LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol Tories could murder every 4th child and they'd still get 20% of the vote.

To be fair, so could Labour. It's the next 20% layer of voters that are key. The Tories' are just more loyal to the cause than Labour's. The Tories want power whilst Labour seems to prefer a lot of introspection about what's right with winning GEs a handy side-effect if the planets align.

In a mirror-image universe, Stevo is now a disaffected former Labour loyalist who is voting Green whereas our Stevo will be voting Tory even after a Tory government passes a law granting "Droits de Seigneur" over Mrs Stevo to the 1922 Committee.

Given that pretty much every chart in the UK is "gets better till 2010, then gets worse"...

This does somewhat gloss over the GFC and the Labour government's role in laying the groundwork for the UK to be spectacularly b*ggered by it.

Conveniently ignored by some as it doesn't fit the left of centre narrative.

I think that's a pretty well worn narrative actually Stevo. Remember "champagne socialist"? It is why labour ended up with an idiot like Corbnyn in the end, as a backlash.

I thought Labour ended up with Corbyn because after millipede's rash decisions to open up the leadership vote to members, there was a big influx of hard left and mischievous tories who wanted him in for the good of the country

In his own way, bendy toy millibrain was pandering to a lunatic fringe, like Cameron was with the ERG and UKIP. Hard to call anything he did a legacy though. I barely even remembered he was labour leader.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

I don't understand how any chancellor of the UK can be partly responsible for the GFC?

There was a lot of what proved to be dodgy financial engineering undertaken in London through the UK subsidiaries of US banks, as the UK regulatory regime was less onerous than that in the US. So this contributed to the GFC, though obvious the home-grown US hubris was the major driver, simply as the US financial sector is so large in absolute terms. (Relatively smaller than in the UK though I think.) So Brown is responsible for this as it was his regulatory regime.

Brown's real failing though was to promote policies that left the UK very seriously exposed to the impact of the GFC e.g. very low bank capital ratios, co-mingling of retail deposits and speculative investment banking on balance sheets, running fiscal deficits during cyclically high economic growth (i.e. the "boom" phase where conventional sound management requires a surplus to be built up as a buffer against the inevitable downturn in the future.)

rick_chasey

What policies specifically? And do you really think bank capital ratios is a chancellor remit? Or a UK banking regulatory remit. Same with banks prop trading > that's a regulatory issue, not an issue for the chancellor, no?

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

What policies specifically? And do you really think bank capital ratios is a chancellor remit? Or a UK banking regulatory remit. Same with banks prop trading > that's a regulatory issue, not an issue for the chancellor, no?

Regulatory regimes don't just happen. They follow legislation passed by the government of the day. The regulatory regime in force in the UK in the run up to the GFC was wholly the responsibility of the Labour government as they'd been in power since 1997 and had set up a regulatory regime exactly as they wanted by that time. (If the banking system had collapsed in October 1997 then you could make a case that failings in the regulatory regime weren't Labour's fault as they'd only have been in power for 5 months at that stage.)

And obviously, as Chancellor, Brown would have been the driving force behind any regulatory changes implemented.

rick_chasey

So the banking practices that were created and honed in the US that the system didn’t spot was risky was Brown’s fault?

I mean that’s some omnipotence you’re putting onto the chancellor then.

I think to suggest a chancellor needs to know the ins and outs of capital ratios and esoteric financial regulation is a bit much.

Banks had been prop trading under those capital requirements for decades prior.

First.Aspect

The problem with Blame Gordon is that it was a GLOBAL financial crisis, so most western economies were guilty of wishful thinking. Also bear in mind that they are all in competition, so had there been more stringent regulation in the UK, the banks would have just gone somewhere else to play monopoly.

focuszing723

I still can't believe RBS became the biggest bank in the world in terms of assets in 2008. I mean, that's FS regulation amok.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

So the banking practices that were created and honed in the US that the system didn’t spot was risky was Brown’s fault?

I mean that’s some omnipotence you’re putting onto the chancellor then.

I think to suggest a chancellor needs to know the ins and outs of capital ratios and esoteric financial regulation is a bit much.

Banks had been prop trading under those capital requirements for decades prior.

I think Chancellor's like to cultivate the idea that they are in control of the economy, when at best they are a small child shoving an elephant.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

It's not about feeling hard done by. It's just about when people talk about governments being generous etc. it's important to realise that any muppet can be generous with tax revenues, with no skill required whatsoever.

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

It's not about feeling hard done by. It's just about when people talk about governments being generous etc. it's important to realise that any muppet can be generous with tax revenues, with no skill required whatsoever.

As ably demonstrated by the current PM when he was CX

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

I think to suggest a chancellor needs to know the ins and outs of capital ratios and esoteric financial regulation is a bit much.

I can't tell whether you're trying to wind me up or you just don't understand how financial regulations originate in the UK.

But anyway, what's done is done, and if you think Brown ran a tight ship and was simply unlucky then that's up to you.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

Funny, that's precisely my experience of the current lot. Left or right, nobody ever thinks *they* should pay more. No difference in the overall spending either: they all spend as much as lenders will let them. Current government spending is about the same as a proportion of GDP as it was under Brown.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

Funny, that's precisely my experience of the current lot. Left or right, nobody ever thinks *they* should pay more. No difference in the overall spending either: they all spend as much as lenders will let them. Current government spending is about the same as a proportion of GDP as it was under Brown.

I'm talking about people, not governments.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

Funny, that's precisely my experience of the current lot. Left or right, nobody ever thinks *they* should pay more. No difference in the overall spending either: they all spend as much as lenders will let them. Current government spending is about the same as a proportion of GDP as it was under Brown.

I'm talking about people, not governments.

Not sure it makes a difference. Always thinking they/their supporters should pay less and someone else should pay more. Governments are what makes the decisions on spending and are made up of people.

And if ever there was a government whose priority was doing their mates a favour...

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

You have a very short term outlook

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

Funny, that's precisely my experience of the current lot. Left or right, nobody ever thinks *they* should pay more. No difference in the overall spending either: they all spend as much as lenders will let them. Current government spending is about the same as a proportion of GDP as it was under Brown.

I was amazed at that stat and other than when GFC hit the current level of spending is steers ahead of Brown and going up.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

You have a very short term outlook

Why so? Just a clear idea of what is and isn't mine.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

I think the point here is that when lefties clamour for ever higher taxes, they usually mean it is other people who should pay more tax and not them. Hence the phrase.

Funny, that's precisely my experience of the current lot. Left or right, nobody ever thinks *they* should pay more. No difference in the overall spending either: they all spend as much as lenders will let them. Current government spending is about the same as a proportion of GDP as it was under Brown.

I was amazed at that stat and other than when GFC hit the current level of spending is steers ahead of Brown and going up.

Exactly. Never has so little cost so much.

kingstongraham

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

It will likely help at the ballot box in the near future, so possibly money well spent.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

It will likely help at the ballot box in the near future, so possibly money well spent.

If that was the only possible benefit to anyone, maybe the Conservative party should have paid for it.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

It will likely help at the ballot box in the near future, so possibly money well spent.

Lol. They're essentially sacrificing their Mayoral candidate to be able to win... maybe 2 or 3 seats at the GE on a good day. So Khan will still be being mediocre as Mayor for another term and they'll still lose the GE. With help like that...

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

You have a very short term outlook

Why so? Just a clear idea of what is and isn't mine.

Even I would struggle to cut Govt expenditure by more than a few % so Govt decisions today are spending money that you are going to pay in taxes on money you have not even earned yet

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

It will likely help at the ballot box in the near future, so possibly money well spent.

Lol. They're essentially sacrificing their Mayoral candidate to be able to win... maybe 2 or 3 seats at the GE on a good day. So Khan will still be being mediocre as Mayor for another term and they'll still lose the GE. With help like that...

I wish my crystal ball was as good as yours. Let's see...

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

This is just a little story people tell themselves to feel hard done by. If the money isn't in your account it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the government.

You have a very short term outlook

Why so? Just a clear idea of what is and isn't mine.

Even I would struggle to cut Govt expenditure by more than a few % so Govt decisions today are spending money that you are going to pay in taxes on money you have not even earned yet

They're spending money that they have received or borrowed. It's only mine when it's in my account and not owed to anyone else. It's definitely not mine if I haven't even earned it yet. It's someone else's or the government's. There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

It will likely help at the ballot box in the near future, so possibly money well spent.

Lol. They're essentially sacrificing their Mayoral candidate to be able to win... maybe 2 or 3 seats at the GE on a good day. So Khan will still be being mediocre as Mayor for another term and they'll still lose the GE. With help like that...

I wish my crystal ball was as good as yours. Let's see...

You're happy enough to make predictions when it suits.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

When you go shopping are you spending your employer's money?