When wil this austerity madness end!
- Thread starter AronSearle
- Start date
P
peaps2
You haven't even got a clue!!!
It isn't about their need, but that historical proof shows to high taxes result in less income.
Now whether 45%,50%,55% is the right balance is another debate, but it wasn't just "A tax cut for their rich chums".
Excessive high taxes on the rich are not about raising money, but about envy.
The credit crunch isn't (Although successive governments encouraging big banks is largely responsible), but unmanageable spending is labours fault, even if you wiped off the effect of the credit crunch we would be facing a debt issue at some point.
They are both ****, but the Tories less so economically.
And no, I don't actually vote for either of them.
rmjk said:
They don't need them, but that's just how a weak government allows councils and ministers to handle it (local councillors and ministers generally want to palm of responsibility by hiring others).
Labour made mistakes , even they admit that, but if you look at the policies that made the most inpact on our finances they were supported by the Conservatives
- Iraq /Afghan 'wars' (£20bn plus)
- Bank Bailout £850 bn and rising
and the bank bailout was a result of deregulation/ lack of oversight advocated by Conservatives and taken on by Labour
The way to get us out of the spiral is growth to increase the revenue take. We are not hearing about this side of the equation from govt as they are concentrating on the supposed reducion of borrowing.
The current govt is not achieving this, and worse still increasing borrowing to do it. More improtantly they cut confidence in business investment by talking about austerity and at teh same time not improving bank lending to small business. If anyone thinks borrowing is always 'bad' go and start up a busines or talk to someone who runs one.
The key should be spend in a recesssion, save in a boom. This govt won't do the first properly, and the last didn't do the second.
- Iraq /Afghan 'wars' (£20bn plus)
- Bank Bailout £850 bn and rising
and the bank bailout was a result of deregulation/ lack of oversight advocated by Conservatives and taken on by Labour
The way to get us out of the spiral is growth to increase the revenue take. We are not hearing about this side of the equation from govt as they are concentrating on the supposed reducion of borrowing.
The current govt is not achieving this, and worse still increasing borrowing to do it. More improtantly they cut confidence in business investment by talking about austerity and at teh same time not improving bank lending to small business. If anyone thinks borrowing is always 'bad' go and start up a busines or talk to someone who runs one.
The key should be spend in a recesssion, save in a boom. This govt won't do the first properly, and the last didn't do the second.
That's becausee the recent labour boom was funded by excessive borrowing so nothing could be paid back. the current government cannot borrow to spend as labour used up all our available credit. All solutions are very bad. Or worse.
Well, they kind of admit it, whilst then saying "we should spend more to get the economy going", and spending to much was their mistake.
The bank bailouts were a mistake, but they are largely cost neutral as they will be sold back as shares.
Afghan is a European/american joint venture, staying there may be a mistake, but going wasn't, Iraq may be morally grey, but not a great issue in terms of money.
Labour where in for over 10 years before the **** hit the fan, and deregulated even more. Like I said, I am not a conservative voter, but I can't see how you can twist this one to not be a labour issue (not that I think deregulation was the cause anyway).
You are assuming the government can actually do anything to create further growth (though they can do plenty to stop it).
Every problem has a different solution, the government is not always the answer.
The government is borrowing an extra 550 billion over the term of this parliament, that was the figure before the extra 50 billion was announced, and this gives us a regular 10% extra spending over income.
Just how much MORE money do you think we should be spending if you think this isn't enough?
Go on, put a figure to it.
I'm not sure what you mean by labour using up all our available credit. Can you explain this point as on the face of it it seems to mean that after the election we could not borrow any more money, paticularly in the light of the current AAA rating, and the current rate of borrowing.
Aside from that there is money in the system to release to business. However, significant money released for QE is being used to bolster bank reserves to keep them in line with new regulations which is ironic to say the least. Why not use the QE in a more effective way, rather than as recent reports suggest it being used for teh benefiot of the top % earners and being tied up in funding schemes?
A direct spend on capital projects will being more benefit, something that the govt is movng towards in a face saving way and we will no doubt see more of this in the next 18 months as polling looms.
Does anyone here really think that cutting without growth measures will reduce our medium to long term borrowing requirements any better than it has failed in the short term?
Govt stategies (of any hue) are mostly based on a 'hang on for dear life until the world economy sorts us out' attitude.
This govt has rightly tackled the deficit but it seems that in they way they ave approached it, they have become so entrenched in their original analysis that they see austerity as an end in itself, a virtue to be pursued at any cost, rather than part of a medium term plan to get us back into sustained recovery.
We need a Final Solution
You think the other lot of crooks will somehow be better than this loot of crooks in spending other peoples money?
Government projects take a few years of planning and consultations before the first hole is even dug. The OBR report puts economic recovery occurring just before capital spending would start working through the system.
If the government had straight away put a hundred billion or so into capital spending in 2008, that would now be helping us, maybe.
Did the government create the industrial revolution, did they create the massive service industry (which is a good thing), do they create new innovated products and businsses, no.
So why does everyone expect the government to somehow "save the economy", the best thing they can do is reduce the tax burden, allowing more investment, as if anyone in government has the first idea how to run a business.
?
Why do people believe this, when you can go see the figures for themselves, the deficit has not been reduced.
Yes, should have said 'available cheap credit' and would have edited the post soon after I wrote it except I was using a smartphone and it's a pain to use on here. The UK AAA rating is clearly very very undeserved and probably not going to be around for long anyway. Markets lending us money at decent rates because we aren't in the Euro and we are considered a safe haven - for now.
It's all going to unravel sooner or later. If the guvmint borrows money for these infrastructure projects then the rates will go up. That's why they are desparately trying to get investment via private means so it doesn't go on the government books. Private investors not biting at that one though. Who can blame them?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,894
- Reaction score
- 3,522
- Country
You're kidding, right?
General Discussion.
"Tired after all that DIY? Discuss or debate topical issues here."
Here you go micillin, what the chinese rating agency things. Note no AAA for the UK from them, and they think it's going to get worse.
http://www.dagongcredit.com/dagongweb/english/pr/show.php?id=227&table=web_e_zxzx
The USA rating is worse. Dagong have a remarkably honest, defendable, and poor opinion of the western world's ability to pay our debts.
Few countries get a top rating though Norway is one.
Cheers. I'll have a look at that.
And of course China
But really, both US and UK are still in a very good position with no immediate reason to believe we won't be able to afford our debts **IF** we get them under control within the next 5-10 years.
You don't necessary have to save in good times, but you do have to get the debt down to a level where it is below growth, labour failed to do that, reducing the amount we can borrow for proper stimulus spending (As opposed to just servicing a massively bloated public sector), the Tories are failing by largely sticking to labour spending plans.
