Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
25 November 2008
18:149809Very cheap, Sid. As it happens I have work to do and had a client in my office from 4pm. After a meal I went on-line to research what was happening. Not that I owe you any kind of explanation and you have a damn nerve. If anyone just quotes spin machines it is certainly you.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 November 2008
20:149824barry
when you say about cutting public spending, what particular areas are you referring to?
would it just be jobs advertised in the guardian or proper frontline activities.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
25 November 2008
20:269828For one thing howard the public sector can stop advertising in the Guardian!
I have provided a fair few suggestions previously, but since you asked...
There are a lot of projects that can easily be cut:
ID cards would save £5bn
The new national database could save £20bn
The Personal Account Authority, a few more £bn
Regional authorities a hell of a lot more than that lot put together!
Freezing the spending of Quangoes would save around £20bn too, a fair number could be gotten rid of totally.
That is just for starters.
I would freeze public sector recruitment to minimise redundancies and allow re-assignment and with it freeze public sector spending with any increases being from internal savings. There would be a cyclical rise in benefits, sadly, that would need to be allowed but the aim would be to absorb as much as possible through efficiency savings.
Make no mistake the public sector have been allowed to grow fat on taxpayers money and that gravy train must stop.
I would do a few more things too, getting rid of their final salary pensions to save one hell of a lot of dosh. They can have money purchase schemes like the rest of us.
Quitting the EU would save a lot too!!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 November 2008
20:359830i would have to agree 100% with that lot.
trouble is that means another batch on the dole, would the benefits paid out including rent or mortage interest really mean much of a saving overall?
Sid Pollitt
25 November 2008
20:369831Poor economics there Barry. Switch advertising from the Guardian coz u hate it to the Times or Torygraph would probably save no money. Back to school for you old chum.
Sid Pollitt
25 November 2008
20:369832Poor economics there Barry. Switch advertising from the Guardian coz u hate it to the Times or Torygraph would probably save no money. Back to school for you old chum.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
25 November 2008
21:209833OK shoot me now but I almost agree with Barry again. Obviously switching from the Guardian has the same effect as my saying take it away from the Sun, just trying to take revenue away from papers we hate. Apart from that a pretty good list. 8 out of 10 but needs work.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
25 November 2008
23:139840There are some very good points raised by DavidH at the start of this thread that put forward some valid way of directly easing the burden of the recession whilst still aiding growth and capacity. I do not know a great deal about economy other than from a personal level. Although I don't think a 2.5% cut in VAT will greatly affect the 'man on the street' but it will surely give some of the small business a minor amount of manoeuvrability. Surely this is a positive thing, as you say Barry this group is a hard hit group and far more vunerable than say the workers of DHB!
I always say I have no problem paying more tax as long as the system provides for society effectively. The gap between the rich and poor is so vast that the people earning obscene amounts of money should be taxed more and the people at the lower end eased up on. What the government is offering is an attempt to address some of the problems, which is better than doing nothing.
It really gets to me that some people in this country have and earn so much and then do so much to avoid paying into the system (albeit by shrewd legal financial gymnastics) These obnoxiously high earners generally display the same sort of attitude as the people at lower down the scale ripping off the system through benefit fraud, but think it's ok because they've got money. There are also people who through no fault of their own have nothing and taxing the rich more is a good attempt at addressing this vast inequality. If you want spin then start quoting the Laffer curve, which is just another one of these hilarious American economist graphs that actually applies very few figures and can be used to prove that we should neither increase or decrease tax, in other words 'do nothing' (the Tories clearly love it!) The best bit is that this depends solely on the principle we are already at the optimum level of taxation which of course it is a variable it does not offer! This is spin in parabola form!
I have no real idea how successful these measures will be (hearing sound pros and cons) and think it is sad that it is just reduced to another party political tool. I heard a member of the Conservatives on the radio last night running down everything about the moves and obviously suggesting the rich should not pay more tax; after all they are better than poor people who are just a drain on society. Some people have too much and far too many people have too little and this has nothing to do with how hard they work, or even how useful they are! Tax the rich more; I think there's still plenty of capacity left in the Laffer curve.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
25 November 2008
23:539841Sid, Chris - did I suggest switching advertising to other newspapers, no I did not.
A website based system for the advertising of Government and Local Government jobs would be a lot easier and cheaper.....
DT - it is a simple fact that if you raise taxes you get to a point where it is counter productive and you raise less cash. This was proven when reductions in the top rates of tax in the early 1980's actually increased tax revenue. Not theory it happens. No-one likes paying more tax than they need, it is a simple human reaction and there is nothing wrong with people earning honestly a lot of money. The fact is the more money you earn the greater the tax saving opportunities there are.
Sid Pollitt
26 November 2008
00:459842The stance adopted by the Conservative opposition to the Chancellor's Pre Budget Report this week may be an abandonment of their attempts in recent years to be seen as a party of progressive politics.
If they were to cut public spending in the areas of social policy and to let unemployment rise as they have done in previous times does that not signal a key change of direction?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 November 2008
09:119845There is so called 'progressive politics' and then there is the economics of the madhouse. If the former means the latter then to hell with it.
The fact is though, it doesn't, you dont help the less well off by bankrupting the economy.
26 November 2008
10:079848For what its worth try this real example; A local business pays a net £7000 pa vat - thus the change will save it £1000. on the downside, computer systems and accounting systems have to be amended and annual reports changed ( as its in the middle of the year). this isnt just a global thing the collection of Vat requires accounting for every Vat payment and charge - the change and bringing it in - and then changing it back - will certainly cost more than £500 each time. so who gains??? Nothing is created to the wealth of the country by this just more paperwork and wasted man hours!
If VAT is to be used effectively to stimulate the economy then it should be targetted to those industries that produce benefit to the workers - so that they have more disposable income and at the same time produce something that directly benefits in an end product. Either infrastructure ( although all of that is owneed by foreign companies) or building ( as I have said) or take vat altogether off insulation products ( that at least would see a resultant benefit as well as helping employment.
Note : I am not taking a political stance here - just a practical one.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
26 November 2008
11:059853That might have been a better way to do it David - targeting certain items that are vat-able, maybe changing them to being non-vatable.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 November 2008
18:389864I found this comment by Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England. He told the Treasury select committee yesterday that the impact of the VAT cut may not be felt until "the second half of next year".
That is very inconvenient for Brown, as that is when he thinks the economy will come out of recession (only to increase VAT again a few months later).
If that does not demonstrate the absurdity of the VAT reduction I dont know what does. As I said before an increase to £10,000 in the nil rate tax band would cost the same but would put real money into the ecomony and have an immediate impact. It would help ease the impact of recession, provided it was funded by spending cuts, of course.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
26 November 2008
22:569880barry
selective quoting there.
mr king also said that the pre budget report was what was actually needed for this particular situation.
david h makes a couple of very good points earlier in the thread, the VAT change means a lot of admin costs that negate the benefits, also the building industry(always the first to suffer in a recession), needs a kick start.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 November 2008
08:529890Howard - he was also one of the 365 economists who claimed Geoffrey Howe's approach would not work in 1982!!!
Here is something that the Adam Smith Institute have said about the budget:
"""his (Darling's) so-called 'stimulus package' is really just a manifesto for wasteful and ineffective spending increases, record levels of government borrowing and public debt, and higher taxes in the long term. I suggest that Darling should instead have announced a substantial rise in the personal allowance to put more money in the private sector economy, and balanced that with public spending restraint."""
Just what I have been saying, except he did not mention the word 'cut' and used the more 'friendly' restraint instead.
Howard - 'selective quoting' of course, surly you would not want the whole of what he said quoted!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 November 2008
08:569891I have to say that I hope those defending Brown are not being hypocritical. I hope they are all going out, extending their mortgages, maxing out their credit cards while trying to get more, just to help Gordon by spend, spend spending.
I can say that because they on this forum are not my clients. Those who pay me for my advice are being told to save money, build up reserves, cut spending! Exactly what the Government should do.
Sid Pollitt
27 November 2008
10:549894And if they get into financial difficulties would you gloat Barry? And loose their jobs too maybe, do you feel unhappy if unemployment is under three million? Barry your viewpoint is very coloured isnt it, are you sure you give them independent advice.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
27 November 2008
16:519905Ah now thats a bit harsh there Sid, lets not go getting into personal territory like that as...well its a bit too personal. We wouldnt want to go down any route that casts aspersions on someones business just to make a political point.
So lets all relax a tad there me oul chummies! Its better if we can enjoy the debate without getting all frought sort of thing.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
27 November 2008
18:019908"david h makes a couple of very good points earlier in the thread, the VAT change means a lot of admin costs that negate the benefits"
Sure does. We won't benefit at all, and may even lose out with the changes, but so far this week I have been talking to 20 people here about it all, and others all around the country about it !!!!
Doesn't help that parts of the guidance are also 'blurry' and open to interpretation...
Been nice knowing you :)