Look I want to be clear about this

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

Look I want to be clear about this
Topic Started: Dec 12 2014, 08:15 AM (532 Views)
RJD	Dec 12 2014, 08:15 AM Post #1
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Quote: “Look,” he said, in answer to a question about borrowing. “I want to be sort of clear about this…” Siource: Milli Quote: I Want to Be Sort Of Clear About This. He could make that the title of his memoirs and clarity might come, I say might, but only after the GE. So vote Labour if you like a big gamble.

Replies:
Steve K	Dec 15 2014, 06:22 PM Post #41
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 15 2014, 05:49 PM Steve K Dec 15 2014, 05:11 PM As for whether Osborne is a failure I'd say the jury is out. He set a middle course between Labours mythaconomics and RJD's wish to have seen savage cuts ......... Why the term 'myth'? I am of the opinion that A Darling knew better than most what was required, and was set to do so. It was staging for pre-election that had the right condemning his projections, not any conclusive analysis. . . . Truth is we'll never know. I quite liked Darling but Brown is widely reported to have forced him to change his plans to a more electable version in that last announcement. There was never an option to get Darling without Brown and in any event Darling's plans would not have survived intact the Eurozone meltdown.. The myth I was referring to is Balls suggestion that if you borrow a pound or even £1B you will create so much growth from that you will gt more than that back in tax. You won't, you won't even keep that money in the economy as so much will go on imports and foreign holidays. You should only borrow for real investment or to protect the essential. Osborne may have got close to cutting so deep that the essential was not preserved but somehow we do still have most of our companies still there and society did not disintegrate. Whoever wins the next election is going to have to face the reality that there is no golden goose anymore, the West is being outcompeted by countries it relies on for cheap products to keep inflation low.



RJD	Dec 16 2014, 08:29 AM Post #42
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Oh dear that old cherry "society is going to disintegrate". This is the confusion in the mind of those on the left which thinks that the State is our society. It is not it is just the facilitator of services and as we the Taxpayers pay for them we need to demand value for our money. All that we need to do is get State spending down from Brown's levels of morbid obesity to <40% of GDP and at that level there is no example, no history, of any so called society collapsing. Pure Red Nag bunkum.



Steve K	Dec 16 2014, 09:40 AM Post #43
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 16 2014, 08:29 AM Oh dear that old cherry "society is going to disintegrate". This is the confusion in the mind of those on the left which thinks that the State is our society. It is not it is just the facilitator of services and as we the Taxpayers pay for them we need to demand value for our money. All that we need to do is get State spending down from Brown's levels of morbid obesity to <40% of GDP and at that level there is no example, no history, of any so called society collapsing. Pure Red Nag bunkum. You can only tax the poor so much and not have mass civil disobedience. While you are right that the state is not society (who said it was?) it is the largest component of it and when it gets it wrong it risks the whole house of cards. Thatcher nearly did this with the poll tax, if Osborne had made the cuts you wish we could easily have had 3 million unemployed again and with the benefit cuts you'd have implemented there would have been massive civil unrest. The state may have the biggest power but it does not have most of the power and it has to tread a fine line.



RJD	Dec 16 2014, 10:00 AM Post #44
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 16 2014, 09:40 AM RJD Dec 16 2014, 08:29 AM Oh dear that old cherry "society is going to disintegrate". This is the confusion in the mind of those on the left which thinks that the State is our society. It is not it is just the facilitator of services and as we the Taxpayers pay for them we need to demand value for our money. All that we need to do is get State spending down from Brown's levels of morbid obesity to <40% of GDP and at that level there is no example, no history, of any so called society collapsing. Pure Red Nag bunkum. You can only tax the poor so much and not have mass civil disobedience. While you are right that the state is not society (who said it was?) it is the largest component of it and when it gets it wrong it risks the whole house of cards. Thatcher nearly did this with the poll tax, if Osborne had made the cuts you wish we could easily have had 3 million unemployed again and with the benefit cuts you'd have implemented there would have been massive civil unrest. The state may have the biggest power but it does not have most of the power and it has to tread a fine line. Me thinks you are over egging the situation. The poor are being taxed less than before and of course I support the removal of taxes on incomes of those that we judge to be so. The trend has been set by the current Gov. However, that said the narrower you make the tax base they greater you place yourself at risk in meeting collection targets. The Poll Tax was never going to destroy society it was just a vehicle for the left to protest and for many to avoid all payments. Whilst this tax is a sensible one it failed because it was not fully thought through and dealt with in isolation of our general system of benefits at that time. As for Osborne I would have been happy if he had achieved 80% of what he promised. I also think you are wrong wrt to unemployed, as all the evidence shows. Now we have a jobs miracle whereby Employees are hurt by Payroll Taxes and VAT which delivers little by way of additional revenues to cover the costs of a very inefficient Public Sector. You are not going to get the investments you seek to rebalance the economy without some pain and in my view dragging this out increases the total amount of misery and delays investments. Clearly as Osborne is now promising to rid us of the residual amount, the Lion's Share, the very difficult bit, of deficit you would prefer Labour's approach? I see no evidence to indicate that cutting out the fat as quickly as practically possible was wrong and I am sure that Osborne attenuated his cut rate for purely political considerations. Also I see no moral case for continuing such levels of borrowing to fuel current consumption and I do not know how you will explain this to your grandchildren.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2