|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
toppstuff said: What cuts?
Unemployment is down. Not up. So if we have made cuts, the economy seems to be resilient to them.
So this suggests that surely we can cut a LOT more? Unemployment stats are not, as usual, indicating the actual effects within the working / unemployed population. When people sign onto a new 'zero hours' contract or 'limited hours' contract they are removed from the unemployment stats. The reality is these people are still needing to draw benefits. Same applies when an individual decides to set themselves up as self employed. Thousands of so called jobs are also short term contracts of just a few months.
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
bobbylondonuk said: crankedup said: bobbylondonuk said: SpeedMattersNot said: muffinmenace said: crankedup said: But its not the only way to cut debt, if tax revenues were to be increased by growth stimulus the debt could be paid off without the need of deeper cuts to public spending. Or at least when a balance is achieved with tax/expenditure. So pay off the debt with the jobs you created with borrowing? OK Jesus christ almighty, take me now! I know, they can't see further than their noses. Im on their side! lol Having used this forum for a few years, I kinda knew that 
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
Jinx said: crankedup said: Tell that to the 100,000 people sacked from Public Services and now drawing benefits. And the Country is deeper into debt than ever. Thankfully the Lib-Dems are able to moderate the Tories ideology. 100,000 x 22k per annum > 100,00 x 70 quid a week?  Try again, how much money do you think needs to be paid out to support a family once the bread winner losses his/her job?
|
|
|
bobbylondonuk
1,762 posts
59 months
|
Everyone is talking about a low growth rate and static unemployment figures...has anyone thought that:
loss of public sector jobs and public spending => creation of private sector jobs and improved profitability = flat GDP/slight reduction in GDP and static unemployment figures?
With regard to temp contracts, part time jobs etc...13.8% employer taxation on top of wage costs? take that out and you will see better terms of employment
Growth is not going to happen at crazy levels in comparison to the credit fuelled boom times. The people need to understand it. Growth is going to be a low % figure from now on. That is reality...all this borrow and splurge is another bubble waiting to happen with a larger price tag at the end of it.
|
|
|
London424
2,697 posts
44 months
|
Jinx said: crankedup said: Tell that to the 100,000 people sacked from Public Services and now drawing benefits. And the Country is deeper into debt than ever. Thankfully the Lib-Dems are able to moderate the Tories ideology. 100,000 x 22k per annum > 100,00 x 70 quid a week? What 100,000 people though? I've not heard anything about it. However if a company lays off a few hundred it's in the papers. Can you link to some sources of these 10's of thousands that have been laid off as I'm genuinely curious.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
bobbylondonuk
1,762 posts
59 months
|
crankedup said: Try again, how much money do you think needs to be paid out to support a family once the bread winner losses his/her job? errr...that salary that a public sector employee draws is also a treasury spend and the benefits is also a treasury spend. So if total benefits paid by a local council from local council tax plus a bit from treasury is lower than the salary and other employment costs...is not a reduction over all?
|
|
|
Sticks.
3,105 posts
120 months
|
bobbylondonuk said: With regard to temp contracts, part time jobs etc...13.8% employer taxation on top of wage costs? take that out and you will see better terms of employment
Growth is not going to happen at crazy levels in comparison to the credit fuelled boom times. The people need to understand it. Growth is going to be a low % figure from now on. That is reality...all this borrow and splurge is another bubble waiting to happen with a larger price tag at the end of it. Correct me if I've misunderstood this but, in a nutshell: Growth is going to be slower bcause we're not basing it on unsustainable borrowing (and that's a good thing); but this is made more difficult because of the govt's tax on employment.
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
bobbylondonuk said: crankedup said: Try again, how much money do you think needs to be paid out to support a family once the bread winner losses his/her job? errr...that salary that a public sector employee draws is also a treasury spend and the benefits is also a treasury spend. So if total benefits paid by a local council from local council tax plus a bit from treasury is lower than the salary and other employment costs...is not a reduction over all? From a pure financial number yes its all tax money being spent. My point is that people lose a job from the Public sector lose their ability to spend money within their local economy. The same is true of a person losing a job in the private sector, obviously. Widen that argument to those who 'are lucky' to find a part time/zero hours contract/short term contract, the same applies, people are insecure and spend is kept minimal. Certainly no major purchases. This is loss of confidence and it is this loss of confidence that is continuing to damage the economy. No different to the SME not wishing to commit to increasing staffing levels. No different to a Corporation not investing in growth, preferable to hold cash balances. It comes down to confidence and that is in very short supply, Government is doing very little to improve this situation and the spiral continues downwards for the U.K. I'm not advocating that Public sector borrowing need not to be cut and the debt reduced, but IMHO too much emphasis has been focused on this aspect, it is only a part of the problem.
|
|
|
bobbylondonuk
1,762 posts
59 months
|
Sticks. said: bobbylondonuk said: With regard to temp contracts, part time jobs etc...13.8% employer taxation on top of wage costs? take that out and you will see better terms of employment
Growth is not going to happen at crazy levels in comparison to the credit fuelled boom times. The people need to understand it. Growth is going to be a low % figure from now on. That is reality...all this borrow and splurge is another bubble waiting to happen with a larger price tag at the end of it. Correct me if I've misunderstood this but, in a nutshell: Growth is going to be slower bcause we're not basing it on unsustainable borrowing (and that's a good thing); but this is made more difficult because of the govt's tax on employment. If you were in business...would you hire permanent staff or multiple part timers/temp staff? The cost of employment regulations + 13.8% tax on top of the wage cost + high business rates and so many more expensive crap to deal with....I am sure you would look at cutting your cash outflow and reducing your cost of doing business as much as possible. Would you not? The market is very price sensitive and highly competitive...you cannot afford all these costs and still be making a good % of profits. If you dont have a good % of profits, you dont get finance facilities to get bigger and compete more. If you dont get bigger, you cannot create more jobs. If you dont have more jobs in the economy, the economy does not grow faster. Borrowing money and spending on public sector employment is not the answer because all you will do is add more tax burden on the private sector to pay for it all and the growth you get will be temporary...just like a bubble! See the circle of business? The BBC obviously does not see the sense in all of this and whips it up properly....and that is why I think they are biased.
|
|
|
bobbylondonuk
1,762 posts
59 months
|
crankedup said: I'm not advocating that Public sector borrowing need not to be cut and the debt reduced, but IMHO too much emphasis has been focused on this aspect, it is only a part of the problem. It is too big a burden as it is my friend...we need to cut it down to a level that we can afford to pay in good times or in bad times. IT means a level of basic public spending that we can pay for no matter how bad times get in future. We are now way above that level and it is unaffordable.
|
|
|
Johnnytheboy
7,076 posts
55 months
|
GentleFellow said: Good old thumbsnap censorship... 
|
|
|
Willie Dee
1,494 posts
77 months
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
bobbylondonuk said: crankedup said: I'm not advocating that Public sector borrowing need not to be cut and the debt reduced, but IMHO too much emphasis has been focused on this aspect, it is only a part of the problem. It is too big a burden as it is my friend...we need to cut it down to a level that we can afford to pay in good times or in bad times. IT means a level of basic public spending that we can pay for no matter how bad times get in future. We are now way above that level and it is unaffordable. I agree, but what of the other comments I made in the post, and what is an affordable level? Its the debate as to how we reach the 'affordable level' and what those public services will provide. Another issue that raises its head regards the loss of high quality staff from the Public sector, as cuts continue to bite those that are able to leave will do so, leaving the lesser staff to struggle through providing a worsening level of service. No different to a Company going to the wall. Or perhaps I am reading into the whole thing too deeply.
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
London424 said: Jinx said: crankedup said: Tell that to the 100,000 people sacked from Public Services and now drawing benefits. And the Country is deeper into debt than ever. Thankfully the Lib-Dems are able to moderate the Tories ideology. 100,000 x 22k per annum > 100,00 x 70 quid a week? What 100,000 people though? I've not heard anything about it. However if a company lays off a few hundred it's in the papers. Can you link to some sources of these 10's of thousands that have been laid off as I'm genuinely curious. Link as requested : www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/14/osborne-au...Its an old link, the numbers have since climbed, the general situation in the economy worsened since.
|
|
|
andymadmak
6,216 posts
139 months
|
crankedup said: So 270k + public sector jobs gone, but unemployment is falling.... Hmmm, maybe the private sector is taking up the slack (or at least a good chunk of it) after all. There's still nearly 6 million public sector workers though. 6 million! I know we have a few hundred thousand teachers, policemen, firemen, armed forces etc, plus maybe 1.5 million in the NHS, Call it 2.5 million overall. Hell lets even chuck in a few dustbinmen,(although much of this is private now, yes?) social workers and assume there are other important jobs I have forgotten or underestimated and round it all up to 3.5 million. What on earth do the other 2.5 million do for us?
|
|
|
bobbylondonuk
1,762 posts
59 months
|
andymadmak said: crankedup said: So 270k + public sector jobs gone, but unemployment is falling.... Hmmm, maybe the private sector is taking up the slack (or at least a good chunk of it) after all. There's still nearly 6 million public sector workers though. 6 million! I know we have a few hundred thousand teachers, policemen, firemen, armed forces etc, plus maybe 1.5 million in the NHS, Call it 2.5 million overall. Hell lets even chuck in a few dustbinmen,(although much of this is private now, yes?) social workers and assume there are other important jobs I have forgotten or underestimated and round it all up to 3.5 million. What on earth do the other 2.5 million do for us? now you see the scale of the employment that must be transferred from public sector to private sector? Unemployment levels remaining static is not a bad indicator when you have falling public spending. It means the loss of jobs in public sector is being offset by private sector job creation. Same applies to GDP figures. So when the BBC goes crying and wailing at a 0.5% drop in GDP or a static unemployment figure...it is not actually doom and gloom when you look at it from a management of 60million people and 700-800bn budget!
|
|
|
davepoth
19,854 posts
68 months
|
bobbylondonuk said: now you see the scale of the employment that must be transferred from public sector to private sector? Unemployment levels remaining static is not a bad indicator when you have falling public spending. It means the loss of jobs in public sector is being offset by private sector job creation. Same applies to GDP figures.
So when the BBC goes crying and wailing at a 0.5% drop in GDP or a static unemployment figure...it is not actually doom and gloom when you look at it from a management of 60million people and 700-800bn budget! Indeed. Static unemployment when tens of thousands are being made redundant and shifted from incapacity into unemployment is actually a major success.
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
andymadmak said: crankedup said: So 270k + public sector jobs gone, but unemployment is falling.... Hmmm, maybe the private sector is taking up the slack (or at least a good chunk of it) after all. There's still nearly 6 million public sector workers though. 6 million! I know we have a few hundred thousand teachers, policemen, firemen, armed forces etc, plus maybe 1.5 million in the NHS, Call it 2.5 million overall. Hell lets even chuck in a few dustbinmen,(although much of this is private now, yes?) social workers and assume there are other important jobs I have forgotten or underestimated and round it all up to 3.5 million. What on earth do the other 2.5 million do for us? As I have mentioned already, stats do not show the complete story. However, I am not debating the worth or value that Public services offer, at least not just yet. Its about the Governments mishandling of our economy that bothers me, together with their almost complete lack of reality outside of London.
|
|
|
crankedup
9,237 posts
112 months
|
davepoth said: bobbylondonuk said: now you see the scale of the employment that must be transferred from public sector to private sector? Unemployment levels remaining static is not a bad indicator when you have falling public spending. It means the loss of jobs in public sector is being offset by private sector job creation. Same applies to GDP figures.
So when the BBC goes crying and wailing at a 0.5% drop in GDP or a static unemployment figure...it is not actually doom and gloom when you look at it from a management of 60million people and 700-800bn budget! Indeed. Static unemployment when tens of thousands are being made redundant and shifted from incapacity into unemployment is actually a major success. If only it were true! Still if it makes you feel good then carry on, believe those stats. Problem becomes more clear when we see the real unemployment (forget numbers) and the effects it is causing to communities up and down the length of U.K. I do not see zero hours and part time work as a success to be proud about. Its falling living standards that are the true measure of our economy. The BBC are doing a great job in reporting a more accurate picture of our economy, unless you prefer the lies of Politicians and manipulation of statistics.
|
|
|
SpeedMattersNot
2,632 posts
65 months
|
It's a Conservative wet-dream to picture me going out at 2am, to buy an upper school's music supplies with my private sector money, because my public sector wife a) hasn't the budget and b) can't afford them.
...and expectations of students is till higher than ever, are they not?
This must be complete and utter success in the governments eyes. Spending is down, profits are up, teachers and students suffering, including their households...everyone's a winner? Right?
|
|
