Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stretch, Jan 5, 2015.
There will be a spike in spending followed by a collapse.
The argument here is over the size of that number, and you are therefore begging the question. The question was: where is the data for the number who are net payers and net drainers?
And does it count where the government effectively invites companies to under-pay staff, in the knowledge that the taxpayer will fork out tax credits to bring wages up to a level that can almost be lived on? Whose fault is it then that the staff concerned are net drainers?
So needing to earn £45k+ to be a net contributor, only applies to those who were born and educated in the UK?
While it's an interesting figure, it's a generalisation. It doesn't apply to specific individuals as there's too much variation in how much we (as individuals) cost the state. I could be childless and healthy, while the person next door could have five kids and chronic health problems. My personal 'break even' point would be much lower than next door's. £45k is a rough estimate that you obtain when you average all of these people out. It certainly doesn't mean you (the individual) have to earn over £45k to be a net contributor to the state.
It applies to the fictitious 'Joe Bloggs', who lives in an average house with an average number of kids, an average car, driving an average number of miles to his average job everyday. Joe spent an average number of days in school and recieved an average education, he is of average health and visits the doctor an average number of times per year. In old age, he suffers from an average amount of Age-related illness.
The £45k figure would be lower for anyone using lower than average amounts of state resources, and higher for those using more than average. As a result, yes, it does stand to reason that migrant workers would have a significantly lower 'break even' point.
Pledges of 125,000 first time buyer homes by 2020. Wow what a high expectation they are setting!
Maybe that figure is missing a 1 in front of it, at least.
You want to make VAT a luxury tax, you first need to ensure it only applies to luxuries.
VAT is a regressive tax. The percentage impact of VAT rises is higher for people on low incomes than people on high incomes.
Also you might think that things like food being VAT free (which, btw, it's not all) would be a benefit for the poor but the rich actually spend a lot more on food than the poor (think of all your free-range, named breed, meats and so forth).
Gutter politics and flat-out lies from the Telegraph re. Nicola Sturgeon wanting to see Cameron as next PM. Yep, let's run a fourth hand account from a civil servant who doubts the story anyway and plaster it on the front page.
Dirty Tricks Inc.
Welcome to the Torygraph. Peter Oborne's recent articles about how far (he believes) the Telegraph has fallen is quite enlightening. Having said that, they've always been something of a Tory mouthpiece, but at least they did some good investigative journalism along the way.
Spending hasn't dropped, I don't know about your world but in mine in order to spend less you actually have to not spend as much as you were.
I haven't posted here in a while but what a beauty this is to start again.
Firstly I don't know if it is flat out lies or not Eddie although I might point out everyone involved has categorically denied the allegation. However there is a case here for referring the story to the regulator IPSO, some journos already calling for it, for damaging the integrity of individuals without giving them the chance to respond – that is failing to meet professional standards and bringing the media into disrepute.
Secondly who and which department leaked this? The Foreign Office apparently know nothing about it and the French CG has said he tendered his report to the Scottish Office. Clearly it was someone in the government machine. We are in the period of the campaign when government must remain objective (purdah). Since the GE 2015 date was set by Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for the 7th of May 2015 it follows that the period of purdah commenced on the day parliament was dissolved the 30th March 2015 and as such the timing of this leak couldn't be more damning for the UK's democratic process. This is a straight breach of the rules and requires a formal leak inquiry. Why have we had no such announcement?
I fully expect an announcement to be made in this regard at the beginning of the next working week.
Sir Jeremy Heywood (Cabinet Secretary ) confirms an inquiry is to take place into how The Telegraph obtained the memo of #Sturgeon’s meet.
Hasn't spending dropped?
Or has income risen.
Any way the deficit has been cut, but not by as much as they said they would I.e. all of it.
The national debt has doubled mind.
That's with spending supposed to have been scrutinised, now imagine that we went on a futile spending spree to create fake demand in the economy only for the EU to crash like it was close to for the last few years.
He's living in the world of macroeconomics.
I shan't go into vast detail on why austerity is bad, but there are two main principles. First, governments collect income by taxing transactions. I work for my boss and he gives me my wage; that money is taxed. I pay my landlord my rent; my landlord is taxed on that money. My landlord goes to Sainsbury's to do his weekly shop; Sainsbury's are taxed on that money. Sainsbury's use the rest of the money to pay their staff wages, and we're back to the beginning again. The more transactions that are made and the more the money circulates, the more taxes the government generates. Austerity reduces the number of transactions made, which in turn causes the economy to cool down and tax collection to reduce; they spend less money, but at the same time they earn less money. Pro-austerity politicians like to push it as saving instead of spending, but in reality it's like putting your money in a sock under the mattress instead of investing it to generate profit.
Second, and leading on from the first, is that the value of the money spent or saved is based on the strength of the economy compared to that of other economies. This also applies to the value of the debts we incur by spending. Example: I lend you £100 interest free until next week, and next week you pay me back. We are even, right? Well, no. Say £100 is worth 120 Euro right now, but next week it's worth 125 Euro. That £100 "interest free" loan actually resulted in my profiting 5 Euro.
This is how dealings between nations work. You lend people money with repayment terms based on how much you think their economy will be improved by it. In the case of the UK economy since 2008, it will certainly become stronger as we move out of recession. As a result there have been points in the last five years where we could have borrowed from other nations at a negative interest rate - actually paying back less than we borrowed - because those nations know that if they lend us £10bn now and ask for £9.9bn back later, the £9.9bn they receive will be worth more than the £10bn they lent. At the same time, we have had £100m dropped into our economy at no greater cost than a small loss of future profit. The pro-austerity movement have quite literally thrown away this free money because it didn't fit their narrative.
There is a flaw with the spend to create theory, in this country we spend to buy imported stuff.
Eventually this will lead to the inability to borrow.
That is easy enough. Spending in absolute terms hasn't dropped at all. The close we have come to austerity is reducing the rate at which public spending increased compared to the previous plan.
This, combined with growth from the private sector, reduced spending as a percentage of GDP.
Err...those numbers show a drop in real terms.
So we increased spending at a slightly slower rate than inflation, still failing to see any real austerity given the massive real terms increases preceding it. It isn't remotely close to the pre new labour trend.
Separate names with a comma.