Green shoots?

[trousers]

Actually he will say that the economy is now so fuc.ked he is unable to reverse them - which is not quite the same thing is it.

 

Yeah, coz the economy wasn't left on the brink of non-repair the last time this country lost its senses and handed over the reigns to Labour. #whataboutery

[CB Saint]

Actually he will say that the economy is now so fuc.ked he is unable to reverse them - which is not quite the same thing is it.

 

Three years of opposing all cuts, followed by two years of saying that they can't reverse any of them. Coincidence or cunning plan from the start?

[saintfully]

Yeah, coz the economy wasn't left on the brink of non-repair the last time this country lost its senses and handed over the reigns to Labour. #whataboutery

 

Yawn. The global economy was on the brink of non-repair in 2008 (if that is the time you're referring to - your sentence actually refers to the time when Labour took over, which was 1997?). I don't think the dead grey hand of Gordon Brown had so much power and influence he could bring down all the econmies of the world...

 

Is your argument that Cam and co would have acted differently? Zero evidence for that. In fact, more to suggest that they would have been even looser with the regulation.

 

Finally, nowhere have I suggested that his speech will make me want to vote for him. Just that it was mis-represented.

 

#whatthefr.igruonaboutyouone-eyedToryweirdo?

[saintfully]

Three years of opposing all cuts, followed by two years of saying that they can't reverse any of them. Coincidence or cunning plan from the start?

 

Logic.

 

I guess Labour believe that if they had been in power, the economy would have been stronger - enabling some cuts to be reversed. Indeed, if George Osbournes/the OBR's forecasts had been correct, the economy would have been stronger.

 

Now that it turns out the economy isn't stronger, but actually much weaker, it would be weird to maintain the same position wouldn't it??

 

(I'm not a Labour supporter btw, IMHO they're all fu.ckin useless).

[solentstars]

Logic.

 

I guess Labour believe that if they had been in power, the economy would have been stronger - enabling some cuts to be reversed. Indeed, if George Osbournes/the OBR's forecasts had been correct, the economy would have been stronger.

 

Now that it turns out the economy isn't stronger, but actually much weaker, it would be weird to maintain the same position wouldn't it??

 

(I'm not a Labour supporter btw, IMHO they're all fu.ckin useless).

agree i don,t think any government whether conservative or labour could have stopped the global depression

The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.^[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.^[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing "a complete evaporation of liquidity".^[4]

The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,^[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.^[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.^{[8][9][10][11]} Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.^[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[

[LGTL]

The Tories are absolute masters at blaming the UK financial crisis on Labour, but the lack of recovery on the "global" financial crisis. They love having the best of both worlds.

[Lord Duckhunter]

agree i don,t think any government whether conservative or labour could have stopped the global depression

 

But Labour left us badly exposed to the downturn by spending too much money during the boom years. This in turn meant that there is no money to expand the deficit during the bust years. Of course Gordon Brown had abolished boom and bust and Labour had managed to create a goldilocks economy that ushered in a "golden age for the city of London".

 

[Verbal]

Yeah, coz the economy wasn't left on the brink of non-repair the last time this country lost its senses and handed over the reigns to Labour. #whataboutery

 

Peddling this rubbish again and again doesn't make it true.

 

To quote Simon Wren-Lewis, professor in economics at Merton College, Oxford, "the idea that the last Labour government seriously mismanaged the nation’s finances is a myth."

 

Facts are here, if you dare to look (and try to understand):

 

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.ca/2013/06/must-we-live-with-post-truth-media.html

 

While bankers should be doing serious jail time, their apologists keep warbling about how it was all Brown's fault really. I'm afraid it's nothing but a feeble lie. If you're not a banker yourself, stop genuflecting to the real incompetent, greedy ****wits whose vast personal fortunes we as taxpayers will be subsiding for decades to come.

[trousers]

Getting aroused again...

[Lord Duckhunter]

Peddling this rubbish again and again doesn't make it true.

 

To quote Simon Wren-Lewis, professor in economics at Merton College, Oxford, "the idea that the last Labour government seriously mismanaged the nation’s finances is a myth."

 

Facts are here, if you dare to look (and try to understand):

 

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.ca/2013/06/must-we-live-with-post-truth-media.html

 

While bankers should be doing serious jail time, their apologists keep warbling about how it was all Brown's fault really. I'm afraid it's nothing but a feeble lie. If you're not a banker yourself, stop genuflecting to the real incompetent, greedy ****wits whose vast personal fortunes we as taxpayers will be subsiding for decades to come.

 

Who knighted Fred Goodwin, who devised the tripartite banking regulations, who sold our gold at rock bottom prices, who taxed millionaires at 40% whilst putting up ordinary workers ni, who decimated peoples pensions with a tax grab, who expanded off balance pfi agreements that ourchildren and grandchildren will be paying back, who left us completely and utterly unprepared for the bust?

 

Your Mr Wren-Lewis may be called a professor in economics, but then George burley is called a football manager. The notion that the labour party ran the economy fantastically but the bankers ruinned it alone is laughable. This bankers were courted, knighted and praised by the labour government, labour were part of the problem, not victims of it.

[Verbal]

Who knighted Fred Goodwin, who devised the tripartite banking regulations, who sold our gold at rock bottom prices, who taxed millionaires at 40% whilst putting up ordinary workers ni, who decimated peoples pensions with a tax grab, who expanded off balance pfi agreements that ourchildren and grandchildren will be paying back, who left us completely and utterly unprepared for the bust?

 

Your Mr Wren-Lewis may be called a professor in economics, but then George burley is called a football manager. The notion that the labour party ran the economy fantastically but the bankers ruinned it alone is laughable. This bankers were courted, knighted and praised by the labour government, labour were part of the problem, not victims of it.

 

Whataboutery doesn't work with me, Ducky. I'm not a Labour voter. Nor do ad hominem attacks on Wren-Lewis. Why don't you take a minute to actually read his piece? It's quite a revelation for those parroting the Tory/rightwing press mantra.

[Johnny Bognor]

Whataboutery doesn't work with me, Ducky. I'm not a Labour voter. Nor do ad hominem attacks on Wren-Lewis. Why don't you take a minute to actually read his piece? It's quite a revelation for those parroting the Tory/rightwing press mantra.

 

"No more boom and bust" anyone?

 

Sorry Verbal, but Gordon Clown was as active as anyone in creating the conditions for everything to go tits up. He lied to the nation to give everyone a false sense of security so that they kept borrowing what they couldn't afford (well, he was doing it wasn't he?) on their mortages and credit cards. Some people said he was prudent... I said stick Crash Gordon in a jail cell next to the bankers and I still stand by that.

 

For those that missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQVF9s01NYI

 

And as for the academic, Wren-Lewis omits a very very important fact from his work (which is what you would expect from a loony lefty academic with an agenda). Gordon Clown adopted tory spending plans for his first two years of office, during which time net debt fell and budget surpluses returned. Ironically, those first two years of his chancellorship were his most successful.

 

Jeez and to think this clown (I mean the professor, not Gordon) is brainwashing his students. I despair, I really do.

Edited 25 June, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

...

Edited 25 June, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

...

Edited 25 June, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[trousers]

I'm not a Labour voter.

 

Yay. Quiz time. Name 3 fundamental Labour policies you disapprove of. (Said trousers falling into yet another intellectual trap...)

Edited 24 June, 2013 by trousers

[trousers]

David Smith ‏@dsmitheconomics

Something stirring in the housing market. British Bankers Association says mortgage approvals for house purchase in May up 24% on year ago.

[Verbal]

Yay. Quiz time. Name 3 fundamental Labour policies you disapprove of. (Said trousers falling into yet another intellectual trap...)

 

Jeez, dealing with you people is like playing swivel-eyed Whack-A-Mole. If it's not Lord Tender and his "everyone but me is a pseudo-intellectual (including people who've won the Nobel Prize. Twice)", it's Lord Whatabout and the scraps of garbage from Tory Central Office recycled here.

 

Anyway, to answer your question: where do I start? The abolition of the 10p rate for-low income earners? The catastrophic renegotiation of the GPs' contracts? The intention to bring in the Snooper's Charter? Honestly, I could go on and on about such a craven Labour leadership.

 

The problem, Lord W, is that you share with all Party apparatchiks that kind of shiny-faced optimism that comes with the unquestioning faith you place in major Party "policies". Back in the 80s I used to have to attend all the major Party conferences and they were filled with people who look and act exactly like that dimwit with the guybrows in The Apprentice. They're all like ****ing secular Scientologists. There really is something deeply perverse in being a slavish devotee of a Party line.

 

And tell Johnny B I'll be back to deal with him later. I'm out of posts, dammit.

[Johnny Bognor]

And tell Johnny B I'll be back to deal with him later. I'm out of posts, dammit.

 

Well I have upgraded to a member to ensure I have enough posts for the onslaught. Let battle commence...

[Wade Garrett]

Based on my recent shopping trips, and struggles to find a parking space, I reckon the economy is definitely on the up.

[RonManager]

Green's Hoots

[Special K]

Green shoots, my ringpiece. The economy is still as flat as a witches tit and will be for some time.

[Whitey Grandad]

Green shoots, my ringpiece. The economy is still as flat as a witches tit and will be for some time.

 

Matthew Parris from The Times a year or so ago:

 

1: The party's over.

2: There ain't gonna be another.

[Wade Garrett]

Green shoots, my ringpiece. The economy is still as flat as a witches tit and will be for some time.

 

I honestly think things are moving in the right direction, despite Government policy.

[trousers]

Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak1m

Office for National Statistics: Revised figures show UK double-dip recession at the end of 2011 & beginning of 2012 never actually happened

 

Tory Treasury ‏@ToryTreasury2m

New ONS figures show that the recession in 2009 was even deeper than thought + ONS say economy did not go back into recession in 2012

[badgerx16]

Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak1m

Office for National Statistics: Revised figures show UK double-dip recession at the end of 2011 & beginning of 2012 never actually happened

 

Tory Treasury ‏@ToryTreasury2m

New ONS figures show that the recession in 2009 was even deeper than thought + ONS say economy did not go back into recession in 2012

 

Wow, what a surprise - how convenient. ( Do you honestly believe the ONS is 'independent' ? )

[trousers]

Wow, what a surprise - how convenient. ( Do you honestly believe the ONS is 'independent' ? )

 

Who knows, but it's often convenient to quote the ONS when it suits....

 

The economy is officially back in recession.

 

Source?

 

Interesting discussion on this here:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1616085/Economy-watch-Is-Britain-heading-recession.html

 

And here:

 

http://www.ftadviser.com/2012/04/03/investments/economic-indicators/uk-recession-fears-eased-as-bcc-predicts-growth-in-q-U9weTeesPvbCM3LVFLPfyO/article.html

 

Hardly something to get the bunting out for, is it? I'll concede that I'll have to wait for the coup de grace on 25 April, when the ONS produce their stats. Fancy another tenner?

 

(April 2012)

[Special K]

I honestly think things are moving in the right direction, despite Government policy.

 

From where i'm sat there has been some movement, but it is only due to frustration at the inability and unwillingness of the government and banking system to turn words into actions. So some clients have had to operate in other ways. But the knock on effect has been negligible and there is still too much uncertainty for commitment to extended growth, just little spurts of activity followed by large periods of nothing (sounds like most marriages!)

 

It makes me laugh when people see mortgage lending as an optimistic sign of economic recovery. Aren't any frigging lessons learned?

[Verbal]

Who knows, but it's often convenient to quote the ONS when it suits....

 

(April 2012)

 

Badger is right. The ONS is clearly not independent. This doesn't mean that the organisation is full of poor statisticians. Far from it. But they can only measure according to the parameters set by their political masters, and these are subject to manipulation. The most infamous instance of this was when Thatcher ordered that unemployment be redefined in the 1980s to reduce the total. As with all statistics, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out - and Thatcher, a scientist, was good at this kind of manipulative crap, riding roughshod over the objections of the statisticians themselves.

 

The reworking of the calculations on GDP moved the key numbers back from small minuses to zero. In the bigger picture, it's neither here nor there.

 

The far more telling point is that Gideon is chasing the economy's tail in a downward spiral. More cuts will drag the economy down, which will entail more cuts, and so on, ad nauseum. Still, it'll give him the chance to scoff gourmet burgers while scapegoating yet more of the great unwashed.

 

And by the way, you hardly covered yourself in glory by refusing to take the bet.

[Whitey Grandad]

The far more telling point is that Gideon is chasing the economy's tail in a downward spiral. More cuts will drag the economy down, which will entail more cuts, and so on, ad nauseum. Still, it'll give him the chance to scoff gourmet burgers while scapegoating yet more of the great unwashed.

It's the other way round. The bloated public sector is holding the economy down and taking money away from the private sector who could use it more wisely.

[Verbal]

It's the other way round. The bloated public sector is holding the economy down and taking money away from the private sector who could use it more wisely.

 

It is odd how dull-minded Toryism is the mirror-image of Karl Marx. Capitalism in this joint mindset is a throwback to the early nineteenth century, with free-spirited entrepreneurs inventing spinning jennys and flying shuttles, and changing the world with their inspired wealth-creating skills, unfettered by undeserving Bob Cratchits. For Marx, the Cratchits would eventually rise up; for the Saintsweb business emperors, the Cratchits can just make do with the 5000% payday loans.

 

Actual capitalism - you know, the stuff that happens in the real world instead of this quaint fantasy - runs as a dependant of the state. The biggest collective sponger of the public sector is the private sector. How do you think G4S became the biggest security firm in Europe? (And WISDOM? ****ing hell!! Who was it again who came to the rescue of G4S at the 2012 Olympics?). How do you think the drugs companies, pushing their wares at massively inflated prices, make their money in the UK? How do the cost-overunning, state-fleecing defence contractors get paid? And so on and on and on.

[Johnny Bognor]

It is odd how dull-minded Toryism is the mirror-image of Karl Marx. Capitalism in this joint mindset is a throwback to the early nineteenth century, with free-spirited entrepreneurs inventing spinning jennys and flying shuttles, and changing the world with their inspired wealth-creating skills, unfettered by undeserving Bob Cratchits. For Marx, the Cratchits would eventually rise up; for the Saintsweb business emperors, the Cratchits can just make do with the 5000% payday loans.

 

Actual capitalism - you know, the stuff that happens in the real world instead of this quaint fantasy - runs as a dependant of the state. The biggest collective sponger of the public sector is the private sector. How do you think G4S became the biggest security firm in Europe? (And WISDOM? ****ing hell!! Who was it again who came to the rescue of G4S at the 2012 Olympics?). How do you think the drugs companies, pushing their wares at massively inflated prices, make their money in the UK? How do the cost-overunning, state-fleecing defence contractors get paid? And so on and on and on.

 

Firstly, Verbal, where did the government get all of this money? Are we back to Gordon's magic socialist money tree? You know, the one that creates money out of thin air? Or was it taken from the private sector in taxation? I'll let you decide.

Edited 1 July, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

Actual capitalism - you know, the stuff that happens in the real world instead of this quaint fantasy - runs as a dependant of the state. The biggest collective sponger of the public sector is the private sector. How do you think G4S became the biggest security firm in Europe? (And WISDOM? ****ing hell!! Who was it again who came to the rescue of G4S at the 2012 Olympics?). How do you think the drugs companies, pushing their wares at massively inflated prices, make their money in the UK? How do the cost-overunning, state-fleecing defence contractors get paid? And so on and on and on.

 

Oh, those nasty sponging leeches from the private sector, getting fat with their snouts in the Government trough!

[Whitey Grandad]

It is odd how dull-minded Toryism is the mirror-image of Karl Marx. Capitalism in this joint mindset is a throwback to the early nineteenth century, with free-spirited entrepreneurs inventing spinning jennys and flying shuttles, and changing the world with their inspired wealth-creating skills, unfettered by undeserving Bob Cratchits. For Marx, the Cratchits would eventually rise up; for the Saintsweb business emperors, the Cratchits can just make do with the 5000% payday loans.

 

Actual capitalism - you know, the stuff that happens in the real world instead of this quaint fantasy - runs as a dependant of the state. The biggest collective sponger of the public sector is the private sector. How do you think G4S became the biggest security firm in Europe? (And WISDOM? ****ing hell!! Who was it again who came to the rescue of G4S at the 2012 Olympics?). How do you think the drugs companies, pushing their wares at massively inflated prices, make their money in the UK? How do the cost-overunning, state-fleecing defence contractors get paid? And so on and on and on.

 

Its all a question of getting the balance right. There are certain areas that have to be serviced by a state, defence, police, fire and so on. Others such as health are extensions of this. The government earns very little money through state activities, it all has to be financed by the private sector. I would argue that when government spending approaches 50% it stifles free-enterprise. 20% would be good.

[aintforever]

Taxes pay for services shocker!

 

Labour got lazy and overspent as usual, the difference between the tories and labour is not huge though. The main problem is not the cost of public services but how large multinationals are running rings round the tax system. There needs to be a Worldwide agreement because it the moment these corporations are just sucking vast amounts money out of the system.

 

The current globalised nature of capitalism needs to be controlled, otherwise we are just heading for another, even bigger crash.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It is odd how dull-minded Toryism is the mirror-image of Karl Marx. Capitalism in this joint mindset is a throwback to the early nineteenth century, with free-spirited entrepreneurs inventing spinning jennys and flying shuttles, and changing the world with their inspired wealth-creating skills, unfettered by undeserving Bob Cratchits. For Marx, the Cratchits would eventually rise up; for the Saintsweb business emperors, the Cratchits can just make do with the 5000% payday loans.

 

Actual capitalism - you know, the stuff that happens in the real world instead of this quaint fantasy - runs as a dependant of the state. The biggest collective sponger of the public sector is the private sector. How do you think G4S became the biggest security firm in Europe? (And WISDOM? ****ing hell!! Who was it again who came to the rescue of G4S at the 2012 Olympics?). How do you think the drugs companies, pushing their wares at massively inflated prices, make their money in the UK? How do the cost-overunning, state-fleecing defence contractors get paid? And so on and on and on.

 

In your clamour to bash big business your conveniently forget that 4.6m businesses employ less than 9 people. This is capitalism in the real world.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

.....

[Johnny Bognor]

This is one for the anti-banking posters

[saintfully]

This is one for the anti-banking posters

 

Thanks for that - worth watching for the ending alone

[buctootim]

Thanks for that - worth watching for the ending alone

 

Agree, its incredible that two nations want to claim Michael Flatley.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Its all a question of getting the balance right. There are certain areas that have to be serviced by a state, defence, police, fire and so on. Others such as health are extensions of this. The government earns very little money through state activities, it all has to be financed by the private sector. I would argue that when government spending approaches 50% it stifles free-enterprise. 20% would be good.

 

If free enterprise is stifled at somewhere approaching 50% then shouldn't we go for 40% or so? Why do we have to go all the way down to 20%, and go without all the benefits that government spending can bring?

[Whitey Grandad]

If free enterprise is stifled at somewhere approaching 50% then shouldn't we go for 40% or so? Why do we have to go all the way down to 20%, and go without all the benefits that government spending can bring?

 

Because 20% allows more freedom for the individual to choose how to spend their money. It all depends on who you believe will spend the money the more wisely.

[Verbal]

Because 20% allows more freedom for the individual to choose how to spend their money. It all depends on who you believe will spend the money the more wisely.

 

That all seems reasonable enough. I've spent a lot of time in a country which has that percentage (actually 19.3%). You'd be right at home there. However, Pakistan is a developing country on the brink of being a failed state, has no universal education system to speak of, nor a health system that does any more than stick a second-hand band-aid on to whatever injury or illness you have. It has some of the largest slums in South Asia and some of the most extreme poverty you'll ever see (only parts of India are worse).

 

In the developed world, even the US the government spending close to twice your magic 20%, and that's with the bare minimum of a public health service, much more highly restricted welfare payments and a generally failing public education system.

 

So you've got some big choices to make, and I'd like to hear what they are.

 

To get down to 20%, you'd need to abandon universal health care entirely, abandon free and universal education for all under 18, and chop welfare down to workhouse levels. You MIGHT be able to offset some of the damage by disbanding the UK's air force, army and navy.

 

So what's it to be - to create your wonderful, Pakistan-like world in which the "individual as the freedom to choose how to spend their money"?

[buctootim]

Picking up on Verbal's point, just scroll down the list below. Almost without exception (barring a few small island tax dodge havens) the countries you might actually want to live in have tax as a share of GDP of over 30%, the marginal countries have tax rates of 20-30% and the 'no way am am I bringing up my kids there' places have tax rates of under 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Edited 1 July, 2013 by buctootim

[Ex Lion Tamer]

In the developed world, even the US the government spending close to twice your magic 20%, and that's with the bare minimum of a public health service, much more highly restricted welfare payments and a generally failing public education system.

Not to mention appalling levels of poverty and inequality as a result

[Jonnyboy]

That all seems reasonable enough. I've spent a lot of time in a country which has that percentage (actually 19.3%). You'd be right at home there. However, Pakistan is a developing country on the brink of being a failed state, has no universal education system to speak of, nor a health system that does any more than stick a second-hand band-aid on to whatever injury or illness you have. It has some of the largest slums in South Asia and some of the most extreme poverty you'll ever see (only parts of India are worse).

 

In the developed world, even the US the government spending close to twice your magic 20%, and that's with the bare minimum of a public health service, much more highly restricted welfare payments and a generally failing public education system.

 

So you've got some big choices to make, and I'd like to hear what they are.

 

To get down to 20%, you'd need to abandon universal health care entirely, abandon free and universal education for all under 18, and chop welfare down to workhouse levels. You MIGHT be able to offset some of the damage by disbanding the UK's air force, army and navy.

 

So what's it to be - to create your wonderful, Pakistan-like world in which the "individual as the freedom to choose how to spend their money"?

 

Grandad been pwned.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The country spends enough money, it is just spread too thinly. This means that the things that rely on government money are always lurching from one crisis to another.If government money was targetted better and if there wasn't so much waste , then we would have a fairer society. We have a society that wants its arse wiped by our glorious leaders. Everybody is looking to government to answer all their problems and provide money on the basis of want, rather than need.

[Whitey Grandad]

That all seems reasonable enough. I've spent a lot of time in a country which has that percentage (actually 19.3%). You'd be right at home there. However, Pakistan is a developing country on the brink of being a failed state, has no universal education system to speak of, nor a health system that does any more than stick a second-hand band-aid on to whatever injury or illness you have. It has some of the largest slums in South Asia and some of the most extreme poverty you'll ever see (only parts of India are worse).

 

In the developed world, even the US the government spending close to twice your magic 20%, and that's with the bare minimum of a public health service, much more highly restricted welfare payments and a generally failing public education system.

 

So you've got some big choices to make, and I'd like to hear what they are.

 

To get down to 20%, you'd need to abandon universal health care entirely, abandon free and universal education for all under 18, and chop welfare down to workhouse levels. You MIGHT be able to offset some of the damage by disbanding the UK's air force, army and navy.

 

So what's it to be - to create your wonderful, Pakistan-like world in which the "individual as the freedom to choose how to spend their money"?

 

Why didn't you choose Hong Kong?

[PhilippineSaint]

Green shoots, my ringpiece. The economy is still as flat as a witches tit and will be for some time.

 

some of the witches i've been with have a handful if not more tit's thank you very much. Stop generalisation

[Whitey Grandad]

some of the witches i've been with have a handful if not more tit's thank you very much. Stop generalisation

 

Quite right, there's no point being a witch if there are no perks.

[Wes Tender]

Picking up on Verbal's point, just scroll down the list below. Almost without exception (barring a few small island tax dodge havens) the countries you might actually want to live in have tax as a share of GDP of over 30%, the marginal countries have tax rates of 20-30% and the 'no way am am I bringing up my kids there' places have tax rates of under 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

 

When talking about comparable tax rates, one needs to have this clearly defined in order for the comparison to be fair, as per the disclaimer on that site:-

 

Warning: tax rates do not seem to include state and local taxes because it requires a lot of work to collect data from sub-national entities.

 

Taxation covers numerous different types, what with income tax, VAT, Council Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc.

 

But going along with the argument that in general the higher the taxation, the better the country is to live in, it's a toss up between Denmark and Zimbabwe.