TJ
Your last post had me nearly fall off my chair!! You don't seriously believe that load of tosh you've just written? Seriously??!!
It was obvious at the time that the NuLabs inherited a great setup and then encouraged the public to live on the never-never, whilst over-borrowing the public coffers. as for unemployment; you're dreaming. Tony and El Gordo fust pumped £BNs into creating non-jobs to improve the stats. Useless ****ers!
Now it's pay up time. Lets start with those that are non-productive in society.
A flat rate of 22.5% TAX with NO getout clauses will be fairer and yield more money for the coffers too. The rich will therefore pay too.
Cameron's got his work cut out; it's going to be despised by many, but that's largely due to the vast majority of the public having been lulled into a ridiculous sense that we could carry on the way we had done. The economic downturn only added to the woes, but it's the hideous overspending that's really hurt us. I for one am getting hit by the cuts in public spending, but we've all got to chip in to get this to work.
Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?
Often because they have farmland where they can grow crops/raise animals. People in Britain generally don't. Especially in urban areas.
Or, they are forced to work in really horrible jobs for absolutely pitiful wages. And don't have access to healthcare, education, etc.
Quite simple really.
3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mil,
Soz people, but this quote just turned my piss straight to steam !!
Its utter bollocks and typical of the Daily Mail/Tory Boy Convince yourself with statistical made up crap for Dummies style of politics [url= http://193.129.121.133/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_jul2010.pdf ]Latest DWP Stats are here: If you look hard you will find Nov 2009 at 2.6 million [/url]
Todays assault on the least able is actually about launching an assault on 2/3rds of 1% of the total bill, which in essence is very small beer in the greater scheme of things. Weigh that up against an admitted level of cock up caused generally by the complexity of the system that represents 2.16% of the bill. And how are we going to do it? ????? .... By reducing the number of people administering it at a time when claimant volumes are pretty much guaranteed to rise to new highs!!
****ing twunt is putting it mildly. Pretty sure that the same level of diligence was to be employed in pursuing tax avoidance/evasion
could net more than that from just one corporate source.
This is simply wrong ..... the reality from the governments own stats is that there are no more than 6.7 people per thousand claiming that are defrauding the system. Not the huge and out of control problem that they are painting it to be.
Mikertroid - unfortunately for the right wing zealots its the truth. Its really simple to see
Has employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.
Worldwide the labour approach to the world economic crisis has been seen as a model to follow - even in such countries as the USA
No one worldwide is following the Tory approach of massive cuts as the lessons from previous crisis is that this will just make things worse - we are already tipping back into recession as a result
Flat rate income tax - laughable. A useless idea that does not work and has never worked anywhere in the world.
Oh - and we don't overspend - we spend less and tax less than many competitor nations once you take healthcare costs into account. Even the USA spends very little less as the 16+ % of gdp they spend on healthcare is not government spending.
compare like for like ad we are losw tax low spend. Simple facts
chewkw - MemberWhy are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?
They die. Simple.
Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?
Lots of them aren't, hence why lots of them die.
we've all got to chip in to get this to work.
Confiscate all the properties of tax dodgers until they pay up.
😆
Shall we start with Zac Goldsmith and Lord Ashcroft?
Shall we start with Zac Goldsmith and Lord Ashcroft?
That would seem fair to me.
TandemJeremy - Memberchewkw - Member
Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?
They die. Simple.
Now that's odd then why is the majority of their population keep increasing ... So who died?
😯
I reckon a quick scan through the cabinet's little nest eggs would net a good few bob...
Has employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.
I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.
The papers today all carry a story which first broke last month - the proposed use of credit rating agencies like Experian to catch people committing benefit fraud.This is a very bad idea. Nobody approves of benefit cheats. But mining private data on a routine basis on the off-chance of catching people out is a disproportionate invasion of privacy.
There's a presumption of innocence in this country, and trawling everyone's credit data and treating us all as suspects brings that into question. Furthermore, there is or should be a bright line between the state and the private sector. Taking powers of legal investigation and enforcement which ought to sit with the state, and granting them to private organisations, blurs that line. Worse still, if profit-making companies are rewarded by the number of people they catch they will have a perverse incentive to sling accusations in any even marginally plausible case - because they'll have nothing to lose and potentially something to gain in the smearing.
Ultimately, it's probably not in the interests of the companies either. People will be far less likely to comply with their requirements in the future if it's known that one risks such intrusion in doing so.
Credit agencies should think carefully about effectively becoming enforcers for the state, compromising private information they've accumulated about people.
Amen to that
tiger_roach - MemberHas employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.
😆
I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.
Mainly from increased GDP and some is self funding - for example reducing unemployment increases tax take as people get jobs. This is why the tory approach to teh deficit will fail. cutting spending means increasing unemployment which deceases tax take thus the deficit does not reduce.
Mainly from increased GDP and some is self funding
oh purlease TJ.
Since national debt as a ratio of GDP is higher now than in 1997, I think you'll find that means that government expenditure has NOT been funded from increased GDP.
What should, of course, have happened is the growth in GDP should have enabled the reduction in the national debt so that debt could be used to carry the economy through the recession.
TJ,
[b]please[/b] tell me you're not for real!!! I thought views like yours were the preserve of Guardian writers, not general members of the public.
Oh, no, TJ's views really are as stated...
mikertroid - I thought people like you only existed in some weird neocon enclaves with your frankly absurd worldview that is not reflected in reality anywere.
Stoner - "mainly" and GDP is massivly up since 1997. What were the numbers in 2008? That would be a more accurate reflection.
Still of course right wing loonies want to decry the significant progress made under Labour - compare the record to Thatchers / Majors tory governments. Unemployment massively higher after than before, crime massively increased, all the oil money wasted, massive rises in poverty. All reversed under labour
labours record is so much better - and they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years as well. There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now -
...they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years...
And now we're trying to repair the damage of the Labour years - isn't it all great?
Polly Toynbee must be worried, do you own a holiday villa too TJ? 😛
TJ
You're funny. A slot on national TV awaits. 😉
Have you had a severe head injury that has contributed to your hilarity?
Stoner - "mainly" and GDP is massivly up since 1997. What were the numbers in 2008? That would be a more accurate reflection.
TJ, you dont get ratios do you.
If the ratio of debt to GDP is higher now than in 1997, then the total cost of the government programme has exceeded receipts over that period. i.e. GDP has not funded growth in the size of the state.
Also, during periods of extended growth in GDP it is usual for the ratio of debt to be reduced to give headroom below the c40-42% ratio into which the economy can encroach to maintain public services during tight economic periods. Also known as el Gordo's "golden Rule". Perfectly sound principal, but only if the profligate **** had managed to stick to it rather than the hubristic sleight of hand of moving the dates of the economic cycle to justify pishing more cash up the wall on the never-never.
tiger_roach - Member...they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years...
And now[b] we're[/b] trying to repair the damage of the Labour years - isn't it all great?
Says it all -[b] WE.[/b]
You guys are laughable with your tenuous grip on reality. Real facts and figures show how much you are wrong - but your petty tory boy prejudices must be right so inconvenient facts and figures are ignored.
Our national debt is not high in comparison to competitor countries, our tax take is low and public spending is low.
prosperity increased under labour and healthcare and other public services improved. Crime went down massively
All the opposite to the last Tory government and all incontrovertible facts.
Edit - stoner - of course I understand your point - I just know its irrelevant. Look at the figures to 2008 before the global crisis to get a fairer picture and the ratio is far lower than many competitor countries and is far from unaffordable - as a result of Browns policies which are well respected and widely copied worldwide.
EDIT - since you've now edited 🙂
How about cracking down on tax evasion which costs the government many , many times more?
Too right. I'll try and remember to shop anybody I come across importing bikes and bits without paying import duty and VAT. I presume that doesn't apply to anybody on this thread complaining about tax evasion?
Says it all - WE.
I consider myself part of this nation.
A flat rate of 22.5% TAX with NO getout clauses will be fairer and yield more money for the coffers too. The rich will therefore pay too.
You're funny. A slot on national TV awaits.
Have you had a severe head injury that has contributed to your hilarity? 😉
I think any intelligent, rational objective person can see that improve society = 'debt', reduce 'debt' = society gets worse. Well, for those at the bottom end, for sure.
One thing I can see on here is that many folk spout stuff, but don't seem to have any real experience of what it's like at the bottom. I'm assuming a reasonably comfortable incomed overall demographic, I admit.
I'm pretty sure many folk wouldn't care if the very poor lost vital benefits and support, if it meant they themselves paid less tax etc. Such is the selfish nature of our society. Of course, any attempts to cut support for the poor will need strenuous justification to avoid public outrage. So, the demonisation of a tiny, tiny number of people who exploit the system, by using such rhetoric as 'Benefit THIEVES' and other such highly emotive language helps to engender anger towards 'scroungers' and appeases peoples' concerns somewhat. The side-effect of this is that legitimate benefit claimants then fall under suspicion, and are themselves treated as social pariahs. Hate hate hate.
Divide and Rule.
I'd be interesting in reading any theories on how society an be improved for all, and debt reduced at the same time.
Too right. I'll try and remember to shop anybody I come across not importing bikes and bits without paying import duty and VAT. I presume that doesn't apply to anybody on this thread complaining about tax evasion?
Are you talking about me? I have tediously criticized the hypocrisy of people sharing tips on import duty evasion on here many times.
of course I understand your point
its clear you dont:
Look at the figures to 2008 before the global crisis to get a fairer picture and the ratio is far lower than many competitor countries
Changes in debt to gdp ratios over cycles need to remain relatively stable - they can of course vary through the cycle, the fact that they may be high or low at any one point IS irrelevant. Affordability of national debt is only measured in the cyclical average. The problem with the UK finances is that the structural debt has increased greatly - that part of public expenditure which does not vary by GDP changes.
If the ratio increases from cycle to cycle then the economy will just seize up, not to mention since we are not a reserve currency that can print our way out of debt (like the US can) our national interest costs will consume an increasing proportion of the public purse.
Anyway, back to your initial mistake - growth in GDP has not funded growth in the size of the state, debt has.
There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now
Oh dear. Is that an incontrovertible fact?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm
"i must admit the first thing i thought was how much will it cost to hire these private agencies "
Nowt. They are doing it on a no-win no-fee basis so the risk sits entirely with the supplier.
"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement
"Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past."
Gordon Brown's Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999
The guy ruined the country in his quest to become Prime Minister, then he magicked £200 billion out of thin air to keep the plates spinning til the election.
Sorry TJ, but Labour (and Gordon Brown specifically IMO) have put the whole country into massive levels of both personal and public debt. He created a credit fuelled binge the likes of which we've never seen before and now the piper must be paid. You can't surely blame what's coming on the ConDems?!
As for other countries following his lead, it looks like the US are going back into recession and are likely to fire up the printing presses again. If it didn't work first time, just do it some more eh?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Sorry TJ, but Labour (and Gordon Brown specifically IMO) have put the whole country into massive levels of both personal and public debt.
How exactly did Gordon Brown put the country into massive personal debt then? I'd love to hear this.
wasnt Gordons only [i]mea culpa[/i] about not winding the banks in earlier? - the banks being ultimately the enablers of personal debt in an unrestrained environment.
But I agree, I wouldnt heap that part of the economic poo on him. There's plenty else he can carry.
Seems people love debt in this country - the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Seems people love debt in this country - the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Yeah, they get into loads of debt to buy plasma screen tellies etc then blame Gordon Brown it seems.
the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Which is why the housing market is so vastly over-inflated. Which is why people are on such huge binding mortgages. Which is what the banks love. People in debt = people easier to control....
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Quite right, so why is the chinless **** repeating what hasn't worked before and isn't going to work now pray tell?
People in debt = people easier to control....
Until more of them become thieves or start rioting anyway.
aracer - yes it is. Many more unemployed in 1997 than now if you count the numbers in the same way. Simple fact.
stoner - I do understand your point - I simply don't agree anbout how serious it is. Look a debt ratios for competitor countries. its easily affordable - and certainly better to do so from a growing than a shrinking economy. Labour had the economy growing again, the condems will soon have it shrinking again. this is a deliberate ploy.
Most of the service improvements have been funded from growth. simple numbers. Some from debt. Thats why i said mainly.
i think thats the point GBs biggest failure was embracing the thatcherite business model entirely- privatisation all the way to the benefit of the the few at the detriment of the many, turning us into a finacial services economy
the condems offer nothing different in this respect just making PR spin bullsh!t out of a tabloid pleasing publicity stunt and looking forward to handing their private sector chums even more of our services/utilities to rape and pillage
Labour had the economy growing again
It was growing before they took over right?
aracer - yes it is.
Did you check my link TJ? See the graph? Where's the discontinuity where they changed the way they count the numbers?
How exactly did Gordon Brown put the country into massive personal debt then? I'd love to hear this.
OK, perhaps a slight exaggeration there, but he did loosen regulation even further than the Tories allowing the banks to take greater risks (check his Mansion House speeches, in one of which he openly encourages the banks to take greater risks) and introduce 100%, 125% mortgages, not to mention all the Credit Default Swap etc garbage.
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal became rife so people could take money out of their homes like it was a cash machine and blow the money on plasmas, new cars, and holidays. All the time their house was increasing in value it didn't matter, problem is houses prices can't go up 10% per year if wages aren't going up too. In real terms I think most people have actually seen wages decline over the last 10+ years, the only reason it wasn't that obvious was because you could get cheap credit to cover the shortfall.
When the housing market started cooling off in ~2004/5 he switched the inflation indexes and dropped the base rates to get the bubble going again. Oddly enough just before an election was due!
Are you seriously telling me he played no part in any of this? Admittedly he didn't put a gun to peoples heads and make them borrow more money than they can ever hope to repay (in some cases), but he put the opportunity in front of them and introduced huge moral hazard by bailing out the banks and overstretched borrowers.
Our economy has become one based on financial services and selling overpriced houses to each other. The banks are technically insolvent and house prices can't keep going up, what now?
We need to generate real wealth to get out of this hole.
