Turn on thread page Beta

Funny how those marching today want higher taxes and less cuts?? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Taxation does not need to rise if we don't go with cuts.

    Dealing effectively and determinedly with tax avoidance and tax evasion would bring in 10's of billions of pounds to the nation's purse. Simples...

    Cuts on the scale proposed, on the other hand, will cause massive lasting damage to our economy and our society.
    Don't you realise that if every company actually had to pay 28% in corporation tax they'd move to Ireland in a heartbeat? And that if no one could use offshore funds so many millionaires and billionaires would move away?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you OP. also i hate all this bull**** about only the poor being affected. em what about the middle classes? do we not exist in this country. I find it all very narrow sighted and hypocritical since it is most likely the marchers who voted in labour in the first place.

    (Original post by Sim188)
    Can I just remind you all, that the recession was cyclical...

    Look it up. I'm sure the marchers know what they are doing. to be honest it's several thousand against you.
    yes economic downturns are cyclical and growth couldn't have carried on at the rate it was going, however labour kept on spending right till the end and worsened an already **** situation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If you rob Peter to pay Paul, then you can count on Paul's support.

    Everyone knew this already, so what have the TUC actually taught us today? Well, only that there are at least 250,000 too many Pauls. The spectacle we saw today was the client state in all its glory; a parasitical class under threat.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Personally I find it more funny that todays protests are now being used in Libya as Pro Gadaffi propaganda
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I think we all know that. However, Osborne said he is going to do everything possible to close all loopholes that have consistently been exploited to ensure equanimity and to ensure that 'we are all in this together.' :rolleyes:

    Did you know that Barclays Bank paid 1% tax on their mega profits in the last accounting year?



    How obscene is that?
    If I were an accountant for Barclays, I would be proud of the excellent job I did. All this moral reproach is hypocritical, everyone, from Bob Diamond to the janitors at my university, tries to reduce their tax bill by whatever (legal) means necessary. If Osborne were to manage to find and close all loopholes(which in itself is a stretch), other loopholes will come up(its why accountants get paid after all) and if he goes too far companies will simply decide to move.
    Also, lol at the hippies and wannabe anarchists who thought there would be a "revolution" today. Less than a million out of 60+ turned up to the country's largest city that is accessible within half a day's travel at worst from most places, hardly Egypt now is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What those marching today need to understand is that no one is listening to them. Most of them don't even know the difference between debt and deficit - what makes them think the government is taking any notice of them? They are thick as pig sh*t, and the government knows it. Their silly march won't change anything.

    It's like fashion shows - the people who go to them are convinced they are participating in the most important event of the year, when the reality is no one outside the bubble gives a sh*t.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by helen.allan123)
    I agree with you OP. also i hate all this bull**** about only the poor being affected. em what about the middle classes? do we not exist in this country. I find it all very narrow sighted and hypocritical since it is most likely the marchers who voted in labour in the first place.



    yes economic downturns are cyclical and growth couldn't have carried on at the rate it was going, however labour kept on spending right till the end and worsened an already **** situation.
    More Spending is one way out of a recession. "Powering Through"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    So are they saying they don't mind the basic rate of tax going up to 21 or 22%, i.e. they will also pay more tax?

    Thought not..... funny that, isn't it?


    So most of the marchers who voted for the people who caused our deficit (Labour) now complain that cuts are being made and want higher taxes, but don't want to pay the higher tax themselves......

    ......however.......... the sensible people who didn't vote in Labour should now pay more in tax.


    Little lesson in politics: don't vote Labour and wonder why we need cuts afterwards!

    Labour created jobs which weren't needed, the coalition are simply getting rid of these un-needed jobs.

    Moral of the story (with regards to Labour-created-jobs): easy come, easy go.
    I kinda agree with you, as i do economics, i kinda realised that its the governments fault for this deficit, but these are all of there faults since about the 1930's currently the UK DEBT not deficit is about £4.8 trillion, only way to fix the problem to get a constant surplus in the balnce of payments ( government revenue minus expenditure). Which is not happenign until the Uk public sector shrinks like 10%+ and the private sectors grows beyond 10% to become bigger then the public sector otherwise this economy is doomed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Source?

    The OBR says its £40bn

    http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.inde...k_23032011.pdf

    (page 132)
    I'm not referring to the short term, i'm referring to the long term:

    Julie Morrison, tax partner at Ernst?&?Young, said: “The prospect of the abolition of the 50p income tax rate is now clearly a short-term possibility. The measure should help promote the UK as a location of choice.”

    Right-wing think tank the Adam Smith Institute has said the top rate tax would cost the government £350bn and lead to flat economic growth over the next decade, as high-earners flee overseas and use tax avoidance to protect their income.
    http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...71/budget2011-tax-rate-inevitably-fall

    It's not rocket science is it? We're dealing with people who can easilly move abroad, most likely work for multinational companies, do you really think someone who earns £1,000,000 a year is going to stay here and pay approximately £100,000 a year more in tax.....??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    So are they saying they don't mind the basic rate of tax going up to 21 or 22%, i.e. they will also pay more tax?

    Thought not..... funny that, isn't it?


    So most of the marchers who voted for the people who caused our deficit (Labour) now complain that cuts are being made and want higher taxes, but don't want to pay the higher tax themselves......

    ......however.......... the sensible people who didn't vote in Labour should now pay more in tax.


    Little lesson in politics: don't vote Labour and wonder why we need cuts afterwards!

    Labour created jobs which weren't needed, the coalition are simply getting rid of these un-needed jobs.

    Moral of the story (with regards to Labour-created-jobs): easy come, easy go.

    The recession was a big contributor of the deficit and i'm pretty sure Labour were not responsible for a recession that affected most of the western world.
    Perhaps they didn't handle it as well as they could have but it's not like the Conservatives have never left a budget deficit either.
    The economic situation of a country is affected by much more than just their government.

    And i think with the whole cuts problem, people are unhappy that education is being cut after their tuition fees are set to rise, if i was paying £5000-£9000 for my education i would not want anything cut from what there is today.
    Also education cuts are not fair for many of those not paying for their education in high school and f.e college. My school couldn't afford new books and were still using bent, yellowed ones from the 80's. My college could not even afford to photo copy things for us, which is suprising when at college you provide your own paper, you'd think with all the money they'd saved on exercise books they would be able to afford to photo copy some paper. So with cuts the poor kids still there might have to write on slates with rocks, it's not like they will be able to buy themselves the course book with their ema anymore.

    I really hope i will someday earn enough to send any children i might have to public/private school, simply because i know they will be provided for there as education cuts will have very little effect on such institutions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by userdloat)
    So with cuts the poor kids still there might have to write on slates with rocks, it's not like they will be able to buy themselves the course book with their ema anymore.
    Oh boo hoo!

    EMA didnt exist when I was at school and i was from a poor background, guess what I did......... got a saturday job!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For the purposes of my responce, we will assume a current fiscal defecit of £140 billion and the spending cuts/tax rises of £121 billion.

    Yet we have a national deficit because the banking sector collapsed, sparking a recession.

    Yes, although we had the recession because governments around the world (Labour inclusive) chose to nothing about a problem which was apparent many years before. This was made worse for the UK because we had a housing defecit to drive up prices. We also have a culture of borrowing in the UK which is why borrowing actually exceded savings in early 2008 causing a liquidity shortage which meant that when people were no longer able to live above their means, the banks had to write them off causing huge losses.

    The banks had a large part to play, however let us not forget that it is the governments role to regulate business and it is criminal that the people who defaulted on their loans have recieved no blame.


    Bailing out the banks cost billions, and the recession hit tax revenues and increased unemployment. Public services did not cause this crisis, and we should not have to pay for the crisis through cuts in our services.

    Bailing out the banks is not included in our fiscal defecit as it was a one off cost. Many of the small banks bailed out have been sold (mainly to Santandear). We currently own Northern Rock, HBOS and Lloyds, all other costs are effectively loans which are paid back with interest. The shares in Lloyds and HBOS will be recouped when sold.

    I do believe that the cost of guaranteeing savings may be included in the defecit although i would consider that a good thing, banking crisis or not.


    What runs through all the attacks on the terms and conditions of public-sector workers is a brutal logic that wages and pensions should be forced down to the lowest level. The benchmark for this is the private sector, where wages are compared to non-unionised workers.

    Feel free to correct me but given that most people opposing the cuts are socialists in nature, should an equalisation of wages not be seen as a generally good thing.

    My personal opinion is that public sector wages should be set around the medium UK wage (currently £24,000) although i cannot really respond to that any more without going into political preferences which would drag us off topic.


    This global race to the bottom is central to the economic collapse we have seen around the world. Squeezed consumers are defaulting on mortgages and personal debts, and are less able to spend in the economy. This is not a theory, but a fact – the share of Britain’s national income going to wages has declined from 65 per cent in the 1970s to 53 per cent today. The same phenomenon has been witnessed around the world. Neoliberal economic practice is devouring itself, and with it ruining millions of lives.

    I am capitalist but i agree on that front although there are certain measures which could be taken to try and correct that.

    There are alternatives, but they won’t be found in the main parties’ manifestos. This is because they require a redistribution of wealth and power in the other direction – from rich to poor.

    Yes and we are ruled by capitalists although i think that is a good thing. Again, would rather not discuss that in this thread though.

    Research by the Tax Justice Network and the PCS union estimates that £70 billion is lost every year through tax evasion and a further £25 billion is lost through avoidance, by big business and wealthy individuals. Much of this could be recovered if more tax inspectors were hired and the legal loopholes were closed. But the government is cutting the number of tax staff every year. Last year this meant that another £27.7bn of tax went uncollected by HM Revenue & Customs. By just collecting the tax that is rightfully ours, including from the wealthy and big business, we could avoid public service cuts.

    True, although that is not going to sort out the defecit as it is too long term and would require massive spending and administration. Good long term strategy however, i do agree.

    The organisers of the Robin Hood Tax campaign estimate that introducing a mere 0.05 per cent tax on financial speculation could raise $400bn globally.

    Unworkable. However, given that these products played a part in the recession, there should be a reveiw of them.

    We own several banks. They were bailed out with taxpayers’ money, having done massive damage to our economy, so it seems reasonable that they should be run in the public interest – with their profits used to invest in public services. If other services collapse and need to be bailed out, let’s run them to make a profit for the people who bailed them out – taxpayers.

    Why should they be run in the public interest if we intend to sell them and want them to compete with the other banks?

    I do agree to a point and would liek to keep Northern Rock as a part nationalised bank however we would never recoupe costs if we ran Lloyds Banking Group in the public interest.


    Thirty years ago, gas, electricity, water, buses, trains, and telecommunications were all publicly owned, with prices set by government and all profits reinvested not given away on fat-cat bonuses and dividends. In recent years, utility bills and rail fares have risen way above the level of inflation for little or no discernible service improvements. These price rises for essential services have hit the poorest hardest and contributed to the growth in inequality to its current unprecedented level.

    All said services are still part nationalised or subsidised to some degree, nationalisation is certainly not the answer, that would increase the cost to the state.

    Going through one by one.

    Gas and electricity companies do charge extortionate prices and do not pass on cheaper energy prices however that is primarily because we are net importers of energy and are importing the general rise in the price of oil and gas. A part nationalised utility company may be the answer however the law would have to be changed to allow it to compete so that it could offer lower prices, therefore forcing the major utility companies to lower prices in order to compete themselves.

    Transport - To this day they still require subsidisation to turn a profit, by nationalising them, they would be a cost to the state. There does need to be serious investment into public transport and rail infrastructure however there is not much we could do about the price given that they can only raise prices by RPI+3%, all that could happen is that we could get extra value for money.

    Nationalising telecoms would require massive capital spending. I agree in greater investment, but there is little reason to nationalise.


    But there are places where cuts make sense.


    There are several large government projects that are worthy of being scrapped. Polls indicate that axing these projects would be popular and would allow public money to be better spent elsewhere.


    Stopping the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons would save an estimated £78bn over 30 years. Abandoning ID card proposals would save at least £6bn. Bringing our troops home from the pointless war in Afghanistan would save £2.6bn per year, and save countless young lives – British and Afghani.

    Given that we play a key role in international affairs, any costs saved from one war would meerly be absorbed by another.

    That figure is over 30 years, the impact it would have on the fiscal defecit is £2.6 billion which is less than the cuts to higher education.

    ID cards have already been scrapped and the cost is included in the cuts the Coalition is making.


    The cross-party consensus on cuts is not just stifling debate about alternatives. The consensus itself is economically illiterate and socially unjust. The three main parties are particularly targeting cuts to public services, welfare costs and to public-sector and state pensions. Public services are vital in reducing inequality, by making cuts or increasing charges we will damage the service and ultimately damage our society – taking opportunities away from people.

    Cannot really comment given that this point is more of a political one and that would detract from the aim of this thread.

    Cuts to university budgets will deny higher education places to people and encourage calls for higher fees, which would exclude even more. A less skilled workforce is also less attractive to foreign investment, something all three parties regularly declare is vital for the economy.

    The cuts to the higher education budget are more than made up for by the higher tuition fees. Only those earning above the average wage will struggle to pay.

    Cutting public-sector jobs will increase unemployment, which in turn will increase the costs to government, as more people claim unemployment benefit and fewer people pay income tax. If people’s incomes are taken away or cut through pay freezes then they spend less, also hitting VAT revenues. This hurts the economy as there is less consumer spending. It will also result in the private sector cutting back because there is less demand.

    At worst the effects of the public sector unemployment will last 2-3 years before the losses are completely absorbed by the private sector.

    The cuts are intended to be swift so that the economy can return to its glory days as quickly as possible.

    The VAT rise was put in place to absorb losses from less VAT receipts.


    Instead, we should be creating jobs to boost employment and tax revenue. We have plenty of work to be done. We could invest in renewable energy, high speed rail links and building new housing for the 1.8m families on council house waiting lists.

    Fully agree although we should put in place insentives to allow the private sector to build the extra houses, capital spending for renewable energy and high speed rail.

    Britain currently has the lowest level of unemployment benefit in western Europe –just £64 per week or £51 for under-25s. If unemployment benefit had risen at the same rate as wages since 1979, it would be over £110 per week today. Even if a link between benefits and earnings had been introduced by Labour in 1997, the unemployment benefit would be £75 per week today.

    I am opposed to greater walfare, this should be used for food, transport and bills only. Whether you deserved to be unemployed or not, the government should not pay for luxeries of any kind.[/B]

    Despite all the horror stories in the press, three times as much is lost through mistakes in benefit payments as is lost through benefit fraud. Benefit fraud last year was about £0.8bn, tax evasion by big business and wealthy individuals was £70bn – nearly 100 times as much. Yet where are the posters at bus stops to shop a tax evader?

    Agree, although not really a plan to tackle the defecit in the short term.

    The basic state pension is still under £100 per week, one of the lowest in Europe. The official poverty level is £165 per week. Proposing to increase the state pension age to 66 immediately and gradually up to 70 would hit the poorest hardest. They earn less and so are less able to take early retirement. Because of this and a lifetime of lower standards of living, they die younger. With the current unprecedented levels of inequality, raising the pension age is grossly unjust.

    [B]We do need greater pensions and i oppose the average pension salary for those working in the public sector.

    The main pensions target for the stale Westminster party consensus is public-sector pensions. Currently, the average public-sector pension is about £4,000 a year, or about £80 per week – hardly the “gold-plated,” “feather-bedded” lap of luxury that the tabloids would have us believe. In fact, two and a half times as much public-sector money is spent subsidising private-sector pensions through tax relief – and 60 per cent of this relief goes to higher rate earners at the higher rate.

    Agreed, should be dealt with.

    A recent IPSOS/MORI opinion poll revealed that only 24 per cent of the British public thought there was a need to cut spending on public services. The same poll found that people were most in favour of tax rises on business, closely followed by inheritance tax.

    This would stifle growth and encorage businesses to relocate away from the UK.

    Despite the cross-party consensus, it is clear that people know there are alternatives to public service cuts, and there is a clear belief that those who gained the most from the boom should pay for the bust.

    As you can see from my analysis, there were a lot of proposals of what we could do in the future, but northing real to tackle the defecit.

    The actual alternatives are..

    1) Massive tax hikes across the board - UK economy would suffer the most prolonged recession ever as it would be pointless for anybody to come to invest in the UK and there would be a massive rise across the board in unemployment

    2) Complete public spending freeze - Given that we only see around 2-3% economic growth, we would see the defecit continue to exist for the next 4-5 years by which time the national debt would be close to 100%, our credit rating downgraded with higher interest on the debt and we would then see a prolonged period of deflation.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Planar)
    Don't you realise that if every company actually had to pay 28% in corporation tax they'd move to Ireland in a heartbeat?
    Why aren't they moving there then?

    Corporation tax is at 28% in the UK, but only 12.5% in the Republic of Ireland. Source: bbc.co.uk
    If the government estimates treasury income on the basis of the tax rate, they are assuming that the country will be in a healthier state than it is...because of tax avoidance. The biggest problem we have in the UK is that shareholders demand exponentially increasing profits from companies....in a word, greed.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Less than a million out of 60+ turned up to the country's largest city that is accessible within half a day's travel at worst from most places, hardly Egypt now is it?
    The scale on the number of participants on the Protest March is indicative of just how angry the 'general' public are, particularly since the 'general' public are 'generally' apathetic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Why aren't they moving there then?
    Because with a few loopholes they can get out of it. If the true rate was about 18% here they'd probably still prefer the UK, since it's a much better place to be than Ireland.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The scale on the number of participants on the Protest March is indicative of just how angry the 'general' public are, particularly since the 'general' public are 'generally' apathetic.
    A lot more people(double in fact) turned up to protest against the Iraq war and yet it still unsuccessful, if anything we now know the only people who care so much as to "protest" are unions, layabout students and wannabe anarchists.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ish90an)
    A lot more people(double in fact) turned up to protest against the Iraq war and yet it still unsuccessful, if anything we now know the only people who care so much as to "protest" are unions, layabout students and wannabe anarchists.
    I find your assumption that it is only people who are unionists, 'layabout' students and anarchists who care enough to protest very offensive, and ill-conceived.

    Maybe you didn't watch all the interviews with the people marching to see that they covered a wide spectrum of society. Although the TUC organised the Protest March (and very efficiently according to reports from people I know who participated) those marching included pensioners, non-union members, business owners...and most predominantly, the 'squeezed middle.'

    Re the Iraq War...I didn't hear anything from the Tories then since they supported the invasion if you remember. Now Francis Maude is citing the relevant protest as a comparison to this one in terms of size. It not only beggars belief, it reeks of hypocrisy too, imo.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Planar)
    Because with a few loopholes they can get out of it. If the true rate was about 18% here they'd probably still prefer the UK, since it's a much better place to be than Ireland.
    There you go then. Maybe Osborne is right is being so determined to clamp down on those loopholes.

    Britain is going down exactly the same route as Ireland...the fiscal policies are practically identical. Ultimately, neither place will be a good place to be, except that Ireland is far prettier and the people far more friendly and hospitable...at least in the Republic from which I have just returned. You should try a visit some time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    There you go then. Maybe Osborne is right is being so determined to clamp down on those loopholes.
    If he closed them all then tax would go up to 26%, and many businesses would move out(and who could blame them). He mustn't close them all.

    Britain is going down exactly the same route as Ireland...the fiscal policies are practically identical. Ultimately, neither place will be a good place to be, except that Ireland is far prettier and the people far more friendly and hospitable...at least in the Republic from which I have just returned. You should try a visit some time.
    I happen to live in Northern Ireland. It is lovely in parts. A lot of it's depressingly poor and backwards, however. Spectre of the Troubles and all that. Britain is going down a similar path, but we're not in as bad a quandary as the Irish. We're doing what they should have done years ago.

    edit: and what we should have done years ago
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If the conservatives want to come out of this with any credit, they are going to have to respond to the changes in the system that have resulted from their initial policy. They will have to slow down in order to reduce inflation, if they don't then they will end up the same way as the Heath administration in the early 70's - high inflation, high unemployment, massive industrial unrest caused by huge cost of living increase and a sharp exit out the door.

    There is no new economics here.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,154

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.