~| The National Debt Has Increased |~ Watch

The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Austerity? What austerity?
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
It was always going to go down, the government did not aim to cut the debt. The government wanted to cut the deficit, which is a separate thing and which the government has managed to do.

So in that sense, austerity has worked.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by tengentoppa)
It was always going to go down, the government did not aim to cut the debt. The government wanted to cut the deficit, which is a separate thing and which the government has managed to do.

So in that sense, austerity has worked.
I suppose, but we are still living beyond our means.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by The Dictator)
I suppose, but we are still living beyond our means.
As proposed by all three of the major parties at the last election.

How comes the surprise?
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by The Dictator)
I suppose, but we are still living beyond our means.
If you think corporations should pay zero tax then yes we are living beyond our means.

But the thing is ........... IN THE REAL WORLD .......... the majority of people do not want to live in a corporate dystopia there for corporations should pay their taxes and quit threatening everyone & their mum that they are going to abandon ship and leave the UK.

But let us not argue. Lets say public spending is too much and we need to cut welfare more including cuts to pensions, privatize the NHS, abolish the min-wage and abolish all worker rights to Victorian levels of inequality.

But since corporations are ruling the Government by lobbying we wouldn't want to hurt the current way of doing business which keeps our economy a float would we?

Corporations are the wealth creators right? So corporate welfare would have to stay. Things like tax credits, housing benefit, subsides and grants to business.

Would this solve the deficit & generate big surpluses which could reduce our national debt? Yes it would. And in the process poor people would pass away and all the invalids would no longer exist.

What would we do with the excess surplus though?

Well we would really be doing as we do now. Send public money into private hands. Give the majority of the public service contracts to party donors and pay high prices.

............................. WAIT A MIN BACK TO REALITY.
............................. BACK TO THE REAL WORLD.

Basically a race to the bottom with Austerity with a pro-Crony Capitalist Government would eventually lead to a negative surplus.

How?

Well you see these favors where Lobbyists/Donors are being rewarded for supporting Government? They are eventually going to want more & more or they will just decide
to support the next Government which comes into power. Its a Greed game after all.

Then you have the falling living standards. With wages at ultimate lows the amount of people on corporate welfare payments are going to be at a all time high (tax credits).

Then you have the health of the nation falling apart. People die from Tuberculosis or general poor health.

There could be welfare sanctions on people who claim tax credits but this would just create more hate towards the current Government.
(This will happen when Universal Credit replaces Tax Credits by the way).

Then combine all this with a possible Communist revolution knocking on your door step.

....................... NOW LOOK AT THIS. 2 CHOICES.

Short term answer = Be a Corporatist / Crony Capitalist and squeeze as much wealth out of the masses before they rebel.

Long term answer = Be a genuine Capitalist who makes everyone pay their fair share of tax which keeps the economy running and ensures everyone has good standards of living.

....................... I PREFER THE LONG TERM ANSWER.

But its not always like this. You always get a group of greedy cartels who rig the markets and cause global recessions.

Its about time we found these people and bankers and started making them pay for the mess they cause rather than individual countries reducing their living standards to pay for the austerity which the people never caused in the first place.

....................... BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE!

The Conservatives next round of austerity is being targeted at young single people like yourselves and a reduction of the benefit cap to £23,000.

The Conservatives say they will be creating apprenticeships out of the money they save. I wonder how much of this apprenticeship money will be going to young workers?

Hardly any!

Most of it will be going on corporate welfare!
0
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
If you think corporations should pay zero tax then yes we are living beyond our means.

But the thing is ........... IN THE REAL WORLD .......... the majority of people do not want to live in a corporate dystopia there for corporations should pay their taxes and quit threatening everyone & their mum that they are going to abandon ship and leave the UK.

But let us not argue. Lets say public spending is too much and we need to cut welfare more including cuts to pensions, privatize the NHS, abolish the min-wage and abolish all worker rights to Victorian levels of inequality.

But since corporations are ruling the Government by lobbying we wouldn't want to hurt the current way of doing business which keeps our economy a float would we?

Corporations are the wealth creators right? So corporate welfare would have to stay. Things like tax credits, housing benefit, subsides and grants to business.

Would this solve the deficit & generate big surpluses which could reduce our national debt? Yes it would. And in the process poor people would pass away and all the invalids would no longer exist.

What would we do with the excess surplus though?

Well we would really be doing as we do now. Send public money into private hands. Give the majority of the public service contracts to party donors and pay high prices.

............................. WAIT A MIN BACK TO REALITY.
............................. BACK TO THE REAL WORLD.

Basically a race to the bottom with Austerity with a pro-Crony Capitalist Government would eventually lead to a negative surplus.

How?

Well you see these favors where Lobbyists/Donors are being rewarded for supporting Government? They are eventually going to want more & more or they will just decide
to support the next Government which comes into power. Its a Greed game after all.

Then you have the falling living standards. With wages at ultimate lows the amount of people on corporate welfare payments are going to be at a all time high (tax credits).

Then you have the health of the nation falling apart. People die from Tuberculosis or general poor health.

There could be welfare sanctions on people who claim tax credits but this would just create more hate towards the current Government.
(This will happen when Universal Credit replaces Tax Credits by the way).

Then combine all this with a possible Communist revolution knocking on your door step.

....................... NOW LOOK AT THIS. 2 CHOICES.

Short term answer = Be a Corporatist / Crony Capitalist and squeeze as much wealth out of the masses before they rebel.

Long term answer = Be a genuine Capitalist who makes everyone pay their fair share of tax which keeps the economy running and ensures everyone has good standards of living.

....................... I PREFER THE LONG TERM ANSWER.

But its not always like this. You always get a group of greedy cartels who rig the markets and cause global recessions.

Its about time we found these people and bankers and started making them pay for the mess they cause rather than individual countries reducing their living standards to pay for the austerity which the people never caused in the first place.

....................... BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE!

The Conservatives next round of austerity is being targeted at young single people like yourselves and a reduction of the benefit cap to £23,000.

The Conservatives say they will be creating apprenticeships out of the money they save. I wonder how much of this apprenticeship money will be going to young workers?

Hardly any!

Most of it will be going on corporate welfare!
That's the thing. There is no real mechanism in the British tax system to ensure that taxes on one thing go towards one thing specifically. Take VED...which goes into the general tax pot.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by jammy4041)
That's the thing. There is no real mechanism in the British tax system to ensure that taxes on one thing go towards one thing specifically. Take VED...which goes into the general tax pot.
If I was PM I would write legislation to levy the tax avoiders. Don't pay your fair share? Okay we'll take your assets!
0
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
If I was PM I would write legislation to levy the tax avoiders. Don't pay your fair share? Okay we'll take your assets!
Well...I wouldn't expect the son of a prolific tax-evader to underwrite such legislation, unfortunately.

An overhaul of the tax system is needed.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by The Dictator)
I suppose, but we are still living beyond our means.
The important thing is that our deficit has fallen from 11% to about 5% next April. You can't wipe out a deficit overnight because government spending does contribute to growth in some areas (reduce defense spending and you reduce manufacturing in the defense supply chain, reduce welfare and you reduce consumption). If you take a slash and burn approach you just cause deflation, if you do it at a pace slow enough that growth still occurs then you should be able to sort the problem.

The IFS says that the Tory plan puts us in surplus by 2019, at that point our debt will fall.
0
reply
Greenlaner
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by The Dictator)
Austerity? What austerity?
Dropping bombs on people is surprisingly expensive.
1
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
If I was PM I would write legislation to levy the tax avoiders. Don't pay your fair share? Okay we'll take your assets!
A tax avoider is someone or an entity who has adhered to the extant tax law as executed.
A tax evader is someone or an entity who has broken the extant law as executed.

Under the first there is no tax due, therefore nothing to be taken, under the second recovery mechanisms already exist.

This "fair share" idea is an abstract nonsense, it is as valid a concept as define "long"
What is fair to one party may not be to others. People and companies do pay tax as legislated, the problem is more a great amount of legislation is ill thought out, badly drafted and attempts to improve matters have resembled sticking plaster used on a gaping wound.

What is required is tighter definitions and greater international unity regarding tax laws, the EU for instance has been slowly working to bring member states more in line (watch out Ireland) and new standards I understand kick in from January 2015. How effective will these be, time will tell, there is no quick fix just a war of attrition.

Tax legislation is not solely within the remit of any single government these days, taxation is multinational and needs a joint response from multiple countries to be effective; if you want greater multinational tax transparency you first need to coordinate efforts around the world; this takes a very long time.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
It's true that Osborne abandoned his austerity plan for much of this government's run (hence why he has utterly failed when it comes to his 2010 targets) because he knew that he was stagnating economic growth, so he increased the national debt faster than Labour did in 13 years to get us our current debt-fuelled "recovery". So, in essence, he did go to Plan B, except he wasn't investing in anything, which, as Labour point out, is essential, which is why their deficit reduction plan is far superior.

Now, he's announced yet another bout of benefits freezes for the hardworking poor, who rely on the benefits because this government has also presided over the longest fall in living standards in history, meaning that even more people will be reliant on food banks (reliance has already increased by more than 150% under this inept government). So, he's back to his 2010 deficit and debt narrative, but of course he's perfectly happy to give tax cuts to millionaires, oppose a cap on bankers' bonuses and sail on Russian oligarchs' yachts.
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by viddy9)
It's true that Osborne abandoned his austerity plan for much of this government's run (hence why he has utterly failed when it comes to his 2010 targets) because he knew that he was stagnating economic growth, so he increased the national debt faster than Labour did in 13 years to get us our current debt-fuelled "recovery". So, in essence, he did go to Plan B, except he wasn't investing in anything, which, as Labour point out, is essential, which is why their deficit reduction plan is far superior.

Now, he's announced yet another bout of benefits freezes for the hardworking poor, who rely on the benefits because this government has also presided over the longest fall in living standards in history, meaning that even more people will be reliant on food banks (reliance has already increased by more than 150% under this inept government). So, he's back to his 2010 deficit and debt narrative, but of course he's perfectly happy to give tax cuts to millionaires, oppose a cap on bankers' bonuses and sail on Russian oligarchs' yachts.
Why do you want to cap bankers bonus payments, the higher the bonus the greater tax HMRC receive? If you want a higher tax take encourage high bonus payments, after all the taxpayer does not pay the bonus the employer company pays and therefore its shareholders pick up the tab.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by DJKL)
Why do you want to cap bankers bonus payments, the higher the bonus the greater tax HMRC receive? If you want a higher tax take encourage high bonus payments, after all the taxpayer does not pay the bonus the employer company pays and therefore its shareholders pick up the tab.
The higher the bonus the higher the inequality, the higher the inequality the more damage is done to the economy, as admitted even by the IMF. The point is that, as ever, the Tories are a party of the rich, for the rich.
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by viddy9)
The higher the bonus the higher the inequality, the higher the inequality the more damage is done to the economy, as admitted even by the IMF. The point is that, as ever, the Tories are a party of the rich, for the rich.
Idealism not pragmatism, we have a deficit, we do not want to cut spending, we want more tax revenues. More bonuses= more taxes, the reduced corporation tax paid by the bank through lower profits, and some have b/fwd tax losses to cover profits for years anyway, is far less than the NI and tax that HMRC will be paid if the bonus is paid.

So stuff inequality at this level, those who get these bonus payments are already miles adrift from the rest of the population, just take the taxes and spend them on services. At the end of the day the government may be able to do some good with the tax receipts.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by viddy9)
It's true that Osborne abandoned his austerity plan for much of this government's run (hence why he has utterly failed when it comes to his 2010 targets) because he knew that he was stagnating economic growth, so he increased the national debt faster than Labour did in 13 years to get us our current debt-fuelled "recovery". So, in essence, he did go to Plan B, except he wasn't investing in anything, which, as Labour point out, is essential, which is why their deficit reduction plan is far superior.

Now, he's announced yet another bout of benefits freezes for the hardworking poor, who rely on the benefits because this government has also presided over the longest fall in living standards in history, meaning that even more people will be reliant on food banks (reliance has already increased by more than 150% under this inept government). So, he's back to his 2010 deficit and debt narrative, but of course he's perfectly happy to give tax cuts to millionaires, oppose a cap on bankers' bonuses and sail on Russian oligarchs' yachts.
That's not really how it happened at all.

Departmental cuts (the savage austerity people talk about) have actually exceeded targets in 2010 as have the number of public sector redundancies. He did adjust his plan with help to buy and a few other things because growth was weak and as a result tax revenues were nowhere near expectations from 2010. The debt would have increased faster the 13 years under any government because we had we had a deficit being added on annually and by April, a 5% deficit. I say it would have happened under Labour too because the Darling plan had the same infrastructure plans, the Euro-zone would have still gone into recession and the spending cuts while weaker would have been replaced by tax rises which tend to weaken growth anyhow.
0
reply
Spaz Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
We are running a deficit. Of course it'll increase.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by viddy9)
The higher the bonus the higher the inequality, the higher the inequality the more damage is done to the economy, as admitted even by the IMF. The point is that, as ever, the Tories are a party of the rich, for the rich.
Yet they've done more for the working classes than any other party.


45% tax bracket for higher earners as opposed to labours 40%.

increase personal tax breaks for lowest earners.

Removal of child benefit from higher earners.

Highest employement rate
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Yet they've done more for the working classes than any other party.


45% tax bracket for higher earners as opposed to labours 40%.

increase personal tax breaks for lowest earners.

Removal of child benefit from higher earners.

Highest employement rate
Surely highest employment level, rather than highest employment rate?

Which personal tax breaks for lowest earners were you thinking of?
0
reply
saayagain
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by The Dictator)
Austerity? What austerity?
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2906051
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (62)
15.12%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (41)
10%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (78)
19.02%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (60)
14.63%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (44)
10.73%
How can I be the best version of myself? (125)
30.49%

Watched Threads

View All