osbournes big lie

[gordondaviesmoustache]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Good article and I love this graph:

Yet the socialists want higher spending!

Maybe the OP should have a good long look at this and then question his love for the original article.

I have consistently been making this point, but all that happens is I get abused by all the inveterate lefties on here, and accused of being some sort of reactionary.

Public spending in this country was far too low under Thatcher and Major and it was undoubtedly a good thing that Labour were elected in 1997. Schools were falling apart and hospital waiting lists were a disgrace.

And for the first 5-6 years Labour did a lot of good things to address these structural deficiencies. However, and the graph on the right bears this out, rather than maintain public spending at a level the economy could afford (ie grow at the same rate as the economy does), and god forbid actually put some aside for a rainy day, Gordon Brown, drunk on power, went on an ideology fuelled spending spree. With our fucking money.

Until Labour supporters recognise this, they are doomed to spend a lot of time in oppostion, because until they do the electorate will not be able to trust them again IMO.

 

[GStar]

You do realise there are more than one prize winning professor in favour of these cuts? You do realise that the majority of economists are in favour? You do surely realise that economists (be they Nobel prize winning or not) also have personal agenda's and political leanings.

If you did not realise all of the above, then you are right, politics and economics are not your forte. Thanks right back xx

Yes I did realise that. I'm 31, not 7.

Zing!<br /><br />-- 30 Mar 2011, 15:48 --<br /><br />

Until Labour supporters recognise this, they are doomed to spend a lot of time in oppostion, because until they do the electorate will not be able to trust them again IMO.

I doubt the majority of the 'undecided' look at politics in any kind of detail, if people feel like they're being bent over a fucked, then Labour will be back in next time around.

I'd say 95% of UK voters fall into two categories; biased or ignorant.

 

[Damocles]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yes I did realise that. I'm 31, not 7.

Zing!

-- 30 Mar 2011, 15:48 --

Until Labour supporters recognise this, they are doomed to spend a lot of time in oppostion, because until they do the electorate will not be able to trust them again IMO.

I doubt the majority of the 'undecided' look at politics in any kind of detail, if people feel like they're being bent over a fucked, then Labour will be back in next time around.

I'd say 95% of UK voters fall into two categories; biased or ignorant.

I think the electorate felt they were being fucked up the arse by the Tories in 1992, but did not feel that they could trust Labour because they had not changed enough, had not acknowledged their previous mistakes sufficiently, and had a buffoon as leader.

I do not see a great deal of difference as things stand and until there is they will not be elected. IMO

 

[SWP's back]

Good article and I love this graph:

Yet the socialists want higher spending!

Maybe the OP should have a good long look at this and then question his love for the original article.

I have consistently been making this point, but all that happens is I get abused by all the inveterate lefties on here, and accused of being some sort of reactionary.

Public spending in this country was far too low under Thatcher and Major and it was undoubtedly a good thing that Labour were elected in 1997. Schools were falling apart and hospital waiting lists were a disgrace.

And for the first 5-6 years Labour did a lot of good things to address these structural deficiencies. However, and the graph on the right bears this out, rather than maintain public spending at a level the economy could afford (ie grow at the same rate as the economy does), and god forbid actually put some aside for a rainy day, Gordon Brown, drunk on power, went on an ideology fuelled spending spree. With our fucking money.

Until Labour supporters recognise this, they are doomed to spend a lot of time in oppostion, because until they do the electorate will not be able to trust them again IMO.

Exactly and 90% on "that" march will be completely oblivious to this and only there as a) their union rep told them to b) they are ideologically opposed to any Conservative government (or coalition) c) they are class warriors

 

[twinkletoes]

The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum that dwarfs the national debt. It is mostly concentrated at the top, so the richest 10% own £4,000bn, with an average per household of £4m. The bottom half of our society own just 9%. The wealthiest hold the bulk of their money in property or pensions, and some in financial assets and objects such antiques and paintings.

A one-off tax of just 20% on the wealth of this group would pay the national debt and dramatically reduce the deficit, since interest payments on the debt are a large part of government spending. So that is what should be done. This tax of 20%, graduated so the very richest paid the most, would raise £800bn. A major positive for this scheme is that the tax would not have to be immediately paid. The richest 10% have only to assume liability for their small part of the debt. They can pay a low rate of interest on it and if they wish make it a charge on their property when they die. It would be akin to a student loan for the rich.

 

[SWP's back]

They don't hold it in pensions (which brown already taxes now) at all with the personal limit being 1.7million.

But yeah, let's raise some more tax to repay Labours failings in the past. I'm sure that would be fair. And how would you tax non liquid assets such as property? IHT already does that to an extent for it not?

Very weak argument that TB, 20% tax on all assets of the richest 10%. The stuff of communism. They would leave the country in a flash. Thus paying no tax on any future income.

 

[tueartsboots]

They don't hold it in pensions (which brown already taxes now) at all with the personal limit being 1.7million.

But yeah, let's raise some more tax to repay Labours failings in the past. I'm sure that would be fair. And how would you tax non liquid assets such as property? IHT already does that to an extent for it not?

Very weak argument that TB, 20% tax on all assets of the richest 10%. The stuff of communism. They would leave the country in a flash. Thus paying no tax on any future income.

I haven't said anything ! Certainly not going to argue with you over economics.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They don't hold it in pensions (which brown already taxes now) at all with the personal limit being 1.7million.

But yeah, let's raise some more tax to repay Labours failings in the past. I'm sure that would be fair. And how would you tax non liquid assets such as property? IHT already does that to an extent for it not?

Very weak argument that TB, 20% tax on all assets of the richest 10%. The stuff of communism. They would leave the country in a flash. Thus paying no tax on any future income.

It was TT not TB. You have the wrong 'T'.

 

[SWP's back]

They don't hold it in pensions (which brown already taxes now) at all with the personal limit being 1.7million.

But yeah, let's raise some more tax to repay Labours failings in the past. I'm sure that would be fair. And how would you tax non liquid assets such as property? IHT already does that to an extent for it not?

Very weak argument that TB, 20% tax on all assets of the richest 10%. The stuff of communism. They would leave the country in a flash. Thus paying no tax on any future income.

It was TT not TB. You have the wrong 'T'.

It's that BB thread outside that made me do it.

Sorry TB.