Tory Tax Rises

[1929crash]

Senior Conservattive Ken Clarke has admitted that an incoming Tory Government would have to increase taxes in order to shrink the burgeoning deficit.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100103/tuk-ken-clarke-admits-possible-tory-tax-dba1618.html

[Potwalloper]

Senior Conservattive Ken Clarke has admitted that an incoming Tory Government would have to increase taxes in order to shrink the burgeoning deficit.

http://uk.news.yahoo...ax-dba1618.html

Reckless. Brown would never tell the truth.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Reckless. Brown would never tell the truth.

That said, Mr Clarke is only presenting one option.

Raising taxes is one.

The other, sack 40% of public sector workers, slash their final salary pensions by 30%.

[Potwalloper]

That said, Mr Clarke is only presenting one option.

Raising taxes is one.

The other, sack 40% of public sector workers, slash their final salary pensions by 30%.

As I read it, he's presenting both. Edit: ... and the Islington lot are calling him a pessimist.

Edited January 3, 2010 by chute

[bogbrush]

I noted that the BBC have made a big story out of this.

Yeah, although I thought "Politician tells truth on economy" would have been a neater title for it.

One thing you can say for Brown; you'll not catch him doing any of the "reality" rubbish. Oh no, it's recovery all the way and a law to halve the deficit*.

* Well, rate at which the deficit grows would be a more accurate description of the policy but that's "reality" too.

[1929crash]

That said, Mr Clarke is only presenting one option.

Raising taxes is one.

The other, sack 40% of public sector workers, slash their final salary pensions by 30%.

break contractual pension provisions, put them on the dole, pay out benefits, reduce tax take, reduce demand, exacerbate recession. How sensible!

[bogbrush]

break contractual pension provisions, put them on the dole, pay out benefits, reduce tax take, reduce demand, exacerbate recession. How sensible!

Yes, it is sensible. The current policy has no useful end point, it just continues forever with people becoming more and more lost in dependence.

And a contract cannot survive the bankruptcy of one party, so breaking it is entirely the rational thing to do once you realise the paying party is quite bust.

[Guest KingCharles1st]

I noticed yesterday and today, that Liebia have started their election campaign, only that they are getting the BBC to do it for them.

Nasty little shits that they are- I suppose that applies to both Labour and the BBC.

[Patfig]

I noticed yesterday and today, that Liebia have started their election campaign, only that they are getting the BBC to do it for them.

Nasty little shits that they are- I suppose that applies to both Labour and the BBC.

The BBC

The Brown and Blair Corporation

[1929crash]

Yes, it is sensible. The current policy has no useful end point, it just continues forever with people becoming more and more lost in dependence.

And a contract cannot survive the bankruptcy of one party, so breaking it is entirely the rational thing to do once you realise the paying party is quite bust.

But one of the parties has a triple A credit rating!

[PhoneyMcRingRing]

* Well, rate at which the deficit grows would be a more accurate description of the policy but that's "reality" too.

That's a subtle one isn't it. I am amazed at the number of people this has fooled. The prevelant atitude is "Oh the debt is not that bad if the gov can half it in four years"

Love them or love them Labour have been brilliant at pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public. We get the Government we deserve and I blame the voters!

Phoney

[bogbrush]

But one of the parties has a triple A credit rating!

And we all know what they are worth.

Another way though of looking at it would be to say that such a rating is not based on it running bankrupt policies forecver - the rating (and the market for lenders) is based on them stopping. That's why if Brown won the election you could basically expect an overnight collapse in the supply of lending to Britain (Brown wouldn't care, he'd just tell Merv to keep on Queasing).

Edited January 3, 2010 by bogbrush

[ken_ichikawa]

As postulated by many the tories don't want to win the poisoned challace

[silver panda]

break contractual pension provisions, put them on the dole, pay out benefits, reduce tax take, reduce demand, exacerbate recession. How sensible!

Yes very sensible to pay someone £5,000 on the dole than employ them in a non-job at £50,000. The money thus saved can be used for either reducing government borrowing or reducing taxation on genuine wealth creating work.

You cannot reduce the tax take by getting rid of public sector workers as they are not nett tax contributors.

As for reducing demand, demand for what? Take a look at where your Christmas presents were made, its like 'Around the world in 80 shops.' If it reduces demand for overpriced housing then that's even better.

A fundamental rebalancing of the economy is needed. Until that is done the underlying problems will continue to worsen.

[ccc]

As postulated by many the tories don't want to win the poisoned challace

There was a lot of chat about this last year on HPC. Seemed a bit far fetched but now I am not so sure.

To publicly destroy the Labour party would not be difficult. They don't seem to be going for it though ?

IMO Either:

1- They are too arrogant and think they have it in the bag - why waste time putting effort in.

2- They truly do not want it.

[Bloo Loo]

break contractual pension provisions, put them on the dole, pay out benefits, reduce tax take, reduce demand, exacerbate recession. How sensible!

£69 pr week is better than £1000 per week and all the overheads associated for you average waster in middle public sector management.

The demand is the fabled pay a man to dig a hole and another to fill it...with inflation at 5% they have no money after 8 years to even do that.

kicking the can cant last for ever...and theyve been doing it since the 1920s.

[ken_ichikawa]

There was a lot of chat about this last year on HPC. Seemed a bit far fetched but now I am not so sure.

I dunno the thing is in war sometimes sacrifices have to be made to gain the greater objectives. In Korea Mao sent ex KMT prisoners in infantry rushes against UN forces, they broke through several times.

The famous it is better to sever one finger than have all burnt!,

If the tories win it will be them who enacts the emergency budgets at swinging axes of cuts, hence they will be hated by all those who lose their homes and jobs, Labour will be able to run adverts like in 1997 about children whose parents were repo'd.

They will have one term.

If Labour win the scortched earth policy explodes in their own face, creating so much hatred that Labour will get all the blame as everything has happened on their watch and thus they may vanish from politics forever.

Thats if the labour party do not start cancelling elections 2015 and 2020.

[Guest absolutezero]

Yes very sensible to pay someone £5,000 on the dole than employ them in a non-job at £50,000. The money thus saved can be used for either reducing government borrowing or reducing taxation on genuine wealth creating work.

The problem is then that demand for private sector services and goods is reduced. Leading to job losses in the private sector too.

It's a vicious circle.

[Guest absolutezero]

Senior Conservattive Ken Clarke has admitted that an incoming Tory Government would have to increase taxes in order to shrink the burgeoning deficit.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100103/tuk-ken-clarke-admits-possible-tory-tax-dba1618.html

Well, that's a Tory defeat at the ballot box....

Edited January 3, 2010 by absolutezero

[silver panda]

The problem is then that demand for private sector services and goods is reduced. Leading to job losses in the private sector too.

It's a vicious circle.

We're in an even more vicious debt circle at the moment.

But you're right a large number of retail/consumer jobs in the private sector will go as well.

Fortunately most of our wealth creating industries wont be hit so we can rebuild from them but it will mean a large drop in living standards for many people.

[Tonkers]

I dunno the thing is in war sometimes sacrifices have to be made to gain the greater objectives. In Korea Mao sent ex KMT prisoners in infantry rushes against UN forces, they broke through several times.

The famous it is better to sever one finger than have all burnt!,

If the tories win it will be them who enacts the emergency budgets at swinging axes of cuts, hence they will be hated by all those who lose their homes and jobs, Labour will be able to run adverts like in 1997 about children whose parents were repo'd.

They will have one term.

If Labour win the scortched earth policy explodes in their own face, creating so much hatred that Labour will get all the blame as everything has happened on their watch and thus they may vanish from politics forever.

Thats if the labour party do not start cancelling elections 2015 and 2020.

I think I am swinging this way now, it will be carnage keeping Labour in, fantastic glorious carnage. They will tax anything and everything, they will criminalise anything they can, anyone who can leave, will leave. I know I will try to. Labour did raise the idea of closing numerous polling stations, did they not? I believe they would cancel elections if they can.

[slurms mackenzie]

* Well, rate at which the deficit grows would be a more accurate description of the policy but that's "reality" too.

Can you please clarify this.

Okay so it's not total debt.

But is it

i) Halving the annual deficit

or

ii) Halving the growth of the annual deficit

quite different things, how has the deficit been referred to in the past has there been a shift? Or am i reading hpc spin vs govt spin?

Edited January 3, 2010 by slurms mackenzie

[Guest absolutezero]

We're in an even more vicious debt circle at the moment.

But you're right a large number of retail/consumer jobs in the private sector will go as well.

Fortunately most of our wealth creating industries wont be hit so we can rebuild from them but it will mean a large drop in living standards for many people.

We don't really "create wealth" any more. We outsourced manufacturing, and continue to do so.

[TheBlueCat]

Senior Conservattive Ken Clarke has admitted that an incoming Tory Government would have to increase taxes in order to shrink the burgeoning deficit.

http://uk.news.yahoo...ax-dba1618.html

Well, he'd know since that's exactly what he had to do when he was chancellor (e.g. he put vat up to 15% from 10%). It's also worth noting that he handed over a growing economy with a shrinking national debt to Gordenron who then proceeded to totally f*ck it up. It's nice to see a politician telling the truth for a change I think, although the pessimist in me thinks that most people are too dumb to notice it.

[silver panda]

We don't really "create wealth" any more. We outsourced manufacturing, and continue to do so.

Really? In which case the factory I'll be going back to work at tomorrow doesn't exist. They'll be some disappointed people in Poland and Norway and Holland when the goods they're expecting us to make for them don't arrive.

The problem is that we don't create enough wealth hence permanent trade deficits and ever increasing debt.

If we don't start creating more wealth then living standards are going to fall.

The world will not keep suppling this country with food, energy and consumer goods without getting something worthwhile in return.

Sources of foreign earnings in this country are manufacturing (what's left of it), North Sea Oil (what's left of it), the City (but not as much as they claimed) and some agriculture, educational servies and tourism.

Unfortunately not enough for us to pay our way in the world.