Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Vamps on 26 March 2010, 00:20:03
-
Are we calling for public spending cuts, ie cuts in services, for a problem caused by the banks? am I being to simplistic..... :-/
-
It's because we have large interest payments to make as a nation and no-one thinks Joe Public has any money to cough up extra.
Simples.
-
because when greed and capitalism fail the taxpayer bails them out so that they can continue with their rampant greed and capitalism safe in the knowledge that we'll be picking up the tab - it's a perfect system - if you're a banker :y
-
When the government needs mind boggling amounts of money as it will do for quite some time it has the choice of cutting public spending or raising taxes. Just as a family in debt has to choose between spending less money or (if possible ) earning more by doing overtime etc.
There are several problems with raising taxation levels imo.The people of this country have been subject to many many rises in taxation since 1997, many househoulds surely are just about keeping their heads above water as it is and yet more taxation could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It is generally accepted that overall taxation is around 50% of a persons income (assuming they pay basic rate tax) there must be a point where there is little incentive to bother going out to work.
It is easy for people who arent rich to simply demand that the rich pay even more tax than they already do. They still wont worry about paying the electric bill or buying food like the rest of us. The problem with that is that these people tend to be the wealth creators, the engines which drive a countries economy.They also are more likely to move themselves or their money to somewhere where they will pay less tax. Labour introduced a 98% tax band for the rich in the 70,s and soon afterwards many wealthy people cleared off and lived elsewhere so the exchequer recieved three fifths of break all from their incomes. Anyone remember the Stones moving to France, Rod Stewart moving to L.A.etc?
During the New Labour era government employee numbers have risen by around 600,000. Thats 600,000 more salaries, pensions and employment admin costs that the taxpayer has had to fund. there is also the fact that public sector salaries have mostly risen way above inflation levels and in many cases are higher than private sector levels.
We now have a situation where somewhere between 20-25% of those in work are employed by the government, plus the large number of people who live on benefits also have to be funded from taxation.
This government has for many years spent money as no other government in history has, literally like it was going out of fashion. It has taken no notice of critics who said they should be putting money aside for a rainy day ( I have abolished boom and bust )and when the rainy day arrived the piggy bank was empty.
The only reason they got away with wasting mind numbing sums of money for as long as they did was due to the fact that the evil banks in the city were enjoying the biggest boom they had ever had, and the money they were putting into the treasuries coffers was keeping the country running.
When the U.S credit crunch almost brought about a total collapse of the worlds banking industry the British economy was left exposed like no other major economy due to the ludicrous mismanagement of it in the preceeding ten years. Which was why we were among the first to go into recession and the last to come out of it.
Lastly is there anyone in this country who believes that much of the money taken from us in taxes and spent by the government isnt wasted ?
Why do we need over 600,000 more government employees than we did before 1997 ?
There is waste on a huge scale everywhere you look in the public sector. Its not about running a country effectively its about big government (the natural mindset of socialists) its about social engineering, political agendas etc.
Put simply a low taxation private sector is capable of producing wealth. The public sector produces no wealth whatsoever for the country, it is a drain on the countries wealth, and now that the boom has turned to bust the country simply cant afford a huge bloated public sector.
P.S The taxpayers stake in Lloyds bank turned a profit for the first time this week. ;)
-
because when greed and capitalism fail the taxpayer bails them out so that they can continue with their rampant greed and capitalism safe in the knowledge that we'll be picking up the tab - it's a perfect system - if you're a banker :y
You sound more like a lower sixth Marxist every day. I am expecting the old rhetoric and mantras to start appearing soon......The workers have nothing to lose but their chains.
From each according to their ability, too each according to their need. The great only appear great because the workers are on their knees...blah blah blah. ::) ;D ;D ;D
FACT- Many thousands of workers in the financial sector have lost their jobs in the last two years.
The public sector meanwhile has ignored the recession and is still employing approx 170 new people per day every day. socialist madness, it cant carry on. The figures simply dont add up. ;)
-
you're easier than Nickbat ;)
-
Why are they cutting money in education and health yet not cancelling the ID card & databse with its estimated £2,000,000,000 bill. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
When the government needs mind boggling amounts of money as it will do for quite some time it has the choice of cutting public spending or raising taxes. Just as a family in debt has to choose between spending less money or (if possible ) earning more by doing overtime etc.
There are several problems with raising taxation levels imo.The people of this country have been subject to many many rises in taxation since 1997, many househoulds surely are just about keeping their heads above water as it is and yet more taxation could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It is generally accepted that overall taxation is around 50% of a persons income (assuming they pay basic rate tax) there must be a point where there is little incentive to bother going out to work.
It is easy for people who arent rich to simply demand that the rich pay even more tax than they already do. They still wont worry about paying the electric bill or buying food like the rest of us. The problem with that is that these people tend to be the wealth creators, the engines which drive a countries economy.They also are more likely to move themselves or their money to somewhere where they will pay less tax. Labour introduced a 98% tax band for the rich in the 70,s and soon afterwards many wealthy people cleared off and lived elsewhere so the exchequer recieved three fifths of break all from their incomes. Anyone remember the Stones moving to France, Rod Stewart moving to L.A.etc?
During the New Labour era government employee numbers have risen by around 600,000. Thats 600,000 more salaries, pensions and employment admin costs that the taxpayer has had to fund. there is also the fact that public sector salaries have mostly risen way above inflation levels and in many cases are higher than private sector levels.
We now have a situation where somewhere between 20-25% of those in work are employed by the government, plus the large number of people who live on benefits also have to be funded from taxation.
This government has for many years spent money as no other government in history has, literally like it was going out of fashion. It has taken no notice of critics who said they should be putting money aside for a rainy day ( I have abolished boom and bust )and when the rainy day arrived the piggy bank was empty.
The only reason they got away with wasting mind numbing sums of money for as long as they did was due to the fact that the evil banks in the city were enjoying the biggest boom they had ever had, and the money they were putting into the treasuries coffers was keeping the country running.
When the U.S credit crunch almost brought about a total collapse of the worlds banking industry the British economy was left exposed like no other major economy due to the ludicrous mismanagement of it in the preceeding ten years. Which was why we were among the first to go into recession and the last to come out of it.
Lastly is there anyone in this country who believes that much of the money taken from us in taxes and spent by the government isnt wasted ?
Why do we need over 600,000 more government employees than we did before 1997 ?
There is waste on a huge scale everywhere you look in the public sector. Its not about running a country effectively its about big government (the natural mindset of socialists) its about social engineering, political agendas etc.
Put simply a low taxation private sector is capable of producing wealth. The public sector produces no wealth whatsoever for the country, it is a drain on the countries wealth, and now that the boom has turned to bust the country simply cant afford a huge bloated public sector.
P.S The taxpayers stake in Lloyds bank turned a profit for the first time this week. ;)
Brilliant summing up Albs! :y :y
-
because when greed and capitalism fail the taxpayer bails them out so that they can continue with their rampant greed and capitalism safe in the knowledge that we'll be picking up the tab - it's a perfect system - if you're a banker :y
You sound more like a lower sixth Marxist every day. I am expecting the old rhetoric and mantras to start appearing soon......The workers have nothing to lose but their chains.
From each according to their ability, too each according to their need. The great only appear great because the workers are on their knees...blah blah blah. ::) ;D ;D ;D
FACT- Many thousands of workers in the finacial sector have lost their jobs in the last two years.
The public sector meanwhile has ignored the recession and is still employing approx 170 new people per day every day. socialist madness, it cant carry on. The figures simply dont add up. ;)
Yes, the difference between letting the free market economy decide who stays and who goes by natural "progression ", and a government suddenly trying the old socialist approach by trying to over-ride the market! ::) ::)
As we have all seen the latter does not work in the long term :( :(
-
Some think another five years of labour would be a disaster.
Some think that the conservatives getting in would be a disaster.
But the real disaster would be a hung parliament, and I think there's distinct possibility.
-
Some think another five years of labour would be a disaster.
Some think that the conservatives getting in would be a disaster.
But the real disaster would be a hung parliament, and I think there's distinct possibility.
Can I hang Darling and a few others please?
-
A 'hung' parliament......
....at last, something worth seeing! ;D
-
Albs , blame the capitalist banks before the so called socialist govts (although I dont believe they are really socialist except the name)..
at least those govts spend the money for the salaries, roads, health etc..
but the banks evaporated the big sum actually within the flicker of an eye.. ;)
-
Our current government are trying to control every aspect of our lives.
In the UK the law works as this.
Everything is legal unless illegal
In some countries and the current goverment are heading that way.
Everything is illegal unless legalised
-
Why are they cutting money in education and health yet not cancelling the ID card & databse with its estimated £2,000,000,000 bill. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Big government Martin, they are socialists therefore they are addicted to it, just like the Soviets/Chinese/Cubans etc. :y
Lizzie, thankyou for the compliment. I thought that must have been one of my better long winded rants when I noticed Banjax didnt bother trying to argue the point(s). :y ::) ;D
Martin if your going to hang Darling I will buy the rope. :y.............tbh we will never really know how bad a chancellor he was capable of becoming, as it seems that the micro managing control freak in No 10 writes his scripts for him. ;)
-
Why are they cutting money in education and health yet not cancelling the ID card & databse with its estimated £2,000,000,000 bill. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Big government Martin, they are socialists therefore they are addicted to it, just like the Soviets/Chinese/Cubans etc. :y
Lizzie, thankyou for the compliment. I thought that must have been one of my better long winded rants when I noticed Banjax didnt bother trying to argue the point(s). :y ::) ;D
Martin if your going to hang Darling I will buy the rope. :y.............tbh we will never really know how bad a chancellor he was capable of becoming, as it seems that the micro managing control freak in No 10 writes his scripts for him. ;)
Mind you I want to get our work MP done.
Our local MP is just useless.
Lots of Conservatives around here except for the constituencies I live and work in.
At the election we will have a choice of the below people.
Runs a local PR agency
Retired ex Tory
Never heard of him
Useless tosser
A joke
Never heard of them
Son of popular MP from the 70s
Liberal Democrat
Jackie Alderson
UKIP
Jack Bennett
Independent
Andrew Christian-Brookes
Labour
Michael Foster
Pirate
Andrew Robinson
Green
Louis Stephen
Conservative
Robin Walker
-
Only one of these has visited us door to door
-
UKIP are getting my vote. Try to pull the Tories back to the right where they belong. ;)
-
there must be a point where there is very little incentive to bother going out to work.
What with Job Seekers Allowance, tax credits, housing benefit etc there is no incentive for me to find a job :-[
The public sector produces no wealth whatsoever for the country, it is a drain on the countries wealth
I've met loads of people in my line of work, in the private sector, who produce no wealth whatsoever for the company and are a drain on the companies resources ;)
The public sector produces no wealth whatsoever for the country, it is a drain on the countries wealth
That's too much of a sweeping statement to be true. Universities have created a lot of wealth for this country as have government funded projects that the private sector could not afford to fund.
-
That's too much of a sweeping statement to be true. Universities have created a lot of wealth for this country as have government funded projects that the private sector could not afford to fund.
No, Albs is right. Technically speaking, the public sector produces very little wealth in terms of GDP because, as it's name implies, it is funded by the state, which in turn is funded by taxation. Of course, a fair proportion of that fiscal income comes the public sector but,since the public sector is centrally-funded, the money is merely going round and round. The only way GDP can grow is by an increase in the money going into the system through private enterprise, through exports and foreign direct investment.
Can you give me an example of a government-funded project that has made a meaningful contribution to the country's finances? :-/
-
UKIP are getting my vote. Try to pull the Tories back to the right where they belong. ;)
Yep, I'm there too, Albs. :y :y
I see Professor Tim Congdon CBE, a very eminent economist, is standing for UKIP. I think he would make an excellent chancellor! ;) :y
http://www.panscourer.com/2010/03/24/prof-tim-congdon-stands-for-ukip/
-
UKIP are getting my vote. Try to pull the Tories back to the right where they belong. ;)
I like this man , especially ;D
"damp rag" :-? ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iulNvamNzeg
-
That's too much of a sweeping statement to be true. Universities have created a lot of wealth for this country as have government funded projects that the private sector could not afford to fund.
No, Albs is right. Technically speaking, the public sector produces very little wealth in terms of GDP because, as it's name implies, it is funded by the state, which in turn is funded by taxation. Of course, a fair proportion of that fiscal income comes the public sector but,since the public sector is centrally-funded, the money is merely going round and round. The only way GDP can grow is by an increase in the money going into the system through private enterprise, through exports and foreign direct investment.
Can you give me an example of a government-funded project that has made a meaningful contribution to the country's finances? :-/
looking from your point of view seems correct..
but.. if discussed in detail by economic terms and facts , there are many direct and indirect effects on GDP..so cant agree..
-
That's too much of a sweeping statement to be true. Universities have created a lot of wealth for this country as have government funded projects that the private sector could not afford to fund.
No, Albs is right. Technically speaking, the public sector produces very little wealth in terms of GDP because, as it's name implies, it is funded by the state, which in turn is funded by taxation. Of course, a fair proportion of that fiscal income comes the public sector but,since the public sector is centrally-funded, the money is merely going round and round. The only way GDP can grow is by an increase in the money going into the system through private enterprise, through exports and foreign direct investment.
Can you give me an example of a government-funded project that has made a meaningful contribution to the country's finances? :-/
looking from your point of view seems correct..
but.. if discussed in detail by economic terms and facts , there are many direct and indirect effects on GDP..so cant agree..
I think I should have stated GNP rather than GDP, Cem.
BTW, take a look at this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KztUNKj0o[/media]
:y :y
-
No, Albs is right. Technically speaking, the public sector produces very little wealth in terms of GDP because, as it's name implies, it is funded by the state, which in turn is funded by taxation. Of course, a fair proportion of that fiscal income comes the public sector but,since the public sector is centrally-funded, the money is merely going round and round. The only way GDP can grow is by an increase in the money going into the system through private enterprise, through exports and foreign direct investment.
Sorry but i have to disagree. Through government funded education, CEO's of succesful companies have produced more wealth for the country than what was ever spent to educate them.
Can you give me an example of a government-funded project that has made a meaningful contribution to the country's finances? :-/
Yes i can and i will be deliberately vague as i have signed the official secrets act ;)
Rolls Royce, as you may know, was nationalised in the early seventies. During this period of nationalisation a process was developed that greatly increased the life of certain aluminium parts. Rolls Royce plc has since gone on to become a billion pound industry thanks to government intervention.
I am no socialist but i do believe a government needs to step in from time to time to offer help.
-
No, Albs is right. Technically speaking, the public sector produces very little wealth in terms of GDP because, as it's name implies, it is funded by the state, which in turn is funded by taxation. Of course, a fair proportion of that fiscal income comes the public sector but,since the public sector is centrally-funded, the money is merely going round and round. The only way GDP can grow is by an increase in the money going into the system through private enterprise, through exports and foreign direct investment.
Sorry but i have to disagree. Through government funded education, CEO's of succesful companies have produced more wealth for the country than what was ever spent to educate them.
Can you give me an example of a government-funded project that has made a meaningful contribution to the country's finances? :-/
Yes i can and i will be deliberately vague as i have signed the official secrets act ;)
Rolls Royce, as you may know, was nationalised in the early seventies. During this period of nationalisation a process was developed that greatly increased the life of certain aluminium parts. Rolls Royce plc has since gone on to become a billion pound industry thanks to government intervention.
I am no socialist but i do believe a government needs to step in from time to time to offer help.
I wouldn't disagree with that statement at all. :y
I think, in some circumstances (indeed, in the case of RR), that the strategic interests of the country must be maintained and that the ability of a government to utilise taxpayers money in such situations (albeit rare) makes sound sense. :y
A good point, well made. ;)
-
here I dont want to go in details of GDP and GNP as its a detailed subject..
however in his speech there are far more important subjects especially on the failing of Euro.. definitely..
european union is actually not like a real country..
no real planning for production, assets , coordination etc..
and from a technical point of view with so many different countries and different problems its nearly impossible to coordinate this vegetable soup ;D
economy laws needs far strict rules and management.. :-/
-
here I dont want to go in details of GDP and GNP as its a detailed subject..
however in his speech there are far more important subjects especially on the failing of Euro.. definitely..
european union is actually not like a real country..
no real planning for production, assets , coordination etc..
and from a technical point of view with so many different countries and different problems its nearly impossible to coordinate this vegetable soup ;D
economy laws needs far strict rules and management.. :-/
Or maybe less, Cem! ;)
-
here I dont want to go in details of GDP and GNP as its a detailed subject..
however in his speech there are far more important subjects especially on the failing of Euro.. definitely..
european union is actually not like a real country..
no real planning for production, assets , coordination etc..
and from a technical point of view with so many different countries and different problems its nearly impossible to coordinate this vegetable soup ;D
economy laws needs far strict rules and management.. :-/
Or maybe less, Cem! ;)
;D :y