Cutting the budget

[Whitey Grandad]

At least he wont go cold in his old age, he'll have £200 winging towards him whether he wants it or not.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. It is much simpler to give the same to everybody, and we are all equal, aren't we? As others have pointed out, 'we' get back far more from him in tax. Means-testing is iniquitous and discourages hard work and thrift.

[OldNick]

There's nothing wrong with that. It is much simpler to give the same to everybody, and we are all equal, aren't we? As others have pointed out, 'we' get back far more from him in tax. Means-testing is iniquitous and discourages hard work and thrift.

 

but is it just wrong to take benefits when thaty is not why they were put into place in the first place?

[Whitey Grandad]

but is it just wrong to take benefits when thaty is not why they were put into place in the first place?

 

Calling them 'benefits' is perhaps the wrong terminology. How about rights?

[dune]

"Your country needs you!" Really? Given the choice I'd rather bloody well emigrate then pay for a mess I didn't create.

 

Anyone that voted Labour played a part in the creation of the mess.

[benjii]

Just been for lunch at Coq De Argant with my mate Mark the Trader from JPM. Lovely day, amazing location when the sun's shining - can thoroughly recommend it. Anyway - I digress. He's expecting approx £300k for his bonus this year - approx 54% of that goes to the tax man by way of IT an NIC. How much more do you want from him? What is fair? Seriously, he recognises he should (and does) pay his way. I can tell you now from what he said a minute ago, he's happy to keep paying his way and waving things like child benefit and inheritance tax (he was clearly taking the p*** with that as I know for a fact his old dear lives in a council house on Somerton Ave in Harefield). Push him too far like your suggesting and he and his colleagues will simply move to Switzerland, leaving a £162k black hole in this country's tax receipts from his bonus alone.

 

Oh, and he uses his money well, off on his stag do in 5 weeks and he's paying for all our flights to Vegas (Virgin - refused to book with BA after their strike action - this keeps Virgin's hard working trollie dollies in their jobs enabling them to pay tax), paid for my lunch (paying the wages of the superb waiters and excellent chef in there as well as 17.5% VAT on our £200 bill), meanwhile his nanny (who from his high wages he pays enabling her to pay taxes and NI and leave enough to spend it on going out, clothes etc) looks after his kid.

 

He does not "get away with it". The wealthy and the wealth creators are absolutely essential to this country's economy - I think most of them recognise the next 5 years will be tough, and they will do their bit - however, push them too far at your peral, once they are gone there will be no-one left to pay for the services you and others take for granted.

 

"Coq D'Argent", you new money, classless, embarrassing oik.

 

And it's so 1990s.

 

Edited 7 October, 2010 by benjii

[Verbal]

We should increase the deficit, not cut it. The libcons are economic dimwits.

 

Says the Torygraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/8048614/John-Maynard-Keynes-Horror-at-Governments-economic-illiteracy.html

[trousers]

More irrational left wing reaction to a common sense statement by a Conservative minister I see this morning.

 

Funny how "don't have loads of children if you can't afford them" gets twisted to "nasty Tories tell poor not to have ANY children"

 

That's not what he said.

 

I stopped at two kids because I couldn't afford any more. Why shouldn't "poor" people follow the same logic ?

 

Sigh

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

More irrational left wing reaction to a common sense statement by a Conservative minister I see this morning.

 

Funny how "don't have loads of children if you can't afford them" gets twisted to "nasty Tories tell poor not to have ANY children"

 

That's not what he said.

 

I stopped at two kids because I couldn't afford any more. Why shouldn't "poor" people follow the same logic ?

 

Sigh

 

I must admit, I thought it has been very '1700' in the press regarding this; they're referring to the poorer classes almost as if they are Plebian (in the sense of the industrial revolution). From a personal point of view, it's a good idea in theory, I certainly wouldn't have more children then I could afford (but we musn't use the language of 'capping' children) however, he needs to be careful on how he phrases it in order to stop comparisons with China or from having complaints from religious groups such as Catholics.

[trousers]

I must admit, I thought it has been very '1700' in the press regarding this; they're referring to the poorer classes almost as if they are Plebian (in the sense of the industrial revolution). From a personal point of view, it's a good idea in theory, I certainly wouldn't have more children then I could afford (but we musn't use the language of 'capping' children) however, he needs to be careful on how he phrases it in order to stop comparisons with China or from having complaints from religious groups such as Catholics.

 

Yep, agree with that, although Hunt was being 'Paxmaned' at the time and you could see that he was trying desperately to squeeze a controversial soundbite out of him rather than ask objective questions.

 

But that's the hallmark of a good interviewer I guess.

[moon monkey]

The child benefit is really going to have a big effect on the coffee shops in this country. How will the stay at home mums survive when they won't be able to afford to gossip together and take up the whole floor in costa and starbucks?

[GenevaSaint]

How do you know that it hasn't? The level of benefits has a much greater effect than the minimum wage. Nobody receiving benefits is going to take a low-paid job if staying at home is more worthwhile.

 

They were implying that companies wouldn't be able to afford staff not that the slackers couldn't afford to come off benefits. Anyway, we've never had full employment so it's a moot point.

[Johnny Bognor]

We should increase the deficit, not cut it. The libcons are economic dimwits.

 

Says the Torygraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financevideo/8048614/John-Maynard-Keynes-Horror-at-Governments-economic-illiteracy.html

 

Very poor reporting from the Telegraph.

 

Headline = John Maynard Keynes: Horror at Government's economic illiteracy

Considering he died 64 years ago, I find it quite astounding.

[aintforever]

Just been for lunch at Coq De Argant with my mate Mark the Trader from JPM. Lovely day, amazing location when the sun's shining - can thoroughly recommend it. Anyway - I digress. He's expecting approx £300k for his bonus this year - approx 54% of that goes to the tax man by way of IT an NIC. How much more do you want from him? What is fair? Seriously, he recognises he should (and does) pay his way. I can tell you now from what he said a minute ago, he's happy to keep paying his way and waving things like child benefit and inheritance tax (he was clearly taking the p*** with that as I know for a fact his old dear lives in a council house on Somerton Ave in Harefield). Push him too far like your suggesting and he and his colleagues will simply move to Switzerland, leaving a £162k black hole in this country's tax receipts from his bonus alone.

 

Oh, and he uses his money well, off on his stag do in 5 weeks and he's paying for all our flights to Vegas (Virgin - refused to book with BA after their strike action - this keeps Virgin's hard working trollie dollies in their jobs enabling them to pay tax), paid for my lunch (paying the wages of the superb waiters and excellent chef in there as well as 17.5% VAT on our £200 bill), meanwhile his nanny (who from his high wages he pays enabling her to pay taxes and NI and leave enough to spend it on going out, clothes etc) looks after his kid.

 

He does not "get away with it". The wealthy and the wealth creators are absolutely essential to this country's economy - I think most of them recognise the next 5 years will be tough, and they will do their bit - however, push them too far at your peral, once they are gone there will be no-one left to pay for the services you and others take for granted.

 

You've highlighted the problem, the big financial companies will continue to take the **** and the World's governments are completely powerless to take the appropriate action because they will just threaten to move to another country.

 

Everything is carrying on exactly as before, only now I don't see the government bailing anyone out.

[JackanorySFC]

You've highlighted the problem, the big financial companies will continue to take the **** and the World's governments are completely powerless to take the appropriate action because they will just threaten to move to another country.

 

Everything is carrying on exactly as before, only now I don't see the government bailing anyone out.

 

 

Not sure how you think they are taking the p***? He gets a massive bonus as through investing his client's money into mining companies and natural resources as well as strong currencies such as Norweigen Crone, and Aussie dollars he has made them millions of dollars profit. If he didn't, never mind a bonus, he'd get sacked. Simple.

 

Only the high st banks such as Northern Rock, Lloyds and RBS got bail outs due to leending money to people like us that asked formore than we could afford, thanks to hugely successful investment banking arms, HSBC and Barclays didn't have to follow the others into bail outs and businesses like JPM make our govenrment huge amounts of money through corporation tax and the wages it pays its massively successful staff.

 

They are well within their rights to move to another, more welcoming country if the government squeeze them too much. If (and it will never happen as he's an unelectible, back stabbing wierdo) Red Ed got into power the wealth creaters and aspirational go getters of this country would leave, leaving a irreplaceable black whole in the country's coffers.

 

We should be thanking successful bankers for their huge contribution towards the upkeep of this country through higher levels of tax and large disposible income. Good on 'em, wish I went into that business, I certainly don't begrudge another man earning big money any more than I'm incredibly proud of my missus being a teacher. Both are equally important to our society ('er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future of our country, and the succcessful bankers like my pal Mark who through his hard earned massive wages and taxes pay my missuses salary and he building she works in).

[Whitey Grandad]

They were implying that companies wouldn't be able to afford staff not that the slackers couldn't afford to come off benefits. Anyway, we've never had full employment so it's a moot point.

 

The minimum wage has caused the loss of a couple of jobs as far as my business is concerned. We use outworkers and we have to pay them 25% more than the minimum wage in order that someone who is only working at 80% of the average will still receive the minimum hourly rate. This despite the fact that these people works at their own pace at home, can be watching the television whilst they are doing it and are perfectly happy to be doing the work at their old rates. This has pushed up my costs and I have lost sales because of it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Not sure how you think they are taking the p***? He gets a massive bonus as through investing his client's money into mining companies and natural resources as well as strong currencies such as Norweigen Crone, and Aussie dollars he has made them millions of dollars profit. If he didn't, never mind a bonus, he'd get sacked. Simple.

 

Only the high st banks such as Northern Rock, Lloyds and RBS got bail outs due to leending money to people like us that asked formore than we could afford, thanks to hugely successful investment banking arms, HSBC and Barclays didn't have to follow the others into bail outs and businesses like JPM make our govenrment huge amounts of money through corporation tax and the wages it pays its massively successful staff.

 

They are well within their rights to move to another, more welcoming country if the government squeeze them too much. If (and it will never happen as he's an unelectible, back stabbing wierdo) Red Ed got into power the wealth creaters and aspirational go getters of this country would leave, leaving a irreplaceable black whole in the country's coffers.

 

We should be thanking successful bankers for their huge contribution towards the upkeep of this country through higher levels of tax and large disposible income. Good on 'em, wish I went into that business, I certainly don't begrudge another man earning big money any more than I'm incredibly proud of my missus being a teacher. Both are equally important to our society ('er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future of our country, and the succcessful bankers like my pal Mark who through his hard earned massive wages and taxes pay my missuses salary and he building she works in).

 

There is a lot of truth in what you say. It's strange that some people will begrudge bankers getting large sums of money yet admire footballers and pop stars who only kick a ball or write a few notes. Don't even get me started on JK Rowling and others.

Edited 8 October, 2010 by Whitey Grandad
Spelling

[trousers]

Not sure how you think they are taking the p***? He gets a massive bonus as through investing his client's money into mining companies and natural resources as well as strong currencies such as Norweigen Crone, and Aussie dollars he has made them millions of dollars profit. If he didn't, never mind a bonus, he'd get sacked. Simple.

 

Only the high st banks such as Northern Rock, Lloyds and RBS got bail outs due to leending money to people like us that asked formore than we could afford, thanks to hugely successful investment banking arms, HSBC and Barclays didn't have to follow the others into bail outs and businesses like JPM make our govenrment huge amounts of money through corporation tax and the wages it pays its massively successful staff.

 

They are well within their rights to move to another, more welcoming country if the government squeeze them too much. If (and it will never happen as he's an unelectible, back stabbing wierdo) Red Ed got into power the wealth creaters and aspirational go getters of this country would leave, leaving a irreplaceable black whole in the country's coffers.

 

We should be thanking successful bankers for their huge contribution towards the upkeep of this country through higher levels of tax and large disposible income. Good on 'em, wish I went into that business, I certainly don't begrudge another man earning big money any more than I'm incredibly proud of my missus being a teacher. Both are equally important to our society ('er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future of our country, and the succcessful bankers like my pal Mark who through his hard earned massive wages and taxes pay my missuses salary and he building she works in).

 

What makes you think this is the place for rational posts....? ;-)

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Not sure how you think they are taking the p***? He gets a massive bonus as through investing his client's money into mining companies and natural resources as well as strong currencies such as Norweigen Crone, and Aussie dollars he has made them millions of dollars profit. If he didn't, never mind a bonus, he'd get sacked. Simple.

 

Only the high st banks such as Northern Rock, Lloyds and RBS got bail outs due to leending money to people like us that asked formore than we could afford, thanks to hugely successful investment banking arms, HSBC and Barclays didn't have to follow the others into bail outs and businesses like JPM make our govenrment huge amounts of money through corporation tax and the wages it pays its massively successful staff.

 

They are well within their rights to move to another, more welcoming country if the government squeeze them too much. If (and it will never happen as he's an unelectible, back stabbing wierdo) Red Ed got into power the wealth creaters and aspirational go getters of this country would leave, leaving a irreplaceable black whole in the country's coffers.

 

We should be thanking successful bankers for their huge contribution towards the upkeep of this country through higher levels of tax and large disposible income. Good on 'em, wish I went into that business, I certainly don't begrudge another man earning big money any more than I'm incredibly proud of my missus being a teacher. Both are equally important to our society ('er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future of our country, and the succcessful bankers like my pal Mark who through his hard earned massive wages and taxes pay my missuses salary and he building she works in).

 

You're missing the point though surely? That being that he and his trader mates are not suffering like you or I. A small gesture like I stated earlier would be all it would take for the City to reverse the damage it has caused.

 

How can we 'all be in this together' when I don't even see a token gesture from the banking sector?!

 

Footballers and JK Rowling etc didn't mess around with world economies so I don't expect them to be lambasted.

[OldNick]

You're missing the point though surely? That being that he and his trader mates are not suffering like you or I. A small gesture like I stated earlier would be all it would take for the City to reverse the damage it has caused.

 

How can we 'all be in this together' when I don't even see a token gesture from the banking sector?!

 

Footballers and JK Rowling etc didn't mess around with world economies so I don't expect them to be lambasted.

trouble is all football fans are not hooligans and we would be upset if all were tagged that way.

The labour government are delighted we blame the bankers, afterall it was them who deregulated the day after they came to power and left the FSA to police it. It was like taking candy from a kid

[dune]

You're missing the point though surely? That being that he and his trader mates are not suffering like you or I. A small gesture like I stated earlier would be all it would take for the City to reverse the damage it has caused.

 

How can we 'all be in this together' when I don't even see a token gesture from the banking sector?!

 

Footballers and JK Rowling etc didn't mess around with world economies so I don't expect them to be lambasted.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of how banks behaved under FSA rules (the Socialists monitoring body) you still cannot get away from the fact that the Socialists saddled us with a mountain of debt (despite their stealth taxes) which meant that Britain was completely exposed when the financial crisis hit. They're clueless when it comes to managing an economy which is why it's always left to the Conservatives to fix the car crash after they've gone.

 

They borrowed on a scale not seen since the war

 

They doubled the national debt leaving us with the worst deficit in the G20

 

They caused record youth unemployment and left 2.5m people without a job

 

They presided over the first run on a bank for 150 years

 

When the recession hit more companies went bankrupt than in any previous recession

 

They brought Britain to the brink of bankruptcy

 

Every Labour government has run out of money

 

Every Labour government has put up taxes

 

Every Labour government has increased unemployment

 

Every Labour government has been bankrolled by the unions

 

You can't trust Labour with the economy - whoever the leader

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GenevaSaint]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of how banks behaved under FSA rules (the Socialists monitoring body) you still cannot get away from the fact that the Socialists saddled us with a mountain of debt (despite their stealth taxes) which meant that Britain was completely exposed when the financial crisis hit. They're clueless when it comes to managing an economy which is why it's always left to the Conservatives to fix the car crash after they've gone.

 

They borrowed on a scale not seen since the war

They doubled the national debt leaving us with the worst deficit in the G20

They caused record youth unemployment and left 2.5m people without a job

They presided over the first run on a bank for 150 years

When the recession hit more companies went bankrupt than in any previous recession

They brought Britain to the brink of bankruptcy

Every Labour government has run out of money

Every Labour government has put up taxes

Every Labour government has increased unemployment

Every Labour government has been bankrolled by the unions

You can't trust Labour with the economy - whoever the leader

 

Dune I agree with some of the stuff above, but don't have the time to deal with every single issue. What I will say in their defence is I personally believe that the recession could have been significantly worse without the leadership that Brown showed. For all his faults (many), I really do believe we were better off under his stewardship than if we had Osborne at the helm from 2008 - 10

 

What I will say is that WE, the British public also caused some of this you know. Why did the retail banks and mortgage companies keep lending astronomical amounts of money, because in the UK we're obsessed with wealth, houses and "stuff" (Cars, label clothes, etc). This obviously also applies to the Americans.

 

We borrowed too much, now we're paying the price. Consumer attitudes and our attitudes to debt have to change. Lets stop believe that housing is a way to make money and start thinking it's somewhere to live.

Edited 8 October, 2010 by GenevaSaint
spelling and adding Brown defence!

[Whitey Grandad]

You're missing the point though surely? That being that he and his trader mates are not suffering like you or I. A small gesture like I stated earlier would be all it would take for the City to reverse the damage it has caused.

 

How can we 'all be in this together' when I don't even see a token gesture from the banking sector?!

 

Footballers and JK Rowling etc didn't mess around with world economies so I don't expect them to be lambasted.

 

What the bankers did was not illegal, although rewarding excessive risk-taking was one of the causes of the banking crisis, but not the only one. Personally, I would prefer to see a strong manufacturing and design sector in our economy. In my opinion the banks should stick to providing a source of working capital and funds for investment. The labour governments were perfectly happy to rely on the banking and services sector to provide them with a cash cow during the 'boom' years.

[Whitey Grandad]

Dune I agree with some of the stuff above, but don't have the time to deal with every single issue.

 

What I will say is that WE, the British public also caused some of this you know. Why did the retail banks and mortgage companies keep lending astronomical amounts of money, because in the UK we're obsessed with wealth, houses and "stuff" (Cars, label clothes, etc). This obviously also applies to the Americans.

 

We borrowed too much, now we're paying the price. Consumer attitudes and our attitudes to bedt have to change. Lets stop believe that housing is a way to make money and start thinking it's somewhere to live.

 

Your words are much too wise to have any appeal to the 'want-it-now' generation. Please don't include me in the 'WE', I have given up cautioning the youngsters about taking on debt.

[Joensuu]

Charliedune, for the record, economically, you are making a sensible arguement. However, you devalue your own argument by incorrectly using the term 'Socialist'. New Labour were capitalist, pro-business, and very much right of centre.

 

If other posters used the term Nazi (incorrectly) to refer to the Tories, wouldn't that likewise undermine their own argument?

[Johnny Bognor]

Dune I agree with some of the stuff above, but don't have the time to deal with every single issue. What I will say in their defence is I personally believe that the recession could have been significantly worse without the leadership that Brown showed. For all his faults (many), I really do believe we were better off under his stewardship than if we had Osborne at the helm from 2008 - 10

 

What I will say is that WE, the British public also caused some of this you know. Why did the retail banks and mortgage companies keep lending astronomical amounts of money, because in the UK we're obsessed with wealth, houses and "stuff" (Cars, label clothes, etc). This obviously also applies to the Americans.

 

We borrowed too much, now we're paying the price. Consumer attitudes and our attitudes to debt have to change. Lets stop believe that housing is a way to make money and start thinking it's somewhere to live.

 

I do think that 'we' are also to blame to some extent, but when Brown was on a borrowing + spending spree, he was clearly not setting a good example. Spouting total carp about "no more boom and bust" only gave those who are not economically savvy a false confidence and in my book that was fraudulant and the **** should be put before the courts.

 

I clearly remember talking with colleagues about how lending 8 times the amount of earnings and providing 125% mortgages was only going to end in tears. You didn't need to be Chancellor of the Exchequer to see the car crash that would happen and he was more than happy to turn a blind eye, especially when he had the power to stop it. This was criminal negligence and should have seen the **** in jail.

 

For me, it is less about Labour and more about the con artist who stood on a ticket of prudence. Prudence? Don't make me laugh

[Whitey Grandad]

When Shirley Porter pursued policies that were designed to encourage votes to support her she was made to pay the money back to Westminster Council. Do you think there is anty chance of Gordon Brown paying back the billions that he spent on securing Labour votes?

[JackanorySFC]

You're missing the point though surely? That being that he and his trader mates are not suffering like you or I. A small gesture like I stated earlier would be all it would take for the City to reverse the damage it has caused.

 

How can we 'all be in this together' when I don't even see a token gesture from the banking sector?!

 

Footballers and JK Rowling etc didn't mess around with world economies so I don't expect them to be lambasted.

 

I just don't understand why he (and others like him) who work for a profitable company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase shows they have made huge profits every year recession or not) and are profitable themselves (some people seem to think bankers get rewarded for failiure - apart from high profile cases like severence packages for the Fred Goodwins of this world - this simply isn't the case - you fail to make your company and clients money - you lose your job or get a donut (£0) bonus).

 

HSBC have made huge profits again this year, as has Barclays. These are well run buisnesses that contribute massively to this country's tax revenues. Fair enough with RBS/ Lloyds/ Northern Rock but why punish profitable employees at profitable companies.

 

As for "not suffering" handing over 54% of the money he has earned is a higher % than you or I pay, I'd consider that suffering? If he gets taxed more he won't be able to buy that £50k Smallbones kitchen (you may laugh but if he and others like him can't then excellent skilled craftsman lose their jobs). If he moves abroad (his work have ofered him and his colleagues jobs in Switzerland or Singapore due to the tax rises under labour) his taxes alone will mean the salarys of my missus and 6 of her amazing teacher colleagues will disappear - how the hell is that a good thing?

[OldNick]

Dune I agree with some of the stuff above, but don't have the time to deal with every single issue. What I will say in their defence is I personally believe that the recession could have been significantly worse without the leadership that Brown showed. For all his faults (many), I really do believe we were better off under his stewardship than if we had Osborne at the helm from 2008 - 10

 

What I will say is that WE, the British public also caused some of this you know. Why did the retail banks and mortgage companies keep lending astronomical amounts of money, because in the UK we're obsessed with wealth, houses and "stuff" (Cars, label clothes, etc). This obviously also applies to the Americans.

 

We borrowed too much, now we're paying the price. Consumer attitudes and our attitudes to debt have to change. Lets stop believe that housing is a way to make money and start thinking it's somewhere to live.

Geneva, how can you say Brown was good? He oversaw all that went on, he was the credit card chancellor and PM. His rush to pay for public projects meant he needed to find money from somewhere.He got on the treadmill and could not jump off as he needed more and more revenue. Blair was the clever one as he helped build the debt but jumped off before the sh## hit the fan.Brown was so keen to be PM he took his eye off the ball and has been left to hold the baby.

Brown inherited the golden economy and it has turned to sand. I hate the state our country is in, but i shouted into the wind when i was trying to point out why this could not last.

We all (the prudent ones especially ) are left to pick up the pieces.

[GenevaSaint]

Geneva, how can you say Brown was good? He oversaw all that went on, he was the credit card chancellor and PM. His rush to pay for public projects meant he needed to find money from somewhere.He got on the treadmill and could not jump off as he needed more and more revenue. Blair was the clever one as he helped build the debt but jumped off before the sh## hit the fan.Brown was so keen to be PM he took his eye off the ball and has been left to hold the baby.

Brown inherited the golden economy and it has turned to sand. I hate the state our country is in, but i shouted into the wind when i was trying to point out why this could not last.

We all (the prudent ones especially ) are left to pick up the pieces.

 

Read it again Nick, I said I think he did a very good job of steering us through the recession. A better job than I believe Osborne and co would've done.

[Whitey Grandad]

Read it again Nick, I said I think he did a very good job of steering us through the recession. A better job than I believe Osborne and co would've done.

 

But as the saying goes, 'if I were you I wouldn't start from here'.

[OldNick]

Read it again Nick, I said I think he did a very good job of steering us through the recession. A better job than I believe Osborne and co would've done.

Of course we may not have had a recession if Brown had done the job properly in the first place. Brown gave us quatative easing. It is still not certain whether that will help or hinder. GO may have done the same or tried something else it is only opinion and until I have seen GO's work for a while will I be able to come to your conclusion or not.

[GenevaSaint]

Of course we may not have had a recession if Brown had done the job properly in the first place. Brown gave us quatative easing. It is still not certain whether that will help or hinder. GO may have done the same or tried something else it is only opinion and until I have seen GO's work for a while will I be able to come to your conclusion or not.

 

So you're telling me the GLOBAL recession driven by subprime in the US is Browns fault? As for QE, I'll submit to the BoE for their guidance on the merits of that to be fair.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So you're telling me the GLOBAL recession driven by subprime in the US is Browns fault?

 

No but

 

Selling our gold at rock bottom prices.

Decimating our pension provisions

Setting up tripartite regulation, rather than BOE to regulate the banks.

Not putting any money aside in the good times.

Paying people on over £50,000 WFTC.

Being a major player in the illigal war.

Abolishing the 10p tax rate

 

 

Was.

[OldNick]

So you're telling me the GLOBAL recession driven by subprime in the US is Browns fault? As for QE, I'll submit to the BoE for their guidance on the merits of that to be fair.

 

The sub-prime was obviously a major factor but had Blair Brown not moved the BOE's policing of the banks , ours would not have been able to get involved.Whether Osbourne would have been better who can tell?

[Whitey Grandad]

So you're telling me the GLOBAL recession driven by subprime in the US is Browns fault? As for QE, I'll submit to the BoE for their guidance on the merits of that to be fair.

 

Other countries have weathered the financial storms much better than we have.

[buctootim]

Other countries have weathered the financial storms much better than we have.

 

US, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Greece, Japan?

[Joensuu]

This thread is so partisan. Why not put down your political colours for a second and assess the situation without throwing blame around. The argument over what proportion of the blame should fall on Brown, and what proportion on the bankers is pretty pointless really, they both screwed up royally. Of course, this isn't the conclusion that either side of the debate want to settle with. Labour supporters want to pin the blame on the extremes of ill-regulated capitalism. Tories want to pin the blame on the zealous overspending of a Chancellor-come-PM who massively overspent. Both views have merit.

 

The answer can be found somewhere in the middle. No government should be allowed to spend more than their income (unless there is serious reason to do so, e.g. WW3). Likewise, no banker should be allowed to recklessly play dice with the economy, regulation needs to be tightened.

 

Neither extreme of right or left has been shown to provide effective government. Too much state control bloats and adds bureaucracy; too little leads to gross imbalances between rich and poor.

 

Anyhow, returning to the topic of this thread, I believe we need to completely reconsider the concept of welfare. It should not be a way of life, but it should be there to catch everyone, however poor or wealthy, when they need it to. Our current system is too generous to encourage the poorest to work, but not generous enough to provide any assistance to the people who have been making contributions to National Insurance all their lives. The solution, IMO, is to adopt the Swedish model [ehem!], one which provides everyone, with a massively generous benefit for a short period of time (say 70-80% of last wage (capped at £50k), for 12 months). When the short period elapses your benefit is reduced to a breadline amount (say max per family £350 per month). You can then build your 12 months of benefit back up with future National Insurance payments. The net result is that everyone is very generously supported, but at the same time everyone is encouraged to seek work as fast as possible. [Obviously some benefits would be outside of this proposed system, e.g. disability, single parent etc]

 

As for child allowance, Osborne has probably got it right. I know, it's not perfect, but it's certainly more progressive than the previous system, and to make it fairer still would require making it far more complex for HMRC to administrate (which would reduce any potential savings which, frankly, the Treasury so desperately needs).

[Whitey Grandad]

Neatly put, Joensuu, but there is absolutely nothing 'fair' about a progressive tax system. And as for 'cutting the Budget', we would not need to cut so much if the government had not overspent.

[Whitey Grandad]

US, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Greece, Japan?

 

That seems to be a very selective list. How about India, China? New Zealand, Australia, Canada have come out almost unscathed. Closer to home, Germany has done ok.

[Joensuu]

Neatly put, Joensuu, but there is absolutely nothing 'fair' about a progressive tax system.

I know what you mean; work should be rewarded and all. But you must agree that societies without some degree of progressive levelling tend to quickly to develop a small ultra rich elite, with the vast majority struggling to live day-to-day. Progressive taxation isn't itself the problem, the real problem is where to set the balance.

 

And as for 'cutting the Budget', we would not need to cut so much if the government had not overspent.

 

Agree absolutely. Much of the overspending was wasteful, some of it, such as the bank bailout, essential.

[buctootim]

That seems to be a very selective list. How about India, China? New Zealand, Australia, Canada have come out almost unscathed. Closer to home, Germany has done ok.

 

Canada is the only country from that list with an economy broadly similar to ours. The UK has a huge financial services (banking, insurance etc) - the largest in the world and it accounts for nearly 10% of GDP. To put that in context - 5 times the size of agriculture and only slightly smaller than manufacturing. Given those facts, actually I think the UK has been lucky to not be harder hit.

[aintforever]

We should be thanking successful bankers for their huge contribution towards the upkeep of this country through higher levels of tax and large disposible income. Good on 'em, wish I went into that business, I certainly don't begrudge another man earning big money any more than I'm incredibly proud of my missus being a teacher. Both are equally important to our society ('er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future of our country, and the succcessful bankers like my pal Mark who through his hard earned massive wages and taxes pay my missuses salary and he building she works in).

 

The problem is "'er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future" could very well soon be out of work and on benefits because banker Mark doesn't want to give up too much of his millions in bonuses.

[solentstars]

The problem is "'er indoors teaching kids and shaping the future" could very well soon be out of work and on benefits because banker Mark doesn't want to give up too much of his millions in bonuses.

 

its all gorden browns fault the way he has single handed destroyed the world economy :lol:the bankers should get a medal and bigger bonus pay no tax for their brilliant financial investments and decisions which made all governments pumped in mega tax payers money to stop a world depression and bail out these great bankers,

gordan geckois back:rolleyes:

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Canada is the only country from that list with an economy broadly similar to ours. The UK has a huge financial services (banking, insurance etc) - the largest in the world and it accounts for nearly 10% of GDP. To put that in context - 5 times the size of agriculture and only slightly smaller than manufacturing. Given those facts, actually I think the UK has been lucky to not be harder hit.

 

Canada's economy is nothing like ours. It is a massive energy exporter, has huge mineral reserves and is a big exporter of food and timber.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

As for child allowance, Osborne has probably got it right. I know, it's not perfect, but it's certainly more progressive than the previous system, and to make it fairer still would require making it far more complex for HMRC to administrate (which would reduce any potential savings which, frankly, the Treasury so desperately needs).

 

Much less progressive than you might think. The super rich without kids are unaffected and the super rich with kids won't even notice. But the marginal impact on those just above the upper rate limit (especially if only have one earner) will be very noticeable - some will effectively be getting a pay cut! Much more progressive would be to increase the 40% rate to 41%. And it would raise much more money.

[bridge too far]

Much less progressive than you might think. The super rich without kids are unaffected and the super rich with kids won't even notice. But the marginal impact on those just above the upper rate limit (especially if only have one earner) will be very noticeable - some will effectively be getting a pay cut! Much more progressive would be to increase the 40% rate to 41%. And it would raise much more money.

 

Another effect that I hadn't thought of but one that's been highlighted on this morning's news is this:

 

Child benefit is usually paid to the mother. If the mother chooses to stay at home to look after the children, she gets those years credited to her National Insurance contributions. If Child Benefit is withdrawn from that family, she will no longer have those credits. So, come her retirement, her state pension will be less.

 

In some cases, this may not be a problem. But, should the parents divorce in the future, the woman will be penalised. And, if her state pension is significantly reduced, it will have to be topped up with a Pension Credit. So 'we' will all end up paying for it anyway!

 

Interestingly, the Conservative chair of the committee looking at this has criticised the whole plan, saying the tax authorities will not be able to cope.

 

Coupled with Chris Huhne's declaration that the cuts might need to be slower and less deep, this all leads me to think that this government is acting first and then being forced to think after and then do an about turn.

[Johnny Bognor]

This thread is so partisan. Why not put down your political colours for a second and assess the situation without throwing blame around. The argument over what proportion of the blame should fall on Brown, and what proportion on the bankers is pretty pointless really, they both screwed up royally. Of course, this isn't the conclusion that either side of the debate want to settle with. Labour supporters want to pin the blame on the extremes of ill-regulated capitalism. Tories want to pin the blame on the zealous overspending of a Chancellor-come-PM who massively overspent. Both views have merit.

 

I am glad you said this, because political allegiences aside, I blame both those in the financial system that were responsible and the politicians that allowed it to go on. In my mind they were equally culpable.

 

People should remember that not all bankers were to blame. The thousands of 'normal' bank workers / tellers who lost their jobs are real victims here - they didn't do anything wrong, but lost their jobs through mismanagement. Not all banks were bailed out with Barclays and HSBC turning healthy profits. Lloyds was only brought to its knees because of Gordon's idea to acquire the car crash that was HBOS.

 

Likewise, not all politicians were to blame. Cable constantly warned parliament (as did Oliver bleeding Letwin), but they were shouted down by Brown who knew best. I only get on a political bandwagon when the left on here will not accept any criticism of their precious Gordon. I have made my opinions clear on him, he should stand trial for criminal negligence. I also believe that there are some in the high echelons of the finance industry that should be brought before the courts - there are some that knew what was going on and they should be hunted down and prosecuted.

 

I have no problem with rewarding success, but even a capitalist like me cannot fathom why Goodwin gets a £7m pension, when he oversaw the car crash that became RBS. It is immorral to reward such a catastrophic failure.

[Wade Garrett]

Child Benefit being withdrawn for all 40% taxpayers has been badly thought out, whether you agree with it or not.

 

For the record, I am quite happy to give up my Child Benefit, just as I was when I lost my working tax credit (altogether nearly £200 a month). But I am not happy at billionaire Government advisers, and billionaire Tory donors avoiding the millions they should be paying in tax. The Tories have been very quiet about the tax-avoiders. The press should be demonising them, as well as the scumbags who select welfare as a career choice. They are equally loathsome.

 

And if any banker chooses to relocate to Switzerland, instead of supporting a country that protected them from ruin, then they should be ashamed of themselves. That they won't be tells you what sort of people they are.

 

I'm a great believer in rewarding companies who reinvest their profits back into their business, creating the jobs badly needed for the country to prosper. They should be encouraged by suitable tax-breaks.

[bridge too far]

Another strange anomaly that has arisen is that of a couple with children from previous relationships. On the news this morning, they looked at a couple where the man had a child from a previous marriage and his partner had two children from her previous marriage.

 

Although the man paid maintenance for his children, his new wife, who doesn't work, will lose the Child Benefit for HER two children because he earns over the threshold!

 

That can't be right. He has no fiscal responsibility for her two children but she will lose out because of his salary.

[solentstars]

I am glad you said this, because political allegiences aside, I blame both those in the financial system that were responsible and the politicians that allowed it to go on. In my mind they were equally culpable.

 

People should remember that not all bankers were to blame. The thousands of 'normal' bank workers / tellers who lost their jobs are real victims here - they didn't do anything wrong, but lost their jobs through mismanagement. Not all banks were bailed out with Barclays and HSBC turning healthy profits. Lloyds was only brought to its knees because of Gordon's idea to acquire the car crash that was HBOS.

 

Likewise, not all politicians were to blame. Cable constantly warned parliament (as did Oliver bleeding Letwin), but they were shouted down by Brown who knew best. I only get on a political bandwagon when the left on here will not accept any criticism of their precious Gordon. I have made my opinions clear on him, he should stand trial for criminal negligence. I also believe that there are some in the high echelons of the finance industry that should be brought before the courts - there are some that knew what was going on and they should be hunted down and prosecuted.

 

I have no problem with rewarding success, but even a capitalist like me cannot fathom why Goodwin gets a £7m pension, when he oversaw the car crash that became RBS. It is immorral to reward such a catastrophic failure.

 

good post and i agree the bankers at the lower level can not be blamed for their institutions managements failure of policy but i blame the downturn squarely on these people for the vast part and so dos the bank of england governer and to a lesser extent governments around the. world not regulating their casino economy policys.

no one mentions that bush was president in the us a conservative had also pumped in vast sums to stop a 1930,s depression.

i,m glad the money was pumped in worldwide to save our capitalist system and that unemployment has not rocketed like the 1980,s.