[sidicks]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Plan A is cutting spending and raising taxes to eliminate the structural deficit. So that when the economy gets better we will be able to start paying down the cyclical deficit.

Which seems sensible....

Originally Posted by dovercat

You can not be seen to be intending to run a country long term at a permanent structural deficit as it is untenable.

You might want to explain that to LGS and Gaz...

Originally Posted by dovercat

You can not keep paying too many public sector workers, etc... They are a on going year on year expense.

Agreed - as above. A couple of people on here seem oblivious to that basic logic!

Originally Posted by dovercat

What plan A is missing is enough infrastructure investment. Large one off expenses that boost the economy and provide work for private sector companies, guaranteeing jobs for say 3 or 5 years so boosting economic confidence, and due to the improved infrastructure improve long term competitiveness.

Well the High speed rail link could be considered to be one such project at a cost of £32billion.

What sort of projects would you recommend?

Originally Posted by dovercat

Plan A is cutting taxes and red tape on companies to encourage them to invest in the UK.

We need to export more. You can not run a country with a permanent negative balance of trade. Stimulating internal demand by say employing public sector workers is not enough. We need to export. We need that growth in the private sector.

What plan A is missing is enough help via tax breaks to encourage businesses to expand.

Surely stimulating internal demand by employing public sector workers is economically stupid - it costs more than it generates??

Originally Posted by dovercat

What plan A is missing is that our currency is still over valued it hinders our competitiveness. We need our currency to devalue both externally vs other currencies and internally via inflation to reduce the cost of labour and eliminate some of the debt in the economy.

But plenty of people are already complaining about the rising costs of goods (particularly for the lowest paid) and this would simply make things much worse...?

Originally Posted by dovercat

What plan A is missing is that quantitative easing or even directly injecting money into the economy is not always a terrible idea. What plan A is missing is that inflation is not inherently always a bad thing.

It is a bad thing for people on low wages already struggling to make ends meet...

Sidicks

[Jamezinho]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Well the High speed rail link could be considered to be one such project at a cost of £32billion.

What sort of projects would you recommend?

I'm no expert on these things but surely getting the construction industry kick-started again with nationwide housing projects would be a good start? This country is short of affordable housing and social housing stock. Get people back into work building homes and solve some other issues in doing so.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Jamezinho

I'm no expert on these things but surely getting the construction industry kick-started again with nationwide housing projects would be a good start? This country is short of affordable housing and social housing stock. Get people back into work building homes and solve some other issues in doing so.

Sounds good to me - anything that increases the supply of housing and thus reduces the cost to the taxpayer (and reduces the profits of greedy private landlords), has to be a good step forward...

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by sidicks

LGS

Some questions:

What was the most recent figure for quarterly GDP growth for Germany ?

We are currently borrowing £160+bn this year,
- how much extra do you propose for investment (and in what)?
- how many public sector workers would you get rid off?

LGS??

[dovercat]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Well the High speed rail link could be considered to be one such project at a cost of £32billion.
What sort of projects would you recommend?

Building a pile of nuclear power stations would be a good idea in my view to provide cheap electricity.

The CBI claim the UK could do with £200+ billion spent on infrastructure.

Originally Posted by sidicks

Surely stimulating internal demand by employing public sector workers is economically stupid - it costs more than it generates?

That was what I meant when I said employing public sector workers alone is not enough. They do not usually export goods or services, but often buy imports. We need the economy to generate more wealth.

Originally Posted by sidicks

But plenty of people are already complaining about the rising costs of goods (particularly for the lowest paid) and this would simply make things much worse...?

We have a trade deficit the easiest way to reduce that is for our currency to devalue. We have rising unemployment the easiest way to slow that is to reduce the cost of employing people by devaluing their wages via inflation.

Originally Posted by sidicks

It is a bad thing for people on low wages already struggling to make ends meet...

Major areas of inflation are fuel/energy, food, housing.

I think we might be able to bring down energy costs in the short term by having the competition commission look at how the market is functioning or failing to function and doing something about it. In the long term by investing in nuclear.

Food again I think there maybe grounds for the competition commission to look at things. We also import food we could produce in the UK and the EU common agricultural policy keeps food prices artificially high. So we need to look at the farming industry and the common agricultural policy. The Euro zone wants our financial help and we are net importers from the EU and UK public opinion seems to want a referendum on leaving the EU, so we have a strong negotiating position.

Housing is another major cost, we need to look at the tax advantages given to private rental landlords, buy to let, etc... We need to start removing those advantages. We also need to build more houses including social housing so increasing planning permission.

But overall we are going to see the standard of living fall at least in the short term as we import too much and export too little. We are not generating as much wealth as we are spending.

[Jamezinho]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Sounds good to me - anything that increases the supply of housing and thus reduces the cost to the taxpayer (and reduces the profits of greedy private landlords), has to be a good step forward...

Sidicks

They need to go after these decadent multiple home-owners. Some people can't get on the property ladder while others own three properties, for example.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by kav

image

Ive got to give you props for that image hahahaha

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Jamezinho

They need to go after these decadent multiple home-owners. Some people can't get on the property ladder while others own three properties, for example.

and helping to keep the homeless figures down as well by providing affordable homes

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

and helping to keep the homeless figures down as well by providing affordable homes

Yes, that's how economics works, you reduce supply then prices go down...

Oh, wait a minute.....


Sidicks

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Yes, that's how economics works, you reduce supply then prices go down...

Oh, wait a minute.....


Sidicks

two very happy families living in rented accomodation

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Jamezinho

They need to go after these decadent multiple home-owners. Some people can't get on the property ladder while others own three properties, for example.

Good post.

During the years labour were in power it was very easy to get another mortgage using an existing house as collateral. That 100% mortgage purchased another property which could also be used as collateral for yet another 100% mortgage. So, in a few months, a person could be the owner of many houses, each one pulling in a rent to pay for the mortgage + a bit left over.

As house prices were continually on the increase during the labour years this practice was VERY lucrative and many enterprising entrepreneurs become rich landlords, each owning many properties.

This practice is not so prevalent now but still continues. Many new-builds released onto the market are immediately purchased by rich landlords who made their fortunes during the years labour were in power. They snap up the smaller properties as a job lot.

The new estate where I have just purchased a house has about 30% of the properties rented out.

A young couple seeking to purchase a new 2-bed apartment has no chance because the landlords got in first.

This is one of the unacceptable faces of capitalism.

[neilios]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Good post.

During the years labour were in power it was very easy to get another mortgage using an existing house as collateral. That 100% mortgage purchased another property which could also be used as collateral for yet another 100% mortgage. So, in a few months, a person could be the owner of many houses, each one pulling in a rent to pay for the mortgage + a bit left over.

As house prices were continually on the increase during the labour years this practice was VERY lucrative and many enterprising entrepreneurs become rich landlords, each owning many properties.

This practice is not so prevalent now but still continues. Many new-builds released onto the market are immediately purchased by rich landlords who made their fortunes during the years labour were in power. They snap up the smaller properties as a job lot.

The new estate where I have just purchased a house has about 30% of the properties rented out.

A young couple seeking to purchase a new 2-bed apartment has no chance because the landlords got in first.

This is one of the unacceptable faces of capitalism.

It certainly is an unacceptable face ,home ownership used to see a long term increase in house prices giving the owner a nice little nest egg either for themselves in retirement if they decide to downsize or as an inheritance for their children...
The current sitaution is a guargantuan mess,we are one of those young families ,except were not that young...making getting on the mortgage ladder very difficult ,especially with greedy landlords,and home owners wanting excessive amounts of of money on there inflated asset..

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Good post.

During the years labour were in power it was very easy to get another mortgage using an existing house as collateral. That 100% mortgage purchased another property which could also be used as collateral for yet another 100% mortgage. So, in a few months, a person could be the owner of many houses, each one pulling in a rent to pay for the mortgage + a bit left over.

As house prices were continually on the increase during the labour years this practice was VERY lucrative and many enterprising entrepreneurs become rich landlords, each owning many properties.

This practice is not so prevalent now but still continues. Many new-builds released onto the market are immediately purchased by rich landlords who made their fortunes during the years labour were in power. They snap up the smaller properties as a job lot.

The new estate where I have just purchased a house has about 30% of the properties rented out.

A young couple seeking to purchase a new 2-bed apartment has no chance because the landlords got in first.

This is one of the unacceptable faces of capitalism.

I think he was having a sly dig at me actually , but never mind.I wasnt not one of those you speak by the way as I would never have borrowed money to buy extra properties.My wife inheritted hers.The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.In other words she deserves it , plus it will buttress her pension which has been so savagely reduced by nincompoops

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I think he was having a sly dig at me actually , but never mind.I wasnt not one of those you speak by the way as I would never have borrowed money to buy extra properties.My wife inheritted hers.The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.In other words she deserves it , plus it will buttress her pension which has been so savagely reduced by nincompoops

Ah, so it is just the silver spoon of inherited wealth? I think it is shocking people can benefit from their parents in this way. Buying an advantage in life.

I think you missed the point anyway. However you got the money to buy the two houses that is two less available for new families starting out and wanting to buy their first home.

[IronGiant]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.

Sounds rather like a big fat bonus then...

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by IronGiant

Sounds rather like a big fat bonus then...

One that doesn't depend on performance in their role and gives no incentive for future success, unlike, say, someone who is given shares in their company....

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I think he was having a sly dig at me actually , but never mind.I wasnt not one of those you speak by the way as I would never have borrowed money to buy extra properties.My wife inheritted hers.

This just gets better and better - inherited wealth - the hypocrisy just keeps on growing!

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.

Is that so? Plenty of people work hard at their jobs - many work much harder than a "full 7 hour day" - while receiving much less in wages and without the gold-plated pension.

No such inherited wealth for them.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

In other words she deserves it , plus it will buttress her pension which has been so savagely reduced by nincompoops

You mean that gold-plated pension, where the taxpayer pays 2/3rds of the cost and the employee just 1/3rd of the cost??

You mean that pension which has been slightly reduced to take into account huge demographic changes?

I think the 'nincompoops' are the ones who try and justify huge pensions subsidised by the private sector for people carrying out necessary but hardly difficult or dangerous adminsitration tasks..

Sidicks

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by sidicks

You mean that gold-plated pension, where the taxpayer pays 2/3rds of the cost and the employee just 1/3rd of the cost??

You mean that pension which has been slightly reduced to take into account huge demographic changes?

I think the 'nincompoops' are the ones who try and justify huge pensions subsidised by the private sector for people carrying out necessary but hardly difficult or dangerous adminsitration tasks..

Sidicks

Same old, same old. Harping on and on and on...

Do you know any other tunes?

How about "Over The Hills And Far Away"?

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I think he was having a sly dig at me actually , but never mind.I wasnt not one of those you speak by the way as I would never have borrowed money to buy extra properties.My wife inheritted hers.The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.In other words she deserves it , plus it will buttress her pension which has been so savagely reduced by nincompoops

I have no problem with inheritance.

My two daughters will gain from my hard work (eventually) and that is a good thing.

Unless of course old labour get into power and slap a 60% tax on inheritance over £500.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Same old, same old. Harping on and on and on...

Do you know any other tunes?

How about "Over The Hills And Far Away"?

If LGS is going to continue to make absurd statements like 'savagely reduced' then I'll be here to point out his error!

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I have no problem with inheritance.

My two daughters will gain from my hard work (eventually) and that is a good thing.

I don't think many people disagree - its just the unbelievable hypocrisy that seems to grow and grow with LGS....

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by sidicks

If LGS is going to continue to make absurd statements like 'savagely reduced' then I'll be here to point out his error!

Sidicks

Point taken!

[Jamezinho]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

I think he was having a sly dig at me actually , but never mind.I wasnt not one of those you speak by the way as I would never have borrowed money to buy extra properties.My wife inheritted hers.The way she sees it, and i agree, is that it makes up for an inadequate salary paid for all those years she has worked very hard at her job.In other words she deserves it , plus it will buttress her pension which has been so savagely reduced by nincompoops

It was a sly dig as sometimes I think you border on the champagne socialist side of things. But, the underlying point remains. We have a lack of housing in this country with young people struggling to get on the ladder. Meanwhile those more fortunate are allowed to build property portfolios and charge high rents. It's just not right.

[Cloverleaf]

Surely, with the lack of housing in the country, any principled left wing person would consider it morally unjustified for any one person to own more than 1 house each

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

Surely, with the lack of housing in the country, any principled left wing person would consider it morally unjustified for any one person to own more than 1 house each

No, they just consider it morally unjustified for someone else to own more than 1 house each.

Do as I say, not as I do, remember....!

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by sidicks

No, they just consider it morally unjustified for someone else to own more than 1 house each.

Do as I say, not as I do, remember....!

Oh, yes of course, silly me

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by sidicks

No, they just consider it morally unjustified for someone else to own more than 1 house each.

Do as I say, not as I do, remember....!

If you are talking about LGS in particular (and judging by past posts that is very likely), then please remember there are two adults in LGS's household. The other house belongs to his missus.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

If you are talking about LGS in particular (and judging by past posts that is very likely), then please remember there are two adults in LGS's household. The other house belongs to his missus.

The other houses - plural!

The point stands - they need 1 house, they have 3 houses, hence reducing supply and increasing prices for those trying to get onto the property ladder...

Sidicks

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by sidicks

The other houses - plural!

The point stands - they need 1 house, they have 3 houses, hence reducing supply and increasing prices for those trying to get onto the property ladder...

Sidicks

I stand corrected again. Missed this bit from LGS:

two very happy families living in rented accomodation

I'm beginning to warm to you - what you doin' tonight?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I'm beginning to warm to you - what you doin' tonight?

Post reported to Mods