George Osbourne is dillusional
Discussion
s
tbum said:
tbum said:davepoth said:
Have the tax on fuel, which is a nice progressive tax on consumption, penalising those who use a public service (the roads) more, and those who pollute more, whilst also helping to smooth fluctuations in the global oil market, or have it on income or purchases. Your choice; the money has to come from somewhere.
No it does notWe can stop paying for the EC for a start. Then we can follow up be scrapping 3 of the 6 million public sector jobs that we don't need. More importantly we can start to unpick the tangle of Quango waste that is crippling us now and will if left unchecked cripple us for the future with pension commitments etc. We can stimulate growth by slashing corporation tax on manufacturing and other wealth creation industries and raising corporation tax on high polluting social cost industries such as supermarkets. We can change our eduction system to reflect the needs of the nation in relation to worldwide reality instead of Guardian reader la la climate change land. We do not need to pay taxes for wallpaper museums, posh and Becks studies courses and way to five co-ordination managers. Its not like this is rocket science there is so much low hanging fruit here we could cut the deficit in weeks. We then might be able to focus on important issues like hydrogen fuel cell development. Nuclear fusion, the north sea tunnel, HS3,4 and 5. The windmill scrappage scheme, sequestrating the assets of brake and other hysterical charities bleeding the nations oversubsidised public transport system for their very existance.
Andy Zarse said:
Hmmm...
Technically and pedantically, Jaguar was part of a British Leyland division called "Jaguar Rover Triumph" which included LR.
+1 WHSTechnically and pedantically, Jaguar was part of a British Leyland division called "Jaguar Rover Triumph" which included LR.
So techinicaly and not pedanticaly we did own them and they are now in Indian ownership,we have as a nation been selling our quality against a backdrop of huge losses for a generation or more> TATAs money has made a difference Jaguar were a ruin with huges losses when owned by Ford,and once sold again somethings made it work? Us British we never seem able to hold on to the reins at the core do we.And FWIW what a product and with a fantastic future!
Gary11 said:
Andy Zarse said:
Hmmm...
Technically and pedantically, Jaguar was part of a British Leyland division called "Jaguar Rover Triumph" which included LR.
+1 WHSTechnically and pedantically, Jaguar was part of a British Leyland division called "Jaguar Rover Triumph" which included LR.
So techinicaly and not pedanticaly we did own them and they are now in Indian ownership,we have as a nation been selling our quality against a backdrop of huge losses for a generation or more> TATAs money has made a difference Jaguar were a ruin with huges losses when owned by Ford,and once sold again somethings made it work? Us British we never seem able to hold on to the reins at the core do we.And FWIW what a product and with a fantastic future!
Andy Zarse said:
Digga said:
Jaguar-land_Rover never existed as an entitity before Ford rescued Jaguar...
Hmmm... Technically and pedantically, Jaguar was part of a British Leyland division called "Jaguar Rover Triumph" which included LR.
Moreover, Jaguar was then sold off and narrowly avoided obscurity through the efforts of Sir John Egan.
Gary11 said:
He and most politicians need to accept familys are at breaking point and have been for five years,how can year on year rising living costs do anything other than add fuel to the fire,something actualy needs to go down in price and things never ever do,I am aware motgages are cheap but the majority are in fixed rate deals or kidology intrest only.There is a further issue here later down the line,so I stick by the title he is dillusional!
It's funny you say this, whilst most of those same families will still jump in the car for a 1 mile trip to the supermarket.Fuel isn't expensive.
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!
sidicks said:
Gaspode said:
Sounds like a counsel of despair to me. Don't you think it would be better to put together a set of realistic policies which stimulated growth in a way that would increase the revenue take to the point where a sensible dent could be made on the deficit?
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?!
Super Slo Mo said:
'We' didn't sell them to the Indians. They haven't been in British hands for a long, long time.
Simple fact is, under the current ownership, the factories remain here in the UK, providing much needed jobs and associated resources to the local communities (parts suppliers, catering, etc). If they'd stayed in British hands, chances are neither company would exist today.
The fact that a small amount of the turnover (profit) goes to the parent company is worth it, IMO, due to the huge value to the economy of keeping both Jaguar and LR in the UK.
Give that a few more years, once knowledge transfer has been completed,the factory will shut, machinery shipped off and to sunny India the jobs will go. Its happened it IT (and still is) and will happen to pretty much everything else that can be KT'd!Simple fact is, under the current ownership, the factories remain here in the UK, providing much needed jobs and associated resources to the local communities (parts suppliers, catering, etc). If they'd stayed in British hands, chances are neither company would exist today.
The fact that a small amount of the turnover (profit) goes to the parent company is worth it, IMO, due to the huge value to the economy of keeping both Jaguar and LR in the UK.
Gaspode said:
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. Not North America, not the Middle East, not Asia or Australasia?
EU countries deal with non-EU countries day in/day out. The 'benefits' of being an EU state are massively outweighed by the cost and the infrastructure controls placed on us.
Four Litre said:
Super Slo Mo said:
'We' didn't sell them to the Indians. They haven't been in British hands for a long, long time.
Simple fact is, under the current ownership, the factories remain here in the UK, providing much needed jobs and associated resources to the local communities (parts suppliers, catering, etc). If they'd stayed in British hands, chances are neither company would exist today.
The fact that a small amount of the turnover (profit) goes to the parent company is worth it, IMO, due to the huge value to the economy of keeping both Jaguar and LR in the UK.
Give that a few more years, once knowledge transfer has been completed,the factory will shut, machinery shipped off and to sunny India the jobs will go. Its happened it IT (and still is) and will happen to pretty much everything else that can be KT'd!Simple fact is, under the current ownership, the factories remain here in the UK, providing much needed jobs and associated resources to the local communities (parts suppliers, catering, etc). If they'd stayed in British hands, chances are neither company would exist today.
The fact that a small amount of the turnover (profit) goes to the parent company is worth it, IMO, due to the huge value to the economy of keeping both Jaguar and LR in the UK.
Gary11 said:
He and most politicians need to accept familys are at breaking point and have been for five years,how can year on year rising living costs do anything other than add fuel to the fire,something actualy needs to go down in price and things never ever do,I am aware motgages are cheap but the majority are in fixed rate deals or kidology intrest only.There is a further issue here later down the line,so I stick by the title he is dillusional!
You just keep stating the obvious. Everybody knows that all the facts you have stated above are true. But how does that make GO dillusional?Your solution seems to be to sack 100's of thousands of Public sector workers and put them all on benefits, but at the same time you want to stop benefits!! You think that will make the economy grow? 5 million people without work, no money to pay rent/mortgages/buy food etc etc.
I notice your business specialises in looking after the well heeled Porsche owners - you dont actually make anything or produce anything of worth, you simply provide a service for those wealthy enough to pay someone to do the things that people like me do for themselves. Is your real concern for the poor struggling people who live here, or is it because these wealthy Porsche owners are now washing their cars themselves?
I'm not having a go at you, I admire anyone who starts and runs a business, I'm just questioning your assertion that GO is dillusional, and questioning the solutions you seem to be putting forward.
HundredthIdiot said:
That is predicated on the assumption that the government knows better than the markets where capital should be allocated.
Subsidies are a slippery slope.
Also, comparative advantage.
I believe in the market mechanismSubsidies are a slippery slope.
Also, comparative advantage.
I believe in creationism
I believe in climate change
= all the same statement
The slippery slope is definitely subsidy
We subsidize
Supermarkets
Civil servants
the feckless
The Royal family
Universities
FE colleges
rubbish Schools
State funded child farms
Jails
The markets a very useful guide but its not perfect sometimes it needs a shoeing
vodkalolly said:
The markets a very useful guide but its not perfect sometimes it needs a shoeing
How are we to determine which cases are worthy of subsidy?When governments talk of broken markets we should worry. Can I sell you some Greek bonds? The market for these is not perfect and needs a shoeing.
Also, the items you've listed are directly funded, not subsidized.
JensenA said:
You just keep stating the obvious. Everybody knows that all the facts you have stated above are true. But how does that make GO dillusional?
Your solution seems to be to sack 100's of thousands of Public sector workers and put them all on benefits, but at the same time you want to stop benefits!! You think that will make the economy grow? 5 million people without work, no money to pay rent/mortgages/buy food etc etc.
I notice your business specialises in looking after the well heeled Porsche owners - you dont actually make anything or produce anything of worth, you simply provide a service for those wealthy enough to pay someone to do the things that people like me do for themselves. Is your real concern for the poor struggling people who live here, or is it because these wealthy Porsche owners are now washing their cars themselves?
I'm not having a go at you, I admire anyone who starts and runs a business, I'm just questioning your assertion that GO is dillusional, and questioning the solutions you seem to be putting forward.
It is fair to say though we have still far to much red tape be it quangos or unneccesary Euro legislation,or eco taxation and expenditure,particularly anything carbon related its just an ineffectual waste of money,I work hard and get dirty everyday I in my world now take note of the cost when I fill up and I think so do most people,its one of our largest essential expenses and it shouldnt be,what galls me is George and co are just plotting us up for no doubt more increase in the cost of everything we need in the next budget,I am I suppose just making the point very badly I know! that this constant escalator has to reach the top, in reality it never does and it needs to people need money to spend and they havent got it,again stating the obvious,with respect I hope you can do what I do however the washing their own porsches analagy is just patronising and wrong, Ive worked in my industry for 34 years and am a bit better than a car cleaner thank you for your input though.Your solution seems to be to sack 100's of thousands of Public sector workers and put them all on benefits, but at the same time you want to stop benefits!! You think that will make the economy grow? 5 million people without work, no money to pay rent/mortgages/buy food etc etc.
I notice your business specialises in looking after the well heeled Porsche owners - you dont actually make anything or produce anything of worth, you simply provide a service for those wealthy enough to pay someone to do the things that people like me do for themselves. Is your real concern for the poor struggling people who live here, or is it because these wealthy Porsche owners are now washing their cars themselves?
I'm not having a go at you, I admire anyone who starts and runs a business, I'm just questioning your assertion that GO is dillusional, and questioning the solutions you seem to be putting forward.
Gary11 said:
in my world now take note of the cost when I fill up and I think so do most people,its one of our largest essential expenses and it shouldnt be
According to your profile you run a 5 litre TVR.Whilst your taste in cars is impeccable, the assertion that your fuel costs are an "essential expense" is not likely to get much support from the Dacia-driving masses.
HundredthIdiot said:
How are we to determine which cases are worthy of subsidy?
When governments talk of broken markets we should worry. Can I sell you some Greek bonds? The market for these is not perfect and needs a shoeing.
Also, the items you've listed are directly funded, not subsidized.
lol I am sorry my remark was not really directed at you it was just a mini rant on the basis that this notion of subsidy is a strange one. I have worked in every sector private public not for profit and self employed. The idea that at the end of every month we have a PSBR is ludicrous. To me this is just a pubic sector sacking requirement. Just as in a sane household if the monthly income does not meet the expenditure the holiday has to go right down to the sale of the ferrari and having the cat put down. As a nation though we just keep on borrowing to pay the admin department which you call direct funding I call a subsidy. In terms of which cases are worthy of subsidy. Is cutting corporation tax on wealth creating manufacturing a bad idea? While slaughtering the wealth redistributing supermarkets with higher taxes is When governments talk of broken markets we should worry. Can I sell you some Greek bonds? The market for these is not perfect and needs a shoeing.
Also, the items you've listed are directly funded, not subsidized.
Good for the environment
A kick in the face for low pay
Stops suzie sainsburies bloody feckless philanthropy (Pay the staff a bit more u daft cow)
Rant over
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff