[John F]

Originally Posted by sidicks

You mean we should stop blaming the party who over spent for 10 years and simply blame Thatcher?




Which is exactly the problem - growth by 'any means possible' (which basically means create temporary and artificial growth by spending money we don't have) is what we are trying to move away from!!

See there you go again blaming the previous government, you cannot help yourself. The boom and bust of this country started long before the last government got into power. I will go on to say if the the previous government's (not just the last labour one the tory ones all the way back to 1979) had not sold off the family silverware this country would be in a lot better position than we find ourselves in now.

[Ed Selley]

Ultimately, "solutions" depend on whether you feel that Governments control economic growth. Ultimately, I feel they do but the only real control they have is the brake which they effect through legislation and taxation. To "accelerate" they have to release the brake and hope that there is innate acceleration in the economy.

As such watching a government "planning for growth" is watching a bunch of control freaks try and give up some of their power and control. What we see time and time again is that they can't do it- they're there for the power.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Dave

No then?

As for public sector pensions we are cutting back on them, I'm already paying more whilst working longer to get less.

You mean the same as the rest of the country??
:confused;

That is just fiddling at the edges in terms of the costs - we need to come up with some radical changes for new accrual (or at least new entrants).

Originally Posted by Dave

Perhaps our honourable MP's should do the same and accept the recommended rise in their contributions rather than just go for half that as they have recently.

Of course they should - they should be leading the drive for sustainable pensions.

Originally Posted by Dave

Perhaps as has been mentioned, we should look again at foreign aid that some countries don't even want. (India for example).

Allegedly the aid given is an investment which returns back more than it costs - it does seem strange to be providing aid to nuclear powers though.

Originally Posted by Dave

Tax avoidance and evasion costs a rather hefty sum too, shall we perhaps take a look at that?

Legal tax avoidance measures such as ISAs or only ones that those nasty rich people use?

The government quite explicitly stated a commitment to reduce evasion and unintended tax avoidance measures, including making changes retrospective.

I've frequently stated that the tax system needs to be drastically simplified to help reduce the potential for tax avoidance.

Currently we have people on PAYE paying 50% tax with no means of reducing this, while people earning multiples of that amount are able to structure their affairs differently so as to pay much lower tax rates.

Originally Posted by Dave

It would be far more productive than simply blaming Labour.......again.

Ignoring how we got here is to risk making the same mistakes again....

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

You mean we should stop blaming the party who over spent for 10 years and simply blame Thatcher?




Which is exactly the problem - growth by 'any means possible' (which basically means create temporary and artificial growth by spending money we don't have) is what we are trying to move away from!!

more than any particular individual its the ideology i blame , one that infested both parties but which the "great" lady pioneered more than most

Growth is growth in my book .i f we continue down this current route we shall pay a heavy toll in terms of public well being - crime will rise health will deteriorate and the young will be deprived of that which they are so richly entitled to - a decent education.All the time the gap between the haves and have nots increases so will anger and desperation in those forced to pay a price they shouldnt have to.I would far rather they be in work, any waork, paying taxes than trying to survive on meager benefits which afford them no sense of dignity

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

Ultimately, "solutions" depend on whether you feel that Governments control economic growth. Ultimately, I feel they do but the only real control they have is the brake which they effect through legislation and taxation. To "accelerate" they have to release the brake and hope that there is innate acceleration in the economy.

As such watching a government "planning for growth" is watching a bunch of control freaks try and give up some of their power and control. What we see time and time again is that they can't do it- they're there for the power.

I agree, the economy is a rather strange beast to tame and it's much easier to stifle it than grow it.

The problem to me is the lack of incentives for growth, where are the small business loans? Oh yes being held back by the very banks the tax payer helped to save.

Where are the tax breaks for employers? Where is the drive to create jobs and reduce unemployment by whatever means. What about trying to drive up manufacturing and reduce export costs?

The only tax breaks we have seen have been for those earning considerable sums of money. My family are firmly in the middle ground of the earning spectrum yet have seen our income drop in the last budget and it has dropped again with my pension increase. Why the hell would me and my family start spending more when we're earning less and less.

The economy will never grow when people feel like they are constantly being squeezed, the government are doing absolutely nothing to counter this and are even announcing further cuts.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

more than any particular individual its the ideology i blame , one that infested both parties but which the "great" lady pioneered more than most

So as I suspected - we should get away from the blame game unless Thatcher is involved?!

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Growth is growth in my book .

And that's why you are a gardener not an economist!

Originally Posted by la gran siete

if we continue down this current route we shall pay a heavy toll in terms of public well being - crime will rise health will deteriorate and the young will be deprived of that which they are so richly entitled to - a decent education.

Yes, of course that's right, the Coalition are proposing to remove education from the poor..

Originally Posted by la gran siete

All the time the gap between the haves and have nots increases so will anger and desperation in those forced to pay a price they shouldnt have to.I would far rather they be in work, any waork, paying taxes than trying to survive on meager benefits which afford them no sense of dignity

In other words we should continue to increase spending every year regarding of whether it is affordable or not?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by sidicks

You mean the same as the rest of the country??
:confused;

That is just fiddling at the edges in terms of the costs - we need to come up with some radical changes for new accrual (or at least new entrants).

As long as you are prepared for the radical changes in recruitment standards across the public sector then fine. Pay peanuts ......

Originally Posted by sidicks

Allegedly the aid given is an investment which returns back more than it costs - it does seem strange to be providing aid to nuclear powers though.

The key word here is allegedly, India has nuclear weapons and a space programme, do we really need to give them money?

Originally Posted by sidicks

Legal tax avoidance measures such as ISAs or only ones that those nasty rich people use?

I never mentioned nasty rich people, you did.

Regardless it costs the economy billions and it's high time something was done. We are quite happy to denigrate the work shy and lazy but the cost is insignificant when compared to someone who avoids millions in tax. I'm not naive or stupid enough to believe in ridiculous tax levels for the super rich but they aren't currently paying their fair share. Also, every time someone mentions avoidance, you trot out the ISA example. We know. I don't think anyone begrudges joe bloggs avoiding a few p tax on their savings. that's not the issue, a millionaire paying themselves through charitable foundations is. Incidentally the coalition screwed dropped a clanger with closing that loop hole.

Originally Posted by sidicks

Ignoring how we got here is to risk making the same mistakes again....

Who's ignoring how we got here, my dog could tell us how we got here. What's far more important is how we get out of here, something that a lot of people (including politicians) don't seem to have a clue about.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

So as I suspected - we should get away from the blame game unless Thatcher is involved?!



And that's why you are a gardener not an economist!



Yes, of course that's right, the Coalition are proposing to remove education from the poor..




In other words we should continue to increase spending every year regarding of whether it is affordable or not?

her name was put the ideology I referred to but it matters not as we are reaping the consequences of that ideology now

and neither are you an economist.The way i earn my living is irrelevant just as yours is

If they continue in their current path they will make education all the more difficult to teach a fact made plain by the teaching fraternity here, or do you dismiss them as well?

I propose we spend our way out of recession as we did in the 30s .To not do so will be catastrophic

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Dave

As long as you are prepared for the radical changes in recruitment standards across the public sector then fine. Pay peanuts ......

Many people would suggest that say a 20% subsidy rather than a 30% subsidy would be anything but 'peanuts'.

Originally Posted by Dave

The key word here is allegedly, India has nuclear weapons and a space programme, do we really need to give them money?

Of course there is a lot of colonial heritage as well, but I assume that someone, somewhere tries to assess the money that is spent and the benefits that are receoved.

Originally Posted by Dave

I never mentioned nasty rich people, you did.

It's the normal response - the use of legal tax avoidance measures by the 'rich' is unfair as they are avoiding paying their 'fair share', whereas the use of tax avoidance measures by the 'poor' is perfectly acceptable and just following government policy.

Originally Posted by Dave

Regardless it costs the economy billions and it's high time something was done. We are quite happy to denigrate the work shy and lazy but the cost is insignificant when compared to someone who avoids millions in tax. I'm not naive or stupid enough to believe in ridiculous tax levels for the super rich but they aren't currently paying their fair share. Also, every time someone mentions avoidance, you trot out the ISA example. We know. I don't think anyone begrudges joe bloggs avoiding a few p tax on their savings. that's not the issue, a millionaire paying themselves through charitable foundations is. Incidentally the coalition screwed dropped a clanger with closing that loop hole.

If you are going to comment on 'tax avoidance' you need to clarify what you mean - what is acceptable and what is not etc?

Originally Posted by Dave

Who's ignoring how we got here, my dog could tell us how we got here. What's far more important is how we get out of here, something that a lot of people (including politicians) don't seem to have a clue about.

I will just reiterate - we get out of here slowly, as we gradually unwind public spending back to affordable levels, and corporates and individuals get back to having minimal levels of debt - saving up for things rather than a culture built on consumption.

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

her name was put the ideology I referred to but it matters not as we are reaping the consequences of that ideology now

Originally Posted by la gran siete

and neither are you an economist.The way i earn my living is irrelevant just as yours is

Err.....I have some formal economics training and have regular meetings with our economists to discuss the investment implications of government policies across the world.

Any you?

Originally Posted by la gran siete

If they continue in their current path they will make education all the more difficult to teach a fact made plain by the teaching fraternity here, or do you dismiss them as well?

I propose we spend our way out of recession as we did in the 30s .To not do so will be catastrophic

Spend our way into recession and then spend our way out again?

So how does all this debt get paid for - at what point do we finally make the necessary cuts??

[Dave]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Spend our way into recession and then spend our way out again?

So how does all this debt get paid for - at what point do we finally make the necessary cuts??

I've got to say that I think we are well past the point where spending our way out is a valid or even possible option.

You need money to spend for a start.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've got to say that I think we are well past the point where spending our way out is a valid or even possible option.

You need money to spend for a start.

[Alan CD]

The idea is to borrow money year after year - then use that money to spend our way out of trouble.

That way the next government is left to repay the huge amount of money borrowed and we can then attack their policies from the sidelines.

Easy - a child could do it!

[NewMan]

I love how whenever someone writes "borrow money" the skimwords thing directs you to wonga.com - do you think it'd be as easy as one honking great big payday loan to get out of the rut and "invest" in increased public sector jobs in tractor production?

Edited to add smiley so people don't take this as a serious idea....

[dovercat]

Are those that credit the USA getting out of the great depression because Franklin Delano Roosevelt abandoned austerity and launched the New Deal, spending money on things like large infrastructure projectors, kick starting economic activity and growth, mistaken.

[Wild Weasel]

Yes they are. If anything Roosevelt's measures prolonged the depression.

[Jamezinho]

Originally Posted by NewMan

I love how whenever someone writes "borrow money" the skimwords thing directs you to wonga.com - do you think it'd be as easy as one honking great big payday loan to get out of the rut and "invest" in increased public sector jobs in tractor production?

At 2457% APR?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Jamezinho

At 2457% APR?

Same as PFI ?!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Same as PFI ?!

You tease.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Dave

You tease.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've got to say that I think we are well past the point where spending our way out is a valid or even possible option.

You need money to spend for a start.

Bingo!

[Badger0-0]

It never fails to amaze me that people don't see that spending on infrastructure helps the private sector more than the public sector
And the private sector has done very well out of the previous 10 years investment, imo.
Hence my previous comment that the top companies are sitting on £74 billion, that they just won't spend.
Why isn't the government encouraging it's mates to spend, instead of cutting back?

Whatever, "too hard, too fast" has been proven to be correct, imo and the prediction figures of deficit reduction have gone out of the window.
Confidence has been totally undermined, something the government totally failed to foresee, despite many warnings.
And the result is paying people to do nothing, instead of paying a bit to get them to contribute and help grow the economy.
Ah well, at least it keeps the wages down

The worrying thing is, this is going to go on and on for a long time.

[pandemic]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Hence my previous comment that the top companies are sitting on £74 billion, that they just won't spend.
Why isn't the government encouraging it's mates to spend, instead of cutting back?

Where is the previous comment? I only see one off your posts.
I'd like to know which companies are sitting on £74 billion, please.

[la gran siete]

Interesting comments from Paul Mason economics editor
BBC News - Double-dip recession: There's always fantasy island
There's a parallel universe I always go back to when we get big GDP figures, as we have with today's announcement that Britain is in a double-dip recession.

In that parallel universe, the British economy recovers rapidly on the back of a shrinking state, booming exports and a rapid switchover to high-tech manufacturing.

Stay with me for a tour of this alternative reality: The economy is now recovering rapidly, at 2.6% per year, following a very decent 2.1% last year. Exports are booming - the positive trade balance contributing a third of the growth, even as government spending and investment slumps. Oh, and CPI inflation is 1.9%.

Every week at PMQs, Ed Balls sits with his head in his hands, ruing the day he ever read a Keynes textbook…

Now, that parallel universe is based on something very real and tangible. It is the original projection of the Office for Budget Responsibility in November 2010, which George Osborne used to justify the biggest fiscal austerity programme Britain has seen in 60 years.

Almost every aspect of the OBR's vision has been proved wrong.

[la gran siete]

Double dip recession proves Osborne wrong » Tax Research UK
"The UK is on double dip recession.

Osborne offered us his vision two year ago. It was of “expansionary fiscal contraction”.

His argument was that the more he cut government spending the more people would spend, liberated by knowing that if he succeeded in his aim of balancing the budget tax cuts would follow, letting them repay debt they’d take on now to spend. It hasn’t happened. People who face the prospect of unemployment, increased cost for things that were previously provided by the state, lower pensions, higher cost of childcare and the uncertainty of recession have simply stop spending.

And Osborne argued that as government cutback business would rush to fill the space that he would create in the economy because they would be liberated from the yoke of government interference in their activity. It hasn’t happened. Businesses have seen that their biggest customer is not spending and have cut their investment, reduced their employment plans, closed their premise, withdrawn from the High Street and battened down their hatches in the hope of survival: the last thing that they have done is expand.

Of course, all of this was completely predictable, and was predicted. I was one of those who did so. With the Green New Deal group I suggested an alternative approach to fending off recession as long ago as the summer of 2008, before the banking crisis developed. Osborne ignored us then, and I have little doubt that he will ignore us now but the price that we will pay for that will be an enormous one.

I suspect that during the course of this year we will come out of recession, but only just.

Much more importantly, I think unemployment will continue to rise as this year progresses, with there being no prospect of any real reversal in site at any time in the foreseeable future as the government continues its programme of reckless cuts that guarantee a continuing downward spiral in confidence that will reduce investment for years to come, and at the same time will destroy any hope of creating a balance in our economy, or, just as importantly, a balance in our budget.

There is only one way to restore that balance in our economy and that is for the government to spend now on the creation of new infrastructure projects, new green energy projects, on the backlog of repairs that need to be undertaken in our public sector properties, in providing services that people need, and in investing with business in our future in sectors such as non-carbon energy.

This spending will, of course, require additional funding, but there is over £2 trillion invested in pensions at present in this country with more than £900 million (or thereabouts) in the larger pension funds. In that case money seeking a proactive home on which a positive return can be paid does exist. In addition, business itself has £750 billion of cash on its balance sheets right now, none of which is being spent. It is this combined cash that has to be brought into use in our economy if we are to get out of recession and nothing George Osborne is doing will achieve that goal.

We don’t, as a result, need corporation tax cuts for big business right now: we need them to pay more tax now so that investment can take place to fund demand for their products. That gets the business cycle going again.

And we need a condition to be placed on pension tax relief saying that 25% of all money going into tax funded pension arrangements has to be invested in projects that can create jobs in the UK right now.

Simple measures like that could get us out of recession. Nothing Osborne is doing can.

It is time for change."

[la gran siete]

Ed Balls has put Osburne on the canvas, and its in the Torygraph too
Ed Balls has put George Osborne on the canvas – Telegraph Blogs

Labour has, against all popular expectation, won the battle for economic credibility.

Now it has to be brave and push for a real programme for growth.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Labour has, against all popular expectation, won the battle for economic credibility..

No they haven't!

[kav]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Ed Balls has put Osburne on the canvas, and its in the Torygraph too
Ed Balls has put George Osborne on the canvas – Telegraph Blogs

Labour has, against all popular expectation, won the battle for economic credibility.

Now it has to be brave and push for a real programme for growth.

Dan Hodges is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest. He has worked for the Labour Party, the GMB trade union and managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation.

Is there any impartial take on the impact this will have, instead of the usual party-tribalist drivel?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Ed Balls has put Osburne on the canvas, and its in the Torygraph too
Ed Balls has put George Osborne on the canvas – Telegraph Blogs

Labour has, against all popular expectation, won the battle for economic credibility.

Now it has to be brave and push for a real programme for growth.

If Labour were economically credible we wouldn't be in so much trouble.

The simple fact is politicians have been buying your vote with your money for years.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by kav

Is there any impartial take on the impact this will have, instead of the usual party-tribalist drivel?

thats the Torygraph's depiction of him, hardly surprising they print that really isnt. It almost acts like a disclaimer.Doesnt alter the truth in that article