Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

What's wrong with sensible austerity policies? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    Real world != Some nice academic papers. Ed Balls wrote a lot of **** in academia and has been doing so for a long time, take a look at this clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NB3neSNfmg

    so academic papers are not valid sources, but youtube vids are just fine?


    This is the problem with the internet. Too many uneducated, arrogant morons who think they know what they're talking about after watching a stupid ****ing video made by another uneducated, arrogant moron. Some people need to learn some humility and accept that there are people out there - people with degrees, who actually work in economics - who know better than them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    so academic papers are not valid sources, but youtube vids are just fine?


    This is the problem with the internet. Too many uneducated, arrogant morons who think they know what they're talking about after watching a stupid ****ing video made by another uneducated, arrogant moron. Some people need to learn some humility and accept that there are people out there - people with degrees, who actually work in economics - who know better than them
    ROFL

    You don't even know who Michael Heseltine is?

    Perhaps you should look in the mirror, you might find an uneducated, arrogant moron who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    lol. I can tell you've never studied economics. Borrowing and spending is EXACTLY what the government needs to do in a recession to get the economy growing and tax receipts increasing again and the deficit starts going down.

    By slashing government expenditure, you suppress growth, permanently damage the economy and the deficit ends up growing. and of course, ruin the lives of millions of people, and all for nothing.
    What about taxing large concentrations of wealth and injecting that money into the economy. That would reduce borrowing but still have the same effect? Isn't that what happened with "The New Deal" in america as a response to the great depression? Isn't this reluctance to tax driving governments to borrow much more?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What about taxing large concentrations of wealth and injecting that money into the economy. That would reduce borrowing? Isn't that what happened with "The New Deal" in america as a response to the great depression? Isn't this reluctance to tax driving governments to borrow much more?
    If I take water from the deep end and put it in the shallow end I don't create any more water I just re-balance it, by all means redistributing to the poor is a good idea, but we also need to focus on creating wealth. You can't redistribute wealth if you get rid of it all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What about taxing large concentrations of wealth and injecting that money into the economy. That would reduce borrowing but still have the same effect? Isn't that what happened with "The New Deal" in america as a response to the great depression? Isn't this reluctance to tax driving governments to borrow much more?
    Depends on a number of things - what else would have been done with that money? Would it have been spent anyway?

    But the question in - why would you want to reduce borrowing? If you can borrow at ridiculously low interest rates (as the UK government currently can) then its effectively impossible not to make significant real returns on the investment. Its just stupid not to borrow. If you were running a firm and you didn't borrow at 1% to invest in a project with a 4% rate of return, your shareholders would have you shot at dawn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    ROFL

    You don't even know who Michael Heseltine is?

    Perhaps you should look in the mirror, you might find an uneducated, arrogant moron who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
    jascow13 is Michael Heseltine's username on youtube is it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    jascow13 is Michael Heseltine's username on youtube is it?
    Maybe you should actually watch the video. I don't dispute there is good work done in the field that can be found in papers, Amartya Sen is a personal favourite, but lets not pretend that just because something is in an academic paper it is automatically correct. There's a lot of nonsense and theoretical considerations in these things that have never been tested, and are stated without clarity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    By the way I think you'd have far better luck convincing people if you actually tried instead of simply asserting your authority... No one is seriously dismissing people who are experts in their field, but let's not pretend that we should simply accept their word as gospel, particularly in controversial matters. Economics is not physics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    That's a new one to me, care to explain how you think this might work?
    Because the money has to come from somewhere. Either taxes or borrowing or inflation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People like their givemethats,OP. Who are the evil Tories to take them away?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Austerity harms the economy more than it helps it. If you've got the time, read this http://www.theguardian.com/business/...erity-delusion

    If you've not, read this (same author - Nobel Prize winning economist, but much shorter) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/op...discourse.html

    Also, from a moral point of view, Austerity affects the poor disproportionately - the rich haven't felt the pinch, the richest have actually seen their wealth increase by around 100%. In short, Austerity is both unnecessary and actively harmful to the lives of the most vulnerable.

    Also, yes, Labour were totally going to introduce their own cuts - there's a reason for that: Labour aren't actually left-wing. They're centrist, and now look like they're heading back to the centre-right of the Blairite days. What fun.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    That's unpalatable, but lucky because the top 10% pay the majority of all the income tax collected. The poorest half of taxpayers pay about 12% of the income tax - and of course only around half the population are even taxpayers. So the richest are disproportionately rich, but they are also disproportionately harder working and disproportionately contributing far more to society than the rest.

    If you still feel that these people aren't paying their fair share, and perhaps that companies don't, consider these questions. Are you contributing your fair share? Government spending per capita is a bit more than £10,000 per year. Given that only half of people are taxpayers, are you paying more than £20,000 a year in tax?
    I'm not, and consider myself lucky that I live in country where rich people are prepared to subsidise everyone else's lifestyle and where businesses are able to create enough wealth to provide very high levels of social security, protection, healthcare, insurance and free pensions.
    Actually, because tax cuts off at a certain limit, those top 10% pay less than 2% tax from their income. I'm not for rich-bashing but I am for fair distribution.

    There is a direct statistical link (I call it sadistical link) between crime and poverty. Making a society in which everyone prospers is therefore good for everyone, rich and poor.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    Actually, because tax cuts off at a certain limit, those top 10% pay less than 2% tax from their income. I'm not for rich-bashing but I am for fair distribution.
    Where are you getting these crazy figures?

    The top 0.1% of earners pay 11.3% of all income tax.
    The top 0.01% pay 4.2% of all income tax.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...9-million.html

    Don't know how you can go from those facts to saying that the top 10% pay less than 2%. It blatantly isn't true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Don't know how you can go from those facts to saying that the top 10% pay less than 2%. It blatantly isn't true.
    That's a misquote. What I actually said was the "top 10% pay less than 2% tax from their income."

    I don't think our points are mutually exclusive. You're choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the system as a whole. I'm choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the individual, cause that's where reality is felt.

    There's an article here that demonstrates what I was trying to say:
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...r-tax-research

    I may just be out of date with my figures. Maybe the economics have become more progressive in the last year.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    That's a misquote. What I actually said was the "top 10% pay less than 2% tax from their income."

    I don't think our points are mutually exclusive. You're choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the system as a whole. I'm choosing to look at it from the viewpoint of the individual, cause that's where reality is felt.

    There's an article here that demonstrates what I was trying to say:
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...r-tax-research
    I didn't misquote you. I was using other statistics, by that I mean real ones, to prove that what you said is totally and obviously wrong. There is nothing in that article you posted that actually shows that the top 10% pay less than 2% tax from their income.

    The richest 0.01% earn 1.9% of total income but pay 4.2% of the income tax.
    The richest 0.1% earn 5% but pay 11.3%.
    The richest 1% earn 12% but pay 27%.

    There is no way they could be paying that amount but only being taxed at 2% of their income. It's obviously impossible.

    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    I may just be out of date with my figures. Maybe the economics have become more progressive in the last year.
    No, your figures were never right in the first place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    I didn't misquote you.
    Yes you did. By cutting down what I said you changed the meaning.

    So this doesn't degrade into a pissing contest I'll find some better proof that isn't shot down so flippantly. Ok?

    Edit:
    Ok, so I tried to find the evidence. Failed. The guy I heard this from I haven't been in contact with for about 8 years. So, I'm guessing he was maybe talking about a different type of tax.

    Interestingly I read yesterday that the benefits bill is £1b per year but the money lost from tax dodgers is £75b per year. So, just get Google and Starbucks to pay their tax and we'd be better off. If I was in government I'd storm their outlets with police and confiscate their property.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :bump:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    Yes you did. By cutting down what I said you changed the meaning.

    So this doesn't degrade into a pissing contest I'll find some better proof that isn't shot down so flippantly. Ok?

    Edit:
    Ok, so I tried to find the evidence. Failed. The guy I heard this from I haven't been in contact with for about 8 years. So, I'm guessing he was maybe talking about a different type of tax.

    Interestingly I read yesterday that the benefits bill is £1b per year but the money lost from tax dodgers is £75b per year. So, just get Google and Starbucks to pay their tax and we'd be better off. If I was in government I'd storm their outlets with police and confiscate their property.
    Depends what you mean by the benefits bill. As in is that just JSA or is it everything else? Because this article says that the total benefits bill is £220 billion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ies-finds.html

    Well that's breaking the rule of law and our legal tradition since Magna Carta. I think that's a bit more important than playing Stalin. Sure take what is legally due through the legal process but not what you are recommending.

    If you want to cut tax avoidance the best way to do so would be to cut taxes and simplify the tax system while simultaneously eliminating loopholes. Putin did this and even went to a flat tax. The result was that they increased the tax take five times over. Different scenario perhaps but the general argument still stands I feel.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Depends what you mean by the benefits bill. As in is that just JSA or is it everything else? Because this article says that the total benefits bill is £220 billion.
    Yeah, you're right. Managed to find the original story I read and it said that benefits fraud was £1b.

    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Well that's breaking the rule of law and our legal tradition since Magna Carta. I think that's a bit more important than playing Stalin. Sure take what is legally due through the legal process but not what you are recommending.
    So how come we can arrest people for benefits fraud and confiscate their ill gotten gains but we can't with large organisations?

    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    If you want to cut tax avoidance the best way to do so would be to cut taxes and simplify the tax system while simultaneously eliminating loopholes.
    I'd just change the law making tax avoidance a crime. Thought it already was. It's stealing in effect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    So how come we can arrest people for benefits fraud and confiscate their ill gotten gains but we can't with large organisations?
    Well the police still need probable cause to get a warrant for their arrest. They also won't be convicted without having gone through the legal process.

    The same is true of corporations and others who are engaging in tax evasion. You have to go through the legal process to get it done.

    (Original post by aaronlowe)
    I'd just change the law making tax avoidance a crime. Thought it already was. It's stealing in effect.
    I made a mistake in my post there and said tax avoidance rather than tax evasion.

    Tax evasion already is a crime. Tax avoidance isn't because otherwise you'd have to ban ISAs and so on.

    Also you are a bit confused. Tax is stealing. Legal stealing but still stealing.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

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

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