Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
never thought I'd say this, HT, but you're getting a bit boring now with this. Please don't become another simonsimon.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
David Cameron
- Thread starter Les Biehn
- Start date
never thought I'd say this, HT, but you're getting a bit boring now with this. Please don't become another simonsimon.
Fair enough, but my comment about Cameron and drugs hopefully raised a minute smirk?
London Calling
New member
Though,
The Conservatives havealready said they will not repeal the 45% tax threshold?
Is it the start of a Swedish style welfare state?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
"The economic downturn is not Brown's fault" is being trotted out all the time by Labour supporters. He was quite happy to take the credit for the growth "no more boom and bust" and all that nonsense, he then has to take the blame when the going gets tough.
I agree to a degree that the government may have got critised for saving money, but does that mean they shouldn't have done it? They have a moral responsibility which outweighs any bad press they may get. More importantly, they could at least have balanced the books; as it is, government borrowing has been ever-increasing, and the problem is that now they are going to have to dig us deep, deep into a borrowing hole to attempt to spend their way out. By 2010 total government debt is going to be over half of the total output of the UK, and it is expected to continue to increase until 2015/16. Irresponsible doesn't really cover it.
I also take issue with the idea that the current problems were unseen. I find it hard to believe that someone somewhere within government didn't have enough sense to realise that the housing boom wasn't going to go on forever, and that growth driven by consumer spending driven by credit wasn't going to be some kind of panacea, or third way. What they have been caught out by is the depth of mismanagement from the banks, which has come about because the government has, over sucessive governments, lost any semblance of control over the banking sector. The problems were bought about by self interest, and a disregard for the general populace, from the bankers and the government.
As a side point, the money held in the Icelandic banks was (on the whole) not savings held by the councils, it was revenues received that had not yet been spent. Money is received generally a couple of times a year from central government, and obviously spending is spread throughout the year, so at any given time there are bound to be surpluses held.
Sorry if I've been a bit angry in this
London Calling
New member
But how can you plan an economy to be based on the US economy imploding,
only at the last budget Spring 2008, and the same in 2007; the Conservatives and the City bleated and their media allies supported: that restraining the banks, would costs jobs and the city prestigious position.
Could any Govt said, we will tax you more just in case one day - the Yanks lack of regulation will effect the whole of the world banking industry.
That Party would not get elected.
The fact that none of the Parties were forecasting the scale of this, is an indication, that no one was planning for the rainy day.
Yes, Labour could have been stronger and earlier, then you have to balance out their overall strategy againgst a large number of their supporters and fellow travellers like me, saying we want more investment, we want more public money being spent on x, y and z.
only at the last budget Spring 2008, and the same in 2007; the Conservatives and the City bleated and their media allies supported: that restraining the banks, would costs jobs and the city prestigious position.
Could any Govt said, we will tax you more just in case one day - the Yanks lack of regulation will effect the whole of the world banking industry.
That Party would not get elected.
The fact that none of the Parties were forecasting the scale of this, is an indication, that no one was planning for the rainy day.
Yes, Labour could have been stronger and earlier, then you have to balance out their overall strategy againgst a large number of their supporters and fellow travellers like me, saying we want more investment, we want more public money being spent on x, y and z.
Storer68
New member
Probably explains why he's quit then
Bradford Park Avenue manager Dave Cameron has resigned following their defeat by bottom club Witton Albion.
Former Liverpool midfielder and current first-team coach Mike Marsh has been placed in temporary charge.
Avenue chairman Dr John Dean said: "It is easy to forget that Dave came to us last season with our promotion dream turning into a nightmare.
"He steadied the ship and secured the Unibond Division One North title - we will be forever grateful."
Park Avenue are currently 11 points behind leaders Hednesford Town in the Unibond Premier Division after gaining promotion from the Unibond First Division North as champions.
Club spokesman and board member Kevin Hainsworth said: "We will not be rushing in to appoint someone.
"We were not expecting this from Dave but we fully respect his decision and all the board pass on their thanks and best wishes for the future."
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I suppose that is where party politics come into it. I wouldn't suggest increasing taxes to balance the books, I would advocate cutting spending. I think ultimately though Labour spent at levels that were sustainable as long as nothing went wrong. That seems to be fundamentally to be irresponsible. I'm an economic modeller (or at least that's one of the hats that I wear), and generally our forecasts are very much fitting a trend; but I would never go to a client and say 'this is what is going to happen forever, because that's how it's happened in the past 10 years, so make your investment decisions on this basis'. Yet that seems to be how Labour have devised their spending plans.
For what it's worth, I agree that the Conservatives got it wrong as well, and have done far too much to back the 'City' in its attempt to escape regulation. Ultimately the buck stops with the politicians on both sides; the government for not seeing it and putting a stop to it, and the opposition for not seeing it and applying political pressure for it to be stopped.
...it just gets better.
Don Quixote
Well-known member
- Nov 4, 2008
- 8,362
Ewww he makes me sick; reminds of a snotty prick at school...
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
But Tory hands are somewhat tied by the level of debt, don't you think? It's all well and good slating the Tories for not delivering tax cuts, but when you have a national debt which is 50% of GVA, there's not much room left for manouvre, even if the Tories decided to significantly cut government spending.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,549
I'm not slating them for not delivering tax cuts.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Were you espousing the benefits of a Swedish-style welfare state then?
If so, I apologise. I didn't mean to cast aspertions
Were you espousing the benefits of a Swedish-style welfare state then?
If so, I apologise. I didn't mean to cast aspertions
I was suggesting it would be nice if both parties were engaged in providing a 'Swedish-style welfare state'. One element of this is high taxation of a small propotion of bods to provide for a larger proportion...something I believe in.
London Calling
New member
as it happens the swedes actually pay only a little more tax than we do,
the difference being their services have strategiclly planned - not set up piecemeal - the services are quality based and managed in gerneral at a local level.
Local administration tax Swedes far higher than we do.
Of course there model was based on the UK cradle to grave philosophy, they just implemented in full.
And of course, do we actually pay more taxes?
I will soon have two children in childcare.
This will cost me £12,000 pa.
Its only been a term since I also had two in childcare.
In Sweden this service would be free, in Denmark I believe you pay for 10% of the cost.
You could say this is a tax - especially since all parties state they want women to ente work and want to remove all barriers.
Well there's a barrier ******* £6,000 a child!!
Plus the Swedes deliver quality services to their children including the best trained child minders.
London Calling
New member
swedes v uk the world according to clare short,
what is doesn't say that the tax burden is definately on the rich in Sweden, it is a more egalatarian society.
Interesting ref to Labour assessment of how far you could push goverment spending as a % of GDP (back in the 70's).
No one likes paying tax. But everyone agrees that there must be a tax system in order to fund the services required by a civilised society. In the OECD countries the average GDP taken in tax was 36.2% in 2005 (the latest year for which complete figures are available). The tax take ranges from 19.19% in Mexico to 50.7% in Sweden. The UK came in at 36.5% which was just above the average and compares with 37.6% in 1985 when Thatcherism was in full stride and tax cutting central to that ideology.
So, in practice the debate about desirable tax levels in the more developed OECD countries, ranges between almost 40 and 50 % of GDP. There is an important debate to be had about the distribution of the tax burden but that is not the subject under discussion.
It is of course impossible to pick a figure and assert that it is the ideal tax level – although Roy Jenkins did say in 1976 that you cannot push public expenditure significantly above 60% of GDP and retain the values of a plural society with adequate freedom of choice. This may well be the case but since no one is advocating such a rate of tax, it does not take us very far.
An easier way to ask ourselves the question is to look at different societies across the world and ask which is the more attractive model. Many people in the UK – not least the leaders of New Labour – take the US as their model. The US tax take in 2005 was 28.2% of GDP. For myself, I find the US alarmingly violent and unequal.
I am constantly shocked by the people who beg i their public places and am astonished that the people of one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world have been willing to put up with such an inadequate health care system for so long. In contrast, the Scandinavian countries are less unequal, less criminal and violent, have higher achievements in healthcare and education and extremely efficient economies.
My short answer to the question of desirable tax levels is that I would prefer the UK to be more like Sweden and less like the US and if that means 50% rather than 40% of GDP being taken in taxation, I am happy to pay that price. But I must qualify this conclusion. Quantity does not necessarily deliver quality and I would not support an increase in taxation to feed the present model of highly centralised, target ridden, bureaucratic, demoralised public services.
A willingness to spend a higher percentage of GDP in taxation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the more civilised social model that I favour. I am sad to say that the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s office, weak Parliament, unrepresentative electoral system and obsession with media management, has created a growing incompetence in the British system of government. This problem needs urgent attention, but this question goes wider than that of the desirable levels of taxation.
My final point is that we are moving into a new phase of human history. The end of the eighteenth century brought us the industrial revolution and the promise of continuing economic growth that would in time bring benefit to the whole of humanity. The crisis of climate change and other environmental strains means that the promise of ever expanding material wealth will be brought to an end. In order for the world to survive the enormous challenge of this change, there will need to be greater equity across the world and within countries.
We will need to look to provide the necessities of life to all and then find the meaning of our lives in non material goods – such as music, poetry, spirituality, nature, a spirit of community and a general satisfying quality of life. To manage this change and refocus our societies we will need to be willing to spend more of our GDP investing in the services of a civilised society rather than insist on our right to spend more of our money on individually purchased consumer goods.
Clare Short MP
January 2008
what is doesn't say that the tax burden is definately on the rich in Sweden, it is a more egalatarian society.
Interesting ref to Labour assessment of how far you could push goverment spending as a % of GDP (back in the 70's).
No one likes paying tax. But everyone agrees that there must be a tax system in order to fund the services required by a civilised society. In the OECD countries the average GDP taken in tax was 36.2% in 2005 (the latest year for which complete figures are available). The tax take ranges from 19.19% in Mexico to 50.7% in Sweden. The UK came in at 36.5% which was just above the average and compares with 37.6% in 1985 when Thatcherism was in full stride and tax cutting central to that ideology.
So, in practice the debate about desirable tax levels in the more developed OECD countries, ranges between almost 40 and 50 % of GDP. There is an important debate to be had about the distribution of the tax burden but that is not the subject under discussion.
It is of course impossible to pick a figure and assert that it is the ideal tax level – although Roy Jenkins did say in 1976 that you cannot push public expenditure significantly above 60% of GDP and retain the values of a plural society with adequate freedom of choice. This may well be the case but since no one is advocating such a rate of tax, it does not take us very far.
An easier way to ask ourselves the question is to look at different societies across the world and ask which is the more attractive model. Many people in the UK – not least the leaders of New Labour – take the US as their model. The US tax take in 2005 was 28.2% of GDP. For myself, I find the US alarmingly violent and unequal.
I am constantly shocked by the people who beg i their public places and am astonished that the people of one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world have been willing to put up with such an inadequate health care system for so long. In contrast, the Scandinavian countries are less unequal, less criminal and violent, have higher achievements in healthcare and education and extremely efficient economies.
My short answer to the question of desirable tax levels is that I would prefer the UK to be more like Sweden and less like the US and if that means 50% rather than 40% of GDP being taken in taxation, I am happy to pay that price. But I must qualify this conclusion. Quantity does not necessarily deliver quality and I would not support an increase in taxation to feed the present model of highly centralised, target ridden, bureaucratic, demoralised public services.
A willingness to spend a higher percentage of GDP in taxation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the more civilised social model that I favour. I am sad to say that the concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s office, weak Parliament, unrepresentative electoral system and obsession with media management, has created a growing incompetence in the British system of government. This problem needs urgent attention, but this question goes wider than that of the desirable levels of taxation.
My final point is that we are moving into a new phase of human history. The end of the eighteenth century brought us the industrial revolution and the promise of continuing economic growth that would in time bring benefit to the whole of humanity. The crisis of climate change and other environmental strains means that the promise of ever expanding material wealth will be brought to an end. In order for the world to survive the enormous challenge of this change, there will need to be greater equity across the world and within countries.
We will need to look to provide the necessities of life to all and then find the meaning of our lives in non material goods – such as music, poetry, spirituality, nature, a spirit of community and a general satisfying quality of life. To manage this change and refocus our societies we will need to be willing to spend more of our GDP investing in the services of a civilised society rather than insist on our right to spend more of our money on individually purchased consumer goods.
Clare Short MP
January 2008