Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There are other methods for reducing the burden, such as recovering more taxes from the wealthiest and those that caused the large deficit in the first place (for example one of the first things done by the Tories was to cut the top band of tax, whilst asking the poorest to pay by reduced services). To ask the wealthiest to support the poorest is the basis of a social society.
This was the bit I was thinking of too. It is all very well wanting to reduce the deficit, but it is a bit odd to be trying to do that by cutting taxes...
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Compel wrote: Whenever I read that sort of thing the phrase that always comes to my mind is.
"The Americanisation of British politics."
And we can all see the end result of that in the other thread.
That's because basically it is an Americanization of British culture.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
What you are effectively advocating is that the poorest pay for the consequences of the rich and that's not something I'd ever support.
I'm not 'advocating' anything. Pointing out that the outgoings of the State currently vastly exceed its income, and you thus have three choices, cut, cut slowly, or maintain isn't really a proposal. More of an assessment of the situation.
Yes we have a large deficit (that the Tories effectively doubled during their current tenure), however the before the banking crisis this was running at 30 - 40 % and relatively stable.
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. The sly little 'The Tories have doubled the deficit during their tenure' shot. Yes, they have. And you'd have slated them for cutting expenditure far enough to stop that being the case, and you'd have slated them for not reducing it at all. The Tories inherited a state with outgoings, far, far beyond its income, and whilst they've gradually throttled it back through cuts, those outgoings are still accumulating debt. It's basic mathematics. Unless they somehow magicked up more cash than more than half the countries of the world make in GDP or slashed state expenditure to a level that most people would dub inhumane, that was always going to be the case.
It really, really, isn't a black mark against them that the national debt has carried on going up. Haven't the Tories got enough serious flaws to pick on than wasting time on something like that?
There are other methods for reducing the burden, such as recovering more taxes from the wealthiest and those that caused the large deficit in the first place (for example one of the first things done by the Tories was to cut the top band of tax, whilst asking the poorest to pay by reduced services). To ask the wealthiest to support the poorest is the basis of a social society.
Sadly, the wealthiest tend to stash their money in shell companies and swiss bank accounts. Whilst you can crack down on them in one country, it just makes them shuffle their cash quickly into another system in advance of the changes and leave the country. We saw it in France when Hollande started enacting reforms. Reds8n has a great quote in his sig about that sort of thing. The result being that trying to whack the multi-millionaires and billionaires usually nets very little. Their accountants are too good, and they're too flexible in terms of assets.
I agree with this in principle but it never works in practice short of Soviet style measures.
Things they could implement to do this would be implement a means test on pensions. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum but if you pulling in a £100,000 private pension then you shouldn't be expected to get that and the state pension. This supports those that are poorest without benefiting the wealthy.
How many people do you think pull in that sort of pension? I mean, seriously. The average income for a working person is half that.
You can change the tax system so that if better represents companies activities in the UK. When Google is paying tax amounting to approximately a 10th ofone County Council's budget then something is horribly wrong with the system.
The google thing was a European tax issue, it's why Ireland and Luxembourg have functioned as tax havens for so long. I believe that one's being removed now, but doubtless there'll be other dodges. It's part of belonging to all those international institutions and signing all those agreements. You make it easy to move money between countries, and every multi-national takes full advantage.
There are other ways to control the budget deficit than pummelling the public services/disability allowances/child allowances of the poorest that really need it the most.
And this is why I reiterate that the Tories are worse than excrement and will lie through the back teeth. They favour the wealthy and have no interest in supporting the poorest.
This is the thing though. The measures you've described recoup absolute peanuts. You've tried to make it sound like there are realistic alternatives that only injure the rich, and it's simply not true. Our deficit is staggeringly high, and those would barely make a dent. You've also (I noticed) neglected to take into account things like the Tories continually raising the tax free portion of income for the poorest, opening up postgraduate qualification to those who couldn't afford it, and so on.
The only thing that can pay for our huge expenditure on healthcare and pensions is a higher general burden of tax on the general population. That's it. That's the hidden fourth cheat option to match 'Cut lots, cut slow, or don't cut'. Every other country who spends on these sorts of things to the same degree on us bills their population far, far higher for it. Frankly, I'm amazed at how much value our government does actually squeeze out of so little funding.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/15 12:55:12
Realistically though, if they weren't taking from the poor then how do you explain the last budget?
Easy. We have no money? And they're gradually cutting back the operational deficit with the intent of making costs match the tax receipts? As they've been saying they're doing for the last 7 years? They haven't really hidden that fact.
But then, I know you know that. And at the same time as I've read you decrying the evils of the cuts, I've seen you point out three posts later how they still haven't balanced the budget and complain about the 'lie' of Tory debt (conveniently ignoring the difference between national deficit and operating deficit).
We both know that if they didn't make any cuts you'd be slating them for running up vast national debt, and if they cut straight back to what the government brings in, you'd shriek they were inhumane monsters. Right now, they're sitting in the middle, and you do nothing but complain about it. They literally can't win when it comes to people like yourself. You despise the Tories, and your perspective is completely coloured by that.
Hence all the absurd comments about evil Tories with their grand master plan to break the British Government and sell it off to their rich puppetmasters (couched in more subtle language to make it sound less daft).
What you are effectively advocating is that the poorest pay for the consequences of the rich and that's not something I'd ever support. Yes we have a large deficit (that the Tories effectively doubled during their current tenure), however the before the banking crisis this was running at 30 - 40 % and relatively stable. The Country bailed these companies out for their mismanagement, but its the poorest that are having to pay for those consequences.
Whilst I 100% agree that the banking bailout shouldn't have happened - I'm a firm believer that 'the world goes on' and had they all gone bust new companies would have taken their place and only those rich enough to invested millions in the banks would have lost out.
That said however blaming the bailout on the Tories is a little unfair since it was Brown and Labour who did this.
I'm generally against the Tories on most things, but then Labour are generally just red Tories and the libs are just yellow Tories, the days of any kind of real opposition in this country are long gone.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
You have the governing party having to choose between an anti gay, pro fix hunting, Walter mitty banker, or a right wing anti immigration focused individual who thought it was a good idea to have vans drive around london with "go home" in massive letters.
One of these two will be responsible for negotiating our exit from the European Union, which after a mess of a campaign with half truths and lies from both sides, is looking like the worst decision since Tony decided he knew best about Iraq.
The opposition is fighting itself, led by a man which would be perfect if he could actually lead, instead mumbles and bumbles his way through his tenure, more interested in his hopeless quest for a mythical new way of politics.
All under the shadow of a media that has ultimate control of who sits where.
Full disclosure: I'm a Canadian living in England. I am neither a Europhile nor do I have any reason to leave or stay. That said, I think you might be simplifying things a bit.
The Leave vote had a higher turnout than any general election in the last 20 years. And the majority of those people voted to leave.
Are you suggesting that the majority of Britons are either wealthy, gay-hating bankers or immigrant hating white supremacists? Because, if you really think they are, then I would suggest that leaving England for immigrants would probably be the safest course of action and is probably a good idea, much like it would have been great for Jews to get out of Germany prior to the war.
If you -don't- think the majority of Britons are like that and this is simply to demonize a group you never would have agreed with in the first place, then maybe you should pay more attention to what they were actually saying rather than assigning them strawman arguments. After all, it didn't work during the election and most people will just end up tuning you out
But you have stated that this is 'Turning out to be the worst decision' since Iraq, so I am hoping you can enlighten me. What concrete, actual consequences have come about because of that decision that lead you to believe it's so bad? I can say my life hasn't changed that much one way or the other so far and, I might be blind, but I don't see London burning or gangs coming to my door yelling about me being an immigrant.
To expand on what I was saying earlier, there is nothing wrong with being right-wing, or a Conservative, or a UKIP voter in our democracy. I don't like these views myself, but i would defend people's rights to express them.
People are probably bored of me banging on about this, but when I look at the non-Conservative party, I see a corrupt, incompetent racket, that puts party before country, and worse of all, betrays the very ideology it claims to represent!
The corruption is people like Liam Fox and top Tories profiting from Royal Mail being flogged as two examples. Fox's track record should have seen him exiled to British Antarctic territory, but here he is at the heart of government...
The incompetence is Jeremy Hunt and Crabb at DWP amongst others.
And the party before nation is the events of the last 18 months:
1) Did David Cameron call a EU referendum because he wanted the British people to have a say on the great constitutional issue of our times? no! It was done to heal divisions in the Tory party.
2) Did May appoint Bojo to foreign Secretary becuase he was the best man for the job? no! It was done to neutralise a threat to her leadership. Party before country...
3) Is May prioritisng immigration over single market access in the Brexit talks because of ideological conviction? no! It's done to heal party divisions.
And when I look at the Tories letting the Chinese build our nuclear power plants, alarm bells start ringing. Who would entrust such a potentially dangerous thing to a foreign power? A totalitarian power that isn't even democracy? The Tories...Where the feth is the national interest in that?
On June 24th, I witnessed a Prime Minister abandon ship and stick the middle finger up the nation he claimed to love...
And yet, people will keep voting for these in the millions...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I live in hope that both the Tories AND Labour will collapse and allow new parties to rise from the ashes. Its a fools hope I know, but we've certainly come close with the Labour party under Corbyn, the Blairites just lacked the spine to split from the party.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I live in hope that both the Tories AND Labour will collapse and allow new parties to rise from the ashes. Its a fools hope I know, but we've certainly come close with the Labour party under Corbyn, the Blairites just lacked the spine to split from the party.
The curse of Blairism has infected UK politics for 20 years now. Labour, Tories, Lib Dems...they all sing from the same song sheet and believe in the same stuff, offering no alternative.
That's why they hate Corbyn. He's an old-fashioned left winger who believes in ideology.
I don't think Corbyn is up to the job, and I disagree with a lot of what he believes in, but the fact that he does believe in something that's not Blairism scares the gak out of them IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: If people keep voting for the Tories it's only because the other parties are even worse. I'm sure people long for an alternative. I know I do.
As I've said before, I honestly thought that post-June 23rd, the old parties would be swept away to reflect the new reality and new parties would fill the vacuum. Maybe it will still happen?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/15 14:26:09
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I live in hope that both the Tories AND Labour will collapse and allow new parties to rise from the ashes. Its a fools hope I know, but we've certainly come close with the Labour party under Corbyn, the Blairites just lacked the spine to split from the party.
The curse of Blairism has infected UK politics for 20 years now. Labour, Tories, Lib Dems...they all sing from the same song sheet and believe in the same stuff, offering no alternative.
That's why they hate Corbyn. He's an old-fashioned left winger who believes in ideology.
I don't think Corbyn is up to the job, and I disagree with a lot of what he believes in, but the fact that he does believe in something that's not Blairism scares the gak out of them IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: If people keep voting for the Tories it's only because the other parties are even worse. I'm sure people long for an alternative. I know I do.
As I've said before, I honestly thought that post-June 23rd, the old parties would be swept away to reflect the new reality and new parties would fill the vacuum. Maybe it will still happen?
Corbyn has had maybe the most opertunities to hit the tory gov hard and never managed to pull it off. EU, and many other issues yet they can barely land a blow. The SNP are a stronger opposition to them.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Ketara wrote: Yes we have a large deficit (that the Tories effectively doubled during their current tenure), however the before the banking crisis this was running at 30 - 40 % and relatively stable.
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. The sly little 'The Tories have doubled the deficit during their tenure' shot. Yes, they have. And you'd have slated them for cutting expenditure far enough to stop that being the case, and you'd have slated them for not reducing it at all. The Tories inherited a state with outgoings, far, far beyond its income, and whilst they've gradually throttled it back through cuts, those outgoings are still accumulating debt. It's basic mathematics. Unless they somehow magicked up more cash than more than half the countries of the world make in GDP or slashed state expenditure to a level that most people would dub inhumane, that was always going to be the case.
It really, really, isn't a black mark against them that the national debt has carried on going up. Haven't the Tories got enough serious flaws to pick on than wasting time on something like that?
The many 'F - marks' is because how they have gone about cutting the deficit. Despite all their bravado about how Labour were incompetent with the finances strictly speaking no one could have really predicted how irresponsible the banks were really becoming. There was support from both sides for bailing the banks out because of what it might bring about. However since then the Tories have continued with the mantra that they will get the deficit down, yet have failed consistently to get it under control. I don't think either side would have acted differently at the point of the banking crash.
But the real thing against them is how they decided to undertake it. Rather than asking the more wealthy to pay their share (or even recover more money form the banks to pay off the debt) the Tories have hammered those that did nothing to contribute to the crash, the poorest have lost more and more of their services that they rely on or they are consistently getting worse (so longer waiting times and so on). The Tory party are happy to remove disability allowance or reduce payments to those who they deem have too many bedrooms whilst at the same time reducing tax for the wealthiest, guaranteeing inflation equivalent or pensions for those that don't need it and so on. If the Tories took a more socially responsible view of managing the deficit down to minimise the effect on the poorest then I would be less critical; but they have done exactly the opposite. They've made the wealthy ever more so and poorest even poorer, what is unfortunate is just how many people don't see this is what the Tories stand for.
Sadly, the wealthiest tend to stash their money in shell companies and swiss bank accounts. Whilst you can crack down on them in one country, it just makes them shuffle their cash quickly into another system in advance of the changes and leave the country. We saw it in France when Hollande started enacting reforms. Reds8n has a great quote in his sig about that sort of thing. The result being that trying to whack the multi-millionaires and billionaires usually nets very little. Their accountants are too good, and they're too flexible in terms of assets.
That just requires a change in tax law. I've heard too many times that "People will just leave if you tax them too much". Well if that is the case and they really don't pay that much then it wouldn't be a great loss would it? It is however not an excuse to make a more balanced tax system that more appropriately spreads the burden of the taxes so the wealthiest support the poorest. Because that leads to a fear of acting and hence always favours the wealthy. There are always ways and means, its just wanting to implement them that you need to undertake.
How many people do you think pull in that sort of pension? I mean, seriously. The average income for a working person is half that.
The £100k was an extreme example. The actual cut off I was thinking off was would be much lower. I'd suggest that if your private pension is anything less than a certain value then you'd get a top up to that value up to a maximum of the minimum wage and then there would be a sliding scale reduction after that value. The cut off I'd suggest would be around £20kish where there was no state pension, but I'd heavily caveat it that I don't know whether this is appropriate and would need to get more data as to what was reasonable. Pensions make up 20% of the UKs expenditure so savings here would make a good contribution to pulling down the deficit (especially if you also control how fast they rise to average rate pay rise or similar).
At the moment we have individual pensions increasing by 3-4% per annum whilst the wage growth is half of this value at best. Given the increasing number of people retiring it doesn't take a genius to work out that to keep the pensions the same but with no tax rises means that more and more has to come from elsewhere - which largely impacts the poorest members of society. Year by year the pensions requirement grows and the number of people supporting it diminishes (and heaven help the country if they really do bring down immigration to negligible levels).
The google thing was a European tax issue, it's why Ireland and Luxembourg have functioned as tax havens for so long. I believe that one's being removed now, but doubtless there'll be other dodges. It's part of belonging to all those international institutions and signing all those agreements. You make it easy to move money between countries, and every multi-national takes full advantage.
Not really, the UK is allowed to set it's own tax rules within certain EU principles (such as an individual state not being discriminatory, or effectively giving a country state aid). They could 'easily' change the system so that companies can no longer move money around (for example you could tax all companies on the basis of their sales in the UK vs their total sales as a proportion of global pre tax profit), very broadly this would stop companies moving money around as even if they did it makes no difference.
This is the thing though. The measures you've described recoup absolute peanuts. You've tried to make it sound like there are realistic alternatives that only injure the rich, and it's simply not true. Our deficit is staggeringly high, and those would barely make a dent. You've also (I noticed) neglected to take into account things like the Tories continually raising the tax free portion of income for the poorest, opening up postgraduate qualification to those who couldn't afford it, and so on.
They are much more than the cuts on disability allowance or the bedroom tax save though and that's the point I'm trying to make. As for increasing raising the tax free threshold, yes it makes some difference, but for the part time parent that is on minimum wage it makes no difference. Whereas those on more the approx. £40k got the benefit of both this and the changes to the higher rate of tax. As such my point still stands these changes benefit the wealthiest and hit the hardest. It should be the other way round where the wealthiest got the least benefit and the poorest got the most.
As for the postgraduate loans that's really just a joke. Yes someone poor can now take out student loans so they can do a postgraduate degree. So lets assume 3 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a postgraduate requiring £20k per annum for fees and living costs. By the time they have finished they then have a debt of £140k. Interest rates on student debt is now running at about 6%. That's about £8.5k of interest on the debt on the first year alone...Yes really a good way to get the poorest to be educated. Saddle them with a lifetime of debt.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Despite all their bravado about how Labour were incompetent with the finances strictly speaking no one could have really predicted how irresponsible the banks were really becoming.....
As stated before, my judgement about New Labour is drawn from their spending patterns from about 2001 onwards. The Financial Crisis was bad, but they'd been royally screwing the countries finances for a good half a decade beforehand.
But the real thing against them is how they decided to undertake it...They've made the wealthy ever more so and poorest even poorer, what is unfortunate is just how many people don't see this is what the Tories stand for.
No, it's what you imagine them to stand for. They don't literally stand up there twiddling their moustaches and cackling whilst they devise new ways of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. It might well be a byproduct of their policies, but for the most part, you're conflating the end result with the motivation. When I eat a nice cake, I don't do it with the goal of putting on weight, I do it to enjoy the cake and sate my hunger. The extra fat I put on wasn't the reason I ate it though.
That just requires a change in tax law...There are always ways and means, its just wanting to implement them that you need to undertake.
I never said there was no point in doing it. Just that it wouldn't really achieve anything unless you literally stop them leaving the country, torture them to get their account numbers, and seize all the private assets you can find. If you don't do that, the transfer of wealth will be minimal. You'll seize one or two billion, and the rest of the money will leave.
The £100k was an extreme example....Year by year the pensions requirement grows and the number of people supporting it diminishes (and heaven help the country if they really do bring down immigration to negligible levels).
I'm not fighting you on this one, as a matter of fact, I agree with you. But the gray hairs are the ones who vote, so nobody touches them.
Not really, the UK is allowed to set it's own tax rules within certain EU principles (such as an individual state not being discriminatory, or effectively giving a country state aid). They could 'easily' change the system so that companies can no longer move money around (for example you could tax all companies on the basis of their sales in the UK vs their total sales as a proportion of global pre tax profit), very broadly this would stop companies moving money around as even if they did it makes no difference.
The reason it worked before was because the companies set up shell companies abroad and then had the shell companies loan the UK company a ridiculous sum at a ridiculous interest rate so that they always registered a loss for tax purposes. Because legally they were separate companies, there was no way to stop it from happening within the single market without concerted EU action. You could choose to tax those basic companies within your country however you like, but whilst the facility existed for intra-company loans within the single market, there was no way of eliminating the loophole without screwing up a crapton of financial arrangements for more normal companies and financial services. I believe it's been more or less battened down on now, but there's always another way....
They are much more than the cuts on disability allowance or the bedroom tax save though and that's the point I'm trying to make.
I'm really not sure that they are. Comparable perhaps, but it would still leave us with a whacking great operational deficit. You can argue that they should have hit something else first, but it really doesn't address the core issue; that outgoings are substantially higher than income.
As for increasing raising the tax free threshold, yes it makes some difference, but for the part time parent that is on minimum wage it makes no difference.
.....It makes a substantial difference to the full time adult on minimum wage though.
Seriously mate, just accept that they did do something that helped out those at the bottom of the food chain. I know it did as a fact, because when they started, I was there and it raised my pay packet, something I desperately needed at that point in time.
As for the postgraduate loans that's really just a joke. Yes someone poor can now take out student loans so they can do a postgraduate degree. So lets assume 3 years as an undergraduate and 4 years as a postgraduate requiring £20k per annum for fees and living costs. By the time they have finished they then have a debt of £140k. Interest rates on student debt is now running at about 6%. That's about £8.5k of interest on the debt on the first year alone...Yes really a good way to get the poorest to be educated. Saddle them with a lifetime of debt.
I'll be frank, you clearly haven't looked into it. Which is fair enough, we all miss stuff in the news. To cut it short, what they do is give a proportion of costs towards them. So you get £10,000 towards a masters qualification, or £25,000 towards a PhD (starting 2018-2019 academic year). As someone from a working class and dirt-poor background who funded their own way through their postgraduate qualifications by working and studying at the same time, I'll tell you now that the existence of such support would have meant all the difference in the world to me. Student loans going up ceases to mean anything past a certain point, you accept you'll never pay it off. It just becomes something of a graduate tax instead.
However you look at it though, the fact remains that it gives an option to poor people outside of ruinously high commercial loans. And that's something to be applauded, whether you like the Tories or not. As a fellow academic, I would have thought you'd agree.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/15 20:34:55
Ketara wrote: Yes we have a large deficit (that the Tories effectively doubled during their current tenure), however the before the banking crisis this was running at 30 - 40 % and relatively stable.
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. The sly little 'The Tories have doubled the deficit during their tenure' shot. Yes, they have. And you'd have slated them for cutting expenditure far enough to stop that being the case, and you'd have slated them for not reducing it at all. The Tories inherited a state with outgoings, far, far beyond its income, and whilst they've gradually throttled it back through cuts, those outgoings are still accumulating debt. It's basic mathematics. Unless they somehow magicked up more cash than more than half the countries of the world make in GDP or slashed state expenditure to a level that most people would dub inhumane, that was always going to be the case.
This. The Tories are being blames for two economic calamities which can both be properly accredited to Gordon Brown.
First the gross mishandling of the debt crisis in 2008, and the continuation of a spend policy to try and buy the way out of a recession despite warnings from France and Germany it was not going to work.
The second was a round of punitive spending in 2010 once New Labour realised it weas gouing to lose the election. So much money was squandered in the final months of the Browen government the Civil service made the rare move of issuing formal complaint. To compound this Brown deferred all interest from his borrowings until 2011 minimum, at the cost of extra income. These two calamitie placed the Uk in a bigger debt position than it was at the nd of World War 2, and irt projected to take three genwerations to pay off.
The Tories knew the only answer was austerity, austerity is unpopular but sadly necessary as the alternative is bankruptcy, even so the UK cannot fully service its debt and interest still accrues.
It has been argued that the heavy debt was a punishment for abandoning New Labour, and the deferral of repayments was a way to kick the problem to the next administration and thereby hoodwink the public into thinking the next government was the cause of the problem rather than those who received it as a challenge. Guess it worked.
TL: DR Gordon Brown essentially mortgaged the entire UK economy for quick cash, heavy austerity can pay off most of the interest but not the true capital.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/16 04:31:39
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
There are other methods for reducing the burden, such as recovering more taxes from the wealthiest and those that caused the large deficit in the first place (for example one of the first things done by the Tories was to cut the top band of tax, whilst asking the poorest to pay by reduced services). To ask the wealthiest to support the poorest is the basis of a social society.
This was the bit I was thinking of too. It is all very well wanting to reduce the deficit, but it is a bit odd to be trying to do that by cutting taxes...
These figures from last year suggest that is happening, don't they?
As stated before, my judgement about New Labour is drawn from their spending patterns from about 2001 onwards. The Financial Crisis was bad, but they'd been royally screwing the countries finances for a good half a decade beforehand.
Yes it was truly terrible that the UKs pre-banking crisis debt by GDP was *less* than what it was when the Tories left power. When the Tories left debt by GDP was running at about 40% and then dropped over the next few years to 30% under Labour and then slightly rose again to about 37-38%. After which point it massively spiked because of the banking crash in 2007/2008. Given that the Tories managed to increase debt by about the same amount over a shorter period prior to them losing power I'd assume you'd also state they were fiscally irresponsible as well? Here's a link to the chart just in case we would like to get the data to actually get in the way...
No, it's what you imagine them to stand for. They don't literally stand up there twiddling their moustaches and cackling whilst they devise new ways of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. It might well be a byproduct of their policies, but for the most part, you're conflating the end result with the motivation. When I eat a nice cake, I don't do it with the goal of putting on weight, I do it to enjoy the cake and sate my hunger. The extra fat I put on wasn't the reason I ate it though.
So just to confirm what you are saying is that Tories introduce policies that significantly benefit the wealthy over the poorest but that they are *just* being naïve and stupid because they really do want them to help the poorest but they are just too idiotic to realise they are doing the exactly opposite despite everyone carrying on and telling them this? I suppose the changes to the business rates that saved money for Hammonds businesses was just an unhappy coincidence?
I never said there was no point in doing it. Just that it wouldn't really achieve anything unless you literally stop them leaving the country, torture them to get their account numbers, and seize all the private assets you can find. If you don't do that, the transfer of wealth will be minimal. You'll seize one or two billion, and the rest of the money will leave.
Why worry about it? If they really pay little tax then in reality they can leave and it won't make any difference? Alternatively if they leave they leave but you can still change the tax system so that the more wealthy pay a greater share. If you are worried about large amounts of money being hidden away then just tax large transfers of money as well or you could ask them to pay pro-rata for the number of days in the country. So if they are in the UK 25% of the time then they have to do specific tax returns that total their global assets and you pay the appropriate tax on the 25% of that. As I said there are ways and means, its government willingness to do it that is the issue (especially given that these wealthy people are also those pay into the Tory party).
I'm not fighting you on this one, as a matter of fact, I agree with you. But the gray hairs are the ones who vote, so nobody touches them.
All we can do is encourage the younger population to vote.
Seriously mate, just accept that they did do something that helped out those at the bottom of the food chain. I know it did as a fact, because when they started, I was there and it raised my pay packet, something I desperately needed at that point in time.
You are missing the point. As is the Tory way the changes benefited the wealthy much more than the poorest, whereas it should be the opposite way. When things are in financial trouble it should be the wealthy paying more relatively not the poorest.
I'll be frank, you clearly haven't looked into it. Which is fair enough, we all miss stuff in the news. To cut it short, what they do is give a proportion of costs towards them. So you get £10,000 towards a masters qualification, or £25,000 towards a PhD (starting 2018-2019 academic year). As someone from a working class and dirt-poor background who funded their own way through their postgraduate qualifications by working and studying at the same time, I'll tell you now that the existence of such support would have meant all the difference in the world to me. Student loans going up ceases to mean anything past a certain point, you accept you'll never pay it off. It just becomes something of a graduate tax instead.
It's different for STEM subjects then. There are already fees paid and stipends offered for PhDs that amounts to about £25k pa which you don't have to repay. Pretty much anyone that wants to do so can undertake a funded STEM PhD if the universities deem the candidate good enough regardless of background. Masters are rarely undertaken because most undergraduate degrees offer a Masters option anyway. The only people that have to pay are those in unique circumstances (for example those that have been outside the country for two years, even if that is just to an undergraduate degree or tour the world etc). Then they have to wait two years or have to get out loans - which as I've pointed out previously gets expensive. My main suspicion is that the loans are the first step on removing stipends completely (so fees will be paid but living costs won't).
The Tories knew the only answer was austerity, austerity is unpopular but sadly necessary as the alternative is bankruptcy, even so the UK cannot fully service its debt and interest still accrues.
There is no denying Labour made decisions that were questionable, but then none of us know what would have happened if alternative options had been taken. It's also not in question that Tory fiscal policy has not also been extremely questionable during their tenures as well. You could argue that there is one almighty fiscal problem every ten years or so by whichever government happens to be in power. It appears Brexit is likely to be the next one, but that will be very much self inflicted.
However the question the point that is being made is who should actually pay (and is continuing to pay) for these errors. In the majority the current Tories have taken the approach that it is the poorest with less services, such as decaying NHS, education and social care service whilst those with wealth have been let off the hook and given the easier ride or were given tax relief and so on. When you compare who was potentially responsible for the issues surrounding the banking collapse it definitely wasn't the former group, yet they in the main are the ones having to pay the consequences.
This isn't an argument about who was responsible for the crash, it's about how the Tories have punished a certain group (the poorest) afterwards in a drive for reducing the debt which they have spectacularly failed to do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/16 10:23:15
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
As an aside I'm not sure what gas May is on but here latest statement that the Country is coming together seems further and further from the truth. You only have to look at the BBC comment sections to see it is not correct.
But still I see she is pushing for the "we should be Christians line again". She'll be putting up crosses for the heathen non-believers next....
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/16 10:22:06
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yes it was truly terrible that the UKs pre-banking crisis debt by GDP was *less* than what it was when the Tories left power. When the Tories left debt by GDP was running at about 40% and then dropped over the next few years to 30% under Labour and then slightly rose again to about 37-38%. After which point it massively spiked because of the banking crash in 2007/2008. Given that the Tories managed to increase debt by about the same amount over a shorter period prior to them losing power I'd assume you'd also state they were fiscally irresponsible as well? Here's a link to the chart just in case we would like to get the data to actually get in the way...
If you want the data, sift my posts in this thread. I provided an extensive statistical breakdown based on financial expenditure earlier in the thread. I'm not doing it again.
So just to confirm what you are saying is that Tories introduce policies that significantly benefit the wealthy over the poorest but that they are *just* being naïve and stupid because they really do want them to help the poorest but they are just too idiotic to realise they are doing the exactly opposite despite everyone carrying on and telling them this? I suppose the changes to the business rates that saved Hammonds businesses was just an unhappy coincidence?
I find it somewhat strange that you seem to believe the only two possible motivations for anyone ever doing anything in politics are either screwing or saving the poor. There's a million and one reasons for adopting a policy that can result in either occurring, but which have nothing directly to do with them.
Why worry about it? If they really pay little tax then in reality they can leave and it won't make any difference?
I'm not. I was just pointing out that it isn't this 'Hit in case of proletariat emergency' button that some people seem to think it is as a method for fixing the deficit. I don't have an issue with it happening, I just point out the likely consequence.
You are missing the point. As is the Tory way the changes benefited the wealthy much more than the poorest, whereas it should be the opposite way. When things are in financial trouble it should be the wealthy paying more relatively not the poorest.
Then you've missed my point. I'm not saying the wealthy shouldn't pay and the poor should, or even the opposite. I'm saying that taxing the rich isn't the solution, because it won't raise enough. Instead, the people who will need to pay are the middle classes (eg the general population) because that's the only way you'll raise sufficient capital to cover the deficit. That means whacking pensions and general income tax for the money.
But that's death by voter suicide, so the Tories won't do that. Instead we get Hunt trying to slip by savings by reducing what doctors get with a new contract, attempts to shift the burden of tax gathering onto local councils so the Tories don't look like they're raising taxes, and so on. The Tories aren't trying to hurt the poor and enrich the rich, it's more that they know whacking the rich won't raise much and hitting the middle classes costs votes. So instead we get a million ways of slipping through sly cuts as a way of trying to fix the deficit without breaking the system.
Those cuts may well end up killing the patient instead, but it isn't the deliberate end goal/motivation.
It's different for STEM subjects then....
Yeah, STEM tends to be a different ballgame altogether when it comes to postgrad, both in terms of structure and funding. These new options are available for STEM too, but not many students would utilise it. Lab plant is too expensive.
This. The Tories are being blames for two economic calamities which can both be properly accredited to Gordon Brown.......
I used to think something along these lines back when I was a teenager and didn't know anything about economics. Economics being one of those things where what you're doing almost always looks crazy to anyone who knows nothing about it.
Truth is, Brown was a clown, and financially inept. But many of his actions, such as jacking up spending immediately after the recession hit, were textbook Keynesian economics. I'm certain there was an element of self-interest involved, and his measures were generally unimaginative and crude, but he wasn't acting like the complete fop the papers were making out at the time.
'Austerity', meanwhile, was never anything but a catchphrase with little relation to actual Tory policies.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/16 13:50:09
Pushing the income tax threshold up helps the rich more (in absolute terms) than the poor because it pushes up the higher rates too (unless I misunderstand). Increase it by £100 and you'll save £20 for a lower rate but £40 for a higher rate.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I think as with a lot of things it's benefit to the working class is incidental than than the focus.
I also see that the tories are giving another £200m to the company that deems that people don't need disability benefits. That's a lot of money spent to save some money?
I understand that savings needs to be made, and noone will be happy with it. but how come we can afford trident and to blow holes in the middle east bug don't have money to help those that need it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: All austerity seems to do is hamper the economy; the rich can hide/save money but the poor have to spend it. Less money for the poor means less money movkng about.
Plus a lot of the cuts to services actually cost money by exchanging cheap early treatment for expensive late treatment. Is it cheaper to provide a min wahe carer for someone in their own home 20 hours a week, or put them in a hospital bed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/16 16:17:55
You have misunderstood the way the tax bands work.
The tax free allowance was put up from £11,00 to £11,500. After that you pay 20% on everything you earn up to £32,000. You then pay 40% until you hit £150,000 when it goes up to 45%.
Compel wrote: So in other words, not really a big deal for anyone. Except for those where it really,really is.
Just to put that in quantifiable figures, in 2010, the personal allowance was £6,475. This year, it's hit £11,500 (and been confirmed it will hit £12,500 by end of this Parliament). The Basic Tax Rate is 20%. Minimum wage, meanwhile, has gone up from £5.93 to £7.50. In other words, someone earning full time minimum wage has gotten a substantial boost to their pay packet.
In 2010, working a 37.5 hour week, your wage would be £11,563.50 per year, and the government would squeeze you for £1017.70 in direct tax, leaving you £10,545.80.
In 2017, working a 37.5 hour week, your wage is £14,625 per year, and the government takes £625.00 in tax, leaving you with precisely £14,000 per annum.
Ignoring national insurance (which has only increased by 1%), that's an increase in the pay packet of the average minimum wage worker of no less than £3,500. That's a huge increase, and it's estimated to have cost the exchequer several billion in lost tax revenue.
Now if you were determined to try and pick holes and claim people are still worse off somehow, doubtless you'd waffle something about increases in living costs or greater strain on the NHS; yet it remains the case that even with extraneous factors the working poorest of this country are far better off in terms of direct finances right now than they were in 2010.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/04/16 23:49:14
no! It was done to heal divisions in the Tory party.
