Osborne's Plan A is correct - now cut tax

[trousers]

George Osborne's Plan A is right - now cut tax

Evening Standard comment

2 Aug 2011

 

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has few enough reasons to be cheerful just now, what with gloomy figures for the manufacturing sector and sluggish economic growth. But there is one cause for cheer: the UK gilts yield has fallen to 2.7 per cent, the lowest for a decade.

 

What this means is that Britain is paying a smaller interest rate on our debts than our neighbours because the markets have confidence in the Government's economic policies. It's a thumbs-up for Mr Osborne's so-called Plan A for fiscal austerity and deficit reduction. And it means Britain looks like a better bet for investors than the US, with its last-ditch deal to avoid debt default.

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23974850-george-osbornes-plan-a-is-right---now-cut-tax.do

[Verbal]

If interest rates are that low, it's time to take out a hefty loan.

[bridge too far]

Although

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14370681

[Mao Cap]

Well Osborne must be right if even the hardline Marxists of the London Evening Standard agree with him. Lol.

[shurlock]

To some extent continuing the same downwards trend that's been evident since 2009. Yields are largely driven by changes in monetary policy and interest rates expectations -and the Bank of England has been pretty accomodative. The Tories can take some credit (though that doesnt take account of the potential economic costs of the austerity package); but its role is overstated and overexaggerated. If the Bank of England hiked up interest rates tmrw, you would see an increase in yields that made Osborne's interventions look trivial.

Edited 2 August, 2011 by shurlock

[revolution saint]

To be honest I've given up believing any economic forecast from anyone - it's just guesswork, mostly representing some interest or another, and mostly wrong. All I know is that I have less disposable income than I used to have, things cost more, my pension is worse off and jobs are more scarce. I'll start spending more when I have more money and I guess that's what most people will do.

 

I'd like to add that Dune can feel free to use this post as an exit point to froth at the mouth about those damn Marxists, or the book he read about Rhodesia once, or indeed post some funny youtube irrelevancies - in these troubling economic hard times he's the only thing that makes me laugh.

[dune]

My avatar and location says it all.

[thefunkygibbons]

At the very least he should signal when the 50% tax band will be removed

 

Even the Treasury admits that it raises almost nothing in additional revenue

[trousers]

"Time and again since the Budget, Labour’s Ed Balls has urged the Coalition to follow the example of the United States, with a slower approach to cutting the deficit.

 

‘The Americans are the right comparison,’ he insists.

 

Very well, Mr Balls. Let us compare. Take growth. Despite the fiscal stimulus so warmly approved by our Shadow Chancellor, the U.S. economy has actually grown more slowly than Britain’s over the first half of this year.

 

To be precise, the U.S. grew by 0.4 per cent quarter-by-quarter over the first half of 2011, while we grew by 0.7 per cent.

 

Certainly, our performance offers little to celebrate. But the fact is that Britain is doing almost twice as well under ‘Slasher’ Osborne as is America under his big spending opposite number.

 

Or take unemployment. In the U.S., it stands at 9.2 per cent, and rising. In the UK, it is 7.7 per cent – and (touch wood) under control.

 

Or interest rates. Remarkably, thanks to Mr Osborne’s cuts, Britain now pays no more for its loans than America, with its reserve currency of the mighty dollar.

 

Indeed, yesterday our Government’s borrowing costs fell to their lowest ever, as investors turned to the UK as a safe haven.

 

Meanwhile Spain and Italy are having to pay more than double.

 

Then there’s the ultimate irony: after its massive spending binge, and the chaos in Congress, the U.S. is having to slash its deficit more quickly than we are.

 

It may be too much to expect a show of humility from the bumptious Mr Balls.

 

But with his economic theories exposed as recipes for catastrophe, could he at least favour us with a period of silence?"

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2021783/Isnt-finally-time-silence-Ed-Balls.html

 

Disclaimer: the above is the opinion of The Daily Mail so should be assumed to be complete nonsense.

[Verbal]

I've never understood the psychology necessary to support one political party so slavishly. You have to give up all rational judgement and independence of thought so that you can enthusiastically rubber-stamp the latest missive issued by other Party flag wavers.

 

Unless you're being paid by the tories, trousers, how do you do it?

[trousers]

I've never understood the psychology necessary to support one political party so slavishly. You have to give up all rational judgement and independence of thought so that you can enthusiastically rubber-stamp the latest missive issued by other Party flag wavers.

 

Unless you're being paid by the tories, trousers, how do you do it?

 

Close. Very close. I'm actually being paid by the Labour Party to expose the incompetencies of the Tories.

[revolution saint]

I've never understood the psychology necessary to support one political party so slavishly. You have to give up all rational judgement and independence of thought so that you can enthusiastically rubber-stamp the latest missive issued by other Party flag wavers.Unless you're being paid by the tories, trousers, how do you do it?

 

Me neither, and you can add in the fact that ideologically there is very little difference between the popular parties anyway - certainly not enough to justify some of the tub thumping that goes on. When push comes to shove most of the politicians make the same decisions.

[bridge too far]

Me neither, and you can add in the fact that ideologically there is very little difference between the popular parties anyway - certainly not enough to justify some of the tub thumping that goes on. When push comes to shove most of the politicians make the same decisions.

 

Don't you think it comes down to the basic tenets of each party (although I honestly struggle to find any for the LibDems). OK, once in power, each party might well move away from its core principles but it's the principles that govern my support.

 

Also, and based on a somewhat naive belief that some in my party of choice will to those principles, I choose a pragmatic approach. That is, party A might come closer to my beliefs than party B ever will.

[dubai_phil]

I read today about the NHS Computer System. 11 billion quid. been running for years. 7 Billion spent already and it can never work. Wonder how useful that spare cash would have been for front line services right now.

 

Forget the Political Arguments about Cutting vs Taxing, even the economists can't work out what to do.

 

One thing that is clear.

 

China now owns most of the planet.

[revolution saint]

Don't you think it comes down to the basic tenets of each party (although I honestly struggle to find any for the LibDems). OK, once in power, each party might well move away from its core principles but it's the principles that govern my support.

 

Also, and based on a somewhat naive belief that some in my party of choice will to those principles, I choose a pragmatic approach. That is, party A might come closer to my beliefs than party B ever will.

 

It's probably quite cynical but I think the central tenent of the major parties is to get elected - everything else is secondary. Of course there is a wealth of history on both sides but it's used as a tool to galvanise the already converted (slogans if you like) and IMO isn't translated into policy. There are exceptions though - the minimum wage for example. Sometimes I feel as if an election is a choice between one set of bank managers and another (probably a bad comparison given bankers reputations these days but you get the idea). Ideologically there doesn't seem that much difference but maybe that's a good thing, who knows?

[Jonnyboy]

I agree with the 2nd part of the thread title - now cut tax - As Ed Balls keeps on advising - VAT needs to go down to at least 15%.

[dune]

I agree with the 2nd part of the thread title - now cut tax - As Ed Balls keeps on advising - VAT needs to go down to at least 15%.

 

Would this be the same bulbous eyed slimeball that was party to the one eyed idiots raid on private sector pensions?

[badgerx16]

Would this be the same bulbous eyed slimeball that was party to the one eyed idiots raid on private sector pensions?

You have such a considered view of the world, and are so loving in your outlook, that you are an example to us all.

[Jonnyboy]

VAT hits the poorest hardest. Why should we pay for the bankers greed?

[trousers]

VAT hits the poorest hardest. Why should we pay for the bankers greed?

 

Because we were all happy to feed off the spoils of said greedy bankers in the 'good times'?

[dune]

VAT hits the poorest hardest. Why should we pay for the bankers greed?

 

The massive £2.50 rise for every £100 spent has really hurt.

 

The year on year council tax hikes under the tax and spend Labour government on the other hand was hardly noticeable.

[trousers]

Today's Daily Mail 'comment' section...

 

"All in it together?

 

In the City last night, more than 3,000 bankers joined the revels at the Square Mile summer party, sinking an ocean of champagne with burlesque dancers, jugglers and reality TV stars.

 

With exorbitant bonuses on the way – and no effective regulation of their excesses in sight – isn’t it truly sickening that the people who crippled our country have so much to celebrate?"

[badgerx16]

The massive £2.50 rise for every £100 spent has really hurt.

 

The year on year council tax hikes under the tax and spend Labour government on the other hand was hardly noticeable.

Council Tax increases are set by local councils, the majority of which are not Labour ( being Tory, LibDem or NOC ), and are generally capped by Westminster.

[dune]

Council Tax increases are set by local councils, the majority of which are not Labour ( being Tory, LibDem or NOC ), and are generally capped by Westminster.

 

Did you notice how the Conservatives stopped there being another increase when they came into power?

 

By cutting the waste and the non jobs you don't need to keep on hiking the taxes of hard working people. This must really annoy a commie like you.

[bridge too far]

Did you notice how the Conservatives stopped there being another increase when they came into power?

 

By cutting the waste and the non jobs you don't need to keep on hiking the taxes of hard working people. This must really annoy a commie like you.

 

By cutting grants to Charities you mean - and driving some of them to the wall? Who's going to run Dave's Big Society now?

[dune]

By cutting grants to Charities you mean - and driving some of them to the wall? Who's going to run Dave's Big Society now?

 

I think cutting grants to charities doesn't go far enough. No government money should go to charities. Take international aid for example - if I wanted to give money to third world governments/organisations it should be my choice to make a charitable donation. We're even giving money to India FFS and they are set to be a global power soon at their current rate of growth. Why should we subsidise countries that can't manage themselves properly. Take Rhodesia as an example -they were the breadbasket of Africa under the rule of great Ian Smith, yet here we are 30 years later and they have become a third world basket case of a nation. These countries are poor because they are not managed properly. Personally I couldn't care less about them and their people. it's not my problem and it's not our countries problem.

[badgerx16]

Dunce, your obsession with Rhodesia / Zimbabwe is unhealthy. Stop reading IDS's biography and the Daily Heil, shut down your PC, open your front door, walk down to the front gate and go through it. Where you will find yourself is called 'The Real World'.

[saintbletch]

I think cutting grants to charities doesn't go far enough. No government money should go to charities. Take international aid for example - if I wanted to give money to third world governments/organisations it should be my choice to make a charitable donation. We're even giving money to India FFS and they are set to be a global power soon at their current rate of growth. Why should we subsidise countries that can't manage themselves properly. Take Rhodesia as an example -they were the breadbasket of Africa under the rule of great Ian Smith, yet here we are 30 years later and they have become a third world basket case of a nation. These countries are poor because they are not managed properly. Personally I couldn't care less about them and their people. it's not my problem and it's not our countries problem.

 

Me neither dune.

 

I have zero compassion for children like this.

 

 

Looking at this picture stirs no human emotion in me whatsoever.

 

I also make a distinction between children like the one above and similar starving children in my own country.

 

This is an attitude I'm proud of.

Edited 4 August, 2011 by saintbletch

[OldNick]

I was watching Restoration House on TV the other night and a husband and wife who were retired town planners had bought a house for 2.2 m. How could that be?

Unless I got it wrong and they were not public sector employees.

[Special K]

I was watching Restoration House on TV the other night and a husband and wife who were retired town planners had bought a house for 2.2 m. How could that be?

Unless I got it wrong and they were not public sector employees.

 

Before they were Town Planners, they used to rob banks.

[bridge too far]

I was watching Restoration House on TV the other night and a husband and wife who were retired town planners had bought a house for 2.2 m. How could that be?

Unless I got it wrong and they were not public sector employees.

 

Maybe they inherited their money? Or maybe they worked for one of the many private town planning consultancies? Green-eyed goddess eh Nick?

[bridge too far]

Before they were Town Planners, they were bankers.

 

There - corrected it for you

[Special K]

There - corrected it for you

 

Dare i say they are the same thing!

[dune]

Me neither dune.

 

I have zero compassion for children like this.

 

 

Looking at this picture stirs no human emotion in me whatsoever.

 

I also make a distinction between children like the one above and similar starving children in my own country.

 

This is an attitude I'm proud of.

 

Instead of giving to charity we should be offering help that is profitable for our country. We should be purchasing land and creating efficient comercial farms with experienced farm managers (we can provide these people). This then provides employment and food to feed the people and a little profit to the exchequer.

[holepuncture]

I've never understood the psychology necessary to support one political party so slavishly. You have to give up all rational judgement and independence of thought so that you can enthusiastically rubber-stamp the latest missive issued by other Party flag wavers.

 

Unless you're being paid by the tories, trousers, how do you do it?

 

Very well put,

[badgerx16]

Instead of giving to charity we should be offering help that is profitable for our country. We should be purchasing land and creating efficient comercial farms with experienced farm managers (we can provide these people). This then provides employment and food to feed the people and a little profit to the exchequer.

In other words, reinstate the Empire ?

[bridge too far]

In other words, reinstate the Empire ?

 

I'm sure we can do that overnight to solve the current crisis in Africa

 

Of course, in the context of Dave's Big Society, it was home-based charities I was referring to.

[saintbletch]

Instead of giving to charity we should be offering help that is profitable for our country. We should be purchasing land and creating efficient comercial farms with experienced farm managers (we can provide these people). This then provides employment and food to feed the people and a little profit to the exchequer.

 

A truly inventive and thoroughly well thought out suggestion dune. I believe that British water companies are expert at managing water levels and are able to produce water on demand even in drought areas. Failing that, our farm managers are able to grow crops without recourse to such 20th century concepts as hydration. We'd certainly be able to get a tidy return in a very short period of time from 'these countries'. Well done, that's that solved.

 

But I'm confused. Help me out would you.

 

Above, when you say

 

"We should be offering help...."

I presume you're advocating that we should take some action to help people in 'these countries'.

 

This however is at odds with your post below where you said.

 

Personally I couldn't care less about them and their people. it's not my problem and it's not our countr[y's] problem.

I'm not sure I can reconcile those two statements.

 

In one you appear to say, categorically, that you do not care what happens in 'these countries'. Yet in the other you seem to be advocating putting in place a scheme to offer help.

 

Setting aside the obvious bountiful profit that could be returned from East Africa, why are you even thinking about offering help when you 'couldn't care less' about 'these countries'?

 

The only way I can reconcile the discrepancy is if you don't actually hold either belief but are instead posting them for some form of effect. I'm sure that's not the case because you'd have to be some sort of complete **** if you felt that it was OK to chose such a pathetic stooge as the object of your 'humour'.

 

So assuming it's not that. Could you help me to reconcile the two statements dune?

[dune]

A truly inventive and thoroughly well thought out suggestion dune. I believe that British water companies are expert at managing water levels and are able to produce water on demand even in drought areas. Failing that, our farm managers are able to grow crops without recourse to such 20th century concepts as hydration. We'd certainly be able to get a tidy return in a very short period of time from 'these countries'. Well done, that's that solved.

 

But I'm confused. Help me out would you.

 

Above, when you say

 

 

I presume you're advocating that we should take some action to help people in 'these countries'.

 

This however is at odds with your post below where you said.

 

 

I'm not sure I can reconcile those two statements.

 

In one you appear to say, categorically, that you do not care what happens in 'these countries'. Yet in the other you seem to be advocating putting in place a scheme to offer help.

 

Setting aside the obvious bountiful profit that could be returned from East Africa, why are you even thinking about offering help when you 'couldn't care less' about 'these countries'?

 

The only way I can reconcile the discrepancy is if you don't actually hold either belief but are instead posting them for some form of effect. I'm sure that's not the case because you'd have to be some sort of complete **** if you felt that it was OK to chose such a pathetic stooge as the object of your 'humour'.

 

So assuming it's not that. Could you help me to reconcile the two statements dune?

 

I couldn't care less about starving people in Africa because that's their problem, not mine. However there is a profit to be made for our country if we provide the people to manage their agriculture, mining, etc. We have the proven ability to make Africa work. It might not sit well with your Liberal Elitest sensibilities, but this is the answer - not handouts. All handouts will do is keep these countries in the gutter, much like handouts to the benefits slobs in Britain.

[solentstars]

Dunce, your obsession with Rhodesia / Zimbabwe is unhealthy. Stop reading IDS's biography and the Daily Heil, shut down your PC, open your front door, walk down to the front gate and go through it. Where you will find yourself is called 'The Real World'.

ha ha it would be nice if he could find a women who would put up with his me me me ,selfish ways but i expect he properly lives at home with his elderly mum and cannot really relate to real human beings.

[solentstars]

At the very least he should signal when the 50% tax band will be removed

 

Even the Treasury admits that it raises almost nothing in additional revenue

well if it raises next to nothing why worry about it and anyway the coalition have cut taxs for the lowest pay by raising the tax threshold this year before they pay tax and will do so again next april with the goal of 10,000 before you pay any tax is the right way to go at the moment.

[saintbletch]

I couldn't care less about starving people in Africa because that's their problem, not mine. However there is a profit to be made for our country if we provide the people to manage their agriculture, mining, etc. We have the proven ability to make Africa work. It might not sit well with your Liberal Elitest sensibilities, but this is the answer - not handouts. All handouts will do is keep these countries in the gutter, much like handouts to the benefits slobs in Britain.

 

Thanks for clearing that up dune. You've certainly helped me to understand your motives for posting the way you do.

 

But just so I can be doubly sure of what your saying. Let me play it back to you and I'm sure you'll correct me if I get it wrong. You've obviously put an enormous amount of thought into this idea of government run farms in East Africa and I wouldn't want to misrepresent you.

 

I'm with you so far on the overall plan - who wouldn't? It's brilliant. But I do have a few concerns.

 

In these tough times where our coalition government is making tough but necessary cuts, rather than involving the private sector to get involved and profit from Africa, you instead are advocating diverting sufficient funds from the government coffers to buy land, establish farms and manage 'their' agriculture.

 

This idea that we should be buying large tracts of land in East Africa from the government purse is brilliant by the way, but I'm just not sure you'd get that past the Liberal's in the other half of the coalition. They'd be suggesting that buying land in a foreign country with government money and establishing farms where it hasn't rained for 24 months would be an irresponsible use of the public purse. Liberals eh?

 

I'm really not comfortable that this apparent obsession of yours with centralising this sort of initiative so that our government becomes even more bloated than it already is. Why should the government be running this sort of scheme. Surely the private sector is the place for a brilliant scheme like this. Why not give the private sector the opportunity to hit pay dirt too.

 

But to ensure that the scheme wasn't over-subscribed and to generate even more money, the opportunity for private sector companies to buy land and open farms in a foreign country where it hasn't rained for 2 years could even be licensed. In the same way that telecommunications companies paid a small fortune for the rights to broadcast over the airwaves, so billions could be raised by selling scorched and barren land to companies so that they could build efficient commercial farms.

 

I'm also uneasy with then length of time before we'd see a return. It's this 'no rain' thing that's nagging away in my mind. I mean I know we've got much more agricultural expertise than 'them' but how quickly could we realistically be growing crops without water? Unless we plan to fly the water in? That sort of investment profile where a return comes at some point down the line stinks of philanthropy to me. And like you, that doesn't sit well with my desire to exploit the weak and needy.

 

So in summary you are saying that we should help Africa with an ill-defined plan to buy land and establish farms, that seems to be underpinned by a non-disclosed mechanism to either create rain or invent crops that don't need water, that may or may not return money to the exchequer in the short or long term, organised by centralised-governmental using money that could be spent at home helping our own citizens.

 

Did I get that right?

[trousers]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23975711-market-turmoil-shows-that-austerity-pays.do

[Jonnyboy]

I couldn't care less about starving people in Africa because that's their problem, not mine. However there is a profit to be made for our country if we provide the people to manage their agriculture, mining, etc. We have the proven ability to make Africa work. It might not sit well with your Liberal Elitest sensibilities, but this is the answer - not handouts. All handouts will do is keep these countries in the gutter, much like handouts to the benefits slobs in Britain.

 

Why dont you f off back out there and get your dream going then?

[dune]

Why dont you f off back out there and get your dream going then?

 

I'm currently to busy watching BBC4. Have a look.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm currently to busy watching BBC4. Have a look.

 

There are still whites out there, not all of them are scared of Mugabe.

 

Put your money where your mouth is.

[solentstars]

There are still whites out there, not all of them are scared of Mugabe.

 

Put your money where your mouth is.

i always thought that mugabe was the black ian smith but less extreme

[dune]

Isn't it amazing how the pet Socialists have gone quiet on how the Conservatives started dealing with our deficit so early. Just think where we'd be if the incompetent Labour party had got back in. It doesn't bare thinking about.

[bridge too far]

Isn't it amazing how the pet Socialists have gone quiet on how the Conservatives started dealing with our deficit so early. Just think where we'd be if the incompetent Labour party had got back in. It doesn't bare thinking about.

 

Do you always think in the altogether?

 

Oh no - you rarely think. You just jerk like a puppet on a string, don't you.

[badgerx16]

isn't it amazing how the pet socialists have gone quiet on how the conservatives started dealing with our deficit so early. Just think where we'd be if the incompetent labour party had got back in. It doesn't bare thinking about.

HOW LOUDLY DO YOU WANT US TO SAY THE CUTS ARE TOO MUCH & TOO FAST ?

 

They aren't dealng with the deficit, Government spending and borrowing have gone up.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2017214/Deficit-plan-pressure-UK-borrows-14bn-June.html