Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Podgeykins)
    Mmm, i've always thought of social and economic policy being interwined, can't really have one and not the other,

    Would you not agree?
    If no, please give relevant examples of why.
    I would agree with a rephrased version of the initial statement; economic policy affects social policy.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    Your hillarious alasdair.
    I wont bring up your speakership:everyone makes mistakes.
    Feel free to. I have no shame for any of my actions as speaker. I did my best according to my lights, and this house agreed with me. You, on the other hand, broke probably the highest rule of this house and are a liar and a cheat. But if the Lib Dems want someone like that in their party, they're welcome to it.

    However, it's a Question Time thread, so here's a question - had you not been found out for being a liar and a cheat, would you have left the Tories and joined the Lib Dems anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hebe001)
    Another case of inexact economic theory being used. Consumers will not be paying any premium whatsoever. You must bear in mind that goods/services will already be priced at well below their original market price, we'll just be stopping them falling further.

    And it's not a case of 'manufacturing goods which do not meet the needs of the market', it's more a case of consumers wanting these goods but deciding to wait before buying them (effectively fuelling the problem of deflation). It is this issue of deflation that the minimum price proposal aims to tackle.
    Good point but i might say that the reason why these luxury good are not selling is not because consumers are waiting for them to be reduced. Though we have seen a significant increase in saving this is due to fear about the future not because they still wish to buy such products. High cost manufactured goods are luxurys and in the present climate people will be apprehensive to pay for.

    I believe that the reasonw why such luxury goods had a market beforehand was because we were in a boom where people spent their money inefficiently on goods that were inflated in price, partly due to the availability of cheap credit.

    Im afraid i cannot see the point of creating a price barrier when goods are hard enough to sell at the moment. What this could mean that these goods are out of reach of some peoples self ristricted budgets, leading to even more drastic cuts in sales.

    Perhaphs are more pragamatic way off increasing spending would be to litterally print money and give it to those who need it the most the poorest in society. Not only would this increase inflation, and in that discourage saving, but by giving it to the poorest group, they are the group who to keep up or even attain a minimum standard of living will be most likely spend it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    I am referring to taking something away from someone who's earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't - i.e. redistribution of wealth. To me, that is morally wrong. Say, Im a doctor and i earn 100k a year. Why should I have to pay 40% tax on a section of my salary, when someone earning 10k pays nothing. We both have the same access to services - the water out of my tap is no better than the water out of the person who is paying no tax. Yet, I have to pay for it. I pay for my house, and the council tax on top of it, the poorer individual has a house provided and payed for from my salary. Why should i have to pay for someone else's housing?
    Teh fact is everyone should pay for their usage. Its called "the fair tax", there is a book written about it, and it is the fiscal policy supported by Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas, and presidential primary nominee.
    How does the Lib Dem economic spokesman and the Rt Honourable Leader of the Lib Dems view this comment?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I disagree fully with that statement. I will ignore it as a coment in a discussion before he joined us however. I am aware that he does not share our views economicaly, and thus will be telling him that in the future he must stay within party lines.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I disagree fully with that statement. I will ignore it as a coment in a discussion before he joined us however. I am aware that he does not share our views economicaly, and thus will be telling him that in the future he must stay within party lines.
    but surely that is the largest problem for you, when he was in the Conservative party he was probably the most right wing member (that was before Baggy joined us ) so i really cant see him appreciating either modern Liberal or socially democratic ideas. If he wont appreciate your ideology then what is the point in being in the party? I think it would have been better for matt to join the Libertarians.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    His choice is to toe the lib dem policy line (which he will have a roll in creating) or he can leave. Till then i have no reason to kick him out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    Good point but i might say that the reason why these luxury good are not selling is not because consumers are waiting for them to be reduced. Though we have seen a significant increase in saving this is due to fear about the future not because they still wish to buy such products. High cost manufactured goods are luxurys and in the present climate people will be apprehensive to pay for.

    I believe that the reasonw why such luxury goods had a market beforehand was because we were in a boom where people spent their money inefficiently on goods that were inflated in price, partly due to the availability of cheap credit.

    Im afraid i cannot see the point of creating a price barrier when goods are hard enough to sell at the moment. What this could mean that these goods are out of reach of some peoples self ristricted budgets, leading to even more drastic cuts in sales.

    Perhaphs are more pragamatic way off increasing spending would be to litterally print money and give it to those who need it the most the poorest in society. Not only would this increase inflation, and in that discourage saving, but by giving it to the poorest group, they are the group who to keep up or even attain a minimum standard of living will be most likely spend it.
    I agree entirely with that last point. The BoE's recent move to pursue quantitative easing is something I support and the greater incentive to spend is something that will eventually increase the aggregate demand level in an economy. To tackle an extreme deflation problem, we would need a set of proposals including minimum price barriers. And quantitative easing is something that would also be considered something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    How does the Lib Dem economic spokesman and the Rt Honourable Leader of the Lib Dems view this comment?
    We must remember that when somebody pays tax, they are funding the building of public infrastructure and the operation of public services. I disagree with this being reduced to just 'paying for someone's house'. The high earner is more able to fund these services than the low earner, so the differing tax rates are right and they're fair as well.
    Furthermore, there is a strong economic argument for allowing the low earner to pay less tax. If the low earner pays less tax, then he is left with a greater disposal income than would otherwise be the case. This allows him to buy goods and services, help in keeping up the demand level in the economy, and in the long run, contribute towards economic growth. If the spending power of consumers was restricted, then this would be detrimental to the economy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    To add, who benefits the most from a state-judicial service? A tramp with no possessions or a man with a mansion drenched in gold and filled with expensive goodies? And yeah, there are many benefits for keeping the lowest earners (in particular) with more disposable income than they otherwise would have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hebe001)
    We must remember that when somebody pays tax, they are funding the building of public infrastructure and the operation of public services. I disagree with this being reduced to just 'paying for someone's house'. The high earner is more able to fund these services than the low earner, so the differing tax rates are right and they're fair as well.
    Furthermore, there is a strong economic argument for allowing the low earner to pay less tax. If the low earner pays less tax, then he is left with a greater disposal income than would otherwise be the case. This allows him to buy goods and services, help in keeping up the demand level in the economy, and in the long run, contribute towards economic growth. If the spending power of consumers was restricted, then this would be detrimental to the economy.
    Are you saying that it is favourable for lower earners to have lower taxes than than higher earners? Would you not agree that it would be favourable if everyone had a lower rate of tax, a policy the Lib Dems support i might add.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    Are you saying that it is favourable for lower earners to have lower taxes than than higher earners? Would you not agree that it would be favourable if everyone had a lower rate of tax, a policy the Lib Dems support i might add.
    The tsr lib dems voted for higher taxes for the better off. The rl lib dems also wanted tax reduction for the worst hit by the recesion.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    Ahem.
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Feel free to. I have no shame for any of my actions as speaker. I did my best according to my lights, and this house agreed with me. You, on the other hand, broke probably the highest rule of this house and are a liar and a cheat. But if the Lib Dems want someone like that in their party, they're welcome to it.

    However, it's a Question Time thread, so here's a question - had you not been found out for being a liar and a cheat, would you have left the Tories and joined the Lib Dems anyway?
    Well...?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    Are you saying that it is favourable for lower earners to have lower taxes than than higher earners? Would you not agree that it would be favourable if everyone had a lower rate of tax, a policy the Lib Dems support i might add.
    The idea that tax cuts for the rich means that wealth will trickle down to the poor is, as Obama identified in his criticism of McCain's economic philosophy, a discredited idea in times of recession - throwing money blindly and inappropriately. We have rising unemployment. Who are the unemployed people? Well, they're certainly not the fat cats still earning money in their roles as company directors. Sure, they're making less profits, but how do you propose that we fund the massive burden placed on the benefits system? I wouldn't really want to see us getting into more deficit (yes, I'm aware that I made the precise opposite point a few months ago, but this was before the government reduced itself to using quantitative easing). And giving money (through benefits and tax cuts) to the poorest simultaneously provides the economic stimulus and incentive for business owners to supply essential goods. It helps get more money into the circular flow of income. The poorest receive money, they purchase products, the money goes to the business owner, the taxman takes a slice and puts it back into the poor man's wallet, who then purchases more products... The process continues to grow and expand.

    I'm very wary of the idea that taxation damages incentives to expand or to work hard. Indeed, the desire to maintain a previous standard of living may actually motivate people to increase their efforts. It's strange that people often use the former argument but conveniently forget the latter economic argument.

    Ultimately, it's about time that we dispose of this myth that providing cuts for the rich is the only way to help reduce the unemployment levels (by encouraging businesses to expand). Businesses will only expand in their production of essential goods if the average Poor Joe has money in his pocket. The more that unemployment increases, the more the situation spirals out of control. It's about time we stop propping up the economy from the top, letting wealth trickle down, and about time we start to provide firm foundations and propping the economy up from the bottom - with the workers, poorest and unemployment providing the economic stimulus, whilst also ensuring that these people have a decent standard of living.

    Once average incomes start to increase (after the expansion of businesses funding the needs of the lower and middle classes) then more tax revenue can be received to fund the previous tax cuts (the economic stabiliser effect). After that, tax cuts can be made for the rich (if needs be) to provide the economic stimulus for the production of luxury items. Granted, it's the old Keynesian demand management, and I'm not ashamed of it - indeed, every single world leader has come crawling back to good old Keynes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    malancholy and mattbroon. please don't bring this argument into this thread. This is for lib dem questions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    malancholy and mattbroon. please don't bring this argument into this thread. This is for lib dem questions.
    Erm, I thought Mattbroon was a Lib Dem :erm: He said that his economic view was "a policy that the Lib Dems support", in which case he either lied or I can offer some legitimate questioning on your policy. Can I not ask the Lib Dems to reconsider their economic stance? It seems like a rather inappropriately named thread otherwise... I think that your position here is pretty indefensible, unfortunately, since my comments haven't honestly been as irrelevant as other's that I've witnessed on this thread. I thought my point on your economic stance was relevant, but "meh". If the Lib Dem's (i.e. Mattbroom or any other Lib Dem) don't want any criticism in their "question time" thread, then okay; but that just seems very strange indeed.

    It's also not my fault if one of your MPs is inaccurately representing your party's views, but I don't see why I can't challenge the views of legitimate Lib Dems in this thread when so many other's have done precisely that... It's the Lib Dem 'Question Time', for Pete's sake! :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mattbroon)
    Are you saying that it is favourable for lower earners to have lower taxes than than higher earners? Would you not agree that it would be favourable if everyone had a lower rate of tax, a policy the Lib Dems support i might add.
    btw, your sig says 'memeber' instead of member.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I urge the rt. hon. member malancholy to check mattbroons profile to discover if he is indeed a lib dem at this time, and the wiki page I edited recently for the reason why he is no longer a lib dem.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I feel that you've made the correct decision. Perhaps now he ought to remove his signature to prevent himself from parading as a Tory dressed with a Lib Dem's tie.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Why was matt ditched? Probably a good decision, really.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.