stopping globalisation" is the electorate rather like the cheap goods and affordable food that that brings.

I don't mind someone earning £100k if they are worth it in the benefit they create for wider society in terms of worthwhile jobs etc. In fact I get really angry that those on such that create jobs will pay a marginal income tax rate of over 60% .

What continues to make me most angry is those insisting we must not tax unearned or static wealth because to them a mansion tax is immoral but taxing employer created jobs at 13% is just wonderful. Utter lunacy in terms of long term impacts.

What is static wealth though?

A "mansion" may be worth 2 million in central London and 200K elsewhere.

Its only perceived wealth, a value that is bestowed on something that bears no relation to anything.

I think its best to stick to taxing earnings and consumption.

So we should make the London problem worse by not taxing their houses at the going rate?

Taxing earnings and employment is always the easy option - in the short term. What happens is those that could create jobs go overseas and employ people there rather than pay marginal rates of ~60%. Result: greater social division.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 02:45 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 01:27 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 01:11 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 12:00 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

What is static wealth though?

A "mansion" may be worth 2 million in central London and 200K elsewhere.

Its only perceived wealth, a value that is bestowed on something that bears no relation to anything.

I think its best to stick to taxing earnings and consumption.

So we should make the London problem worse by not taxing their houses at the going rate?

Taxing earnings and employment is always the easy option - in the short term. What happens is those that could create jobs go overseas and employ people there rather than pay marginal rates of ~60%. Result: greater social division.

How would forcing people out of their homes make it better?

The implied value of a house is not always the owners fault.

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 02:58 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 02:45 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 01:27 PM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 01:11 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

So we should make the London problem worse by not taxing their houses at the going rate?

Taxing earnings and employment is always the easy option - in the short term. What happens is those that could create jobs go overseas and employ people there rather than pay marginal rates of ~60%. Result: greater social division.

How would forcing people out of their homes make it better?

The implied value of a house is not always the owners fault.

Who said anything about forcing them out of their homes?

We have a property tax but we only really levy it on the middle classes. Uncapping Council Tax to all houses would still take less from mansion owners than their properties rise in value each year. If they really cannot pay (and frankly there are many sources of money if you have a mansion) then a charge is levied against the property and taken with fair interest when it's next transferred.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 03:25 PM

I'd be more in favour of local income taxes.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 03:25 PM

We already have the highest property taxes in Europe and the highest in the OECD-10.

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 04:10 PM

We all paid more tax in the past, and a lot more when Mrs Thatcher was PM.

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 04:10 PM

We all paid more tax in the past, and a lot more when Mrs Thatcher was PM.

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 01:38 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 PM

If we put aside our party politics, perhaps no government would have succeeded in doing so, without raising taxes, direct or indirect, or by cutting drastically public spending. Perhaps that is the only real answer for all of us to accept. Simply , our annual rise in GDP is not being matched by the rise in the GDP per person, in other words we are all getting poorer in real terms, as statistics are tending to prove or as Labour claim.
I don't think any government or party has the answer to our current problems or any government is going to produce the solutions by offering more, or fiddling with the figures.
The positive solutions are all unpopular, and therefore blameworthy for the opposition to make political capital out of, be they right or left of politics, so it seems unlikely to happen, and we continue to blunder on.

First off, to attempt to ignore party politics in this is not going to happen - they are all going to exploit where they can ........ often unfairly, and more often falsely.

You come close to realising what needs to happen, even though you somehow dismiss that it can happen - the country has to utilise its resources and potential and return to prosperity - growth!
Despite going the austerity rout to reduce the deficit, a policy that chokes off growth, the Chancellor when he finally did invest and saw some growth was very quick to go public and tell that this growth would eventually balance the economy.
Growth will do it without the need to raise the tax burden - it just needs more tax payers (fewer on benefits) and jobs that pay a wage where taxes become due. Growth where business turnovers increase, profits increase, and corporation taxes exceed the miserable 7% of income they currently contribute to the treasury.

Having created over a million more jobs and seeing no increase in tax revenue isn't success!

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 03:25 PM

We already have the highest property taxes in Europe and the highest in the OECD-10.

I'd be more in favour of local income taxes.