Sarcasm aside, yes it is but its is a very difficult thing to measure. Economists understand the drivers - the income and substitution effect - the challenge is quantifying them when the variables themselves are unstable and separate taxes have different TIEs.
Well, yes - but that's the point isn't it? We can say that, in isolation, x may lead to y, but things never are in isolation and the system is grossly non-linear. Hence it's not a useful predictive tool.
@Northwind the £3.6bn estimate came from the Labour party (that's what I read)
@DrJ but you have to have some tools, best to estimate a few different ways and compare, in order to set government policy. You can't pay for things with "values", you need money. That's the fundamental argument from the Tories, without a thriving economy and thus money you can't afford a welfare state.
[img] 
[/img]
4:21 and a minute late but we'll give him that 🙂
Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre
😀
I genuinely cannot tell if you are just pulling everyones leg on here or if you believe the stuff you write.
Am I alone in this respect ?
Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre
LOL. A couple more years of Little Lord Cameron and it'll feel like we're living in Denmark!
JY the best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy and have more people in work. That will have a far bigger impact than tweaking tax rates. That is the foundation of Tory party policy which is quite far to the left of the US Democrats for example.
There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing. Of course NB went to the gifts that always keep on giving, a banker bonus tax and tax avoidance etc etc. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
JY here is one example. The Tories protect the NHS budget and spend £130bn pa. The Labour party say the Tories are destroying the NHS and are going to save it and spend £131.5bn. Oh those uncaring Tories.
Now the argument has moved on with the Tories saying they will deliver the £8bn pa extra the NHS has said they will need by 2020 whilst Labour have promised £2.5bn (note this will be paid for by the Mansion tax which the IFS piece I linked to says is very unclear what the amount raised would actually be)
Politics is all about spin but the black/white comparisons between Labor and Tory are overdone in many areas.
There was a priceless moment on Question Time when Natalie Bennett said the Greens would create lots of new Government/state jobs and IDS [s]pointed out that those have to be paid for by private sector taxes or borrowing[/s] made the usual witless lazy knee-jerk response that totally misses the point.
FTFY
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/28/uk-economic-growth-slows-ahead-of-general-election ]http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/28/uk-economic-growth-slows-ahead-of-general-election[/url]
Another piece of marvellous spin from the tories. The economy isn't as healthy as they'd claimed, growth is weak and deflation is looming. This however is proof that labour can't be trusted, rather than proof that the centrepiece of their campaign - their management of the economy - isn't as effective as they'd claimed.
@dazh, fair enough but the UK is still out-performing Europe quite comfortably and there is a strong argument about relative performance vs Labour given their likely policies.
Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre
You're right Jammy. The sight of Dave's Big Society, and his unswerving dedication to care for the most disadvantaged in society has moved me to tears at times. He truly feels their pain. And has made it his life work to alleviate it. By promoting the use of food banks, for example. And I feel its been an honour to witness the genuine compassion and empathy of that fearless champion of the poor, sick and disabled - Ian Duncan Smith. He's truly like Mother Theresa.
And Grant Schapps? George Osborne? Eric Pickles What can I say? The living embodiment of Dave's famous compassionate conservatism, to a man! Gaaawd bless 'em all!
*doffs cap*
Well all of those people would have been worse off under a Labour government as collectively the country would have been foobared. Of course we didn't have any of those poor people under 13 years of Labour which where universally wonderful. As the IFS report says Labour intend to match the Tories already announced spending cuts for many departments.
Well all of those people would have been worse off under a Labour government as collectively the country would have been foobared.
In your opinion.....
Any country that has a growing number of food banks is not a country undergoing an economic recovery.
Wasn't the economy growing when labour left office? Why wouldn't it have kept growing if Labour's policies are so close to the marvelous Tories?
@epic of course the two things are not mutually exclusive, you can have economic recovery and poverty / need for charity. The foodbank issue has been hugely over played, I've posted on this earlier in the thread.
@binners, yes absolutely in my opinion. If you want a comparison if we'd had a Labour government the last 5 years we'd be in the same mess Hollande has delivered in France.
The food banks thing has been debunked as the Trussell Trust admitted last week that their "shock" figures of a million people being supported by food banks is actually a million visits with the average number of visits per person per year being 2. An average of 2 trips a year by people who use food banks is hardly evidence of abject poverty or starvation .
The Labour party say the Tories are destroying the NHS and are going to save it and spend £131.5bn
Maybe the Tories are destroying the NHS in other ways, rather than just not spending enough money on it?
It's so easy to get caught up in arguments about spending plans, when we should also be arguing about why the money is needed/what it's going to spent on.
"Debate me!
Debate me!
I am ready!
I am ready to be the Prime Minister!
My entire life is built up to this moment!
I want to offer myself as Prime Minister!.
Call on me!
Call on me!
I will govern you!"
FFS! 🙄
Apologies for not sitting down and reading the 19 preceding pages, but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?
Its something i'm not that familiar with. I know it costs us a lot and people are always ready to point that out. But i'd expect that there must be some benefits?
Cheers WW
I see Dave and Gideon have both ventured North, rolled their sleeves up, and been pictured in dark, gritty factories with oily working class oiks, holding spanners.
They rely must be bloody panicking!!!
Jammy - you're comparing our economy over the last five years, to one that's part of the eurozone
Seriously? Don't be so bloody daft!!!! 😆
WW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
But we won't have any Germans telling us our bananas have to be straight, so I'm sure that'll more than make up for our plummeting living standards!
wittonweavers - Member
... but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?... I know it costs us a lot and people are always ready to point that out. But i'd expect that there must be some benefits?
Cheers WW
The benefits are as follows:
1. One big family.
2. We are all equal.
3. We help each other out.
4. Your home is my home vice versa.
5. One big market to compete with Merica, Russia, China, Asia etc
6. We live and die together.
7. Economically we bail the weaker ones out if they are in trouble.
8. United as one. All for one and one for all ...
9. Freedom of movement see point 4.
10. Centralised power.
The limitations:
1. We need more rules.
2. We need more control.
3. We need more hierarchies.
4. We need more power.
5. We need more money.
6. We need more people to write the rules.
7. We need more people to govern the people.
8. We need more ways to tell the people how to live their lives.
9. We need more people to make decisions.
There you go big is "beautiful" innit!
😛
binners - MemberWW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
Bloody champagne communist only think about money and wealth creation! 😆
I'm looking for a balanced argument in my mind...
WW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
Not so sure - that's a bit emotional and not factual. Why would we implode? Switzerland manage ok?
Chewkw - thanks for taking a few minutes to give me your thoughts though i'm still not convinced. Does anyone know the maths that shows what we put in compared to what we take out - financially i mean?
Yes we are one big family but a very long way from all being equal. Some countries will always put most in and take least out. You can say that the weakest get bailed out, but you could equally say that the weakest get saddled with a mountain of debt that they will be burdened with forever.
I'm not at all convinced that we couldn't trade with Europe, China et al on our own anyway...?
just5minutes - MemberAn average of 2 trips a year by people who use food banks is hardly evidence of abject poverty or starvation .
Really ? You think going twice in one year for help with eating isn't a sign of abject poverty ? What in your nasty Katie Hopkins fantasy world is abject poverty ? How bad do you think things have to get in the UK before you consider it to be a serious problem, or is there no limit ?
In contrast you obviously see the vague chance of a Labour government putting a bit of a squeeze on the obscenely rich as an extremely serious problem, you are appalled, disgusted, and shocked, by that outrageous state of affairs, aren't you ?
And to counter your regurgitated Daily Mail bollox about the Trussell Trust :
[i]
Britain's biggest foodbank charity has defended its latest figures claiming more than one million people used food banks in the last 12 months.
According to latest figures released by the Trussell Trust this week, foodbank use rose to more than one million with four in 10 of those needing help being children.
The trust, which is Britain's biggest foodbank charity, said there were more than 1,000,000 claims for at least three days' emergency food from its foodbanks in the last 12 months, more than in any previous year.
After the independent fact checking organisation Full Fact challenged the claims on its website, Trussell Trust issued a clarification.
The trust said: "Trussell Trust figures show that Trussell Trust foodbank use has hit one million for the first time, but we have not claimed that the numbers relate to unique individuals.
"The Trussell Trust is measuring volume – the number of people to whom it has given three days' food. The Trussell Trust has consistently measured figures in this way and reports them at the middle and end of each financial year.
"Trussell Trust figures clearly state that we are counting the number of people to whom we have given three days' food – these are not necessarily unique people. Year-on-year, the figures are showing an increase in numbers given three days' food by Trussell Trust foodbanks.
"As our press release says, 49 per cent of people coming to Trussell Trust foodbanks in a year needed help once. On average people needed two foodbank vouchers in a year. Each foodbank voucher entitles people to three days' food and support."
The trust also emphasised its figures relate to Trussell Trust foodbanks and not to the hundreds of other independent food aid providers. "There is no official data on other food aid projects, but some people estimate that there are likely to be the same number again of non-Trussell Trust foodbank style projects in the UK."
The trust added: "Our focus remains on the people behind these numbers, and the fact that more people than ever have been referred to Trussell Trust foodbanks for three days' emergency food is deeply concerning."
Full Fact said the claim that more than a million people are using Trussell Trust food banks was inaccurate and came from confusing the number of different people using Trussell Trust food banks in a year with the number of times they use the food banks.
"The Trussell Trust say that on average people needed two food bank vouchers annually, so the number of people using food banks is likely to be around half of the 1.1 million figure."
The service is "emergency food and support", not sustained food provision. About half of users needed one food bank voucher in a year, though a significant minority, about 15 per cent, used the service more than three times.
Full Fact also noted that supply is not the same as demand.
"The rise in uses of Trussell Trust food banks came with a rise in the number of food banks themselves, up from 56 food banks in 2009 to 445 food banks in 2014. "This represents a major expansion of the Trust into new areas." The trust served 29 UK local authorities in 2009 but that number increased to 251 by 2013.
"The increase in supply doesn't necessarily reflect an increased demand for emergency food. There may have been people in need of emergency food in the past who wouldn't have shown up in the Trust's figures because there was no Trussell Trust food bank nearby," said Full Fact.
Academics from Manchester University have said that while a social stigma remains in using food banks, there is an increasing "normalisation" in their use due to the growth in the number of food banks and food donation points in supermarkets.
Full Fact admits there may be around 800 food banks across the UK. There are also other providers of emergency food assistance such as soup kitchens and Meals on Wheels, adding up to about 1,500 emergency food assistance providers in Britain.
The coalition government rejected the link between benefit reforms and food bank use.
But an analysis in the British Medical Journal found the increase in use and number of food banks was associated with spending cuts, benefit sanctions and unemployment.
Full Fact concluded: "Data from the Trussell Trust may be the best evidence we have, but reporting on the subject needs to be clearer about the limitations of the evidence to inform debate about such a serious issue."[/i]
The Trussell Trust have clearly "admitted" to nothing, despite your false claims.
wittonweavers - Member
Chewkw - thanks for taking a few minutes to give me your thoughts though i'm still not convinced. Does anyone know the maths that shows what we put in compared to what we take out - financially i mean?
All the points are covered and all you got to do is to extrapolate them. You cannot escape any of the points above as it will not work if any of them are missing.
Yes we are one big family but a very long way from all being equal. Some countries will always put most in and take least out. You can say that the weakest get bailed out, but you could equally say that the weakest get saddled with a mountain of debt that they will be burdened with forever.
The point about bending the rules that comes with the territory (concept, idea, etc whatever) ...
Elementary organisational theory Mr Watson.
What we are experiencing is centralisation vs decentralisation vs the in-between the two opposing extremes.
UK is in-between but the left ideology is arguing for centralisation while the right ideology is arguing for decentralisation ... then both try to justify the in-between because they are scared of the unknown. 😆
just5minutes - MemberThe food banks thing has been debunked as the Trussell Trust admitted last week that their "shock" figures of a million people being supported by food banks is actually a million visits with the average number of visits per person per year being 2.
They didn't "admit" it- it's in the report, clear as day, some people just missed it. And it doesn't debunk anything, food bank use is rising, that's just a fact.
Exactly what do you think the trussell trust has to gain here?
food bank use is rising, that's just a fact
Does that actually tell us anything though?
Genuine question.
Is the food bank similar to war time rationing?
Can't seem to post this into a neat YouTube format, but this is somebody talking about food bank use. It is heart rending. The nations health improved during ww1 and 2 because of rationing. Food banks show how unhealthy we now are.
Does it tell us anything?
Well it tells us people are hungry? What more would you like it to tell us?
Does just 5 minutes ever respond when his posts have been debunked or does he just return the next day with something else?
JY, perhaps the username refers to the amount of time the Conservative Battle Bus wifi lets you have online each evening.
wittonweavers - Member
Apologies for not sitting down and reading the 19 preceding pages, but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?
No, even given the UKIP factor. In fact despite international conflict being flagged as the biggest risk facing the world (WEF, Davos 2015) foreign policy has been largely ignored except for the BS trading that will happen with lab and snip over Trident and a new vote. Talk about parochial petty politics!
No discussion of how to tackle our appalling productivity trends or excess leverage. Instead we have non debate over the non existent difference on the NHS and noise around non doms and ZHCs. Thank goodness, none of these folks are involved with real businesses
You have to go to French socialists to find any talk about supply side reforms!
Thank goodness, none of these folks are involved with real businesses
Yeah being responsible for the nation's health, education, housing, law and order, defence, the environment, and a few other things, is a piece of piss compared to the skills needed to head your business empire THM.
Well at least one is a success Ehrnie. But I never hire incompetents which helps!
Surely being much cleverer than anyone else is what really helps THM ?
If you say so, if you say so.
Anyway, what was the topic again?
jambalaya - Member
@epic of course the two things are not mutually exclusive, you can have economic recovery and poverty / need for charity...
No, that's not a recovered economy, that's a dysfunctional one.
What is the point of government if it does not look after its people?
We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis! Another failing to add to the list 😉
ninfan - MemberDoes that actually tell us anything though?
an analysis in the British Medical Journal found the increase in use and number of food banks was associated with spending cuts, benefit sanctions and unemployment.
We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis!
Look up what recovery means THM.
Let's not spoilt the fun, you tell me Ernie
Well it's very basic stuff THM.
But let me help you, here's a hint from Wikipedia :
[i]An economic recovery is the phase of the business cycle following a recession, during which an economy regains and exceeds peak employment and output levels achieved prior to downturn. A recovery period is typically characterized by abnormally high levels of growth in real gross domestic product, employment, corporate profits, and other indicators.[/i]
See how that squares with the statement : [i]"We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis!" [/i]
Yes and how does that link exactly - not really related to what we were talking about now was it?
Little clue, we were talking about poverty and charity.
I hope no students use that definition in the forthcoming Econ A levels BTW.
