General election

[Wintergreen]

The poorest don't pay the price though do they. The top 50% of earners pay 90% of everything that goes to the revenue. From 2009 to 2016 the amount of people paying basic rate tax fell by 1.9 million following rises in the non-taxable earnings allowances, and the number of people paying the high rate tax rose by about 1.2 million.

People cite the amount of borrowing as though the amount is the only thing that matters; the fact is that it isn't. There are two factors to consider in respect of any debt, and the second factor is the ability to service it. The borrowing covers the gap between what the government receives in taxation, what it has to spend on the day to day running of the country, and what it has to pay in interest payments on the debt. Austerity aims reduce the gap between what you have, and what you spend. If you can get to a point where you have more income than expenditure, you start clearing the debt rather than just paying the interest.

Gordon Brown as chancellor inherited what was widely accepted to be a golden legacy from the Major administration; an economy that was actually in balance. By 2009, the Labour administration had expanded the public sector, lost control of spending and there was a gap of £170 billion between income and expenditure. No it wasn't the Labour Governments fault that there was a global banking crisis, but it was Labour who expanded the public sector to the point where 44% of the countries workforce, worked either directly, or indirectly for the state, and almost 50% of the entire adult population received half of their income from the state.

If anyone is familiar with the concept of explaining economics through using two cows, the Labour economic model was something like this - You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity

The austerity programme practiced by the conservative government, and the fact that more folk are in work, has increased tax and NI and has reduced that gap to £68 billion. Everyone has to balance their income against their expenditure and set their spending against the ability to service their debts.

Most of those who oppose austerity, appear to want to go back to a bigger public sector. Certainly, every policy put forward by the Corbyn led Labour Party I've seen or heard is advocating that. You can have a big public sector, providing it's paid for with higher taxes and not in the way Blair/Brown implemented it. Employing more public sector workers won't increase tax revenues because it's funded out of tax revenues. Another favourite of theirs is taxing the rich more. Labour have done that in the past, and it forced people offshore to pay their taxes into the coffers of other countries leading to decreased tax revenue, rather than increased revenue. The country needs people with money to create and invest in jobs creating more wealth. Whatever happens, I hope we never have to rely on Abbott to do any hard sums

Absolutely spot on. I can't understand why many socialists don't get this.

[SJ]

I would hazard a guess they are still in the grip of an outmoded ideology

[fozzieskem]

Looking to be a grim night for Labour in the local elections,as predicted,far too late now to change anything of course just to buckle the seatbelt and hope there is a working Labour Party left after this election.

[SJ]

Cheer up Fozz it's not the end of the world

[DaveO]

The poorest don't pay the price though do they.

Yes they do.

The top 50% of earners pay 90% of everything that goes to the revenue. From 2009 to 2016 the amount of people paying basic rate tax fell by 1.9 million following rises in the non-taxable earnings allowances, and the number of people paying the high rate tax rose by about 1.2 million.

What a load of disingenuous right wing claptrap.

You are, quite deliberately no doubt, ignoring indirect taxation such as VAT and how that affects the total amount of tax various income groups pay and instead are focusing on net amounts of tax taken.

The reason why those on the lowest incomes are paying the biggest proportion of their income in tax is because indirect taxes, such as VAT and tax on tobacco, alcohol and fuel are charged at the same rate to all income groups.

It doesn't take a genius to work out if two people fill their cars up with 50 litres of petrol the one on £20K a year has paid more tax as a proportion of their income then the one earning £150K.

And which party is it that puts VAT up? Why the Tories of course!

From 8% to 15% in 1979 - Lamont managed to keep his promise of not doubling VAT as he was accused of going to do by Labour by staying 1% below that. Cynical barsteward.

Then from 15% to 17.5% in 1991 and again from 15% to 17.5% in 2010 (after Labour reduced it) and then up again in 2011 to 20%.

And if high earners pay a high net amount of tax, so what? If they get a £1m bonus and "only" pocket £550K as a result it's hardly a kick in the teeth is it!

But we all know they don't anyway with accountants cooking up tax avoidance schemes left, right and centre whereas as your average person on PAYE pays their dues in full.

People cite the amount of borrowing as though the amount is the only thing that matters; the fact is that it isn't. There are two factors to consider in respect of any debt, and the second factor is the ability to service it. The borrowing covers the gap between what the government receives in taxation, what it has to spend on the day to day running of the country, and what it has to pay in interest payments on the debt. Austerity aims reduce the gap between what you have, and what you spend. If you can get to a point where you have more income than expenditure, you start clearing the debt rather than just paying the interest.

No shit Sherlock! If I earn more than I pay I can pay off my debts. Who'd have thought it! Absolutely no marks for stating the bleeding obvious.

So how come despite Austerity the national debt has risen under the Tories to be 83.7% of total GDP at the end of 2016 (from 56.8% in 2009 right after the crash and the massive bailouts for the banks)???

Reasons the Tory government has had to borrow more include increased spending on social security benefits, significant drops in receipts from stamp duty, corporation tax and income tax.

Which is exactly what happens when you deliberately stifle the economy with an Austerity policy.

What a spectacular failure.

Gordon Brown as chancellor inherited what was widely accepted to be a golden legacy from the Major administration; an economy that was actually in balance. By 2009, the Labour administration had expanded the public sector, lost control of spending and there was a gap of £170 billion between income and expenditure.

Blair's first government ran a surplus for four years from 1998 to 2001. Every single Tory government since WWII has always increased the national debt by running a deficit except for two years (1988/89).

When it did start to increase spending post-2002 it increased spending on health and education by a huge amount and due to years of Tory neglect that was money well spent.( the NHS crisis of 1996/7 was big factor which cost Major the election)

If anyone is familiar with the concept of explaining economics through using two cows, the Labour economic model was something like this - You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity

Again, the facts ruin your argument. UK productivity was the worst since records began at the end of 2016. For the first half of the 2000's under Labour it steadily increased to be just 4 points below that of the G7. Since 2010 under the Tories it has made a rapid decline.

The austerity programme practiced by the conservative government, and the fact that more folk are in work, has increased tax and NI and has reduced that gap to £68 billion. Everyone has to balance their income against their expenditure and set their spending against the ability to service their debts.

Again disingenuous claptrap. The net amount of tax taken has, bar a few dips been on an upward trend since the end of WWII. But you ignore things like what a £ is worth now and simple things like that a higher net population meaning more people working make this inevitable. What you aren't mentioning is that as a % of GDP the tax take has crashed since 2010 under the Tories.

We have more people in work but they are less productive, collect less tax as a % of GDP than under Labour and the government debt has increased under the Tories.

And yet you argue Austerity is a good thing? It plainly is not.

With high employment the government should be swimming it tax revenues far more than it is, not increasing the national debt.

It isn't because we have a situation despite the economy being larger (GDP), despite more people are working we are earning less because they aren't overall as productive. So we can't afford to pay ourselves high wages and so the tax take as a % of GDP goes down.

Most of those who oppose austerity, .....

And now you are reduced to making it up. I oppose Austerity because not only is it economically inept but the people who pay for it are the poor and the disabled.

Sorry but you are just a right wing apologist cherry picking figures and taking them out of context. Must try harder.

[Wintergreen]

That's all very interesting DaveO but will you still be voting Labour given you are voting for Diane Abbot to be your next Home Secretary?

A simple Yes/No will suffice.

[Wandering Warrior]

I'll be voting Labour, I'll be voting for my current MP and the party.
You are obviously a big Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt fan?!

[DaveO]

That's all very interesting DaveO but will you still be voting Labour given you are voting for Diane Abbot to be your next Home Secretary?

A simple Yes/No will suffice.

Of course I am voting Labour. Will you be voting Tory PM who once said "The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat."?

You know when she was making it up?

[DaveO]

Here's another fine example of Toryism for you and why you would be mad to vote Tory.

You may have heard of the government policy of offering a “free” 30 hours pre-school child care. Up from the current 15 hours all parents are entitled to?

In fact if you live in Wigan and have young children you may have already been offered it as Wigan was a pilot area. It’s due in Chester where I live until June any my wife who works in a nursery school is busy organising it which is how I found out about this latest Tory scam.

Scam? What can possibly be wrong with 30 hours free child care?

Well it sounds great except of course for some people it’s not free.

Now it not being free for some might appeal to our Tory supports on here. Reduce government expenditure, expect a contribution from those in receipt of this offer. What is not to like?

That boils down to the question of who is it not free for? Why the poor of course! We do have a Tory government remember? Who else pays under them except the poor?

If you are in receipt of tax credits the government will reduce your tax credit payments if you take up the extra 15 hours to make up the full 30. It is why you have to give your national insurance number when you register for the scheme. So they can work out if you are poor enough to pay!

If you are not poor enough to receive tax credits you get your extra 15 hours at no cost to you whatsoever. No increase in your taxes, nothing. Totally free.

There is Tory logic for you.

[fozzieskem]

That's all very interesting DaveO but will you still be voting Labour given you are voting for Diane Abbot to be your next Home Secretary?

A simple Yes/No will suffice.

The rights obsession with Abbott is amusing,yes she utterly hopeless the Tories aren't exactly fielding an star team either..

Johnson,
Davis,
Hammond,
May
Etc..you get the picture