Tory scum

What has spending more money got to do with being opposed to QE?

you also clearly do not understand the terms of the debate. Being opposed to QE is not an issue of spending. Thick as feck you people on here, need to go and learn some economic fundamentals

How can you construe my anti QE post as Keynesian? moronic

"what's at issue is what levels are sustainable and how/when you go about cutting it"

Our debt is now at a point where it needs to be reduced.  Only a few nutters would disagree with that.  Unfortunately a government increasing debt during a boom, means our hands are tied during the following recession.

Apart from for Judorick who thinks we can borrow every year for ever and the debt will pay for itself after all the "growth" he stimulates.

I hope judorick has better anger management down the dojo than his ott name calling and general fizzing here would suggest!

Apr 2, 2013 -- 9:29PM, judorick wrote:

What has spending more money got to do with being opposed to QE?you also clearly do not understand the terms of the debate. Being opposed to QE is not an issue of spending. Thick as feck you people on here, need to go and learn some economic fundamentalsHow can you construe my anti QE post as Keynesian? moronic

Polite you Labour types.

Calm down. I meant to quote the post underneath where you link to the Keynesian who doesn't think debt is an issue and we should start Brown era spending sprees.

"I hope judorick has better anger management down the dojo than his ott name calling and general fizzing here would suggest! "

I think his failure to understand the articles he reads has rendered him a frustrated figure. 

um - we are borrowing money every year. and budget deficit predictions keep proving as woefully inadequate as growth forecasts. meanwhile we print money under the name of QE to rebuild banks' wrecked balance sheets and restart lending at the expense of salaries and savings, and bankers trouser as much of it as they can.

what we're doing isn't working and won't work.

In Summary: We're all doomed. DOOMED!

"um - we are borrowing money every year"

Agreed - so lets do some real cuts.

"what we're doing isn't working and won't work. "

Agreed - we are spending too much.  Finally we are all in agreement.

o yes ,who evers in goverment

Apr 2, 2013 -- 9:41PM, viva el presidente! wrote:

um - we are borrowing money every year. and budget deficit predictions keep proving as woefully inadequate as growth forecasts. meanwhile we print money under the name of QE to rebuild banks' wrecked balance sheets and restart lending at the expense of salaries and savings, and bankers trouser as much of it as they can.what we're doing isn't working and won't work.

Yes, so the answer to borrowing to much is to increase borrowing?

How's that worked for Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland?

On the other hand, how are Iceland doing?

well, no we aren't because you keep evading the real issue.

which is where is the growth going to come from that all these (continually wrong) deficit reduction forecasts are predicated on?

miggy claret 02 Apr 13 21:28 Joined: 29 Jun 08 | Topic/replies: 298 | Blogger: miggy claret's blog
daffodil,i am no racist but the application forms we receive from the vast majority of immigrant applicants have to be seen to be believed.their standard of education is very low.here in leeds city centre especially around the market,there are loads of unemployed eastern Europeans just hanging around,wasting their lives


Miggy I'm not suggesting you are a racist,I as a former employer have seen different and as to immigrants claiming benefits there are some 500,000 polish living in the UK yet only about 14,000 are claiming benefits.

if you was in massive debt at home could you then go and borrow more money to get yourself out the situation, you dont need an economics degree, really for the answer i am sure

Yes, so the answer to borrowing to much is to increase borrowing?

-----------

no answer that doesn't address rising income inequalities and the increasing unaffordability of housing will work. that's why osbourne's predictions have all been wrong from day one.

Apr 2, 2013 -- 9:50PM, viva el presidente! wrote:

Yes, so the answer to borrowing to much is to increase borrowing?-----------no answer that doesn't address rising income inequalities and the increasing unaffordability of housing will work. that's why osbourne's predictions have all been wrong from day one.

Osborne isn't making predictions. Office of Budget Responsibility is forecasting so the Treasury can no longer fiddle the figures.

Not sure why that would be needed in the UK.. Can anyone guess?

and by the way, I'm not a labour supporter, and fully agree that they're co-responsible for the mess we're in.

scott1092 02 Apr 13 21:49 Joined: 11 Apr 11 | Topic/replies: 3,719 | Blogger: scott1092's blog
if you was in massive debt at home could you then go and borrow more money to get yourself out the situation, you dont need an economics degree, really for the answer i am sure

Trouble is Scott we are not borrowing to invest in the future,we are borrowing to pay for the welfare/pension system of which there is no return.If we do borrow it should be for an infrastructure whereby there would be a return.

real research shows completely the opposite to what idiots like java and cj70 say

that's only what you think OUGHT to happen, however the Treasury's own model shows, for instance, that £20 billion of investment in capital projects over two years would raise GDP by 0.5% in both years, compared to the level if no extra investment was injected, and that £20 billion in extra tax revenue would be generated over the same two year period.

This then would be entirely neutral in terms of deficit over the two years. What it would do is to stimulate economic activity which would then prolong in to the following years and the effect would be to bring the deficit down quicker in the medium term than in the case where the £20 billion is not invested

So, yes, in the medium term you can borrow money now, invest in capital projects, stimulate the economy and bring down the medium term deficit more quickly than simply doing virtually nothing which is the current plan

Not sure why that would be needed in the UK.. Can anyone guess?

--------

affordable housing, a moratorium on immigration, policies to raise real incomes for the poor and middle classes, a tax regime that stops the rich and corporations dodging what they should pay, and proper banking regulation.

for a start.

i understand borrowing for infustructure roads ,housing , railways ,but if you borrowed £20 billion for these plans do you really think you would get that amount plus interest back by trying to generate jobs that dont really excist, and would be temporary, a little like labour , when they was in with there public sector jobs that did nt really excist, but we keepm borrowing money to keep people shuffling paper in the council offices up and down the country

THAT@S WHAT THE TREASURY MODEL SHOWED

the government is borrowing from the BoE at ZERO interest rates FFS, they can borrow any amount they want, they even took the profits from the bonds the bank sold and used that to lower the deficit just so they could show that the deficit did not rise when really it did

the trouble with self satisfied pricks like Java and his mate are they posture as if they are all knowing, just like George Osborne does, thinking that they have all the answers and using the old 'but we have to pay the deficit; argument whilst ignoring the fact that the deficit is not falling and that the OBRs own analysis said they had underestimated the effect of the Multipliers involved in reducing wages and living standards on GDP and hence tax revenues and therefore the deficit

There's a report right now on ITN news about the record number of people taken on zero hours contracts just so they can be taken off the jobless figures. 200,000 people with no security, on minimum wage with no guarantee of income at all

sounds like you should be running the country,to me ,like labour aloud people on incapacity benefit to increase massively under there term , and they were not unemployed neither ,

scott1092 02 Apr 13 22:03 Joined: 11 Apr 11 | Topic/replies: 3,720 | Blogger: scott1092's blog
i understand borrowing for infustructure roads ,housing , railways ,but if you borrowed £20 billion for these plans do you really think you would get that amount plus interest back by trying to generate jobs that dont really excist, and would be temporary, a little like labour , when they was in with there public sector jobs that did nt really excist, but we keepm borrowing money to keep people shuffling paper in the council offices up and down the country



Because we're borrowing more than most other countries, we'll soon be testing the nerve of investors. Any signs that we might struggle to repay, then international markets would charge much higher rates of interest to lend us money making it even harder to pay down debts. But if we invest in an infrastructure that can produce growth that will help in reducing those rates and improve confidence in the UK.

i no **** all judorick but i understand you cannot keep borrowing money to get your self out of difficulties finacially, its simple economics ,we have to look at cutting our massive over inflated budget,that has grown to big for us to sustain, look at countries in europe in trouble ,massive cut backs

The top rate of tax at 45p will still be higher than 12 of 13 years of labour govt (40p)

As I said here, and in many other places on these boards, I see absolutely NO difference between Labour and Conservative on economic policy and I support neither. Both have consistently failed when in government and will continue to do so.

Neither applies real research, evidence based decision making, long termism or anything else that would really make a difference. Too much political expediency and not enough pragmatism

But the brain dead argument that 'you can't borrow your way out of a deficit crisis' should be balanced with 'you can't cut your way out of a GDP crisis'

The sick thing is that the wealthiest have done really well since the crash and they could easily be asked to pay say a third of that wealth to get the economy back on track. That's a thousand people paying a third of the £150 billion they made - £50 billion invested over 2 years would make a massive change in GDP and help reduce deficits whilst getting people back to work, building houses and reducing the total debt faster in the medium term. 0% chance of that, they are just about to get a tax cut

actually, govt debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than in 1996 - 44.2% compared to 51.3%. despite us being in two wars, one of which was imo pretty unavoidable.

unfortunately the bailout and the recession destroyed the public finances.

Our disability benefit bill last year was 13 billion pounds,71% were awarded that benefit for life with no further checks being made as to their health improvement,900,000 have since come off sickness/disability since new checks were introduced.

that is a useful statistic but it does not help define a set of policies to get the economy growing and living standards rising Daffodil, it's just more vitriole

what about the wealthy?

Apr 2, 2013 -- 10:10PM, judorick wrote:

the government is borrowing from the BoE at ZERO interest rates FFS, they can borrow any amount they want, they even took the profits from the bonds the bank sold and used that to lower the deficit just so they could show that the deficit did not rise when really it didthe trouble with self satisfied pricks like Java and his mate are they posture as if they are all knowing, just like George Osborne does, thinking that they have all the answers and using the old 'but we have to pay the deficit; argument whilst ignoring the fact that the deficit is not falling and that the OBRs own analysis said they had underestimated the effect of the Multipliers involved in reducing wages and living standards on GDP and hence tax revenues and therefore the deficitThere's a report right now on ITN news about the record number of people taken on zero hours contracts just so they can be taken off the jobless figures. 200,000 people with no security, on minimum wage with no guarantee of income at all

There we go the immortal line that gets trotted out by those addicted to borrowing for growth. "FFS, they can borrow any amount they want"

Infinite borrowing = infinite growth. Rock on.

they are borrowing as much as they want. government debt as a proportion of GDP has gone up continually throughout this parliament, because the recession has lowered the GDP side of the equation and destroyed tax revenues - and the govt has no credible plan to create growth.

they ARE GOING TO BORROW £600 billion MORE you fecking MORON

what do you not understand about that? And the deficit will not fall whilst they do that and both living standards and GDP will suffer

you really are a one sided gullible prick. You think you can cut govt spending to promote growth? Go on then list exactly what you would cut and then predict the effect on unemployment, GDP, repossessions and the deficit over 7 years?

moron

judorick 02 Apr 13 22:32 Joined: 27 Nov 11 | Topic/replies: 13,844 | Blogger: judorick's blog
that is a useful statistic but it does not help define a set of policies to get the economy growing and living standards rising Daffodil, it's just more vitriole

what about the wealthy?


You leave my cash alone judorick,it's for a rainy day On a more serious note the only way is to invest in our future with a solid infrastructure such as new homes build,Railways,ect,give folk a reason to go to work.I don't pretend to know all the answers but sitting on our backsides aint going do it.The banks helped with this mess,make them pay as well.

borrowing money to produce jobs ,surely  not the answer, thought theyd reduced defecit by a quater

*Resists urge to dive into low IQ political debate with people who still support the Tories and don't understand/ have no interest in basic economics*

The conservative approach of trying to cut their way out of a recession has failed miserably. Cutting public spending --> reduces flow of money to the poorer in society (who make up the majority of the population, and spend more % of any money they get) ---> spending goes down ---> VAT and business revenues fall ----> Government income falls. Vicious circle, straight to hell.

I've seen some truly amazing arguments on telegraph.co.uk as to why the poor should have less and the rich more...my favourite being 'They spend money worse than the rich'

The problem is, the rich at the moment, dont spend money at all....

it's worse than that, songs. they invest their money. not by and large in things that create growth, but in "assets", blowing up bubbles.

Read these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/04/public-spending-uk-2011-12-interactive

The majority of the benefits bill goes on the State Pension, it is the single largest expenditure other than the health service

Do you want to cut the State Pension? The Health service? where are you going to get £600 billion of cuts from over 5 years?

you aren't it is as simple as that and no government would ever attempt to do that

so you need to do something different and that does not mean making poor people poorer because you think that will help. The last 3 years prove that cutting living standards does not help reduce the deficit or the National debt.

We need to grow more than anything and this stagnation-inflation is not the answer. Long term damage is being done, we are becoming less and less productive and less and less competitive

unfortunately we have politicians in charge and they won't give us the answers we need the pricks

Been disastrous from selling the Gold Reserves, going into war, the housing bubble, the crash and the wholly inadequate, illogical, ideological response

real peoples lives, their children and as yet unborn grandchildren's prospects for life are being seriously damaged. It is just not good enough to say we have to squeeze the poor and cut services and wait and see if the economy picks up.

Pre 2008 levels of GDP are not expected to return til 2018 and that will be the longest ever recovery from recession. And there will be a permanent reduction in living standards for the majority of the population

Disastrous policies I tell you

really good right up judo understand most of your last post, theres faults on both side s , in that statement, you are very well read up on these subjects by the look of things can you tell me ,this if immigration was stopped on mass and jobs returned to british citizens, our hospitals were only allowed to treat british citzens , plus our social houseing only for the britsh, would this not make a huge difference finacial , has i said early imjust looking at things in a simple form ,

have you in a british hospital recently? they run on foreign labour.

This is just a note to you jumped up Tory scum bags.

You don't know how it feels to have too much month at the end of the money; the hardships us benefit claimants go through. There's gas and electricity, making decisions on which foods should be the "basics" variety. Do you even know what that **** tastes like? Anyway I just wanted to highlight the lowlights of living on the REAL breadline...

Sent from my iPhone.

so we cant produce nursing qualifications for the british and the british cant clean wards any more,

ffs

booyakasha

scott1092
02 Apr 13 23:10

really good right up judo understand most of your last post, theres faults on both side s , in that statement, you are very well read up on these subjects by the look of things can you tell me ,this if immigration was stopped on mass and jobs returned to british citizens, our hospitals were only allowed to treat british citzens , plus our social houseing only for the britsh, would this not make a huge difference finacial , has i said early imjust looking at things in a simple form ,


If all immigration was stopped, then there would be less people in the Uk, so there would be less people competing for jobs that are available. Statistically speaking, immigrants don't make up a large percentage of benefit claims, although if there weren't any then it would still drop. And some of the unemployed British would be able to get jobs as a result of zero immigrant competition.

However...

Worldwide (at least in the Western World, or anglo-saxon economies), we seem to be in a situation where interest rates are kept at record lows to stop the housing market REALLY blowing up...and in turn, destroying banks. Rates stay low, housing costs remain high. Immigrants aren't causing this problem imo. They do increase demand for housing in a given area of course, but their disappearance won't cause housing to adjust to more affordable levels because the market is being propped up by governments/central banks (largely the same thing imo).

The rental market at the lower end is crushing low-wage workers imo, a reason why a large part of overall benefit spending actually goes to people in work, via housing benefit and tax-credits. The political class, of all of the major parties, has no desire to see a natural correction in the housing market; they don't want banks decimated and they tend to own buy-to-let properties of their own. And also, it's not much of a vote winner amongst "home-owners." You can add people in the media to this list too, as most of them seem to own more than one home.

Until something is done to lower the proportionate cost of putting a roof over your head, particularly for those on low wages, we are going to limp along with a sh1t economy, imo.

I've already said that I think the answer lies in a radical social housing scheme, building masses of good quality homes that can be rented at affordable prices. I think that the finances of this could be worked out if the political will was there -- but it isn't, so it won't happen.

Another factor in all this is, due to high housing costs, people are tending to delay having kids or are not having them at all. At the same time, people live longer now than they once did, so we have a growing portion of the populace who require pensions (the biggest part of benefit spending). Immigration is a quick way to boost the number of "working age" people. I don't agree with the way it's been done, but it is something that has to be considered.

Apr 2, 2013 -- 10:40PM, judorick wrote:

they ARE GOING TO BORROW £600 billion MORE you fecking MORONwhat do you not understand about that? And the deficit will not fall whilst they do that and both living standards and GDP will sufferyou really are a one sided gullible prick. You think you can cut govt spending to promote growth? Go on then list exactly what you would cut and then predict the effect on unemployment, GDP, repossessions and the deficit over 7 years?moron

Calm down my sweary class war friend.

The problem you have is that you advocate borrowing for short term growth on the back of twelve years of borrowing for short term growth. It's a debt spiral that the Keynesian's always advocate because like you they believe that we really can borrow any amount we want.

Let me ask you a question, when you've thrown 20B on a fiscal stimulus and growth returns to normal? What's the answer? I think we already know.

Like many of your ilk addicted to borrowing you really can't see any other way, can you?

Keep fighting for peace, bro.

I see CJ is still plugging away with his passive aggressive techniques, bottom line is the toffs will need a miracle to get elected in 2015. Boris is their only hope.

Apr 3, 2013 -- 1:44AM, AyersRock wrote:

I see CJ is still plugging away with his passive aggressive techniques, bottom line is the toffs will need a miracle to get elected in 2015. Boris is their only hope.

Passive aggressive?

If you want to see what the effect of Labour winning the next election will be take a look at Slovenia.

"The sick thing is that the wealthiest have done really well since the crash and they could easily be asked to pay say a third of that wealth to get the economy back on track."

LMAO!    The GENIUS speaks.  We live in a country where the productive are asked to give up 50% of their labour to the State.  Now, even after that, Judorick wants to seize 33% of their total wealth cos he thinks if Government spends enough money then we'll have a boom.  What a loser 

Judorick is my new favourite poster without doubt.  What a thickit

"actually, govt debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than in 1996 - 44.2% compared to 51.3%"

Yes it was lower.  But GDP was massively higher.  If you want to run a stimulus in a bust you CANNOT borrow £200 billion in a boom as Brown did.  And that is before we get to PFIs.

Judorick:   "they can borrow any amount they want"

sure we can borrow how much we like ,but it does wont paying back some how??????

"Cutting public spending --> reduces flow of money to the poorer in society (who make up the majority of the population, and spend more % of any money they get) ---> spending goes down ---> VAT and business revenues fall ----> Government income falls. Vicious circle, straight to hell."

What a genius.

Boosting public spending - increases flow of money to the poorer in the society - spending goes up - VAT and business revenues increase - Government income rises - Beautiful circle, straigt to UTOPIA.

You utter, utter fool.

"i no **** all judorick but i understand you cannot keep borrowing money to get your self out of difficulties finacially, its simple economics ,we have to look at cutting our massive over inflated budget"

You see Judorick - someone with no economic knowledge realises that you are an imbecile.  That must hurt.

simple mathmathtics ,you cant spend more than you earn for a long period of time without coming to a junction were you have to make drastic decisions that people do not like , i also understand there are alot of people who seem to have contributed to the situation and seem to got of very easily bankers ,politicians piss poor decisons on both sides ,but the buck has to stop some were ,

Exactly.  If we borrow during a boom, we can't then borrow during a bust.  Unfortunately some people on here seem to think you can borrow every year forever.

and thats for any political party thats in power , but like what say you java, we cant just keep borrowing money year in year out, some people just dont seem to understand the simple concept , ask the greek people they will give you a good insight into borrowing excessively

Apr 3, 2013 -- 10:08AM, scott1092 wrote:

sure we can borrow how much we like ,but it does wont paying back some how??????

That's the genius. You never have to pay it back as there is always an infinite supply of money that you can borrow.

Like the gambler who can never lose because he doubles his stake after each loss.

As I said here, and in many other places on these boards, I see absolutely NO difference between Labour and Conservative on economic policy and I support neither. Both have consistently failed when in government and will continue to do so.

Not just economic policy but almost every policy. They serve the same masters. We do not live in a democracy, we have the illusion of free choice but the way the system is they will always be in control.

That's the genius. You never have to pay it back as there is always an infinite supply of money that you can borrow.

Like the gambler who can never lose because he doubles his stake after each loss.

ill informed garbage as usual from this prick

the question is not 'never paying it back' - governments always have debt, the crucial figure is debt to GDP ratio - why don't you go look that up and see how it has changed over the last 100 years? will be interesting for you

and your analogy of the gambler doubling stake is miles wide of the mark, you really are an ignorant little oik, get all your information if you can call it that from the Star don't you

moron

"the crucial figure is debt to GDP ratio - why don't you go look that up and see how it has changed over the last 100 years?"

Ohhh!  What a good idea - let's compare the debt to GBP ratio now verses when we were fighting World War 2.  And then we can say "Hey it's lower - let's carry on spending!"

Maybe we need to cut spending but only if the cuts are being made in the right places - i.e the rich and "defence" (war) industry - not the poor and vunerable.

Apr 3, 2013 -- 12:04PM, judorick wrote:

That's the genius. You never have to pay it back as there is always an infinite supply of money that you can borrow.Like the gambler who can never lose because he doubles his stake after each loss.ill informed garbage as usual from this prickthe question is not 'never paying it back' - governments always have debt, the crucial figure is debt to GDP ratio - why don't you go look that up and see how it has changed over the last 100 years? will be interesting for youand your analogy of the gambler doubling stake is miles wide of the mark, you really are an ignorant little oik, get all your information if you can call it that from the Star don't youmoron

Not sure you've thought this through have you?

A bit of advice, if you don't understand something and you suddenly believe you've found the solution to the worlds problems you are probably wrong.

Start swearing like a trooper and calling others idiots while not fully understanding the issue doesn't do you any favours.

"Maybe we need to cut spending but only if the cuts are being made in the right places - i.e the rich and "defence" (war) industry - not the poor and vunerable. "

Hate to break it to you - the rich don't get benefits and already get taxed at 50% to pay for the unproductive.  There are no "cuts" that will affect them as they are contributors.

And secondly, defence is about the only government department that actually HAS suffered real cuts.

Well it should suffer more untill it's evapourated

CJ70 - you will forever be known to me as the guy who backed Litchenstein +2 against Bosnia.

Bosnia won 8-1

Apr 3, 2013 -- 12:27PM, Stringer wrote:

CJ70 - you will forever be known to me as the guy who backed Litchenstein +2 against Bosnia.Bosnia won 8-1

Wasn't one of my best tips that

Hate to break it to you - the rich don't get benefits and already get taxed at 50% to pay for the unproductive.  There are no "cuts" that will affect them as they are contributors


so wealthy people are not entitled to state pensions?

Very true - we should cut those as part of a huge overhaul of the welfare state.  Say anyone with pension income of over 50k a year?

Nah!!  get breeding lads and let others pay for your lifestyle - you know it makes sense

I have got it!!!   All you have to do is borrow borrow borrow throughout your life and die seemingly rich - it doesn't matter after that coz u iz brown bread - Yep I sure have got it now!!!
Apply this to running government too - that is what they do and don't give a fk!!  They make their little pile and run away.  Blairs  et al!!!

Maybe we need to cut spending but only if the cuts are being made in the right places - i.e the rich and "defence" (war) industry - not the poor and vunerable.

its gonna happen one way or another.
the other week we saw what cyprus did.

if the economy doesnt expand its inevitably gonna happen here a few years down the line.

best for the rich to take a hit now than then imo coz they will be crying blue murder when their savings get stripped to bail out an even worse situation.

i say tax any bank accounts and bond holders over 500k now at 10%.

that would encourage people to go offshore

the sensible ones already have.

why o why are they concetrating so hard on bedroom tax? when you look at the 200 billion welfare budget, taking away 14% for having spare bedroom - whatever that saves - or brings in shall i say, pales into insignificance compared to where the biggest outgoings are, there is no way to dress this up other than it's the toffs attacking the poor.

End of thread.

those that do, have to pay for those that dont,

Yes it was lower.  But GDP was massively higher.  If you want to run a stimulus in a bust you CANNOT borrow £200 billion in a boom as Brown did.  And that is before we get to PFIs.

-------------

right, so now your argument is that brown should have that growth wasn't real, and that even though govt debt as a proportion of GDP had fallen significantly, that didn't count because GDP was fake. fine, but that's not what all the city boys who were helping themselves and baying for tax cuts were saying at the time.

triple-A "can we pay you negative interest rates to look after our money" Germany's government debt as a percentage of GDP, meanwhile, was massively higher than the UK's throughout the Labour government and only dipped below it very recently. The UK govt budget deficit however is currently nearly twice the EU average and improving at a slower rate, despite higher levels of austerity.

why? because the tories have no credible plan for growth. they've perpetuated a recession with more dips than a mexican restaurant which shows no sign of ending - because they're more interested in increasing social inequality than addressing it as a structural cause of economic stagnation.

'we need more houses'

do we ?  the UK is saturated with new builds and empty properties -  What we do need is affordable housing

Apr 3, 2013 -- 5:30PM, AyersRock wrote:

why o why are they concetrating so hard on bedroom tax? when you look at the 200 billion welfare budget, taking away 14% for having spare bedroom - whatever that saves - or brings in shall i say, pales into insignificance compared to where the biggest outgoings are, there is no way to dress this up other than it's the toffs attacking the poor.End of thread.

Come on we've done this before. It's just the same policy applied to all areas.

I know the Guardian and left wing middle class journos get offended by it, but it's popular in the country. Labour are on the wrong side of the argument on this, don't follow them over the top like a willing puppy.

Apr 3, 2013 -- 6:00PM, viva el presidente! wrote:

Yes it was lower.  But GDP was massively higher.  If you want to run a stimulus in a bust you CANNOT borrow £200 billion in a boom as Brown did.  And that is before we get to PFIs.-------------right, so now your argument is that brown should have that growth wasn't real, and that even though govt debt as a proportion of GDP had fallen significantly, that didn't count because GDP was fake. fine, but that's not what all the city boys who were helping themselves and baying for tax cuts were saying at the time.triple-A "can we pay you negative interest rates to look after our money" Germany's government debt as a percentage of GDP, meanwhile, was massively higher than the UK's throughout the Labour government and only dipped below it very recently. The UK govt budget deficit however is currently nearly twice the EU average and improving at a slower rate, despite higher levels of austerity.why? because the tories have no credible plan for growth. they've perpetuated a recession with more dips than a mexican restaurant which shows no sign of ending - because they're more interested in increasing social inequality than addressing it as a structural cause of economic stagnation.

Hrmm? Can you think of anything that happened within the last century that would make German debt high?

David Hasselhoffs Rider?

Good point. As you were.

West germans pay a special extra tax merely to try and upgrade East Germany from the (shock horror) backwards state it was inevitably in after years of (drumroll) Socialism. Still, what Britain really needs according to some is a proper left wing alternative :) We too could be West Europes East Germany!

and why is german government debt so attractive to investors as a safe haven, despite their debt to gdp ratio being historically higher than ours?

tories live in this fantasy world where they can destroy the discretional spending power of great swathes of the population yet still somehow create the increased demand that underpins growth.

or rather, they pay lip service to it. what they're really interested in is an increasingly unequal society whatever the consequences for those outside the privileged percentiles.

"tories live in this fantasy world where they can destroy the discretional spending power of great swathes of the population"

Why don't "great swathes of the population" go out and earn their own money instead of sitting there waiting for a handout from the productive.  Revolutionary idea I know.

"what they're really interested in is an increasingly unequal society "

Utter, utter, tribal rubbish.  The capitalists want the economy to grow, free from the interference of useless government.  This way EVERYONE can share the prosperity, rather than have to sit there waiting for the government to chuck them a bone when they see fit.

oh yeah, I thought we'd get to trickle down economics sooner or later. the right's favourite fairy story, copyright R Reagan, 1980.

based on the logic that the bigger percentage you let the rich take, the more everyone else makes. total crap, in other words. I'm not talking about the feckless, workshy chavs beloved of the daily mail (who I know do exist, btw). I'm talking about the working poor and most of the middle classes whose discretional spending power has been eroded for decades by rising inequality and real housing costs.

the result is a mountain of consumer debt, which presumably people are going to add to to stoke this imminent growth spurt osbourne sees round every corner... till we actually get round it.

he cashstrapped NHS is becoming the “world’s maternity wing” as mothers-to-be fly into the country to make the most of the service, Professor J Meirion Thomas said.
Thousands of others are flying here for cancer, HIV, kidney and infertility treatment then simply getting back on the plane without paying, according to the cancer specialist.
Some of the foreigners travelling to Britain for treatment is so ill that they are pushed straight back on to planes in their wheelchairs after being treated for free at hospitals close to airports.
Those who travel to the country to have their children claim that they should not have to pay anything for their treatment as it is an emergency procedure, and others commit identity fraud, but the NHS is powerless, he said.
Professor Thomas - a Consultant Surgeon at the Royal Marsden Hospital London, who holds a Chair in Surgical Oncology at Imperial College - believes that the public are unaware that they are footing the bill which is costing them billions every year.
Related Articles
PM: time to end something for nothing culture 25 Mar 2013
The chances of the EU allowing Britain to control immigration numbers 30 Mar 2013
Writing for the Spectator he claimed that as the NHS is free “The consequence of such altruism — all at the UK taxpayer’s expense — is health tourism and abuse of the NHS by ineligible patients.”
He warned that the health service may have “reached the point of no return” as it is riddled with so many loopholes.
Last month David Cameron pledged a to crackdown on the benefits tourism – including health tourism by tightening the criteria making people eligible for free care.
Professor Thomas welcomed the pledge, but warned abuse was rife.
He quoted a junior hospital doctor working close to Heathrow airport who told him: "Every single week, I see people who have been flown in from all over the world with a variety of extremely serious health problems.
“Many of these people had to be wheelchaired on to the plane because they were too unwell to walk on board. We often have our Intensive Therapy Unit full of patients without NHS numbers who are there for weeks or months with no means or intention to pay, which impacts on our resources.”
The most “scandalous” reports, Professor Thomas wrote, came from Overseas Visitors Officers, who are employed by hospitals to claw back the cost from those not entitled to the care.
He said: “This abuse may be costing the NHS (and therefore the British taxpayer) not millions but billions of pounds every year.”
He said that the “mystery” for those working in the NHS was how the Department of Health and 40,000 or so hospital managers “have allowed this to happen”
Maternity health tourism is a “massive and escalating” problem, he claimed, and as mothers are claiming it is emergency treatment - and therefore free - “the NHS can be used as the world’s maternity wing” – piling pressure on understaffed wards.
Blood tests have revealed that people are committing identify fraud as their blood group proves different to the one on their NHS records, Professor Thomas said.
Renal dialysis is “probably the most costly form of abuse" because the treatment takes place three times a week and may result in a transplant.
Cancer patients often travel to Britain to make use of the NHS, he claimed.
‘The NHS does not have the resources for such largesse,” Professor Thomas said, calling on Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to hold a national audit on the extent of the problem.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said the Government was determined to crack down on health tourism.


bend over backwards to help those that have never paid a penny into the system, but punish those who (of which 2 thirds are disabled) who have a spare room


Do the regulations define a bedroom?

No. The Government’s view is that it is for landlords to specify the size of the property and this ought to match what is on any tenancy agreement and reflect the level of rent charged. The bedroom tax will not take account of whether a room is a single or a double bedroom. A room either is a bedroom or is not a bedroom.


under the 1985 housing act, a bedroom is a bedroom if it s more than 70sq ft, anything less means it's a box room but under the new TAX that doesn't matter, you still have to pay for having a spare box room, vile tory AND liberal scum, the latter will never be forgiven either for going back on their student fee pledge, never mind 20 billion being lost on tax evasion/avoidance or god knows how much in health tourism eh Java and co, sweep that under the carpet ans till pretend this is all fair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs

Just convert to Islam ayers and you can call the extra room a prayer room and avoid all this apparently ! Only in UK !!

are you serious treetop? has that actually happened.

Not absolutely sure, just read it on another forum but wouldnt surprise me, the authorities are usually terrified of upsetting anyone ! Thinking of classing my room as an office 'cos I log into Betfair and use it to accumulate a tax loss !!

The stigma in this country that is wrongly attatched to the privatisation of the health service has been holding it back for years. Both parties know it has to be done sooner or later, neither wants to be the one to do it. In the meantime the service just gets more and more squeezed by successive governments. It should be privatised immediately by whichever party wins the next election, by the time the following election rolls round the storm will have long blown over and the improvements will be there for all to see.

Hate to break it to you - the rich don't get benefits and already get taxed at 50% to pay for the unproductive.  There are no "cuts" that will affect them as they are contributors.

Of course some of them don't pay corporation tax, do they? Does Lord Ashcroft really pay his dues?

No cuts, but £100,000 per year tax "benefit" for the 13,000 richest UK citizens. SICK.

He seems to have been welcomed by Ed lately ?

withdraw fro EU

stop importing anything that can be made, grown or reared in britain

bring back national service

government to compulsory purchase, sky tv, betfair, and also be the only provider of mobile phones

millions would be made, saved, generated

send all poor and unemployed abroad, perhaps some really hot place in africa where they have nothing.

this cuts down massively on benefits paid and unemployment figures.

then near enough everyone is working, economy is fixed.

the lazy poor then have to stop laying around in smelly vests all day drinking super tennants to actually go about providing for their families and finding food, thus improving their work ethic.

simples.