National insurance cut

Murphy said:
Read the charts, pay particular attention to what it says under the bold title, what it says each chart is a measurement of.
tonys said:
Yes we can see that they both cover the same period that you specify all I was saying that the two graphs needed to be of the same length to show how they compared to each other. Other surpluses are shown but not in what relation to the other graph.
I didn't disagree with you on the what it showed just that it showed what you wanted to show just like me if you remember.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.

Government of the period... lets not record this figure... so they will be no figure for future reports..
Government of the report... naa... we should use a different benchmark or include/exclude that cost..

Normally when I get asked to write a report, I ask how do you want the outcome to reflect? I rarely get told to be unbiased.

The only thing that really matters is how you as an individual felt at that time, or how you feel about a certain party. That may be reflect more on your personal circumstances and recency bias.
 
slinxy said:
The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.
Click to expand...
The stats are from the ONS so if you have something more accurate I'm all ears.
 
Murphy said:
Would this help...
MAR_18_surplus_deficit_since_1920.png

(Source)
debt_as_a_proportion_of_the_economy.png

(Source)

Like it or not the myth that the Conservatives are good when it comes to public finances is exactly that, a myth. There's only been a single period that a Conservative government has had a surplus and that was a tiny one for a very short period of time.
Click to expand...

Just looking at those and wondering what use they are to determine any parties 'performance' since it doesn't show all the macro economic and other macro events going on? on the bottom graph do we blame labour for the sky rocketing deficit in 2009/10 and praise the coalition for arresting that, or do we just use bigger number on graph = bad and paint the coalition as having a poor performance, all the while ignoring the financial crash of 2008 that led to it all?

The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war.. all you can really see IMO is that obvious events such as these always lead to a period of increased deficit just after that then peaks and comes back down independent of the ruling party at the time.
 
tonys said:
That isn't a full analysis as you would have to go back right to the start of the records to show a full and complete picture, that graph has been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad.
Click to expand...
how many hundreds of years do you want to go back? before 1970 probably nothing is relevant to modern economy.

er all know who asset stripped the country the tories under thatcher
 
slinxy said:
The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.

Government of the period... lets not record this figure... so they will be no figure for future reports..
Government of the report... naa... we should use a different benchmark or include/exclude that cost..

Normally when I get asked to write a report, I ask how do you want the outcome to reflect? I rarely get told to be unbiased.

The only thing that really matters is how you as an individual felt at that time, or how you feel about a certain party. That may be reflect more on your personal circumstances and recency bias.
Click to expand...
Can't remember where I've heard that argument before,lol. Totally right though
 
Demon said:
Just looking at those and wondering what use they are to determine any parties 'performance' since it doesn't show all the macro economic and other macro events going on? on the bottom graph do we blame labour for the sky rocketing deficit in 2009/10 and praise the coalition for arresting that, or do we just use bigger number on graph = bad and paint the coalition as having a poor performance, all the while ignoring the financial crash of 2008 that led to it all?

The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war.. all you can really see IMO is that obvious events such as these always lead to a period of increased deficit just after that then peaks and comes back down independent of the ruling party at the time.
Click to expand...
My point entirely. If you need to show a graph use one that can be interpreted on an equal footing. They are only an indication of what happened to that particular set of parameters over that time, not what was a cause to get that affect
 
tonys said:
I hope not I retire in two years(officially)
Click to expand...

Youngster.

I expect that NI will be incorporated into income tax eventually now that the concept of reduction has begun. The lower value it has, the less important it becomes and it has never been ring fenced for health and pensions since it's early inception.

As more revenue can be had from taxing all income including we coffin dodgers I expect new income tax rates of 28% and 48% to be introduced with the abolition of NI.

Whichever party, Conservatives or Labour bite that particular bullet.
 
Hagar said:
Youngster.

I expect that NI will be incorporated into income tax eventually now that the concept of reduction has begun. The lower value it has, the less important it becomes and it has never been ring fenced for health and pensions since it's early inception.

As more revenue can be had from taxing all income including we coffin dodgers I expect new income tax rates of 28% and 48% to be introduced with the abolition of NI.

Whichever party, Conservatives or Labour bite that particular bullet.
Click to expand...
Ok , wise old man .lol
 
Hagar said:
Youngster.

I expect that NI will be incorporated into income tax eventually now that the concept of reduction has begun. The lower value it has, the less important it becomes and it has never been ring fenced for health and pensions since it's early inception.

As more revenue can be had from taxing all income including we coffin dodgers I expect new income tax rates of 28% and 48% to be introduced with the abolition of NI.

Whichever party, Conservatives or Labour bite that particular bullet.
Click to expand...
It should just be a flat tax of, say, 20% for employees above a threshold. No employers tax. The idea would be to stay revenue neutral to the current income (so the actual percentage might be a little higher). Would also get rid of the incentive for higher earners to try to dodge the tax and they will still pay the most anyway.
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war.. all you can really see IMO is that obvious events such as these always lead to a period of increased deficit just after that then peaks and comes back down independent of the ruling party at the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, statistics are open to interpretation and water is wet. So you tell me should we take into account the "The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war"? Should we take into account the ability of successive governments after events beyond their control to reduce the deficit to GDP figure?

e: I mean i know tonys gets confused by charts and has trouble reading them but come on, surely some people are able to interpret charts.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
Yes, statistics are open to interpretation and water is wet. So you tell me should we take into account the "The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war"? Should we take into account the ability of successive governments after events beyond their control to reduce the deficit to GDP figure?

e: I mean i know tonys gets confused by charts and has trouble reading them but come on, surely some people are able to interpret charts.
Click to expand...
Another dig eh,
 
Murphy said:
Yes, statistics are open to interpretation and water is wet. So you tell me should we take into account the "The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war"? Should we take into account the ability of successive governments after events beyond their control to reduce the deficit to GDP figure?

e: I mean i know tonys gets confused by charts and has trouble reading them but come on, surely some people are able to interpret charts.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to pick apart the statistics to remove macro events like that, or to determine what was/wasn't within reasonable control of the government at the time hence querying it.

I assume you know how to interpret those graphs beyond just the bigger number = bad and then zoom in on a period that shows labour = low, tories = high and pretend a global financial crash had no impact on things..?

I'm happy to be educated, I just see a graph that I see spikes on what happen to correlate with my recollection of global events and question the correlation your premise is formed on whether it is down to global events and somewhat outside of government control or if you knew what policies where enacted that you can attribute to the data that support your premise.

here's the Governments overlaid (red = lab, blue = tory, green = coalition, purple = global event)
G4lYuc6.png


I mean, global event certainly correlates with all the deficit peaks, but then it's a crapshoot as to which party was in when we managed the small surpluses..

I'm no expert, hence asking.
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
It's impossible to pick apart the statistics to remove macro events like that, or to determine what was/wasn't within reasonable control of the government at the time hence querying it.

I assume you know how to interpret those graphs beyond just the bigger number = bad and then zoom in on a period that shows labour = low, tories = high and pretend a global financial crash had no impact on things..?

I'm happy to be educated, I just see a graph that I see spikes on what happen to correlate with my recollection of global events and question the correlation your premise is formed on whether it is down to global events and somewhat outside of government control or if you knew what policies where enacted that you can attribute to the data that support your premise.

here's the Governments overlaid (red = lab, blue = tory, green = coalition, purple = global event)
G4lYuc6.png


I mean, global event certainly correlates with all the deficit peaks, but then it's a crapshoot as to which party was in when we managed the small surpluses..

I'm no expert, hence asking.
Click to expand...
Excellent explanation and a good graph overlay.
That's a big thumbs up from me, can't find the appropriate emoji
Quick question was there data from the 1920's that could be correlated into the graph or not?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom