Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
As I can not even explain my point how can I convince you of the validity of it?rjsterry said:There are plenty of successful economies with low ratios and vice versa. Here's the list I was looking at.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt/
I can't see any particular relationship at a glance, but convince me.
Rick thinks I am concerned about the optimal debt levels.
0 -
As I am stuck on a train I will try and explain why I think too much Govt debt is bad. Internet is bad so please don’t quibble about numbers being slightly off.
I believe that there is a tipping point where Govt debt gets so big that it runs out of control, think Greece a few years ago. This is not a set number as there are many factors determining how debt markets assess risk. I also believe that when you realise you have reached this point it will be too late and you will be in world of pain for decades, again see Greece.
So a decade after our last recession we have just about got our annual deficit down to the same % as economic growth so debt as a % of GDP is no longer growing. This is very much looking like being the turning point and that it will now continue to grow.
Assume Boris wins election and it is safe to assume that he spends more to offset the effects of Brexit, then three years from now ramps up the spending to help win the next election. Assuming benign economic conditions I would assume debt to be close to 100% of GDP. That will make annual debt interest approx £55bn.
Now let’s assume that sometime in the next decade we have another recession that will pump that debt to 120% and annual interest to £70bn.
Ten year Gilt rates are current at historic lows, 0.7%. Assume they return to trend levels then you could see a doubling of those debt numbers. Debt interest will now be running higher than NHS spending.
Now the exciting bit is when the markets lose confidence and the costs of borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive or we have to turn to the IMF to bale us out.
Why is this exciting? Because this is when we get to live within our means. At the moment that would probably mean a 10% cut in all Govt paid wages/pensions. With a decade of Boris to pay for this could be 25% or more, see Greece.
I am not allowed to use the words to describe my thoughts towards our “leaders” who, in my opinion, are storing up monumental problems for future generations.0 -
I find Greece an unhelpful analogy as they had problems that are specific to being part of the EU currency union and the way they were dealt with by the EU is not typical, nor is it applicable to the UK.
I think the consensus is around that the Western Economies are following a very comparable path to Japan; both in terms of economic performance and in terms of demographics. Now that has struggled to pump inflation up and is running over 200% GDP in debt, and their sovereign bond rates are negative.
As you pointed out, the main differentiator is usually the openness to immigration.0 -
Some lessons were learned but arguably we have had a diluted 'lost decade' here in the UK post GFC.0
-
Obvs.rick_chasey said:
You’re not answering the Q?Stevo_666 said:
It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.rick_chasey said:
No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?Stevo_666 said:
I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.rick_chasey said:
I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?Stevo_666 said:
More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.longshot said:
This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.Stevo_666 said:Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.
Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.
Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.
Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.
The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.
Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.
That's a lot of money.
But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Obvs.rick_chasey said:
You’re not answering the Q?Stevo_666 said:
It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.rick_chasey said:
No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?Stevo_666 said:
I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.rick_chasey said:
I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?Stevo_666 said:
More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.longshot said:
This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.Stevo_666 said:Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.
Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.
Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.
Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.
The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.
Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.
That's a lot of money.
But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Thanks. Yay! Old SC is backsurrey_commuter said:As I am stuck on a train I will try and explain why I think too much Govt debt is bad. Internet is bad so please don’t quibble about numbers being slightly off.
I believe that there is a tipping point where Govt debt gets so big that it runs out of control, think Greece a few years ago. This is not a set number as there are many factors determining how debt markets assess risk. I also believe that when you realise you have reached this point it will be too late and you will be in world of pain for decades, again see Greece.
So a decade after our last recession we have just about got our annual deficit down to the same % as economic growth so debt as a % of GDP is no longer growing. This is very much looking like being the turning point and that it will now continue to grow.
Assume Boris wins election and it is safe to assume that he spends more to offset the effects of Brexit, then three years from now ramps up the spending to help win the next election. Assuming benign economic conditions I would assume debt to be close to 100% of GDP. That will make annual debt interest approx £55bn.
Now let’s assume that sometime in the next decade we have another recession that will pump that debt to 120% and annual interest to £70bn.
Ten year Gilt rates are current at historic lows, 0.7%. Assume they return to trend levels then you could see a doubling of those debt numbers. Debt interest will now be running higher than NHS spending.
Now the exciting bit is when the markets lose confidence and the costs of borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive or we have to turn to the IMF to bale us out.
Why is this exciting? Because this is when we get to live within our means. At the moment that would probably mean a 10% cut in all Govt paid wages/pensions. With a decade of Boris to pay for this could be 25% or more, see Greece.
I am not allowed to use the words to describe my thoughts towards our “leaders” who, in my opinion, are storing up monumental problems for future generations.
I think Greece is as much about unwise lending as over-borrowing. Also we are teetering on the edge of recession already as is Germany.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You don't think Greece over-borrowed? and that is why we will never agree on this subjectrjsterry said:
Thanks. Yay! Old SC is backsurrey_commuter said:As I am stuck on a train I will try and explain why I think too much Govt debt is bad. Internet is bad so please don’t quibble about numbers being slightly off.
I believe that there is a tipping point where Govt debt gets so big that it runs out of control, think Greece a few years ago. This is not a set number as there are many factors determining how debt markets assess risk. I also believe that when you realise you have reached this point it will be too late and you will be in world of pain for decades, again see Greece.
So a decade after our last recession we have just about got our annual deficit down to the same % as economic growth so debt as a % of GDP is no longer growing. This is very much looking like being the turning point and that it will now continue to grow.
Assume Boris wins election and it is safe to assume that he spends more to offset the effects of Brexit, then three years from now ramps up the spending to help win the next election. Assuming benign economic conditions I would assume debt to be close to 100% of GDP. That will make annual debt interest approx £55bn.
Now let’s assume that sometime in the next decade we have another recession that will pump that debt to 120% and annual interest to £70bn.
Ten year Gilt rates are current at historic lows, 0.7%. Assume they return to trend levels then you could see a doubling of those debt numbers. Debt interest will now be running higher than NHS spending.
Now the exciting bit is when the markets lose confidence and the costs of borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive or we have to turn to the IMF to bale us out.
Why is this exciting? Because this is when we get to live within our means. At the moment that would probably mean a 10% cut in all Govt paid wages/pensions. With a decade of Boris to pay for this could be 25% or more, see Greece.
I am not allowed to use the words to describe my thoughts towards our “leaders” who, in my opinion, are storing up monumental problems for future generations.
I think Greece is as much about unwise lending as over-borrowing. Also we are teetering on the edge of recession already as is Germany.
I mean a proper recession not just a technical one0 -
Eh? Of course Greece over-borrowed - that's literally what I wrote - but what on earth were people lending them that much for, given Greece's reputation?surrey_commuter said:
You don't think Greece over-borrowed? and that is why we will never agree on this subjectrjsterry said:
Thanks. Yay! Old SC is backsurrey_commuter said:As I am stuck on a train I will try and explain why I think too much Govt debt is bad. Internet is bad so please don’t quibble about numbers being slightly off.
I believe that there is a tipping point where Govt debt gets so big that it runs out of control, think Greece a few years ago. This is not a set number as there are many factors determining how debt markets assess risk. I also believe that when you realise you have reached this point it will be too late and you will be in world of pain for decades, again see Greece.
So a decade after our last recession we have just about got our annual deficit down to the same % as economic growth so debt as a % of GDP is no longer growing. This is very much looking like being the turning point and that it will now continue to grow.
Assume Boris wins election and it is safe to assume that he spends more to offset the effects of Brexit, then three years from now ramps up the spending to help win the next election. Assuming benign economic conditions I would assume debt to be close to 100% of GDP. That will make annual debt interest approx £55bn.
Now let’s assume that sometime in the next decade we have another recession that will pump that debt to 120% and annual interest to £70bn.
Ten year Gilt rates are current at historic lows, 0.7%. Assume they return to trend levels then you could see a doubling of those debt numbers. Debt interest will now be running higher than NHS spending.
Now the exciting bit is when the markets lose confidence and the costs of borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive or we have to turn to the IMF to bale us out.
Why is this exciting? Because this is when we get to live within our means. At the moment that would probably mean a 10% cut in all Govt paid wages/pensions. With a decade of Boris to pay for this could be 25% or more, see Greece.
I am not allowed to use the words to describe my thoughts towards our “leaders” who, in my opinion, are storing up monumental problems for future generations.
I think Greece is as much about unwise lending as over-borrowing. Also we are teetering on the edge of recession already as is Germany.
I mean a proper recession not just a technical one1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Tbh it is not a helpful analogy for you because regardless of the single currency point or how the EU then dealt with it, the main cause of Greece's very major problems was too much debt.rick_chasey said:I find Greece an unhelpful analogy as they had problems that are specific to being part of the EU currency union and the way they were dealt with by the EU is not typical, nor is it applicable to the UK.
Although it is good of you to acknowledge some of the issues with the single currency and the EU.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Vote for Labour. Vote for an IRA sympathiser and supporter of bombing campaigns on mainland UK.
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
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 -
Look I appreciate you looking thru Google images of everyone that's met a terrorist, however there's no getting away from fact that Corbyn and McDonald were advocates of the IRA.pblakeney said:Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Were they really advocates?
Or did they advocate diplomacy?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 -
-
I think the elephant in the room is that Corbyn was supporting the IRA when they were still blowing people up.0
-
Again, was he really?
As a point of reference - https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-irelandThe 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 -
Stop 'fact checking' we all know the only true facts in this era are those posted in a convenient meme on Facebook.pblakeney said:Again, was he really?
As a point of reference - https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland0 -
They both had a vested interest in the IRA who wanted to rule a united Ireland under a socialist government.pblakeney said:Were they really advocates?
Or did they advocate diplomacy?
MI5 have a file on both of them. Corbyn's might be a great deal thicker as he attended many IRA functions to commemorate fallen terrorists.
McDonnell even received a plaque from senior IRA officer Gerry Kelly which commemorated the IRA Hunger Strikes.
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Shout out to scandal ridden BoJo who has declared Tories will not cut Corp tax from 19%-17% in a move that will, accordin g to him "save £6bn which can be invested in 'domestic priorities' such as the NHS".
0 -
Wasn't the corporation tax cut supposed to raise more money tho?0
-
Good point, maybe they have looked at it and decided it reached the point where a further cut does not boost revenue (as logically a zero rate yields zero; similarly a 100% rate will yield zero as there would be no point doing business). They refer to a survey by HMRC on this latest proposal so will take a look if/when it is in the public domain.kingstongraham said:Wasn't the corporation tax cut supposed to raise more money tho?
TBH 19% is pretty competitive globally. Not going to 17% won't upset me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Alternatively, as many of you on here claim; everything Boris say is a lie, in which case not cutting the rate wont save £6bn in tax revenue and he's just trying to buy votesrick_chasey said:Shout out to scandal ridden BoJo who has declared Tories will not cut Corp tax from 19%-17% in a move that will, accordin g to him "save £6bn which can be invested in 'domestic priorities' such as the NHS".
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Cheeky sod, don't get techy with mehopkinb said:
I reckon you can manage head office's JCFC position more easily from a rate of 19% than 17%...Stevo_666 said:
TBH 19% is pretty competitive globally. Not going to 17% won't upset me.
To be fair I did say to our CCM a while back that 20% would suit me just fine.
We've already mitigated our JCFC risks and got £250m of JCFC losses in our UK topco into the bargain; are you telling me you haven't done anything about it? Maybe I can give you a few top tips on Thursday "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Come on mate, when have I said that?Stevo_666 said:
Alternatively, as many of you on here claim; everything Boris say is a lie, in which case not cutting the rate wont save £6bn in tax revenue and he's just trying to buy votesrick_chasey said:Shout out to scandal ridden BoJo who has declared Tories will not cut Corp tax from 19%-17% in a move that will, accordin g to him "save £6bn which can be invested in 'domestic priorities' such as the NHS".
0 -
I find the whole tory rhetoric around gov't spending really interesting. Labour has clearly won this particular argument.0
-
So you don't think Boris tells fibs then?rick_chasey said:
Come on mate, when have I said that?Stevo_666 said:
Alternatively, as many of you on here claim; everything Boris say is a lie, in which case not cutting the rate wont save £6bn in tax revenue and he's just trying to buy votesrick_chasey said:Shout out to scandal ridden BoJo who has declared Tories will not cut Corp tax from 19%-17% in a move that will, accordin g to him "save £6bn which can be invested in 'domestic priorities' such as the NHS".
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Seem to recall some Times article about how the public is pretty sceptical about politicians spending claims so you can argue either way.rick_chasey said:I find the whole tory rhetoric around gov't spending really interesting. Labour has clearly won this particular argument.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think he lies when it suits him and he has a propensity to fib, but I'm not so binary that I therefore think 100% of what he says is a lie. This should be very obvious.Stevo_666 said:
So you don't think Boris tells fibs then?rick_chasey said:
Come on mate, when have I said that?Stevo_666 said:
Alternatively, as many of you on here claim; everything Boris say is a lie, in which case not cutting the rate wont save £6bn in tax revenue and he's just trying to buy votesrick_chasey said:Shout out to scandal ridden BoJo who has declared Tories will not cut Corp tax from 19%-17% in a move that will, accordin g to him "save £6bn which can be invested in 'domestic priorities' such as the NHS".
0
