George Osbourne is dillusional

[Gaspode]

sidicks said:

The deficit has come down from £160bn to £120bn.

What "realistic policies" to stimulate growth (i.e. 'proper, private sector-led growth' not unsustainable public spending) are you proposing that don't involve spending lots of money either now or in the future?!

I'm not proposing anything, I'm asking you what your proposals are. My view is that Osborne is doing the best he can in the circumstances, and isn't in fact "delusional" at all. I think people who are proposing ridiculous and unworkable extreme policies like stopping all public spending or defaulting on EU payments are the delusional ones here.

[sidicks]

Gaspode said:

I'm not proposing anything, I'm asking you what your proposals are.

I'm happy with reducing public spending, reduction of private sector debt and with flat growth for a few more years, so that the balance of the economy can start resembling something vaguely sustainable.

Gaspode said:

My view is that Osborne is doing the best he can in the circumstances, and isn't in fact "delusional" at all.

Then we are in broad agreement....

[davepoth]

sidicks said:

davepoth said:

What am I like, exactly?

Someone who doesn't understand that expenditure should be managed against available income, not that expenditure should be decided upon and then income somehow obtained (or borrowed) to fund it!

Quite the opposite, in fact. But regardless of how much money needs to be taken as tax, money does need to be taken as tax; I'm sure you agree with Benjamin Franklin after all. Given that money does need to be taken, I rather think that fuel taxation is quite a good place to do it. It does two useful things for us.

Firstly, it extracts more revenue from those who put the most strain on our road infrastructure - the people who drive long distances, and have large vehicles. It does so without having to keep a record of their driving, so it is very efficient in that respect.

Secondly, having a large proportion of the price of a litre of fuel as a fixed tax value serves to smooth fluctuations in crude prices, as I mentioned. Consider the example of a country with no fuel tax. The price is 10p. In the UK, we have a hypothetical 90p of fuel tax, making the price £1.

The price of fuel doubles. In the tax free country, the price of fuel doubles. In the UK, it increases by 10%.

For the uninitiated this may seem a bit pointless, but anyone who needs to sign a multi-year contract that has some element of transport in it will understand that it does have its uses. As I said above, if the tax has to be taken, it's better that it does something useful.

[sidicks]

davepoth said:

Quite the opposite, in fact.

In that case I apologise for misunderstanding your position!

[davepoth]

sidicks said:

davepoth said:

Quite the opposite, in fact.

In that case I apologise for misunderstanding your position!

Not a problem, I should stop being so glib with my initial posts.

[Jasandjules]

davepoth said:

Secondly, having a large proportion of the price of a litre of fuel as a fixed tax value serves to smooth fluctuations in crude prices, as I mentioned. Consider the example of a country with no fuel tax. The price is 10p. In the UK, we have a hypothetical 90p of fuel tax, making the price £1.

Which does somewhat miss the point that for an extended period of time we would only be paying 10p a litre. IF prices then doubled, it would be 20p. Which is still far better than paying tax for nothing. THe price is still lower than with tax.

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

The deficit has come down from £160bn to £120bn.

What "realistic policies" to stimulate growth (i.e. 'proper, private sector-led growth' not unsustainable public spending) are [there] that don't involve spending lots of money either now or in the future?!

A fair question.

For my part we're back to a quicker and more substantial lowering of corptax below 20%, abolishing the 45p rate of income tax, abandoning taxpayer subsidies on wind power along with wider baseless green energy policy while pushing shale gas production to start / ramp up quickly to get energy prices down, and freezing fuel duty after taking a penny off straight away. Also there must be some Labour red tape on businesses that hasn't been slashed yet, unnecessary H&S comes to mind.

[davepoth]

Jasandjules said:

davepoth said:

Secondly, having a large proportion of the price of a litre of fuel as a fixed tax value serves to smooth fluctuations in crude prices, as I mentioned. Consider the example of a country with no fuel tax. The price is 10p. In the UK, we have a hypothetical 90p of fuel tax, making the price £1.

Which does somewhat miss the point that for an extended period of time we would only be paying 10p a litre. IF prices then doubled, it would be 20p. Which is still far better than paying tax for nothing. THe price is still lower than with tax.

However, if the assumption is made that the overall level of taxation is not at issue (unlikely I know) and that the only argument is about the way in which the total tax take is collected, then having it on fuel serves a useful purpose. Yes, the price at the pump is higher, but if it wasn't, you would have that money taken as income tax, VAT, or another method. With it on petrol, it helps to smooth price variability.

Have a read of this:

http://world.time.com/2012/11/28/why-global-fuel-p...

As I believe it makes some relevant points.

[Jasandjules]

davepoth said:

However, if the assumption is made that the overall level of taxation is not at issue (unlikely I know) and that the only argument is about the way in which the total tax take is collected, then having it on fuel serves a useful purpose. Yes, the price at the pump is higher, but if it wasn't, you would have that money taken as income tax, VAT, or another method. With it on petrol, it helps to smooth price variability.

Have a read of this:

http://world.time.com/2012/11/28/why-global-fuel-p...

As I believe it makes some relevant points.

I am quite happy for tax to be taken anywhere that I don't pay it............

[Gaspode]

sidicks said:

Gaspode said:

I'm not proposing anything, I'm asking you what your proposals are.

I'm happy with reducing public spending, reduction of private sector debt and with flat growth for a few more years, so that the balance of the economy can start resembling something vaguely sustainable.

Gaspode said:

My view is that Osborne is doing the best he can in the circumstances, and isn't in fact "delusional" at all.

Then we are in broad agreement....

Indeed we are. I find it difficult to imagine any other sensible course of action which is realistic. We can't get rid of the deficit quickly, far less get ourselves out of debt. The way I see it, we have been living beyond our means for 50 years or more. The growth we have been experiencing has been unsustainable. Therefore we must re-orient the economy to a sustainable configuration, and that essentially means no economic growth for the foreseeable future, and a net reduction in living standards for us all.

The big danger is that the lumpenproletariat won't like this and will start rioting, which is one reason to stay in the EU and cultivate good relations with the French. That way we stand a chance of borrowing some of the CRS to help us out if it kicks off.

[mercGLowner]

Gaspode said:

We have treaty commitments to the EU, stopping paying them would breach those commitments, and I would think it inevitable that the rest of the EU would take us to court over it. If we were to exit the EU, there would be long and expensive negotiations to go through, there's no way we could simply stop paying.

What court would they take us to?

[Pesty]

mercGLowner said:

Gaspode said:

We have treaty commitments to the EU, stopping paying them would breach those commitments, and I would think it inevitable that the rest of the EU would take us to court over it. If we were to exit the EU, there would be long and expensive negotiations to go through, there's no way we could simply stop paying.

What court would they take us to?

And what would they do if we didn't turn up?

[mercGLowner]

Pesty said:

And what would they do if we didn't turn up?

They (Herman Van Rompuy) would probably write us a strongly worded letter....... Countersigned by Baroness 'never been elected to anything' Ashton (who would be bricking it as her cushty job was about to end).....

[Gaspode]

Pesty said:

And what would they do if we didn't turn up?

The EU would stop doing business with us, the IMF would withdraw support, the international money markets would stop doing business with us. The government would be bankrupt within months, there would be widespread civil disorder that the police and army would be unable to control.

(well, maybe not, but it's at least as plausible as the idea of simply stopping honouring our international treaty commitments because we're a bit hard up.)

[elster]

Happy82 said:

Take away expenses for MPs so they have to buy their own fuel and food? Maybe then they will realise how hard it is for people who work for a living.

Could you make a more stupid comment?

What relevance would this have on anything? OK now an MP, as most do as most drive, the price of fuel. Now where are you going to make cuts to allow for the reduction in the price of fuel. Also quick can you get them through parliament, also what chances are there of the Lords changing them or public bodies interfering to stop them.

If you think MPs are on a gravy train, you clearly haven't met most of them.

[muppets_mate]

elster said:

If you think MPs are on a gravy train, you clearly haven't met most of them.

Really?

I thought the view was that many MPs were self-serving hypocrites with their nose in the trough?

Edited by muppets_mate on Sunday 24th February 10:08

[turbobloke]

muppets_mate said:

elster said:

If you think MPs are on a gravy train, you clearly haven't met most of them.

Really?

I thought the view was that many MPs were self-serving hypocrites with their nose in the trough?

With good reason. The EU trough may run deeper and flow faster but the expenses scandal wasn't imaginary and over several years in parliament would alone have been very lucrative quite apart from keeping the support work in the family. Then there are the directorships, previously after leaving office but now particularly with the ecomuppets they're on green company boards while actively embroiled in government policy. It's possible to meet some who have a clean sheet but there are plenty who resemble former mister speaker Gorbals Mick who candidly admitted "I didn't come into politics not to take what's owed to me".

[Pesty]

Gaspode said:

The EU would stop doing business with us,

Yeah right.Who is going to buy all the mercs and BMWs at huge prices then

[turbobloke]

Pesty said:

Gaspode said:

The EU would stop doing business with us,

Yeah right.Who is going to buy all the mercs and BMWs at huge prices then

When we get out and set corptax way lower than the EUSSR there will be some fun. Yes I know that I should say 'if' and by then Liarbore may have wreaked more havoc but optimism says 'when' and hope for the best.

[elster]

muppets_mate said:

elster said:

If you think MPs are on a gravy train, you clearly haven't met most of them.

Really?

I thought the view was that many MPs were self-serving hypocrites with their nose in the trough?

You think those who work 100 hour weeks are on a gravy train?

I am not saying all are hard working, but I can assure you most are.

Quite simply being an MP is you work your ass off and then no matter how hard you work someone will be there to criticise everything you do.