Condems have run up largest ever UK Debt

[StriderX]

I am going to love the voter turn out next time.

I will however not love the basically predictable result, this is nothing more than a two-way loose dictatorship, only enhanced by the support of the people.

 

[Things change I've changed]

b) convince the media and the voters that slashing spending is the right way to pull out of a depression, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary (including plenty of new evidence from the past few years).

Seriously, that was the biggest mistake the Tories have done, they have pretty much convinced the country not to spend money which is stupid in an economic downturn.

 

[Naffa]

Seriously, that was the biggest mistake the Tories have done, they have pretty much convinced the country not spend money which is stupid in an economic downturn.

Absolutely right. They saw political opportunity in convincing the population that the country was almost bankrupt, in order to win the election. Well, great... It worked. But they also obliterated consumer confidence in the process, and as a result, what would have been bad times have become even worse.

 

[kwerk]

Look up "Laffer Curve" in Google my friend.

It's definitively proven that if you raise taxes too far your revenue DECREASES and if you look at the figures released just this week you'll see that's what happened when the top tax rate went up to 50%. I'm not earning enough to pay that rate, but even I can see the futility of charging it when you're not making any extra from it.

This is happening right now in California.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/exodus-california-tax-revenue-plunges-by-22

Compared to last year, State tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.

Vranich considers California the worst state in the nation to locate a business and Los Angeles is considered the worst city to start a business. Leaving Los Angeles for another surrounding county can save businesses 20% of costs. Leaving the state for Texas can save up to 40% of costs. This probably explains why California lost 120,000 jobs last year and Texas gained 130,000 jobs.

Not just companies leaving but workers leaving too for places like Texas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7277242682364690.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.

California's economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms. The unemployment rate, at 10.9%, is higher than every other state except Nevada and Rhode Island. With 12% of America's population, California has one third of the nation's welfare recipients.

Comcast is the latest to leave.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21628027/comcast-will-slash-1-000-jobs-including-more

 

[Naffa]

Not just companies leaving but workers leaving too for places like Texas.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7277242682364690.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



Comcast is the latest to leave.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21628027/comcast-will-slash-1-000-jobs-including-more

It's a shame that as a result, Texas is running a ridiculous budget deficit, having to cut even more spending, making the problem worse, ad infinitum.

http://articles.businessinsider.com...26804_1_budget-shortfall-gop-bastion-insiders

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I thought this said "Condoms have run up largest ever UK Debt"

ditto.

 

[Dolph]

Why are people still talking about the public debt when that isn't what is being discussed?

why are people providing the global recession excuse for labour while ignoring the eurozone crisis impact on the coalition?

why do people think you can borrow your way out of a debt crisis?

are people really that dumb, or does partisian politics make people seem stupid?

 

[Neil79]

I thought this said "Condoms have run up largest ever UK Debt"

 

[elmarko]

Look up "Laffer Curve" in Google my friend.

It's definitively proven that if you raise taxes too far your revenue DECREASES and if you look at the figures released just this week you'll see that's what happened when the top tax rate went up to 50%. I'm not earning enough to pay that rate, but even I can see the futility of charging it when you're not making any extra from it.

If you knew anything about the laffer curve you should know that 50% is well below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LafferCurve.svg&page=1

Also,

"It's also a theory which has been widely discredited, both on a theoretical level and in practice. Because with the Laffer curve – perhaps unusually for economics – we have a historical instance of it being implemented by a direct proponent. Laffer was an associate of the Reagan administration, which had a staged cut in the marginal higher rate of personal income tax from 70% to 28%. The effect on the budget deficit was also striking. Reagan doubled it to $155 billion and tripled government debt to more than $2trillion. His successor, Bush senior, was forced to raise taxes as the deficit doubled again."

 

[Dolph]

a little bit of education. the article linked in the op is about this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account

Now, the guardian have set out to mislead, but a little bit of understanding counters the stupidity...

 

[kitch9]

The banks arn't the reason why the western world is in debt, it was the straw that broke the camels back but we have all been getting into debt for a long time by not exporting enough and simply importing everything from China.

If it was the banks then why does Chinese government have more cash than it knows what to do with? Their banks had to deal with the USAs crap credit rating system aswell.

America doesn't collect enough tax from the rich imho which is their main flaw, Britains public sector and spending got a bit out of hand in the last 10 years.

Both countries will sort it out and sadly it's going to take a few years yet.

In fairness debt as a ratio to gdp before the crisis was reasonably healthy but borrowing exploded under labour when it hit as they desperately tried to prop up the system.

Labours idea of spending a few hundred billion creating false demand in the economy scares me because if it doesn't work we could end up with high interest rates which will negate any benefits of increased government spending and another few hundred billion for our kids to pay off over the next few decades.

 

[No1newts]

When you have a single clue what you're talking about come back, till then get a grip.

Here's a little hint, ONS decide the deficit is the difference between what comes in to the government and what they spend ignoring all investments.

EVERYONE else looks at net borrowing to determine deficit.

When Labour left power we had a deficit by way of total public borrowing(and debt we load onto the country) of about £170billion, or deficit according to ONS, was just over £110billion.

The "real" figure IS £170billion, that is how much we borrowed full stop that is how much was added onto our debt.

If you can tell me how in one quarter we have hit record deficit, when even according to their own numbers we hit £110billion (with the mostly pointless lower number) that is more than 4 times the figure they are now quoting as a record, go ahead.

In reality Labour left us with a deficit of £170billion, divide that by four and see if the 20billion in a quarter is some kind of new terrible record due to Conservative incompetence.

It's way way way way .... way way way way .... way way way easier to run up a £170billion deficit than it is to bring that back down. Almost every cut means someone losing out somewhere, Brown bought us out of a recession... with no sensible economy growth, infact with years and years of ruining the underlying economy, and he loaded massive completely previously unseen levels of debt and spending on the public sector to "fake" our way out of a recession.

The only way that plan would have continued to work was by continually every year massively increasing the deficit... we'd be talking about well over £200billion deficit to keep that idiotic plan going.

Due to inflation, "records" in every sector, in every statistic happen constantly. Record average wage as we hit £23k, because the year before it was £22.8k, and 50 years earlier it was £5k, because... money is worth less and we get more of it.

Another way to look at it, whats better, 20billion one quarter and 5billion in the other 3 quarters, or 19billion every quarter? One simple loan, completely meaningless statistic on its own is worth... nothing.

Can I have your babies? This post turns me on.

 

[lewis2701]

I thought this said "Condoms have run up largest ever UK Debt"

 

[Dolph]

In fairness debt as a ratio to gdp before the crisis was reasonably healthy but borrowing exploded under labour when it hit as they desperately tried to prop up the system.

Labours idea of spending a few hundred billion creating false demand in the economy scares me because if it doesn't work we could end up with high interest rates which will negate any benefits of increased government spending and another few hundred billion for our kids to pay off over the next few decades.

Labour doubled the national debt, with half of the increase added prior to 2007. The boom gave the illusion that this was ok by keeping the debt to GDP ratio down, but reality works in real numbers, not ratios. Labour's handling of the economy from 2002 onwards is the primary cause of the public spending crisis.

 

[covenantuk]

If you knew anything about the laffer curve you should know that 50% is well below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LafferCurve.svg&page=1

Also,

"It's also a theory which has been widely discredited, both on a theoretical level and in practice. Because with the Laffer curve – perhaps unusually for economics – we have a historical instance of it being implemented by a direct proponent. Laffer was an associate of the Reagan administration, which had a staged cut in the marginal higher rate of personal income tax from 70% to 28%. The effect on the budget deficit was also striking. Reagan doubled it to $155 billion and tripled government debt to more than $2trillion. His successor, Bush senior, was forced to raise taxes as the deficit doubled again."

Nice move, you reference Wikipedia which gives a correct definition and explanation then use a quote from a left-wing newspaper which has a vested interest in it not being true giving the impression it's from Wikipedia. Nice.

The statement you quoted has been comprehensively debunked by this economist: http://timworstall.com/2012/06/28/did-this-burke-really-work-as-an-economist/

You can argue all day about where the peak of the Laffer bell curve lies for an economy, but no serious economist doubts its existence. As I mentioned, the latest UK figures show that the increase to 50% for the top band here in the UK produced a drop in revenue in that band.

It's time we got away from the notion that we can solve the issue by taxing the rich - there's simply not enough of them to do that. This article from a left wing newspaper admits as much: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/soak-the-rich-vince-there-arent-enough-of-them-to-tax-8180916.html

 

[Duke]

well when you cut useful services that poor people use and need, and give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, it doesnt take a genius to work out what they are doing.

Either you are very ignorant or have a big chip on your shoulder.

 

[mattyfez]

Wait, is this the same guardian who think they are entiltled to public money to prop thier failing out of date buisnes up? What a crock....

 

[Crafty]

Condems may not be doing a top class, 100% perfect job, but sure as hell its far better than Brown/Darling where doing and infinitely better than Milliband/Balls could do.

Labour at the election were promising to just continue the same stupid policies that got us in to this mess to begin with - namely keep spending more and more.

Personally I think there is quite a bit of scope to make more cuts to reduce public spending which could be good for the country, problem is its unpalatable to the great unwashed and therefore impossible. What we currently have is "cuts lite".

The next GE is going to be a bit of a blood bath. Thanks to years of gerrymandering by Labour its probably impossible for Tories to get an outright win. Cameron needs to do a hell of a good job of selling himself for the public to like him again, much of the hate is purely personal imho.

Lib Dems have pretty much turned off all their voters, Vince Clark is still wandering about making himself look a bit of a fool, Clegg is despised by many.

Labour may just win, but god help us if they do. Balls clearly has no clue whatsoever, Milliband looks like a deer caught in the headlights. Harman is pure poison, Cooper isn't clever enough to be that vindictive.

From where I sit I can see UKIP getting a fair bit more of the vote. Enough to make a big difference ? doubtful - but it will show public opinion and cause the other parties to "adjust" their position on some matters, especially the tories, who now cover too much of the middle ground than being "right" leaning. Labour are also culpable of occupying the middle ground (started with Blair).

 

[muon]

This thread fails due to a complete lack of understanding of key terms. here is a hint, the guardian article has nothing to do with the public sector deficit or debt.... or indeed government spending at all.

Did I just have to go to post 50 before someone realised this?

Wow.

The article even describes what it is.

edit:

looks like this post was completely ignored as well.

 

[muon]

When you have a single clue what you're talking about come back, till then get a grip.

Here's a little hint, ONS decide the deficit is the difference between what comes in to the government and what they spend ignoring all investments.

EVERYONE else looks at net borrowing to determine deficit.

When Labour left power we had a deficit by way of total public borrowing(and debt we load onto the country) of about £170billion, or deficit according to ONS, was just over £110billion.

The "real" figure IS £170billion, that is how much we borrowed full stop that is how much was added onto our debt.

Complete rubbish. They provide many debt figures. They provide complete breakdowns as well.

Only Dolph comes across in this thread with any knowledge of what he is saying. Not that he is right in his conclusions though.