Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goat

  1. However the OP was claiming that benefits reduce wages and end up in the pockets of the employers, which clearly means reducing the prices, not upping them. One could make a marginal case that if the employers were competing in an international marketplace then lower wages would benefit them, but I'd suggest that the vast majority of low wage employers are in the domestic retail/services sector and thus any changes to the cost structure would affect all competing businesses equally and would be bargained away in the form of lower (or even higher) prices very quickly.
  2. I'm sorry, but I think you've got that wrong for two reasons: Firstly, at best this is an untested assumption. The effect of the benefits is to encorage workers to reduce the number of hours they work, reducing the supply of labour, which logically should increase hourly wage rates. Secondly these employers operate in competetive markets, any advantages they receive from employee benefits should quickly be competed away in the form of reduced selling prices, leaving them no better off and all of the benefits either in the hand of the employees or in the hands of the employer's customers.
  3. Are you suggesting that tax credits are somehow a rebate on other taxes paid, if so can you tell me how the link works? Also, since most expenses related to children are exempt from other taxes, why are tax credits based on numbers of children and income?
  4. The Cretin Brown might've styled them "tax credits" for that reason but I think the vast majority of people regard them as benefits (and always have done) and would see any changes as benefit cuts rather than tax rises, I don't think this is a "redefinition" on the part of the current government, merely a recognition of reality. Logically, a tax credit should be connected to an amount of tax due or already paid; in the case of dividends they come with a 10% credit to cover the basic rate income tax due, which gives credit for the corportion tax paid on the underlying income stream. In the case of "tax credits" there is no connection to any underlying tax liabilty/payment and the largest awards are made to those who pay no income tax whatsoever.
  5. Tax credits seems to be the only option, nothing else in the welfare budget is close to large enough to get anywhere near £12bn. Also they have the additional advantage that you can cut them without "cutting them". Up the number of hours work to qualify and people have to earn more money to qualify for the credits, hence a lower TC award. Likewise you can save some coin by limiting them to 2 children,.which again isn't a "cut" and is unlikely to prove controversial.
  6. Have to admit I skim read your last post and didn't spot this. Have given it some considerable thought and will think further before replying.
  7. Come off it mate, I might've been a bit more interested in the politics side of things recently but the vast majority of my first 5,000 posts were HPI related, especially the ones from the 18 months before you even turned up on this forum. In fact you're getting so repetetive in that accusation you've probably got more posts about me than I have about the conservatives.
  8. Labour hasn't been the party of the working man for many years. Go back to the 70s and they're the party of union barons and their members in taxpayer subsidised industries. The reality is the working man wants to keep the money he earns and spend it the way he sees fit, Thatcher was successful because this is what she offered to him and he deserted labour for her.
  9. Odd that debt to GDP fell throught the 80's and stayed reasonably stable until The Cretin Brown got hold of the cheque book.
  10. I think the problem is that the leftists define themselves as "good" people and want nice things such as fairness, equality, first rate public services etc even if the reality of their policies usually results in the exact opposite. By extension anyone who opposes them must be against fairness/equality etc and therefore an evil capitalist scumbag. Really it's a basic lack of intelligence on the leftists part, the inability to see that there's more than one way to skin a cat, that their way of doing things might not be the best, that there isn't an infinite supply of money and that if you want good public services you need a successful economy to pay for them. They're a bit thick really.
  11. Not sure the point you are making, You can see the point of inflection starts in 2008, way before the Cons/Libs got in. Government spending is like an ocean liner. Actually you can see that the real tipping point is in 2002 and he'd managed to add almost 10% to the stock of debt by 2008, at the height of the boom! That may not seem like much by post 2008 standards but bear in mind that the above chart is debt to GDP; if real GDP rises then debt falls, if you have inflation then debt falls.
  12. Yes, although he might be well advised to wait until next time.
  13. I suppose you could argue that Cameron was in the same position until yesterday, the combined con-lib vote was over 50% in 2010.
  14. Somehow I don't think the country's ready for an ethnic minority PM. He'll look absolutely fantastic in the opinion polls, but once people get into the polling booth they'll vote for someone else.
  15. Seems to be a toss up between him, Burnham or Yvette Cooper, none of which look electable. Is there anyone out there who would make a plausible PM.
  16. I'm not so sure. First off 30.4% is a worse share of the vote than the 30.7% the conservatives got in the 1997 landslide (surely their lowest point), in 2001 they managed to get 31.7%. Secondly, assuming that Scotland is lost for the forseeable future it's hard to see where they're going to find the seats to catch up with the conservatives, let alone form a majority government. Thirdly, Labour has benefited hugely over the last 20 years from the inbuilt bias of the electoral system, presumably one of the first bits of business will be boundary reform. More fundamentally the standard of the shadow cabinet looks pretty [email protected] - can you imagine people being any keener on PM Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham? Is there anybody there who looks remotely like a PM? Do you mean 2001, which is the last time spending was at that level?
  17. 25 years on the lefties are still blaming 'fatcher, and she didn't have 500,000 dead Iraqi's on her account. There will never be a time to stop blaming Bliar.
  18. I doubt that collusion between the two is likely. The biggest problem for Cameron will be Europe, which is not a devolved issue, it's easy to see LibLabSnp voting as a block together with some many of the "others". Realistically Cameron's going to end up on 331 seats, since Sinn Fein doesn't take up it's seats that's a majority of 10, he can also probably rely upon another 10 from the DUP and UUP giving him an effective majority of 20. 10 Conservative rebels and he loses. Will the referendum be enough to keep them quiet? Possibly.
  19. Good question. I think some kind of federal structure is now inevitable. The Scots will get full fiscal autonomy, meaning full responsibility for raising taxes, the ability to borrow on their own account, but also the end to any kind of cross border subsidy. 10 years from now I suspect the SNP will have f***ed it up so badly I don't know where to start. Westminster will become a de-facto English parliament with the Scots only able to vote on non-devolved matters, really only foreign affairs, a few bits of taxation (VAT and duties probably) and a handful of criminal matters (guns, drugs). The Eurosceptics will get their referendum in 2017 but lose heavily. Possibly Cameron will extract some concessions from the EU but not much. The left wing establishment will continue to pump out their usual guff about poverty, privatisation and cuts, maybe they'll find a way to clip their wings (de-criminalising the licence fee might be a start). Apart from that, more of the same probably, unless something goes badly wrong with Russia.
  20. Actually I think the damage was done before they went into coalition, the moment when the conservatives fell just a few seats short of a majority, at that point the LD's were screwed whatever they did. At that point they had 3 options: Con-lib coalition; Lab-lib coalition; do nothing. 1 brought them where they are today, propping up The Cretin Brown would've been even worse and if they were going to stay out of government on the one occasion they got a chance then what exactly was the point of the party in the first place?
  21. Nope, being thugs makes them thugs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758514/The-Seriously-Nasty-Party-With-one-day-damning-evidence-bullying-intimidation-voters-Scots-nationalists-just-ask-Miliband.html Pro-union voters have endured stone-throwing and been called traitors Many are now said to be too scared to show their support of a No vote Ed Miliband was forced to abandon visit to Edinburgh shopping centre
  22. Another conservative government? We've had a coalition for the last 5 years.
  23. Dan Hodges makes some interesting points and seems to be suggesting similar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11573434/David-Cameron-is-still-on-course-for-Downing-Street.html Essential points: Probably leading by 2-3% based on telephone polling; Incumbency factor probably worth another 1%; Unusually large number of undecideds out there, likely to break for incumbents (Tory), follow election trend (Tory) or are shy tories; Ukip unlikely to poll anywhere near current 14%. Suggests a lead of maybe 2% + 1% + 2% + 2% = +- 7% and possibly more. I don't know, sounds like wishful thinking but perhaps not; are people really going to wake up on Thursday morning and think "what I want is a country run by Ed Milliband held hostage by the SNP"? My guess is the Labour rout in Scotland won't be quite as bad as expected but they'll lose 30 or so seats and with it any chance of a majority, or even being the largest party so it's all going to come down to whether the tories can win enough seats to form a viable coalition with LD + DUP support or even a majority. Worst case scenario would be a Labour/LD minority coalition proped up by the SNP. Really too close to call.
  24. Government placing massive orders with the private sector doesn't show up as government spending? I'm sorry but that's just utter rubbish.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.