Planning for a Corbyn Government

[spyker138]

sidicks said:

So the Coalition (not Tory) government inherited a £160bn deficit (which has since been reduced to £50bn) all the while many people were complaining that not enough was being spent on public services (despite spending increasing each and every year) and that education and the NHS were 'in crisis'.

But I'm sure the debt that was (inevitably) incurred was their fault, and not due to the reckless spending of the previous government (who incurred massive debt on and off balance sheet despite record tax receipts and a credit-fuelled boom) and who were running a massive structural deficit at the peak of the economic cycle...

Correct. It’s now 2017 and in the seven years available to them they’ve thoroughly depressed everyone enough to suppress growth, suppress revenues, overshoot the deficit projections consistently and ps off the neighbors who also happen to be the biggest trading partners. They now plan to watch the City of London lose its 400 year lead on being the major finance hub.

And if that’s not enough they’re screwing with the little things, like local government, post offices etc etc while jabbering about community. Inept and incompetent.

Why else would people seriously contemplate Corbyn?

[sidicks]

spyker138 said:

Correct. It’s now 2017 and in the seven years available to them they’ve thoroughly depressed everyone enough to suppress growth, suppress revenues, overshoot the deficit projections consistently and ps off the neighbors who also happen to be the biggest trading partners. They now plan to watch the City of London lose its 400 year lead on being the major finance hub.

Suppress growth? Have you heard of the economic cycle? What do you think growth should have been? What revenues have been suppressed?

I think you fail to appreciate the importance of London and the difficulty it will be to move services away.

spyker138 said:

And if that’s not enough they’re screwing with the little things, like local government, post offices etc etc while jabbering about community. Inept and incompetent.

None of which explains how you would have expected to reduce the amount of debt that has been incurred in the past few years.

spyker138 said:

Why else would people seriously contemplate Corbyn?

Because many people are stupid and he's promising lots of free stuff to lots of people, who don't care where the money comes from (or don't understand that his promises are unaffordable)?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 21:22

[spyker138]

sidicks said:

spyker138 said:

Correct. It’s now 2017 and in the seven years available to them they’ve thoroughly depressed everyone enough to suppress growth, suppress revenues, overshoot the deficit projections consistently and ps off the neighbors who also happen to be the biggest trading partners. They now plan to watch the City of London lose its 400 year lead on being the major finance hub.

Suppress growth? Have you heard of the economic cycle? What do you think growth should have been?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 21:22

You have a remarkably patronizing way with words - it seems that if one disagrees with you then one must be ignorant, and need to be told so. Strange as it may seem I do understand these things and the perspective (on facts) I have is not all that out of step with a lot of economists.

[sidicks]

spyker138 said:

You have a remarkably patronizing way with words - it seems that if one disagrees with you then one must be ignorant, and need to be told so.

No, only the ones that make claims that are contradictory to the known facts.

spyker138 said:

Strange as it may seem I do understand these things and the perspective (on facts) I have is not all that out of step with a lot of economists.

When someone starts with suggesting that Blair and Brown ran the economy well based on the GDP-debt ratio, then its clear that they don't fully understand the topic under discussion. That they also appear to ignore the strong economy that the Labour government inherited is less of a surprise. That they choose to ignore the economic environment that applied over the period is also unsurprising.

They then go on to criticise the Tories for the debt that they built up, confirms my initial impressions. When they conclude that 'Corbyn wouldn't be the bad' seals the deal for me.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the Tories could have addressed a £160bn deficit any quicker than they did.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 22:02

[spyker138]

sidicks said:

When someone starts with suggesting that Blair and Brown ran the economy well based on the GDP-debt ratio, then its clear that they don't fully understand the topic under discussion. That they also appear to ignore the strong economy that the Labour government inherited is less of a surprise. That they choose to ignore the economic environment that applied over the period is also unsurprising.

They then go on to criticise the Tories for the debt that they built up, confirms my initial impressions. When they conclude that 'Corbyn wouldn't be the bad' seals the deal for me.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how the Tories could have addressed a £160bn deficit any quicker than they did.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 22:02

As I said they were incompetent at getting receipts (wrong tax decisions on personal allowances and rates) and overfocused on spending cuts which they did ok at. The PR engine was terrible - talking down the economy and not encouraging enough investment. With stronger receipts and gdp growth more like the US they could have been in surplus now.

[sidicks]

spyker138 said:

As I said they were incompetent at getting receipts (wrong tax decisions on personal allowances and rates) and overfocused on spending cuts which they did ok at.

Spending actually increased - so much for spending cuts.
What decisions should they have taken on personal allowances and tax rates?

spyker138 said:

The PR engine was terrible - talking down the economy and not encouraging enough investment.

That's the trouble when the opposition is prepared to lie about 'austerity'.

spyker138 said:

With stronger receipts and gdp growth more like the US they could have been in surplus now.

How should they have 'encouraged investment' and increased tax receipts?

I look forward to your comments on all of the other points raised regarding the invalidity of comparing published Debt v GDP numbers (without significant adjustment).

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 22:33

[spyker138]

sidicks said:

What decisions should they have taken on personal allowances and tax rates?

I look forward to your comments on all of the other points raised regarding the invalidity of comparing published Debt v GDP numbers (without significant adjustment).

As this seems to becoming a school essay and I am 54 I have no intent to continue to indulge your odd way of having a chat about politics!

For now then: they raised personal allowances continually, bad for receipts, and bad for stakeholder society - hardly 'all in it together' if you take huge numbers out of tax altogether (and that's coming from a Labour voter!). CGT on some categories could have been raised more to fund more entrepreneurial investment schemes. They cut the higher rate of income tax and did not raise National Insurance as had been panned under Labour.

On GDP growth there are lots of ways they could have underwritten more investment and employment (not least through more attractive development and tax advantaged zones - more of what worked in NI could have been done in the North and in depressed coastal cities). You can look these up or buy an economics book as I am not going to write an essay on it for you.

You need to face reality that this Tory government has reminded people that the economy being safe in their hands has always been a myth, and they no longer have the 'conservative' values of old which is why villages and small high streets are depressed, pubs, post offices and libraries closing, communities dispirited and the remaining jewel in the crown (at least in the eyes of the world - financial services in London) is being given to the europeans.

[Jon39]

spyker138 said:

CGT on some categories could have been raised more, to fund more entrepreneurial investment schemes.

That sounds very good, but unfortunately history has shown that the opposite can happen.

When the coalition government increased the rate of CGT, and also started to charge tax on inflation gains, the total amount of tax raised went down.

The reason, is that transactions subject to CGT can often be discretionary. One example - I have for a long time, owned a house that is liable to CGT, a large portion not being an actual gain, but simply inflation. I might have sold and paid CGT, but will not sell now that the tax has increased by so much.

[Jockman]

spyker138 said:

.....they raised personal allowances continually, bad for receipts, and bad for stakeholder society - hardly 'all in it together' if you take huge numbers out of tax altogether (and that's coming from a Labour voter!).....

You think that low income working class people should be taxed more? Interesting approach.

Do you agree with rich people losing their nil rate band?

[sidicks]

spyker138 said:

As this seems to becoming a school essay and I am 54 I have no intent to continue to indulge your odd way of having a chat about politics!

For now then: they raised personal allowances continually, bad for receipts, and bad for stakeholder society - hardly 'all in it together' if you take huge numbers out of tax altogether (and that's coming from a Labour voter!).

You think the answer to solve the “austerity” problem is to tax the low paid workers more? Really? That’s priceless - I can imagine the massive boost to growth that would have achieved

spyker138 said:

CGT on some categories could have been raised more to fund more entrepreneurial investment schemes. They cut the higher rate of income tax and did not raise National Insurance as had been panned under Labour.

So, in summary, your answer to providing a boost to the economy is to increase taxes on pretty much everyone?

I’m not sure which economics book you got that from, but I’m not sure it stacks up!

spyker138 said:

On GDP growth there are lots of ways they could have underwritten more investment and employment (not least through more attractive development and tax advantaged zones - more of what worked in NI could have been done in the North and in depressed coastal cities). You can look these up or buy an economics book as I am not going to write an essay on it for you.

‘Underwritten more investment and employment”? That sounds very much like spend lots of extra money that we don’t have for a potential future benefit, leading to a deterioration in the deficit (and hence debt) in the short term, for a potential benefit in the long term.
Unemployment was hardly a problem, with record levels of employment and low levels of unemployment.

spyker138 said:

You need to face reality that this Tory government has reminded people that the economy being safe in their hands has always been a myth, and they no longer have the 'conservative' values of old which is why villages and small high streets are depressed, pubs, post offices and libraries closing, communities dispirited and the remaining jewel in the crown (at least in the eyes of the world - financial services in London) is being given to the europeans.

You need to face the reality that 12 years of Labour overspending has massive repercussions that can’t be addressed quickly without massive implications.

You also to face the reality that financial services is not being given to the Europeans.

And you certainly need to face the reality that the debt-to-GDP figures do not tell anything like the story you want them to portray.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th November 08:44

[Fittster]

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

Life expectancy has stopped improving since we've had a Tory government. It's not as if the policies of the government are making us richer if not healthier but wages are lower than they were ten years ago and aren't predicted to improve for a long while yet due to terrible productivity growth.

So I quite why people are happy for things to continue as they are but will flee offshore if Corbyn nationalize the railways I don't understand.

What's the argument for carrying on as we are, while having a huge falling out with our trading partners?

Increases in life expectancy are slowing down, life expectancies for the majority are not reducing.

Try this for a starter:
https://www.hymans.co.uk/media/uploads/PLSA_Longev...

Wages, GDP etc were artificially increased in the run up to the 2008 crash, so that’s a poor starting point for the comparison.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th November 12:38

How was this artificiality achieved and when did it start / finish?

As for your link, it's nonsense as it's only applicable to rich pensioners. The poor, many women and the young don't have DB pension schemes so their life expectancy isn't mentioned in your link.

[sidicks]

Fittster said:

How was this artificiality achieved and when did it start / finish?

Are you not aware of the massive increase in credit that took place in the run up to the credit crisis? Do you think that produced a long-term sustainable increase in GDP or a temporary, and somewhat artificial, boost?

Fittster said:

As for your link, it's nonsense as it's only applicable to rich pensioners. The poor, many women and the young don't have DB pension schemes so their life expectancy isn't mentioned in your link.

Except it’s not. Plenty of low income people retiring today were in DB schemes, that’s why the article includes an analysis for different income levels, including ‘high deprivation’ groups etc.

From the September ONS analysis:

“From 2001 to 2017, there was an overall decline in mortality rates for both males and females with a 28% decrease for males and 23% decrease for females across the 17-year period. This is with the exception of small increases from 2004 to 2005 and 2007 to 2008 and since 2011, when mortality rates have been more volatile. There were consecutive year-on-year rises in mortality rates from 2011 to 2013 (which were both statistically significant for females, and significant for males between 2012 and 2013) and between 2014 and 2016 (statistically significant for both sexes). Subsequent to these periods of increase, mortality rates fell significantly between 2013 and 2014 and again between 2016 and 2017. By contrast, within the period 2001 to 2010 there were no consecutive year-on-year increases in mortality rates.”

It appears that you are confusing a reduction in the previously assumed rate of longevity improvement to a reduction in life expectancy, when it is nothing of the sort.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th November 11:02

[NickCQ]

sidicks said:

spyker138 said:

As this seems to becoming a school essay and I am 54 I have no intent to continue to indulge your odd way of having a chat about politics!

For now then: they raised personal allowances continually, bad for receipts, and bad for stakeholder society - hardly 'all in it together' if you take huge numbers out of tax altogether (and that's coming from a Labour voter!).

You think the answer to solve the “austerity” problem is to tax the low paid workers more? Really? That’s priceless - I can imagine the massive boost to growth that would have achieved

As I am sure you are aware, raising the personal allowance is a very revenue-inefficient way to reduce the average tax rate on low-paid workers, as the tax reduction benefits everyone on the income scale that earned above the old threshold.

[sidicks]

NickCQ said:

As I am sure you are aware, raising the personal allowance is a very revenue-inefficient way to reduce the average tax rate on low-paid workers, as the tax reduction benefits everyone on the income scale that earned above the old threshold.

Everyone except high earners who don’t get a tax free allowance!

[FredClogs]

sidicks said:

NickCQ said:

As I am sure you are aware, raising the personal allowance is a very revenue-inefficient way to reduce the average tax rate on low-paid workers, as the tax reduction benefits everyone on the income scale that earned above the old threshold.

Everyone except high earners who don’t need a tax free allowance!

FTFY.

It's fairly clear to me that had we not elected the coalition government in 2010 and continued the then current administrations economic policies we'd be in a better place than we are now. Unfortunately Brown became unelectable due to his personality and the nations growing discontent with the labour parties foobars on several social issues and let's face it Cameron looked and sounded like he might be okay, so the country tentatively opted for the traditional conservative approach but I think it would be wrong to believe that the country supports austerity or believes it to be an economic silver bullet and at some point we will return to borrowing big, we will have to.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

FTFY.

No, get was exactly the right word to use.

FredClogs said:

It's fairly clear to me that had we not elected the coalition government in 2010 and continued the then current administrations economic policies we'd be in a better place than we are now.

Yes, that £150bn deficit was awesome, absolutely no problems with that. Maybe we should have increased it to £200bn and spunked some more money up the wall?!

FredClogs said:

Unfortunately Brown became unelectable due to his personality and the nations growing discontent with the labour parties foobars on several social issues

I think it was the disastrous handling of the economy...

FredClogs said:

and let's face it Cameron looked and sounded like he might be okay, so the country tentatively opted for the traditional conservative approach but I think it would be wrong to believe that the country supports austerity or believes it to be an economic silver bullet and at some point we will return to borrowing big, we will have to.

Why?

[FredClogs]

Because the reality is that only government spending has the real a necessary impact to alter economic trends. Only big infrastructure spending and public policy on education and health actually change the material reality nd direction of an economy. Whether its building roads, hospitals, schools, tax incentives to grow new industries or spending to ensure defence and security only government spending can actually change an economy.

You may think providing health care, education, defence and futures to proles as "spunking money up the wall" but most of us don't.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

Because the reality is that only government spending has the real a necessary impact to alter economic trends. Only big infrastructure spending and public policy on education and health actually change the material reality nd direction of an economy. Whether its building roads, hospitals, schools, tax incentives to grow new industries or spending to ensure defence and security only government spending can actually change an economy.

You may think providing health care, education, defence and futures to proles as "spunking money up the wall" but most of us don't.

Neither is much of it ‘investment’, which is the key point.

[spyker138]

Jockman said:

You think that low income working class people should be taxed more? Interesting approach.

Do you agree with rich people losing their nil rate band?

I said that raising the personal allowance was a choice the new 2010 government made and it reduced tax receipts and increased the deficit. I would have left it where it was - not taxing people more, just not giving a tax cut in an Austerity budget.

If I were rewriting tax law then I would not have a tax free allowance at all as I think everyone should have a vested stake in taxation (and care how it is spent). That could mean a 1% rate as a starter rate, if you like, but at least everyone would see something on their payslip and care about it. I would remove other regressive taxes and duties that affect low income people disproportionately (VAT on utilities, insurance taxes, parking fees at hospitals, lottery funds going to the Opera etc). The cutting income tax and then raising consumption tax benefits rich people most, and is an old tory trick.

[spyker138]

Mr Sidicks I notice you are the same with everyone on here, so I now don't take it personally.

However I came here for an argument ("an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition") rather than just be contradicted (or hit over the head, be complained to or insulted).