Mansion Tax and Raid on Pensions

[Guybrush]

turbobloke said:

fblm said:

Savage evil scum tory bd selfish austerity!

The gradient is a bit less steep from 2010, how dare they!

Leftie emotion and soundbites versus facts.

[Sway]

zygalski said:

The comparison of govt spending as a % of GDP over the same period of time is what matters, not just the total spend amount.
Are you guys dumb or just trolling anyone with an ounce of common sense and knowledge of economics?

Why does it matter?

What relevance does the level of economic performance have to the amount of public spending conducted?

[Macron]

Such a shame a thread about a proposed "Mansion Tax" and "Raid on Pensions" has turned so quickly into an argument over political party spending...


Telegraph today indicates the usual suggestion is being made for pensions, limiting tax relief to 20%.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs...


They also have comment on the evils of the mansion tax.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/mansion-ta...

Both are paywalled, but both have legible openings setting out their stall.

Personally I hope the blue-tops continue to show outrage.

[borcy]

I think they might well be able to pull it off, they've got the widest spread of MPs that the conservatives have had in a long time. If they combine a message of sensible tax raising to invest in the future with labour would be even worse it might well work for them.

[markcoznottz]

zygalski said:

The comparison of govt spending as a % of GDP over the same period of time is what matters, not just the total spend amount.
Are you guys dumb or just trolling anyone with an ounce of common sense and knowledge of economics?

What the actual fk....

[markcoznottz]

Helicopter123 said:

markcoznottz said:

Helicopter123 said:

Fittster said:

dazwalsh said:

Fittster said:

ATG said:

Most fiscally conservative manifesto at the last general election: Lib Dem. Strange days indeed.

Global financial crisis was caused by ... financial institutions which are not distributed evenly across all economies, but are in fact concentrated in a small number of jurisdictions, the second most important one being the UK. So, given the crisis was largely caused by lax regulation and that the UK economy was significantly more exposed to the financial sector than any of its peers, it's not unreasonable to look at the govt that had been in office for the previous 10 years and hold them accountable for failing to ensure that the financial innovation that was talking place wasn't creating systemic risks that had not previously existed, and to hold them accountable for expanding public sector spending to levels that were clearly unsustainable and that would inevitably lead to painful cuts in the future. Irrespective of the financial-crisis-that-was-largely-the-UK's-fault, we should have been strengthening our fiscal position and then increasing public spending from a position of strength. The fact that the crisis hit us so hard and for so long is very much Labour's fault.

Which party massively deregulated the financial markets?

In opposition, leading up to 2008 did that party call for greater regulation of the financial markets?

Once we entered a recession did the government of the day follow economic orthodoxy and respond by increasing public spending to offset the decline in private spending? No we had austerity and the economic illiteracy of a balanced budget.

The reason the pain lasted so long is down to the Conservative parties policies.

To increase spending following the 2008 crash would have been utterly reckless, labour had destroyed any flexibility in that regard.

Austerity was a neccesaary evil, the fact that they have been in power since supports that. I think people are starting to realise that actually they are better off under a tory government. All you have to do is look at the taxation levels and the unemployment figures to see that.

No it was just an evil. Spending could have been easily increased, the Tory party choose not to for ideological not economic reasons.

As for better off under a Tory government, austerity was bad for the economy, Brexit bad for the economy, the current negotiating position for a EU trade will be bad for the economy.

Good post.

Many forget that there was another option - spend your way out of it/cut taxes. See the USA.

Boris won the last election in part by promising to right the mistakes made by... his own party.

Cut what taxes? List them. List any. Didn't people like you bh about the 50p tax rate being lowered? Cameron helping his Bullingdon mates etc. Spend your way out of it? Didn't the tax base collapse 2008? See my previous post re government, after 08 spent billions trying to stimulate growth, what fiscal tools didn't they use that you would have. List them. List any.

People like you, eh? Nice one. Care to expand on that?

You still haven't answered the questions have you. How would we have spent our way out off recession, having just spent our way into it. Just give an example.

[loafer123]

zygalski said:

The comparison of govt spending as a % of GDP over the same period of time is what matters, not just the total spend amount.
Are you guys dumb or just trolling anyone with an ounce of common sense and knowledge of economics?

Yes, which is why I referred to it and that is also in the link I provided.

As a %age of GDP, spending went up even more quickly in the recession.

[Murph7355]

jakesmith said:

How did all the very well publicised cuts to police, benefits, public sector wage stagnation etc happen when there was no net cut in spending? I’m guessing the chart doesn’t take inflation into account but that was hardly massive either...

Because as noted in the post above yours, there weren't really cuts. It was a cut in growth rate.

The NHS had never had more spent on it. Was it enough? THAT is the million (130bn) question...

"Austerity" was nothing of the sort. To get us on an even keel and start paying down the debt would have required much more...and personally I wish we'd have gone for it.

[Murph7355]

fesuvious said:

A graduated 'sellers stamp' might be one way...?

1% of sale proceeds over say 1.5m
1.5 over 2m
2% over 3m.

No annual levy would work besides council tax and that would be a bugger to set up.

I don't support it,

There's already a sliding scale on stamp duty.

[Murph7355]

zygalski said:

The comparison of govt spending as a % of GDP over the same period of time is what matters, not just the total spend amount.
Are you guys dumb or just trolling anyone with an ounce of common sense and knowledge of economics?

If we're to be pedantic, ALL the figures matter. Including how much the deficit is brought down, our national debt and all other indicators. Including the outcomes of where the money gets spunked.

There are few you're going to be able to posit up here that make Labour look like white knights.

Austerity was nothing of the sort. Just as poverty isn't in this country. They are emotive terms used deliberately by politicians and the media alike. And until they start to be more sensible we are screwed.

[Nickgnome]

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

How did all the very well publicised cuts to police, benefits, public sector wage stagnation etc happen when there was no net cut in spending? I’m guessing the chart doesn’t take inflation into account but that was hardly massive either...

Because as noted in the post above yours, there weren't really cuts. It was a cut in growth rate.

The NHS had never had more spent on it. Was it enough? THAT is the million (130bn) question...

"Austerity" was nothing of the sort. To get us on an even keel and start paying down the debt would have required much more...and personally I wish we'd have gone for it.

So how does that pan out when you take into account:

1. Population growth
2. Demand increase from ageing population
3. Science and technology advancement, which used to be rule of thumb +3%
4. Inflation

[crankedup]

CambsBill said:

Murph7355 said:

CambsBill said:

We know you know this already, but please remind yourself that the first bank to go to the wall in the GFC was Northern Rock. They had no "global" exposure, it was all down to weak regulation by the Labour Government. So yes, other countries were affected but you'd have to try really hard to argue that the UK wasn't the first in and one of the worst affected.

I'm not convinced we were the "first in" in any material sense. And we were always going to be impacted quite heavily bearing in mind the industry sectors we are strongest in.

But I agree with what I think your main point is (that Labour cannot in any way absolve themselves of accountability to the UK electorate for that fiasco. But at least Gordon cured boom and bust ).

And of course he saved the World

And announced that he had just had a conversation with ‘that bigoted woman’.

[Nickgnome]

Guybrush said:

Leftie emotion and soundbites versus facts.

Have you ever heard of the concept of equalisation (levelling). To ensure like for like comparison.

Would you, for instance expect a requirement for much large increase to cater for a 10% or so increase in population?

[Agammemnon]

Nickgnome said:

So how does that pan out when you take into account:

1. Population growth
2. Demand increase from ageing population
3. Science and technology advancement, which used to be rule of thumb +3%
4. Inflation

Spending £1.00 last year & £1.10 this years isn't a cut, regardless of any of your attempts to portray it as such.

[anonymous-user]

zygalski said:

The comparison of govt spending as a % of GDP over the same period of time is what matters, not just the total spend amount.
Are you guys dumb or just trolling anyone with an ounce of common sense and knowledge of economics?

That very graph posted above. Govt spending as % of gdp back to those brutal savage days of 2006. Next.

[Terminator X]

"raise more tax from better-off homeowners"

I'll bet 99% of them live in the SE or London and 99% of that lot either worked fking hard or sacrificed a lot to earn their home vs 1% who inherited it. Tax the rich, always ends well.

TX.

[Terminator X]

Macron said:

Average wage £26k.

Can you imagine the outcry for the poor little multimillionaires having difficulty selling their houses?! Something must be done!

Penalties for working hard all their lives, yes hopefully it catches on!

TX.

[Nickgnome]

Agammemnon said:

Nickgnome said:

So how does that pan out when you take into account:

1. Population growth
2. Demand increase from ageing population
3. Science and technology advancement, which used to be rule of thumb +3%
4. Inflation

Spending £1.00 last year & £1.10 this years isn't a cut, regardless of any of your attempts to portray it as such.

It’s a cut in the level of service available to the individual however you try to spin it.

[anonymous-user]

Nickgnome said:

Agammemnon said:

Nickgnome said:

So how does that pan out when you take into account:

1. Population growth
2. Demand increase from ageing population
3. Science and technology advancement, which used to be rule of thumb +3%
4. Inflation

Spending £1.00 last year & £1.10 this years isn't a cut, regardless of any of your attempts to portray it as such.

It’s a cut in the level of service available to the individual however you try to spin it.

Brutal real terms cuts per capita! Fvcking savage!

[oyster]

fblm said:

Savage evil scum tory bd selfish austerity!

Be interesting to see the same graph if you stripped out the following:

1. Inflation
2. Population growth
3. Debt repayments.