I can understand that point of view, and indeed have some sympathy with it. But I don't accept that austerity was completely unnecessary (not sure you meant to say that, but your 2nd paragraph ("wrongly") implies it). The vast amount of money splurged on propping up the banks was totally unavoidable: there was no alternative, since the big banks going under would have had devastating consequences for all of us. And that having added to the deficit that Brown had already created pre 2008, put us into a position where we simply could not at the time just borrow even more and carry on regardless. That said, I have some room for debate about whether the cuts were too hard and too deep and whether it's time to ease off now.
Incidentally, I am pretty sure in my own mind that the reason our growth has dropped back recently is simply because of Brexit. Businesses are sitting on the fence and not investing until they know how the land lies. That's something I've noticed from a very personal perspective in my job hunting: the jobs market in my sector is very quiet indeed - more so than I can remember in a couple of decades in fact.
This in itself probably adds to the argument that now is the time to start to inject some more public funding into infrastructure and public services.
In terms of where we go from here, I think there's 3 things the Tories can do, two of which scare me.
1. Pretend nothing's happened and carry on regardless.
2. Reflect on the wave of resentment regarding the state of our public services and make tangible policy changes to address the concerns of those moderate voters who were tempted by the Corbyn message.
3. Allow the far right in the party to take the party even further right.
Imo, 1 would be completely wrong and would inevitably lead to an early election and a probably defeat.
3. would be an unmitigated disaster and leave the Tories in opposition for a decade or more. It's an unthinkable option, but one that some idiots on the right of the party will be angling for: "We need to show clear blue water and a return to core Conservative values. Margaret Thatcher won 3 elections and look at us now...", type bollocks.
2. is the overwhelmingly sensible option. Listen to the people for they have spoken. I don't believe all of those who swung towards Labour, did so without reservations about just how left wing Corbyn is. And I think the Conservatives should try to win those votes back.
awarding tax cuts for party donors
This is to ignore the fundamental question as to how do you most effectively raise the amount of tax revenue to spend on public services?
Do you simply raise tax rates? Or do you reduce rates? You're assuming the answer is obviously the former, but that is not necessarily the case. We cut the top rate of tax: Tax receipts went up. We cut the rate of corporation tax: tax receipts went up.
I am not saying this is always the case. Some tax increases (such as 1p on the basic rate of income tax, or perhaps a VAT rate increase) definitely raise money. But these are nasty taxes that hit the least well off the worst and therefore not desirable. I do not subscibe to the Gordon Brown model of taking more money off poor people, only to give it back to them on benefits. That's just a silly idea and inherently inefficient and wasteful.
But the problem with taxes in general is that they act as a brake on the economy. They slow growth and investment since businesses have less money to invest and grow. And with slower growth and lower profits, there's less money for pay rises and less money is collected in taxes. The tax burden on employers is when you think about it, enormous. Employers' NI is already a huge strain, and if you imagine that in order to pay a sales rep in IT £60k, the employer probably has to pay about £120k since half of it goes on TAX and NI, then you realise what a strain it is.
Imagine how much more competitive, how much more stuff that business could sell, if it only cost say £100k to pay that employee the same amount? The business would boom, creating jobs and wealth and more tax revenues.
I am not suggesting this is all black and white. But to say "increased taxation for the rich and for companies is required" is a point worth debating.
Lots of the public now work for large companies that are swimming in cash, due to inflating prices while deflating wages. The large corporates have been ripping the general public off for years. This wealth needs to be shared more equally.
We need to find ways of stopping tax avoidance. Global business are not giving anything back. We need laws that stop this financial rape. If it means no Starbucks, google or Man United in the UK so be it.
Why not buy some shares? Just a thought.
I don't accept for one moment this "ripping off the general public" line. It's easy words to throw in, with zero evidence. But even if they had, where do you think the profits go? Into share dividends for your and my pension is where these profits go.
Why not buy some shares? Just a thought.
I don't accept for one moment this "ripping off the general public" line. It's easy words to throw in, with zero evidence. But even if they had, where do you think the profits go? Into share dividends for your and my pension is where these profits go.
There's cross party consensus on this. It should not persuade anyone's voting intentions one way or another.
What is this to which you refer? And the 11% comment, too. I deleted too much of your post.
Why not buy some shares? Just a thought.
I don't accept for one moment this "ripping off the general public" line. It's easy words to throw in, with zero evidence. But even if they had, where do you think the profits go? Into share dividends for your and my pension is where these profits go.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/news.s...s-pay-politicians-to-get-11-pay-rise-10424865
https://fullfact.org/economy/have-conservatives-brought-70-billion-worth-tax-cuts/
Mays decision to give herself a personal mandate might water down some of the tax cuts still to take place, but if we are in such a perilous fiscal state that we have to cut education and health budgets (in real terms), how can we afford tax breaks for those in the upper echelons of society?
You pampered prat.
Millions of people cannot afford to buy bloody shares.
You pampered prat.
Millions of people cannot afford to buy bloody shares.
Beat me to it mate.
Imagine the quandary up and down the country on a weekly basis as Fred or Mavis can't quite decide what to do with their minimum wage....buy food and pay the bills or invest in fucking shares?
Christ some on here are in cloud fucking cuckoo land they really are.
And millions can. Millions of ordinary people own shares, and millions more have a pension of some kind, and the beneficiaries of company profits is in the main, large institutional investors, i.e. pension funds.
My comment was merely to counter this oft-banded slur about this elusive bunch of scurrilous rich people sneaking around at night and stealing the poor's hard earned money. It's a lovely image to support a hard left narrative, but the reality is rather different.
It's called a Turnover tax (implemented as an element to Corporation tax) for multinationals. Difficult to avoid. I posted details elsewhere of how it works. Essential for the digital age where such companies have so few employees.We need to find ways of stopping tax avoidance. Global business are not giving anything back. We need laws that stop this financial rape. If it means no Starbucks, google or Man United in the UK so be it.
"95% of people will be no worse off".
<ahem>
It's called a Turnover tax (implemented as an element to Corporation tax) for multinationals. Difficult to avoid. I posted details elsewhere of how it works. Essential for the digital age where such companies have so few employees.
As of 2015 just 11% of shares traded where owned by individuals and i will wager they were not on minimum wage.
You talk some shit at times im afraid.
Yes its not that hard is it, what's stopping it, Party donations?