"were all in this together" "

[ROSM]

Notwithstanding the very low interest rates so many people have had huge reductions in mortgage payments, it is a small price to pay in my opinion to try and sort out the issues Labour created. Before anyone starts stop blaming the banks they were poorly regulated by the bodies set up by Labour.

Oh there are none so blind as those who don't want to see.

 

[ROSM]

no, i think thats a slightly different point, one that neatly tries to side step the question of legitimacy of the numbers and the claims based on them are arrived at.

The numbers are based on spending trends identified and validated by the office of national statistics and are the same ones used by the office for budgetary responsibilities. It is based on proven usage of income by each decile and from that is identified what they do with the cash that would incur vat. Buying fresh veg doesn't whilst buying fast food does. Buying a bathroom and getting it installed does but investing doesn't. The's no agenda to it.

 

[El Presidente]

It goes back further than that and a cheap shot. The main banks were regulated by a body set by the government that failed to do their job or the rules were wrong.

I don't blame any business for stretching the rules as they will, I have first hand experience and it is not pleasant in my view what goes on.

The problem was caused by poor risk assessment and credit control in relation to sub prime lending in the USA, then the reselling of these debts to other financial institutions globally, creating a giant game of 'pass the parcel'. When the music stopped a number of institutions were left holding toxic debt, and no one knew just how much (or more importantly little) it was worth. This caused liquidity in the banking system to dry up, and those institutions that borrowed short and lent long (such as (Suck my cock it's) Northern Rock) has a capital crisis.

Having taught at Goldman, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan Chase, RBS and a few others, no amount of regulation would have prevented this happening, the bankers simply got greedy, but would run rings around the regulators through the creation of CDO Squared derivatives etc. The regulators were out of their depth, but not as much as the ratings agencies.

It was a giant conspiracy of greed and deceipt, outside the sphere of political influence and control.

 

[beorhthelm]

The numbers are based on spending trends identified and validated by the office of national statistics and are the same ones used by the office for budgetary responsibilities. ... The's no agenda to it.

so you accept that someone in the lowest decile spends only about £10 a week on food and energy? and consider that this is not a problem in itself

frankly 2.5% VAT rises are the least of their problems if this is the case and their spending habits do need review.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'd agree with all those except petrol. Trying to get to work by public transport up here would not be a great deal of fun, but the rest are all optional.

While I can find plenty of things I don't like about what the coalition is doing, it is worth noting that there is heavy disagreement among Labour people. Darling, to be fair, was a pretty competent Chancellor, who himself realised the deficit had to be cut. If the complaints made by his wife are anything to go by, he received continuous grief from Brown over this. The likes of Balls don't even get the need and think you can just go on spending. Ed Milliband seems to take this line too. Come the next election, they have to win places such as Hastings and Crawley to win; what Barnsley and Consett vote is irrelevant to the outcome of a General Election. I admit I am a Tory, but I have yet to hear a positive reason as to why I should vote Labour. "Isn't the coalition awful?" wouldn't change my vote, even if I was minded to change it.

With regards to Petrol, it depends on what it is being used for.

Driving is still a lifestyle choice and whether they are rich or poor, not everyone learns to drive and it is far from being an essential

If someone has a car and is using it just to commute to and from work you could argue its an essential, however in most cases there are cheaper alternatives if really needed (public transport, cycling, walking etc) However anything that could be described as social activities should be viewed as luxuries (driving to football matches, going to visit another town / beyond their nearest stores to shop (or sightsee) going out for a drive etc)

You also have to consider other factors with driving too such as cost of a vehicle, MOT, Tax, repairs / maintainance, cost of learning in the 1st place etc... if they were really that poor would they have spent vast sums on lessons and a vehicle with all its costs?

I used to work at the same place as someone who lived in somewhere like burwash common but they didn't drive. Their journey to work involved about a 2 mile walk to a bus stop, bus journey to a train station and then train journey to the town they worked in. Total travel time was about 2hrs - i'm sure if asked, he wouldn't have seen petrol is an essential and that without a car, he had no other way of getting to work but was happy to travel this way, whatever the weather.

The problem is so many luxuries are now seen as everyday goods that when people start to find themselves priced out of things again, they feel very hard done by and that its unfair, but its about prioritising what you spend on.

For example - I wouldn't mind say a new games console, laptop, new car, a large HD or even 3D TV etc... but i would have to pick and choose where i spend my money and what i buy if i didn't earn enough to be able to afford it all at once. Modern consumer life has been more a case of getting everything on credit then complaining that they then can't afford to buy a newer games console, laptop, car etc later as they are still paying back the loans for the original goods and haven't been able to get cheap loans to pay for these items they want immediately because they are seen as more like everyday rather than luxury goods.

Cheap credit has gone and the raw costs of petrol have dramatically increased (then decreased without the savings being passed back to the comsumers) market forces are at work, normally goods would become cheaper as businesses try to get people to spend again but in some cases Government interferance has kept prices artificially high and the consumer has lost out (including the poorest) such as the car scrappage scheme, which benefitted the richer people who could afford or get the credit to buy a new car, but meant that there are less old cars about meaning demand outstrips supply and prices have rocketed. same with house prices and the housing market (non home owners sufferdue to higher rents as house prices increase especially due to buy to let) etc - all Labour ideas and policies - all parties policies have + and - points and will effect people in different amounts but there rarely is an ideal solution that benefits everyone

 

[vulture]

blame that old eyed scottish twat brown for all this mess...the biggest c u n t ever

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Just an excuse to post this again in case it was missed last time

The tax system explained in beer!
Suppose that, every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
* The fifth would pay £1
* The sixth would pay £3
* The seventh would pay £7
* The eighth would pay £12
* The ninth would pay £18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement; until one day the owner threw them a problem.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

* And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 as well.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just
may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

*and yes i know it only adds upto £99, the the amounts are rounded up and down to make it easier or maybe the difference has just been added to the National debt - hence why we are in such a bad state

 

[Guy Fawkes]

blame that old eyed scottish twat brown for all this mess...the biggest c u n t ever

Not that simple unfortunately - go back to the Nepoleonic wars when the Government first borrowed money to fund it and you have the start of our national debt, ever since then Governments have been adding to it and it means that we are left with politicians arguing over how best to spend the few quid they have left from tax incomes after paying money towards the interest that debt accrues (and yet this debt still grows). - it is a part of the reason why there has been a lack of real investment in infrastructure in this country when it comes to roads and rail, or lack of money into the NHS for new hospitals and the latest medicines or adequate staffing, and so on ad infinitum.

Brown was just another in a long line of chancellors and Prime ministers adding to it - remember the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition are looking to tackle the budget deficit figures not the national debt figures, so it is still likely to grow further meaning still less money in the future for politicians to squabble over

 

[ROSM]

Not that simple unfortunately - go back to the Nepoleonic wars when the Government first borrowed money to fund it and you have the start of our national debt, ever since then Governments have been adding to it and it means that we are left with politicians arguing over how best to spend the few quid they have left from tax incomes after paying money towards the interest that debt accrues (and yet this debt still grows). - it is a part of the reason why there has been a lack of real investment in infrastructure in this country when it comes to roads and rail, or lack of money into the NHS for new hospitals and the latest medicines or adequate staffing, and so on ad infinitum.

Brown was just another in a long line of chancellors and Prime ministers adding to it - remember the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition are looking to tackle the budget deficit figures not the national debt figures, so it is still likely to grow further meaning still less money in the future for politicians to squabble over

Simply untrue. If you look at the figures I gave earlier you will see that in the main years of the labour administration, there were reductions in the national debt both in relative and real terms.

But it suits the simple in society to have a folk devil and for vulture that is brown, and for beach hut it's labour too as they didn't sort the banks out, despite the problem of regulation having been the making of the three previous governments labour and Tory alike.

 

[ROSM]

so you accept that someone in the lowest decile spends only about £10 a week on food and energy? and consider that this is not a problem in itself

frankly 2.5% VAT rises are the least of their problems if this is the case and their spending habits do need review.

No I don't accept that. I do accept that they spend a greater proportion of their income on things like home improvements and furnishings which are not monthly expenditure but maybe big annual expenditure.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

i'm sure if asked, he wouldn't have seen petrol is an essential

Although the bus he travelled on might have struggled without it !

 

[ROSM]

The problem was caused by poor risk assessment and credit control in relation to sub prime lending in the USA, then the reselling of these debts to other financial institutions globally, creating a giant game of 'pass the parcel'. When the music stopped a number of institutions were left holding toxic debt, and no one knew just how much (or more importantly little) it was worth. This caused liquidity in the banking system to dry up, and those institutions that borrowed short and lent long (such as (Suck my cock it's) Northern Rock) has a capital crisis.

Having taught at Goldman, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan Chase, RBS and a few others, no amount of regulation would have prevented this happening, the bankers simply got greedy, but would run rings around the regulators through the creation of CDO Squared derivatives etc. The regulators were out of their depth, but not as much as the ratings agencies.

It was a giant conspiracy of greed and deceipt, outside the sphere of political influence and control.

All totally true but sadly wasted on NSC. There are very few who will change their long held beliefs (no matter how wrong they are) based on facts and information provided on here.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Simply untrue. If you look at the figures I gave earlier you will see that in the main years of the labour administration, there were reductions in the national debt both in relative and real terms.

But it suits the simple in society to have a folk devil and for vulture that is brown, and for beach hut it's labour too as they didn't sort the banks out, despite the problem of regulation having been the making of the three previous governments labour and Tory alike.

I can't argue with any of your figures and won't pretend to know what I'm talking about, but you said that the debt increase is mainly interst and lost tax receipts but what about the £157 billion structural deficit that everyone is banging on about. That's a 15% increase every year even if tax receipts are as forecast. That's quite alot.

 

[ROSM]

Notwithstanding the very low interest rates so many people have had huge reductions in mortgage payments,.

Would this be the low interest rates that have a big impact on those trying to live off their savings in retirement? Again the pensioners have been hit by low rates, reduced income and increased vat so higher expenditure. But hey that's not regressive is it?

 

[sten_super]

Simply untrue. If you look at the figures I gave earlier you will see that in the main years of the labour administration, there were reductions in the national debt both in relative and real terms.

But it suits the simple in society to have a folk devil and for vulture that is brown, and for beach hut it's labour too as they didn't sort the banks out, despite the problem of regulation having been the making of the three previous governments labour and Tory alike.

Wait a minute. I would agree that the debt came down by around 3% of GDP under Labour prior to the crisis (having now seen the figures); however they were running a current account deficit every year, so to say that the debt was reducing in real terms is wrong. It was simply increasing less quickly than GDP (which grew by an average of 3% a year over the period).

I also agree that it's silly and wrong to blame Gordon Brown or Labour for the banking crisis, which was global and for which no party had any kinds of rules to prevent. However, the government (of all hues) has for a long time held that the sustainable investment rule limit should be 40% of GDP (i.e. it views this level of debt as the maximum which is sustainable in the long term). By already holding debt to the value of 40% of GDP (with no clear plan to stop running current account deficits), the previous Labour government had given themselves no room for manoeuvre when a crisis hit without seriously breaking this rule. As I've said before, Brown's worst folly was seemingly truly believing that he'd bought an end to boom and bust.

 

[beorhthelm]

All totally true but sadly wasted on NSC. There are very few who will change their long held beliefs (no matter how wrong they are) based on facts and information provided on here.

true, especially those who dont recognise most of the deficit would exist without the banking problems. Its fair to say Brown didnt cause the banking crisis, though it did happen on his watch (the government could have taken a lead and done something after Northern Rock, that was the canary and no one did a thing). its also fair to say his government's spending plans meant we have a shortfall of £150billion before banking related costs.

 

[ROSM]

true, especially those who dont recognise most of the deficit would exist without the banking problems. Its fair to say Brown didnt cause the banking crisis, though it did happen on his watch (the government could have taken a lead and done something after Northern Rock, that was the canary and no one did a thing). its also fair to say his government's spending plans meant we have a shortfall of £150billion before banking related costs.

A lot of shoring up was undertaken quickly after northern rock but the damage was done. Trouble is that once confidence is knocked no amount of information will fully retrieve it quickly. The rbs and hbos issues were already coming home to roost by then as the recipients of much of the toxic loans and having moved from retail to venture capital with minimal safeguards in place.

The greatest piece that you maybe need to understand is that government debt is not necessarily bad if it is being used to provide stimulus to the wider economy (sort of speculate to accumulate) and the labour plan did appear to be working given lower than forecast increase in debt and higher than forecast tax income. Sadly now that has rescinded as wider confidence (that word again) in the uk has reduced given the emergency plans of the current coalition government.

 

[simmo]

true, especially those who dont recognise most of the deficit would exist without the banking problems. Its fair to say Brown didnt cause the banking crisis, though it did happen on his watch (the government could have taken a lead and done something after Northern Rock, that was the canary and no one did a thing). its also fair to say his government's spending plans meant we have a shortfall of £150billion before banking related costs.

Spot on. Don't forget too that Labour/Brown prior to the crash wanted the banks (in the UK) to operate, internationally, the way they did to increase their profit so that tax revenues increased for the treasury and to offer, domestically, credit to unrealistic customers (Northern Rock 110+% mortgages with no deposit for e.g) to create an unsustainable housing market bubble giving an illusionary sense of affluence amongst the people, while also allowing increased revenue for the treasury with stamp duty's from sales in this housing market boom. Brown encouraged (well he certainly made zero attempt to discourage or stop with legislation) the UK banks to operate the way they did and ultimately as Chancellor and then First Lord of the treasury the buck stops with him and at the end of the day the sh1t hit the fan on his watch.

However, the banks liquidities problem of 2008 was really the starting gun for the global problems and in the UK this was hopefully dealt with by 1Q09. The problem for the UK is that the markets demand we as a nation do something about that £150BN otherwise they will do to us what they have done to Greece and Ireland (Portugal next??). Thank goodness someone is doing something about it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

No I don't accept that. I do accept that they spend a greater proportion of their income on things like home improvements and furnishings which are not monthly expenditure but maybe big annual expenditure.

So these opor people are home owners? - how are then classed as poor?

Surely poorer people are more likely to rent and any maintainance would be carried out by the landlords and wouldn't be paid for by the tenants.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Although the bus he travelled on might have struggled without it !

Do buses have to run on Petrol