GDP shocka

[SplatSpeed]

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

the priority is to stop the heamorridge of money

red tape reduction is on the horizon

my busisness was destroyed by the windfall tax and IR35

[Sticks.]

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

The situation was very different with Thatcher, but she did encourage an enterprise culture. Throwing money at anything isn't the answer but sometimes not spending a little can cost more.

My simple analogy is that if the Sticks household was broke, I would, of course, 1) look to minimise every expense I could, and maybe sell stuff if I had it. But 2) I'd also look for another job, an extra income, even if it meant spending money on petrol to get there.

Govt is pursuing 1), without consideration, it seems, of 2). Getting out of debt will take much longer this way.

[rog007]

Galsia said:

News like this will end up making people spend even less, making the economy even worse. Its a vicious cycle...

That's why I just went and bought myself a 996 turbo - doing my bit for country and all

[Fittster]

Sticks. said:

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

The situation was very different with Thatcher, but she did encourage an enterprise culture. Throwing money at anything isn't the answer but sometimes not spending a little can cost more.

My simple analogy is that if the Sticks household was broke, I would, of course, 1) look to minimise every expense I could, and maybe sell stuff if I had it. But 2) I'd also look for another job, an extra income, even if it meant spending money on petrol to get there.

Govt is pursuing 1), without consideration, it seems, of 2). Getting out of debt will take much longer this way.

If I had debts I couldn't manage I'd go bankrupt and let the lenders go whistle.

[SplatSpeed]

rog007 said:

Galsia said:

News like this will end up making people spend even less, making the economy even worse. Its a vicious cycle...

That's why I just went and bought myself a 996 turbo - doing my bit for country and all

you sir need to pass the custard test!

pic of you, car and a tin of Birds custard please

PS if it really is you love the "double entendre's"

PPS shouldn't you have an Aston?

PPPS love the Jensen! (mkIII FF?)

EFA sorry lotus

PPPPS if that is really you, you are perfect for judging the vintage totty thread

Edited by SplatSpeed on Wednesday 26th January 20:08

[Sticks.]

rog007 said:

Galsia said:

News like this will end up making people spend even less, making the economy even worse. Its a vicious cycle...

That's why I just went and bought myself a 996 turbo - doing my bit for country and all

That's the sort of selfless dedication we need

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So as well as hitting the public sector, I'm sure you'd support higher taxes on high earns? Keep the 50% tax rate, nice low threshold for inheritance tax, etc....

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 26th January 20:56

[GeraldSmith]

My company had a bad December. It was bad because the weather was grim, weather wouldn't normally matter but with people unable to get to work it made a difference.

January will be great, all the invoicing we didn't manage to do in December we will get out in January plus what we would expect in January. Repeat that around the country and a 0.5% reduction is no problem, easily recovered.

[auditt]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I agree with you tonker, they need to get the able giro earners doing something, be it helping keep the street clean. How can you justify paying someone to sit on there arse and not do nothing. GET REAL. Look at labour with the social housing, paying 2k a week in some places, get real, youre on the giro and you are living in a 6 bedroom house...F*CK OFF

The torys cutting the housing benefit is a good thing and like they say all the councils have to do is house you, might not be in london but there priority is to house you. So house them else where and save the money. Simple

Labour had an open cheque book and was writting out cheques with no way to pay for it, i just hope in the next election that after the work the tories have done they dont invite labour in like last time to f it up the wall AGAIN

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think you need to look at the political system before you consider economics. I rather liked this quote (it's certainly wittier than anything I'm going to come up with).

"Expecting today's Western leaders to run fiscal surpluses is like expecting dogs to stockpile sausages".

To come down heavily enough on spending, for long enough to make a difference is political suicide. Since the 1930s people have paid high levels of tax (not high enough admittedly) for a cradle to grave welfare state and a big government to look after them. That was the basic covenant between the electorate and the state. With growing populations and oldies doing the decent thing of dying before spending years in retirement relying on the welfare state things ticked along nicely.

Unfortunately we may have reached the point where we can't keep on borrowing and rely on an ever increasing number of taxpayers to pop up to fund the system.

So maybe we need to look at the way the state works but while we have a system where politicians have to promise large amounts of bread and circuses every 5 years or so I don't think you can expect financial responsibility.

[zakelwe]

pilchardthecat said:

zakelwe said:

pilchardthecat said:

zakelwe said:

You said it couldn't happen in the past, I said it could and showed by that example. Which you now agree with it seems.

There have also been examples where bubbles have happened in the past without banking assistance, as you pointed out with the Tulips.

So a bubble does not need banking, that can just inflate the underlying cause which is greed.

Andy

No, i said "It doesn't matter how greedy you are, you can't have a property bubble without fractional reserve banking."

I then used the example of the Tulip bubble in the 1630s to illustrate how it was constrained by the money supply in a way thet the current property bubble wasn't.

You then referred to a historic case of fractional reserve banking, where again the bubble was unconstrained because the bank had control of the money supply.

Firstly you did say it didn't happen in the past, to quote you

"Of course, but all have been limited by constraints on money supply which no longer exist."

That is a clear statement and is wrong because you didn't know about the historical example I presented.

Secondly you are starting to contradict yourself.

You say in one sentence you can't have a bubble without banking assistance and then in the next you show an example where a bubble happened without banking assistance. Unless there is a difference between a property bubble and any other in your view.

Andy

Your historical example is a tiny edge-case. All the major world currencies were tied to the value of precious metals until quite recently.

Obviously the individuals are driven by greed, but the extent to which that greed can be sated has increased enormously since the introduction of fiat currencies. The size of a bubble is constrained only by the money supply, which itself is controlled (via the fractional reserve system and new debt) by commercial banks. The amount of new money (debt) they create is the only thing that can influence the size of the bubble, whether it occurs at all, and when it bursts.

Totally agree.

Stop making false claims though.

Andy

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The electorate is rather attached to it's bottomless holes. I'm sure the average PH would be rather keen on the rhetoric of Daniel Hannan. When he's banging on about the evils of Europe the Tory leadership let him have his head but once he attacked the biggest money pit the NHS, Dave actually grow some balls and slapped him down. The electoral consequences of making any serious inroads into the size of the welfare are to great to risk.

So your tax burden will rise, indirectly and directly, there will be some half heart talk of reform of the public sector which won't actually do much (see bonfire of the quangos) and Merv will do what he can to fiddle the debt.

[frosted]

Tonker I can see your passionate but do you have the same fire in ya belly when your sitting face to face to one of those scroungers ?

Also at what point do we as a nation stop givin to those in need ?

I'm not happy that I have to pay for any such people , especially single mums but , it's comforting to know that if anything happens to me or those people I care about they will not end up on the street

[AnotherClarkey]

Those in need are also 'the nation'.

[Fittster]

frosted said:

I'm not happy that I have to pay for any such people , especially single mums but , it's comforting to know that if anything happens to me or those people I care about they will not end up on the street

You willing to pay a lot more tax for the comfortable feeling?

[Zod]

Fittster said:

Sticks. said:

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

The situation was very different with Thatcher, but she did encourage an enterprise culture. Throwing money at anything isn't the answer but sometimes not spending a little can cost more.

My simple analogy is that if the Sticks household was broke, I would, of course, 1) look to minimise every expense I could, and maybe sell stuff if I had it. But 2) I'd also look for another job, an extra income, even if it meant spending money on petrol to get there.

Govt is pursuing 1), without consideration, it seems, of 2). Getting out of debt will take much longer this way.

If I had debts I couldn't manage I'd go bankrupt and let the lenders go whistle.

Which explains your political philosophy of irresponsibility and your idiotic adherence to the 50% tax rate that is reducing tax revenues.

People need to take responsibility for their debt, just as the Government is doing for the country.

As for the 50% tax rate, your desire for people to spend to support the economy is killed by this. I'd have bought a new V12V already this year without this purely envy-based tax.

[groan]

See all this money that goes to all these people on benefits.......what do you think happens to it?

Take housing benefit, for example. You (and I) pay our taxes and the money gets paid to Andy Capp as rent. Andy brings it to me. I spend it on a hundred goods and services and taxable events and things that need produced and even the bit I take home gets spent on other taxable events and things that need produced/distributed/etc etc. And lo and behold a gallon of petrol here and a packet of fags there and before you know where you are, it's all back with HMG again ready to be recycled again.

Every single penny that's handed out to the entire Capp tribe from John O'Groats to Lands End gets.....spent. And even the bit they spend on drugs filters back via indirect taxes on dealers' purchases.

What's the problem with this? The Capps aren't getting any money at all to KEEP. They're just conduits for tax re-entering the system to be spent on the goods and services you and I produce which makes us profits which we spend and on which we're taxed - as are those who benefit from our spending...ad infinitum.

[Fittster]

Zod said:

Fittster said:

Sticks. said:

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

The situation was very different with Thatcher, but she did encourage an enterprise culture. Throwing money at anything isn't the answer but sometimes not spending a little can cost more.

My simple analogy is that if the Sticks household was broke, I would, of course, 1) look to minimise every expense I could, and maybe sell stuff if I had it. But 2) I'd also look for another job, an extra income, even if it meant spending money on petrol to get there.

Govt is pursuing 1), without consideration, it seems, of 2). Getting out of debt will take much longer this way.

If I had debts I couldn't manage I'd go bankrupt and let the lenders go whistle.

Which explains your political philosophy of irresponsibility and your idiotic adherence to the 50% tax rate that is reducing tax revenues.

People need to take responsibility for their debt, just as the Government is doing for the country.

As for the 50% tax rate, your desire for people to spend to support the economy is killed by this. I'd have bought a new V12V already this year without this purely envy-based tax.

I don't want a 50% tax rate but I don't think there is any realistic prospect of ever paying off the national debt it's just to large. The idea that you can pick part of public spending or taxation (which doesn't effect you) and say 'reform that' and everything will be fine isn't going to happen. My point which clearly I failed to express well was that unless you reform the way government works you wont get the state running a balanced budget. Politicians will bribe the electorate to get into power, they will never care how those bribes will be paid for.

As for you other point whose debt is it exactly? The people who will end up paying for it aren't the ones who ran it up and enjoyed it's fruits. Would you pay your parents debts? How about the debt of someone who is already dead and you never met?

I can only see real reform after a major calamity. For an economy that used to be worth admiring look at Hong Kong. (pre-handback) but that took an invasion and revolution to get them in a position where they could start from scratch.

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 26th January 23:34

[frosted]

Fittster said:

frosted said:

I'm not happy that I have to pay for any such people , especially single mums but , it's comforting to know that if anything happens to me or those people I care about they will not end up on the street

You willing to pay a lot more tax for the comfortable feeling?

I think so , same with the NHS , I actually use the nhs sometimes and its always been great

[Zod]

Fittster said:

Zod said:

Fittster said:

Sticks. said:

spikeyhead said:

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

SplatSpeed said:

but it is the best plan available, you can't spend your way out of debt!

Do you believe we can pay it off?

the first job is to stop it increasing, that allows us to refiance with ocean finance.

Whilst I agree with that, I would like to see some real initiatives to help the private sector. Reduciton of business red tape etc are essential, as are a reduction in god knows how many petty emplyment law requirements that prevent so many one man companies from having any desire to take on any employees.

The situation was very different with Thatcher, but she did encourage an enterprise culture. Throwing money at anything isn't the answer but sometimes not spending a little can cost more.

My simple analogy is that if the Sticks household was broke, I would, of course, 1) look to minimise every expense I could, and maybe sell stuff if I had it. But 2) I'd also look for another job, an extra income, even if it meant spending money on petrol to get there.

Govt is pursuing 1), without consideration, it seems, of 2). Getting out of debt will take much longer this way.

If I had debts I couldn't manage I'd go bankrupt and let the lenders go whistle.

Which explains your political philosophy of irresponsibility and your idiotic adherence to the 50% tax rate that is reducing tax revenues.

People need to take responsibility for their debt, just as the Government is doing for the country.

As for the 50% tax rate, your desire for people to spend to support the economy is killed by this. I'd have bought a new V12V already this year without this purely envy-based tax.

I don't want a 50% tax rate but I don't think there is any realistic prospect of ever paying off the national debt it's just to large. The idea that you can pick part of public spending or taxation (which doesn't effect you) and say 'reform that' and everything will be fine isn't going to happen. My point which clearly I failed to express well was that unless you reform the way government works you wont get the state running a balanced budget. Politicians will bribe the electorate to get into power, they will never care how those bribes will be paid for.

As for you other point whose debt is it exactly? The people who will end up paying for it aren't the ones who ran it up and enjoyed it's fruits. Would you pay your parents debts? How about the debt of someone who is already dead and you never met?

The 50% rate costs money.It doesn't raise any money. Do you get it?

What do you mean whose debt is it? It is the UK's debt. We are UK citizens, so it is our debt and we have to service and redeem it at maturity. Unlike your parents' debt, it is not personal to an older generation or to those who incurred it. Unfortunately, Gordon Brown and Ed Balls don't have the money to pay it off and their bankruptcy will not satisfy the creditors.