Forum menu
You can't put a price on brainwashing young adults to support the status quo on a national level.
We haven't had that level of mindless loyalty since the the Second World War.
I reckon we just keep on borrowing and let the kids and grand kids pay for it when the chickens come home to roost. I mean spend spend spend, who will actually call in the UK's dept without starting the downfall of the world order.
Deficit and Debt are key tools for any government.
Absolutely and for business.
Stating the obvious but as long as we can service the debt it is a valid way to raise capital like any other.
Looks to me as though the threat of undercutting EU taxes/business environment is the only bargaining chip we have.
The debt is owned by a lot of our pensions and investments so if we default we all suffer
It can't be 'called in' they're state bonds, but like consumers if we start messing about or not paying it back our ratings fall and we either can't borrow anymore or the interest on existing bonds goes up.
There is a theory that as all money is made up and doesn't exist unless we want it to, we could just hit the reset botton globally wipe off all national debt - the big winners would be European Countries and the US, the big loser China - world war 3 at worst, multi generational financial chaos at best. Some say that break down of the global finance mechanism is inevitable - we're now so far away from what money was invented for that its impossible to make it stable again.
Much like giving the poles a chance 15 years ago to come and work, now its kids entering the workforce, doing jobs for 3/4£ an hour instead of £7.20. Any govt spending goes on capital projects like hs2 and grammer skools. We left the EU, which no one gives a shit about anyway. But everything's OK cos we're all forced to be ambitous.
My problem with Austerity is it only seems to apply to a small proportion of the country with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.Dont get me wrong I have no problem with a meritocracy but the present vast difference in lifestyles is unhealthy and will divide society. Thats not good for anyone.
Precisely, those doing very well might have to shop at sainsburys rather than waitrose, and may have to buy an ex demo new car rather than a brand spanking new one with lots of customised options.
On the other side of of the coin, some will have to not have breakfast any more, or have to make thier one pair of shoes last that bit longer. The irony there being a £90 pair of shoes will generally be more robust and better for the feet than a £25 pair, but not many can afford that.
Shoe poverty is a thing.
I've decided to stick my head above the parapet on this one as there is something that always crops up in discussions like this that is never made clear and that is "Who exactly are the Rich" in this context? It always seems to me that they are some sort of "other" that need to pay more.
The head above the parapet part is that I am by almost any measure (outside the city of London) very well paid working as I do in the oil and gas industry. On that basis I'd like to hear from those who say the rich should pay more, just what percentage of my income they think I should be paying in tax?
£50 000 pa puts you in the richest few % of the nation.
However income tax is not the main issue altho I'd like it tipped to be more progressive. Its corporations not paying their tax that is the main issue
We spend less than our neighbours on public services but we tax a lot less
I doubt any of us are qualified to give a precise costed taxation system down to that level.
What I and a few others are saying is that out present society is loaded towards the wealthy and thats not very good for anyone either the rich who will end up living in fear or the poor who end having miserable lives.
So we should in general try to skew spending more to support less well off people or at least make sure they are not further disadvantaged.
That could mean regulating energy providers so the poor dont pay more for elecricity or making sure rental accomadation is avaliable at reasonable costs or incentivising companies to invest in deprived areas or capping the earnings of business leaders at multiples of the lowest earners.
Its not just about increasing your tax its about not taking advantage of some people to make others rich(er).
@ gonefishin - I don't think anyone has mentioned income tax rates. More those using off-shore means to avoid paying tax at all, usually only an option for the well healed.
Oh and there's the slight issue of banking cartels leaving us plebs holding the baby, oops sorry guys you can eat gruel from here on in, I'll be on my yacht.
No one specifically mentioned income tax rates but there is always the undercurrent of "the rich need to pay more" in these discussions but no one ever seems to want to define how much more or what rich means, beyond "people who aren't me". The point I was trying to make is that those terms need to be defined as without doing so makes any conversation pretty vapid.
On that basis I'd like to hear from those who say the rich should pay more, just what percentage of my income they think I should be paying in tax?
The "rich" I dislike are effectively tax exiles, or use various lucrative exotic instruments to avoid paying tax altogether.
I don't have a problem with high earners in general, infact I'd say they are paying enough tax as it is.
The vote for Brexit was partly motivated by the idea that it would somehow reverse the growing inequality in the UK. Insofar as it seems to be cooling the housing market, which is a major source of inequality, it may do so, but then I look at the shadowy people involved in the Leave campaign, people like Aaron Banks and Jim Mellon, and I fear the overall plan is to turn the UK into a tax haven for the super-rich and turn the masses back into their servants.
How about we tax wealth and not income - the 1%ers pay less tax than most and hoarded cash does nothing for the economy. Most don't even pay tax when it's passed on generation to generation- that's something the little people do.
Income tax is a bit of a red herring, it's already progressive. Not of consequence to those of real means.
Debt+++ = Austerity+++ = no change for the wealthiest,
but the restof us allowing ourselves to be conned that we're to blame and we must pay.
Ideology mate.
If those who run a failing system which benefits them but empoverishes the rest can still manage to fill our heads with self-blaming tosh, they'll continue getting away with it!
@P-Jay. I was being a tad ironic with my comments, sorry for not making my post seem really extra stupid. Still there are those who feel that we can carry on spending without penalty for ever.
We have plenty of everything, its not about spending its about distribution.
paid working as I do in the oil and gas industry.
If you need to work for a living and are paid only a salary then you aren't in the super rich. If you get stock options or a bonus such as the bankers you might just nudge in but the really rich live very comfortably off their assets whether they manage them themselves or not (most don't)
These super rich a very mobile and often choose to live in tax havens. I'd tax them all the same unless they renounced their citizenship. The Americans do so why don't we in Europe?
Countries can borrow at much better rates than the private sector so debt is manageable in a lot of ways
That's true - which illustrates just how much of a bad idea PFI is. All it does is allow the government to hide expenditure to meet the targets they have set themselves. I don't object to public/private partnerships where the private sector are genuinely adding value (such as the M74 a few years back) but PFI is just an opportunity for profiteering.
Mark Blyth has a book on it and a few vids on youtube worth looking at.