Forum menu
Labour's spending may possibly have been affordable but for the crises but following it they should have reigned in spending but they did not.
Are you arguing they should have slashed budgets and spending immediately/ changed budgets in the middle of the year. sacked loads of people and this would have made everything better? Out of interest what of the world govts who agree with you took this approach. Its none isnt it.
Indeed save it for another Israeli thread,
Yes I will follow your lead and save it for another thread pausing only to say how much I once more admire the even handed approach to the issue and the way you have held up your own appeal and managed to see both sides whilst leaving it for another thread 🙄
You are now at the point where you are immediately contradicting your own views. Is it any wonder you are viewed in such a manner, by so many, on this forum?
Honestly I really cannot take another appeal to authority as they are fallacious, everyone knows this, and a sign of muddled thinking.Amusingly they are often not even true as in this case.
IMHO you should ask why so many of the forum feel this way about you. Unfortunately you will conclude it everyone elses weakness and not your own.
ninfan - millions of 'ordinary' Iraquis would agree with you. Bliar certainly got things done there.
Bet you a quid in the poppy tin that you voted labour in 2005 despite this.
e, Labour's spending may possibly have been affordable but for the crises but following it they should have reigned in spending but they did not. They where at the controls of the plane and aiming it straight for the ground.
Thank God they didn't reign it in. The slump we experienced in 2008 would have been much much worse if the government had rapidly slashed public spending, laying off 500k public sector workers in the middle of a recession. Pulling billions out of the economy mid slump is insane.
The great irony is that the current national debt is easily affordable, we pay less in interest now, than we did under the last Tory Government, so spending all that extra cash to help soften the 2008 crash was and still is quite affordable. There is no fiscal imperative to reduce the debt in a hurry, we've been paying more in interest (as a % of GDP) for most of the last 100 years.
ninfan - you lost your money, as it happens.But it's not relevant anyway, because in 2005 he hadn't revealed his homicidal tendencies in full.
Indeed FF but you are missing the important bit. In order to get away with what you identify, goverments have to rig markets to steal from investors. Much better than a default because few people are capable of understanding what you are doing (see above). So if government stealing is OK in your moral code, everything is fine and dandy
>$470 bn of state theft in the good old US of alone. And they get away with it because the public is either unaware of gullible
Jambas, your stamina for feeding is extraordinary!!!
THM: what's this state theft you keep referring to?
(And are you chewkw in disguise?)
In order to get away with what you identify, goverments have to rig markets to steal from investors.
That's certainly an interesting interpretation of monetary policy. Personally I see the role of government as proving economic stability, if this reduces investors returns at some point, then it's a price well worth paying.
THM: what's this state theft you keep referring to?
I'm guessing the fact that QE pushes down Bond prices or something similar.
Seems a price well worth paying to me, certainly preferable to closing 10 major hospitals and putting another 5m on the dole (which would be a very mild scenario had the government kept the deficit at the same % of GDP in the aftermath of the 2008 crash).
Keep those thoughts - your country need you
Gov policy requires subterfuge to be successful and so far they are getting away with it as they did in the past. Hence all the debate focuses on the wrong area of policy which is a great relief to those in power
The powers that be take us for fools and they are largely correct in this case
😆(And are you chewkw in disguise?)
Not quite as incomprehensible but he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style
Not quite as incomprehensible but he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style
Because he can't justify his position with any evidence!
I am sure he can explain why its theft with an economics 101 basic course whilst patronising us for being too stupid to understand 😉
JY, indeed save it for another Israeli thread, father and son ambushed and shot today and a Jewish group targeted by a sniper while visiting a holy site and a Jewish businessman stabbed in Milan in a race motivated copy-cat attack.
Nothing about Israeli agents invading a hospital and shooting dead an innocent man? Thought not.
FF, on the contrary just that blood donations and tracing staff member in Paris are bit more important.
As was getting a tennis racket restrung !
tracing staff member in Paris
Is this part of the A level economics syllabus that helps all your students get A and A * ?
And you say I troll
Is this part of the A level economics syllabus that helps all your students get A and A * ?
No silly they get A* because he teaches them stuff not in the spec.
QE shafts everyone except the rich and those in power. Media manipulation paints it as something that helps the economy and is good for the country as a whole, but it increases inequality and everyone from the middle classes down suffers.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-05-13/obvious-reason-qe-doesnt-work
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/qe-wall-street-bailout.html
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/what-is-quantitative-easing-explained.html
Few links if anyone is interested.
Weather forecast correct
he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style
See told you
I am sure that last one is massively funny and really clever as well
Some facts relating to child poverty in the UK...e.g. [i]As a direct result of tax and benefit decisions made since 2010, the Institute for Fiscal Studies project that the number of children in relative poverty will have risen from 3.6m to 4.3 million by 2020.[/i]
For more info... http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures
Some[u] facts [/u]relating to child poverty in the UK
Where are the facts?Institute for Fiscal Studies [u]project[/u] that
Well, it is a fact that they projected it ...it's also a fact I like your posts, they make me chuckle.. 😀
Ninfan, they are (unsurprisingly) less dramatic than the abstract might suggest.
Recent and long term trends also fail to fit the intended narrative too. But hey....
@THM ...wow, what part of the info on child poverty seems OK to you? It was improving until 2010...then flatlined and is now projected to get worse again..
Recent and long term trends also fail to fit the intended narrative too. But hey....
Spelling correct. Superfluous "too".
@THM - the fact you've not replied can only lead me to assume you were trolling... trolling on child poverty?..very crass...
On the contrary, child poverty is an awful thing hence I am relived by progress made in absolute and relative terms over recent and long term periods (tough to combine that with the capitlaism (sic) is awful narrative hey).
As for the projections, it's a little more complicated though isn't it? Why is relative poverty expected to increase? Because, earnings growth is expected to rise more strongly....so not quite so black and white as some would like to present. Oh unless THEY were trolling.....Very crass.
Haha... you clearly haven't read the data and are now just trying to justify your crassness with waffle....
Again on the contrary I have the research in front of me now, do you?
trying to justify your crassness with waffle
Hmm, is it waffle to point out that if average wages fall, poverty, as commonly measured, goes down?
It's been widely accepted for some years that neither relative or absolute measures of poverty (before or after housing costs) are wholly reliable in isolation, as both can lead to perverse results - but nobody has been able to come up with an alternative measure that doesn't.
Plus absolute measures are the product on contradictory individual trends that make simple observations fraught with danger. But never mind....
Did anyone else notice the announcement on Thursday last week of widespread job losses and office closures at HMRC?
Over 130 offices from 170 to close, many thousands of jobs to be lost, no local offices left, just strategic sites in (expensive) new city centre locations..? Many offices will close well before the new ones are built, so staff will have little choice but to leave, on expensive exit packages. Huge swathes of the UK will have no coverage by tax inspectors, so who will police the evaders and avoiders?
Who will balance the system, so that those who are honest and pay their taxes are not undercut and competed out by those who avoid or evade?
Where will the deficit closing tax come from now, Mr Osbourne? Oh, silly me, of course he doesn't want his rich pals to actually pay tax, the whole system is just a burden on (rich) society.
Again on the contrary I have the research in front of me now, do you?
Yes yes I do, if by research you mean a paper aeroplane, it is better than your research though in two ways, it exists and it has a point.
Who will balance the system, so that those who are honest and pay their taxes are not undercut and competed out by those who avoid or evade?
I suspect the answer there is better automation and integration. Much like DVLA databases are increasingly linked together, and thus there is no need for a paper tax disc, paper driving licence counterparts, address changes can be dine online rather than pay posting the licence in etc.
It's not a huge leap before paper tax returns are extinct, and I would suspect its likely they will be linking your tax in to other databases like your credit score and banking details (especially offshore accounts) with complex algorithms to identify people who may deserve further scrutiny.
The banks fight tooth and nail to protect their data, especially the offshore stuff. Then, the whole point of the grey economy is that it is out of sight of the state. 'Salesmen' of wonderful new systems will tell you how powerful their analysis tools are but if the data isn't there in the first place, how can it be worked?
If there's no-one there to carry out the tax inspection, how will the expensive data systems make any difference?
Effective and fair taxation should be at the heart of any decent society, paying for the structures that we all need; everything from health and social care to buses, even to libraries.
Yes yes I do, if by research you mean a paper aeroplane, it is better than your research though in two ways, it exists and it has a point.
Boom, tish...
Keep them coming, it's a slow afternoon.
Effective [efficient] and fair taxation
Does not exist here sadly, it's a buggers muddle made worse by the shenanigans of successive chancellors. Osbourne is merely the latest in a long list of muddlers and medlars.
Personally, I think the automated tax return system works very well and is much better that the old people-intensive version. Well done HRMC.
[i]Hmm, is it waffle to point out that if average wages fall, poverty, as commonly measured, goes down?[/i]
@nifan - good point well made, in defence of not cutting public services and how the figures will hide the fact levels of poverty will get worse...