£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
I posted this elsewhere, it was conveniently ignored by the usual posters of the right, I feel because it is an uncomfortable truth. Put away all your graphs and polls, it's about real people and real situations. The tories LIED TO THE ELECTORATE! Hopefully in 2020 it will come back to bite them on their ars*.
Not only did they lie before the election, they also presented their policies as a net gain for poor workers, when independent analysis showed within a couple of days that it would mean massive losses for (insert large number here). This suggests that either they didn't actually carry out analysis before announcing the policy, which I find hard to believe, or that they lied before the election and then they lied again about the consequences of the policy.0 -
Christ that's a bleak story isn't it? Make a point on question time, get accused of lying and have HMRC investigate your business.
Puts you off wanting to go on question time doesn't it? Or even saying anything in public.0 -
Pick your battles carefully.Christ that's a bleak story isn't it? Make a point on question time, get accused of lying and have HMRC investigate your business.
Puts you off wanting to go on question time doesn't it? Or even saying anything in public.
Some enemies have much, much better resources.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ok Frank, lets talk about real people in real situations. We have a welfare system that rewards some people with more income than many others can aspire to earn.
People, some on here, have argued that big companies see tax credits and benefits in general as a wage subsidy, allowing them to pay lower wages. A view that is difficult to deny. The Tories are the only party willing to seize this particular nettle and make changes. Corbyn has stated that he would abolish the welfare cap entirely. Tesco, Asda McD would no doubt be in favour of that.
No government is 100% right 100% of the time and the policy, like any other, may need adjusting in time. We shall see.0 -
I agree with the point you make about companies looking on tax credits as a subsidy for themselves this is wrong. No one who works full time should have to have the state top up there wages they should be paid a proper wage. The point I was making was people losing the tax credits are being hurt by the very party that claimed to be on their side.Ok Frank, lets talk about real people in real situations. We have a welfare system that rewards some people with more income than many others can aspire to earn.
People, some on here, have argued that big companies see tax credits and benefits in general as a wage subsidy, allowing them to pay lower wages. A view that is difficult to deny. The Tories are the only party willing to seize this particular nettle and make changes. Corbyn has stated that he would abolish the welfare cap entirely. Tesco, Asda McD would no doubt be in favour of that.
No government is 100% right 100% of the time and the policy, like any other, may need adjusting in time. We shall see.
George Osbourne, do the right thing increase the working wage to £10 an hour now, then remove the tax credit if he wants to keep people like that woman on QT on board.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Given the waterworks, probably the case. The amount of positive economic news, lefties are usually reduced to making things up to try to make a point these days . See the Corbyn thread...From the same paper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11937376/Tory-voter-who-confronted-minister-over-tax-credit-cuts-may-not-be-affected-by-reforms.html
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3276961/Hardworking-mother-four-stunned-Tory-minister-silence-Question-Time-unlikely-affected-tax-credit-cuts.html
Oh.
The cynic in me wonders if she was a plant.
.
I've already made the case that the economic news isn't all that positive. People don't feel richer because, in short, they're not.
The number of people working (migration) and the number of hours people are working has risen. Productivity per hour (which is what should be focused on) is stagnant.
Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
The headline figures are good, but the devil is in the detail.0 -
Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
I saw some analysis showing the same thing a few months ago - all the wage increases are going to higher earners due to a skills shortage. I've been trying to find a link for it, but it appears to be buried somewhere in cyberspace. Do you have a link?0 -
I was going to ask for it as well.Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
I saw some analysis showing the same thing a few months ago - all the wage increases are going to higher earners due to a skills shortage. I've been trying to find a link for it, but it appears to be buried somewhere in cyberspace. Do you have a link?
As you say, if that is the case, it would be most likely the result of supply and demand on skilled jobs, its what you would expect and a normal indicator of a healthy economy with falling unemployment and decent economic growth. The message is as it always has been, skilling up/retraining is one of the best ways of raising your value as an employee. I've done it, so can others.
The minimum wage rises will obviously boost lower end pay when they kick in.
The headline figures are good and obviously that is because of mainly good news in the detail. Despite all these allegedly terrible budget cuts."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was going to ask for it as well.Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
I saw...a link?
A...others.
The...kick in.
The headline figures are good and obviously that is because of mainly good news in the detail. Despite all these allegedly terrible budget cuts.
Isn't that a contradiction?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I was going to ask for it as well.Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
I saw some analysis showing the same thing a few months ago - all the wage increases are going to higher earners due to a skills shortage. I've been trying to find a link for it, but it appears to be buried somewhere in cyberspace. Do you have a link?
As you say, if that is the case, it would be most likely the result of supply and demand on skilled jobs, its what you would expect and a normal indicator of a healthy economy with falling unemployment and decent economic growth. The message is as it always has been, skilling up/retraining is one of the best ways of raising your value as an employee. I've done it, so can others.
The minimum wage rises will obviously boost lower end pay when they kick in.
The headline figures are good and obviously that is because of mainly good news in the detail. Despite all these allegedly terrible budget cuts.
Surprised you're in favour of a minimum wage increase, but anyway.
You wanted evidence for uneven distribution of economic growth?
From last year: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/falling-real-wages/
You can't explain distribution of economic growth (a macro issue) with a micro explanation (supply and demand). That's not how it works.
A more likely explanation is that quantitive easing has artificially boosted the value of the types of assets the top earners tend to hold (equities & bonds - where wealth managers send most of their client's money), which is why we're not seeing more general price rises as a result of the BoE printing money.
Quantitative easing generally increases inequality. The wealthy then, with more money, can well, make more money (after all, money makes money).
As for being comfortable with the economic growth being orientated towards the rich - i can only see that being 'good' if you're one of those. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49031991 http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/how-quantitative-easing-contributed-to-the-nations-inequality-problem/?_r=0 http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-on-quantitative-easing-and-inequality
Otherwise, the wealthy are in the literal minority by quite some way (1% and all that), so if we're talking about how much of the nation is seeing the economic growth, then it is certainly not good.
If we want to improve growth even more, sending income towards the lower end earners tends to have a higher multiplier effect anyway, so if anything, you want it to be at the lower end.
--
We'll see if the minimum wage increase does actually help low income earners. Analysis seems to be mixed - improved earnings per hour versus fewer hours worked (generally, the positive impacts of a minimum wage increase reduce, the higher the wage goes up).
It certainly helps from a pure macro perspective in that it will inevitably increase inflation (which is hanging dangerously around 0%), so Tories were/are lucky they're doing it in the middle of an oil price war.
Ultimately though, it doesn't really improve productivity, which is the main issue, and always will be. You can talk till you're blue in the face about good economic figures, but there are 2 that matter. Employment rates (which are good!) and productivity (which is bad, and has been since 2007).0 -
I think you're missing my point on a couple of levels. I was talking about wage growth there rather than overall economic growth. Also I was making a about wage growth being more in favour of those with skills/in demand - you seem to have then replied on economic growth favouring the rich.
That aside, I see no issue with economic growth being in favour of those that create it. That's how it should be for proper incentivisation of wealth creation."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was going to ask for it as well.Also the distribution of the economic growth is skewed towards upper end earners, not lower end.
I saw some analysis showing the same thing a few months ago - all the wage increases are going to higher earners due to a skills shortage. I've been trying to find a link for it, but it appears to be buried somewhere in cyberspace. Do you have a link?
As you say, if that is the case, it would be most likely the result of supply and demand on skilled jobs, its what you would expect and a normal indicator of a healthy economy with falling unemployment and decent economic growth. The message is as it always has been, skilling up/retraining is one of the best ways of raising your value as an employee. I've done it, so can others.
The minimum wage rises will obviously boost lower end pay when they kick in.
The headline figures are good and obviously that is because of mainly good news in the detail. Despite all these allegedly terrible budget cuts.
I don't know about other sectors, but I've been reading about predicted wage rises in the science and engineering field for quite a few years. Basically, lots of people are coming up to retirement age without enough people coming in to replace them. An inflation-busting wage increase is what you would expect when the country is rebounding from a recession which saw massive falls in incomes and oil is very cheap. It means businesses can cut costs elsewhere and use the savings to pay higher wages. As Rick says, though, the pay rises should really come due to increased productivity, rather than (temporarily) low oil prices, which will surely go up again once the Saudis have screwed the US f.racking operations/realised they aren't going to win (delete as applicable about 2 years from now) or due to a skills shortage which doesn't really benefit the country.
I agree that training and improving skills is the best way to get ahead in life, but there are lots of jobs that are absolutely vital and aren't skilled - picking food, cleaning hospitals, etc. Society has to work for the people doing those jobs as well. I'm not saying they should all be on £100k per year, but we shouldn't be in a situation in which people who are going out to work will only earn enough money to pay rent, transport, food, heating, taxes and nothing else.0 -
As I seem it that's what the minimum wage is for and the level is going to £9/hr IIRC. The minimum wage point is a balancing act: I see some merit in preventing abuse of the genuinely vulnerable, but the tories have already been pan ed by some sections of small business who say it will make it too expensive to hire for certain jobs - which indicates that in some cases this is forcing a pay rate above the market rate.
You then have to look at the relative merits of more people employed on a lower rate vs less pepp,e employedmon a higher rate plus higher unemployment.
If a particular choice of rate reduces the cost to the taxpayer overall then that would be one I would support (going back to the original point of this thread)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Aren't you dodging a few bullets here Stevo?
Your implication was that an increase in growth would benefit us all, yet the evidence from other posts is that the money is not filtering down. Why the public expenditure cuts if the economy is doing so well? RC and others have pointed out the flaws in the current economic picture. At what point does the current economic growth actually result in an increase in public and structural expenditure ? At what point do we start to re-build/finance industry?
Is the current economic growth figures only for the select few (as suggested) and does not actually represent the wider economy?
I can tell you for a fact that 3rd sector funding is at an all time low. That indicates that the pot of money available is very limited and that either the economy is not in great shape and/or the economic growth is in a small sector to which the rest of us don't directly benefit from.
I cannot understand how flats in London are going for multi-millions in that for an alarmingly growing number (and some select hedge funds), there is millions floating about. Millions that needs to be better distributed if you ask me and if they are not willing to give a small percentage up in one way or another or through one tax or another*, they may as well f*ck off to Dubai or Monaco because they are not benefiting the country.
'Incentivising' greed more like.
*They wouldn't be paying thousands for tax advice if it wasn't worth it. seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Wages are more than half of the GDP figure, and ultimately all economic growth politically is orientated around wages so that's why I use them interchangeably. If it's not growth in wages, what's the point?
Re effectiveness of minimum wage hike as a cushion for working household tax credit recipients: IFS estimates working household loses £750 in cuts on average and gains £200 in wage increase - so a net loss of £550.
For those without work those without kids lose on average £2,000 and those with lose £3,100.
The head of IFS concluded "majority of those losing from the cut in tax credits will not be compensated by the increase in the minimum wage"
So in short, hitting the poorest financially.0 -
Let me deal with these new bulletsAren't you dodging a few bullets here Stevo?
Your implication was that an increase in growth would benefit us all, yet the evidence from other posts is that the money is not filtering down. Why the public expenditure cuts if the economy is doing so well? RC and others have pointed out the flaws in the current economic picture. At what point does the current economic growth actually result in an increase in public and structural expenditure ? At what point do we start to re-build/finance industry?
Is the current economic growth figures only for the select few (as suggested) and does not actually represent the wider economy?
I can tell you for a fact that 3rd sector funding is at an all time low. That indicates that the pot of money available is very limited and that either the economy is not in great shape and/or the economic growth is in a small sector to which the rest of us don't directly benefit from.
I cannot understand how flats in London are going for multi-millions in that for an alarmingly growing number (and some select hedge funds), there is millions floating about. Millions that needs to be better distributed if you ask me and if they are not willing to give a small percentage up in one way or another or through one tax or another*, they may as well f*ck off to Dubai or Monaco because they are not benefiting the country.
'Incentivising' greed more like.
*They wouldn't be paying thousands for tax advice if it wasn't worth it. Although as you know I'm a busy man 
1. Filter down effect. Unemployment at a 7 year low; wage rises 3% yoy. These are the current numbers. Never said it would be totally evenly distributed or help absolutely everyone but not even centrally managed economies could manage that trick - assuming they could generate the growth in the first place, which is unlikely. As I said above, skill up and reap the rewards.
2. Why spending cuts if things are doing well? We are sitting approx. £1.5 trillion of debt as a nation - paying the interest on that costs approx. £43 billion a year, which is approx. 3% of GDP or 8% of tax revenues. Think of how many schools/hospitals/police (insert favourite cause as needed) we could pay if we reduced that. There is still more to be done to reduce the annual deficit but other things being equal Spending less = less annual deficit = less debt. We can't go on racking it up forever, that is obvious.
3. London property prices. Largely driven by wealthy overseas investors and the availability of top end property - but shows our attractiveness as a place to invest and as stable place for investment. Not related to the tax they pay other than stamp duty - the question is whether they become UK resident personally, spend money here or do business in the UK via a company. However buying property here means they are likely to do so.
4. Why not tax the rich a bit more? I've explained this a few times now and have first hand experience in my job. Corporate capital and the international 'rich' set represent mobile capital. It's always 'lets just tax them a bit more...' but if you add up all the individual requests 'little' like this they'd be taxed at Labour in the 70's level by now and to some extent pushed off elsewhere, leaving us with nothing from them. Does it incentivise greed? Not sure, but it incentivises investment and economic activity. Likewise, low tax rates can increase tax revenues - again I have first hand experience in tipping the tables towards the UK to benefit from our competitive corporate rates: a real increase for the UK exchequer at the expense of some less business friendly countries. Apart from that there are active anti-avoidance programmes in place both nationally (look at the last few budgets) and internationally via the OECD 'BEPS' project - go google as I have a 1pm meeting about saving some tax.
5. At what point do we start to rebuild finance industry? 'We' as in the government doesn't do that, business does. It's the governments job to encourage business to invest and grow by creating a business friendly environment. Governments investing and running businesses is not how we do it as a rule, unless you believe in full scale nationalisation.
Greed can be good - I'm off later to buy my Gordon Gekko style braces :P"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
On this: the research briefings for parliament on these very tax cuts: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7300#fullreport
On tax credits: cuts will save £4.4bn for 2016-17.
No transitional protection for existing families on tax credit
3.3m people in work receive tax credits of which 2.7m have children and on average will lose £1,300 next year, though the spread is large.
IFS contests the gov'ts statement that "typical working families will be better off" saying of the 8.4m working households who are eligible for benefits or tax credits, the new National Living Wage only compensates on average 26% of the losses due to the cuts.
You can see why some marginal seat MPs are nervous. 8.4million is roughly 13% of the population or 1 in 8.
I personally think it's a terrible thing. The system needed reform, but this will cause a lot more pain than it solves to those who need the most help.0 -
I personally think it's a terrible thing. The system needed reform, but this will cause a lot more pain than it solves to those who need the most help.
But that's ok. All the megarich and the very profitable corporations we are attracting will benefit us all and if they don't, they'll start handing out money and pots like Eva Peron.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Are the Tories partying like it is 1981?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We clearly need to get away from a welfare dependent system. The idea of taking money off people in tax then giving it back as tax credits was madness. And at least partly politically motivated by Labour attempting to build a client state of grateful recipients of what they painted as leftie largesse.
As others had said on here, how can people expect those big bad companies to pay a decent wage when they knew the state would top up pay packets. Well now it won't so the pressure on wages will increase. Personally I prefer that as payment through the increased price of goods and services at leaves some choice at the point of purchase, whereas if it is taken via tax there is no such choice.
Painful in the short term for some, but necessary and beneficial in the long run IMO."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We clearly need to get away from a welfare dependent system. The idea of taking money off people in tax then giving it back as tax credits was madness. And at least partly politically motivated by Labour attempting to build a client state of grateful recipients of what they painted as leftie largesse.
As others had said on here, how can people expect those big bad companies to pay a decent wage when they knew the state would top up pay packets. Well now it won't so the pressure on wages will increase. Personally I prefer that as payment through the increased price of goods and services at leaves some choice at the point of purchase, whereas if it is taken via tax there is no such choice.
Painful in the short term for some, but necessary and beneficial in the long run IMO.
I'm not sure what you expect people to do who are currently working, poor, and receive credits that they will now lose?
If they received credits because they would otherwise be below the poverty line, what will happen when the credits stop? I would imagine their company won't immediately increase their wage tomorrow so now what?
IF you are going to cut people's income, then at least administer it in a way that bridges the gap between the two.0 -
On a related note, I was reading an article in the FT over the weekend that was examining recent studies into what is the best way to reduce poverty. It's written by Tim Hartford - writer of the Undercover Economist book.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94e23a6a-6c6d-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html
(if you sign up you can get access to a few article a week for free).
Basically all the studies so far point to literally just giving money being the most effective. No strings, just money.
It cites one study (amongst many others which are a little less extreme) which tested this to destruction: handing out money in $200 instalments to drug dealers and the homeless, and evaluating what they did with it. turns out of that $200, only $8 of it was spent, on average, on drink or drugs. The rest was spent on rent, food, clothes and 'business investments'.
If you trust the tests, and I can't comment on the validity of the results (but i'd suggest it's likelier to be valid than not), then these cuts are literally the opposite of 'the best way to reduce poverty'.0 -
It's squeaky bum time for Osborne in the Lord's.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Nothing to do with the lack of meaningful investment in industry or education or our infrastructure?
When you refer to this current mess, are you referring to the Bankers who flagrantly messed around with large amounts of money?
If the economy that you talk about is in such a good position, why hasn't the effects of that cut/is going to cut the deficit?
42bn in tax avoidance as displayed earlier in this thread...hmm.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Simple but honest question.Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Why not simply synchronise the timing of the two so there was no pain?
Higher minimum wage, higher rate before tax, credit cuts at the same time?
Too simple?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We clearly need to get away from a welfare dependent system. The idea of taking money off people in tax then giving it back as tax credits was madness. And at least partly politically motivated by Labour attempting to build a client state of grateful recipients of what they painted as leftie largesse.
As others had said on here, how can people expect those big bad companies to pay a decent wage when they knew the state would top up pay packets. Well now it won't so the pressure on wages will increase. Personally I prefer that as payment through the increased price of goods and services at leaves some choice at the point of purchase, whereas if it is taken via tax there is no such choice.
Painful in the short term for some, but necessary and beneficial in the long run IMO.
i dont disgree that tax credits needs reforming and that the min is too low BUT to hit the working poor in such a hard way is unfair, have the richest been asked to lose as much proportionately? no.
As for your last statement, easy for the middle classes to say isnt? £1300 wouldnt make much difference to you or me.
If your a decent accountant, this would be similar to you losing 20k or more.0 -
I have lost fair percentages of my income when times have been tough economically - early 90's downturn, 2003 'dotcom' crash and a few years ago in the aftermath of the last down turn. Market conditions dictate pay and remuneration and there is a general realisation that we have to cut our cloth.We clearly need to get away from a welfare dependent system. The idea of taking money off people in tax then giving it back as tax credits was madness. And at least partly politically motivated by Labour attempting to build a client state of grateful recipients of what they painted as leftie largesse.
As others had said on here, how can people expect those big bad companies to pay a decent wage when they knew the state would top up pay packets. Well now it won't so the pressure on wages will increase. Personally I prefer that as payment through the increased price of goods and services at leaves some choice at the point of purchase, whereas if it is taken via tax there is no such choice.
Painful in the short term for some, but necessary and beneficial in the long run IMO.
i dont disgree that tax credits needs reforming and that the min is too low BUT to hit the working poor in such a hard way is unfair, have the richest been asked to lose as much proportionately? no.
As for your last statement, easy for the middle classes to say isnt? £1300 wouldnt make much difference to you or me.
If your a decent accountant, this would be similar to you losing 20k or more.
There seems to be some sort of assumption on here that certain categories of people should be immune from that. We've just about got the country round to the very sensible idea that the public sector is not immune: in the end very, very few should be. The credits point is tricky because what used to be benefits are now taken as entitlements.
Also the definition of poor and poverty is relative to the average earnings, so as our free trade capitalist system has increased average earning and wealth , those classified as poor are not as poor as they used to be. However poverty is an emotive term and for obvious reasons bandied around quite freely by those with an agenda. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
My guess is that they are doing this to save money as has been the stated intent? Also to incentivise people to readjust/retrain etc? I'm not privy to the rationale but that's my guess.
Simple but honest question.Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Why not simply synchronise the timing of the two so there was no pain?
Higher minimum wage, higher rate before tax, credit cuts at the same time?
Too simple?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Next in the 'ask Stevo' thread....here we goTough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Nothing to do with the lack of meaningful investment in industry or education or our infrastructure?
When you refer to this current mess, are you referring to the Bankers who flagrantly messed around with large amounts of money?
If the economy that you talk about is in such a good position, why hasn't the effects of that cut/is going to cut the deficit?
42bn in tax avoidance as displayed earlier in this thread...hmm.
Meaningful investment? Show me some numbers and define 'meaningful investment' - this is usually a leftie way of dressing up increased public spending to make it sound better. Wherever I go I see investment - building property in London. Crossrail, HS2, plans for Crossrail 2, plans to extend the tube line. I pedal past two new schools under construction on my way to work etc etc. Anecdotal evidence granted, but so is your claim. Also, I've told you before that investment in industry is the job of industry, not the government - unless you believe in wholesale nationalisation?
Bankers messing around with money? Did they steal it or was it the market going pear shaped as it tends to do? Show me some back up for your claim.
Tax avoidance? Leftiebollox alert, here are the facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf
Avoidance is £3.1bn per year per HMRC's own recent figures, so you're only out by a factor of 10 or so . And if you are seriously claiming that there is not much done to tackle, sorry that's just BS. Look at the measure in the last few budgets and at the OECD 'BEPS' initiative. It's a veritable landslide as I know only too well on a day to day basis, although no matter how much goes into it, there will always be some avoidance. it is more to do with certain pressure groups claiming that avoidance is higher and effort to tackle it are lower than is really the case.
Cutting the deficit? It has been cut. Just not by enough - there is more to do. See the welfare cuts thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
You are probably confusing deficit and debt - above link may help clarify. Despite cutting the deficit, we are still not running an annual surplus - although we are forecast to do by the end of the decade. Hopefully the medicine will continue to work.
Next !"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
