1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General Election 2015

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stretch, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. El Capitano

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 2,577

    Actually, the UK had a very low national debt compared to other developed countries at the time. Perhaps you meant the structural deficit?
    In terms of "none [sic] critical departments" taking the hit, could you list the areas you consider critical and non-critical?
    Saying "its [sic] how recessions are" does not make it so. The very thing that sparked you off this time is my disputing the claim that cuts are the only way to bring spending as a % of GDP down, which is categorically not true.
     
  2. kitch9

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 13, 2008

    Posts: 6,474

    It was a banking crash that created a huge liquidity trap and the money that could have been used to bolster consumer demand in the resulting downtown got spent propping our failed banks up to avoid a depression.

    We got off lightly.

    With regards critical stuff, I'd say the stuff that's currently ring fenced is about it, everything else can be exposed in a downturn
     
  3. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    That's interesting from an immigration perspective. I would say very few immigrants earn over £45k.

    How can this be true whilst most people agree immigrants are "net contributors" to the UK?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  4. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 9,779

    Location: Aberdeen

    The debate on TV is dreadful.
     
  5. Azza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 6, 2005

    Posts: 34,774

    Location: Birmingham

    Ed needs to work on his reaction face. Shake, shake, shake. :D
     
  6. Azza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 6, 2005

    Posts: 34,774

    Location: Birmingham

    Rent to buy... so basically a 100% mortgage?
     
  7. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,618

    Location: Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge

    The answers on the question about younger people were woeful. Especially Cameron's answer. Really really poor.

    We're a member of the G8 and have nurses in Ebola torn West Africa. Whoopee doo.
     
  8. El Capitano

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 2,577

    Amusingly, there's a lot of righties who disagree rather strongly with you, that had we not propped up the banks we'd have seen green shoots much quicker and had a stronger recovery.
    So you think that elderly care can be cut during a recession, but not pensions? You think that penalising people with spare rooms when there's nowhere suitable for them to move into is acceptable?
     
  9. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 9,779

    Location: Aberdeen

    It seems to have worked in Iceland.
     
  10. El Capitano

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 2,577

    The country where inflation sky-rocketted, living standards fell harshly and people found themselves in a mortgage trap because of the way that Icelandic mortgages are either linked to a currency index or inflation? More information, even though it is getting a little dated. The UK's current problem is stagnation, but it's still doing better than Iceland just because of how far Iceland fell.
     
  11. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,432

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    No idea, perhaps it doesn't include all the things we all got as children like education, dental care, prescriptions etc.
     
  12. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,421

    Because the UK doesn't pay for pre-school, primary school high school sixth-form, or highly subsided university. Nor does it pay for the birth, health and medical costs, or a host of other government run services (share of fire,police, transport, library etc.) .
    And more often than not before they retire they will return home and the UK doesn't have to pay pensions or increased health costs.


    The immigrants are net contributors because basically foreign countries pay to develop a working adult and we get to reap the benefits with none of the costs.
     
  13. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,560

    Location: Wales

    exept for the 3-5 kids that the first generation immigrants tend to have ehre.
     
  14. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 15,690

    Location: Lincs

    Source for that?

    Sometimes you do engage in sensible and cogent arguments, then other times you pull 'facts' out of your ass.

    A report from the ONS in 2012

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1.../2012/sb-parents--country-of-birth--2012.html

    And it is still falling

    The reasons why immigrants are classified as net contributors when looking at the big picture are for the reasons D.P. said, they come here as young working age adults (already schooled to a higher standard than us on average) and then leave well before they retire.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2015
  15. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,889

    Location: Vvardenfell


    Out of interest, how does it come out when you factor in all the indirect taxes, especially VAT? Those taxes are regressive, because poor people have to spend a higher proportion of earned income. Then there are "special" taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes. Does the figure factor in the fact that rich people have far more options to avoid tax? Is it based on what a person being paid £500k a year should be paying in tax, or actually is?
     
  16. MadMossy

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 25, 2004

    Posts: 6,113

    Location: Sunny Torbaydos

    I was not impressed with either Cameron or Milliband last night, neither answered well and more often then not dodged the question or gave generic answers which they always do.

    I would actually say of the 7 the Scottish MP made the most sense but I will still be voting for who I feel will make the biggest difference, it's time the rich Eton boys were replaced.
     
  17. Judgeneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2010

    Posts: 10,013

    Location: Out of Coventry

    Do you have a source for that? When I looked now I could only find a £39k figure used, and that was for the average Brit, I think for childless people the figure is lower still.
     
  18. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,421

    Proof of that?
     
  19. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,421

    For purposes of finding out if someone is a net contributor the regressive nature of certain taxes doesn't have a big impact, just because someone may pay less as a percentage doesn't mean they pay less in total. And in actual fact it is the higher income earners that obviously par far more as a percentage, and rightfully so.



    Rich people will provide far more money in taxation from VAT, they buy more expensive furniture, clothes, toys, cars, TVs, boats, holidays etc. VAT is obviously proportional to disposable income. There is no VAT on most necessities like food.

    There are additional effects on top of pure taxation as well. Richer people tend t use less services, e.g. less health service, less police due to associated social-economic factors, and they are also more likely to pay for things like private education or health services.

    That is why a majority of people are a net drain in pure economic terms of taxation and costs. One shouldn't misinterpret that result though as it completely ignores things like contribution to GDP. Someone working at minimum wage in a factory is contributing to the factories output and thus the national GDP, even if they receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
     
  20. mattyfez

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 12, 2007

    Posts: 9,315

    Maybe VAT is too low, assuming the tax revenue generated by VAT is appropriately allocated, and not swallowed up by red tape like a VAT fund allocation department, which is probably the sad reality of the situation, why can't we simply raise vat to 40% and see what happens?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2015