Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
Firstly Shenanigans, may I add my support to the plaudits already offered by others on the post you made yesterday morning. It was cogent, relevant and informative - well done, even though I don't agree with all of it!
I'm glad you found it informative.
Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
I think you are grossly unfair in your complaints against George Osborne. He has simply been trying to sort out the mess which he inherited from the last government, making crucial decisions affecting us all - no doubt with much considered advice from experts in the Treasury and the Bank of England. To accuse him of being on some sort of ego trip is way OTT and, in my view, casts doubt on the validity of many of your arguments, since they may perhaps be equally biased!
I would like to point out that my comments on George Osborne are purely on a personal nature. I find it difficult, looking at the facts of the situation, to understand why he has chosen to ignore the sound advice of many esteemed economic experts. The facts that I stated in my post are, though you may not like them, facts. As I said, if these facts supported his measures I would support the extreme austerity that he has put this country into. As I said, austerity is important if we are to reduce our structural deficit. They are inevitable. Should we have gone so hard, so fast? No.
I also think you missed my point that you cannot pin the deficit or our national debt on any one government. It is the accumulation of MANY government's over a number of years. It is a bit of Coalition political spin to continually blame the last government, as the next will blame this one.
Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
Reverting to tax avoidance, I cannot see the sin in taking up the government's offer of tax exemption on ISAs; surely these are intended to encourage saving (though I am not sure from your post whether you actually think that saving is necessarily a good thing - shouldn't we all be spending like mad to get the economy going again?) Nor, as one of the elderly, can I see the sin in trying to minimise (legitimately) the amount of inheritance tax which will be due on my (small) estate when I die - I honestly feel I've paid at least a fair whack already. And, moving closer to law-breaking, I doubt there are many on this site whose parents, or they themselves, haven't offered some plumber or handyman "how much for cash?" after a job, and been relieved at a slightly less awful bill even though they are cheating the Exchequer. I congratulate you on having an unusually honest family!
Though it's very nice to say, I do not have an unusually honest family. I come from a very poor family. Savings are something that you need some form of disposable income to achieve. My parents, and myself, have never been in this situation. I worked two jobs, just to make ends meet. During this time I never made a penny more than I needed to survive. If I could afford to save, I would do. It is something I have no experience of because it's something that, though our government doesn't think is true, many working families cannot afford to do. When my washing machine broke, it took me 4 months to be able to buy a new one. I did this by taking extra hours wherever I could, often working over 14 hour days. I'm afraid it is just something that I have no experience of. My family and myself have always payed our way, whether this has caused hardship or not. My mother has always said that we would probably have been a lot better off if we knew how to swindle the system. We don't. It is just the way it is.
Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
On the minimum wage, I entirely agree that any increase which will lift people out of being benefit claimants and being able to cope for themselves has to be a good thing, particularly if they eventually become taxpayers but, most importantly, if it helps them make ends meet. But of course any increase in wages must inevitably risk the number of jobs that a particular employer can offer and also affect the profitability of a business, and therefore the amount of tax which it will pay. Not a simple balance to strike.
Perhaps look at the other side. Paying a living wage will increase tax income, as many more people will meet even just the minimum tax allowance. That increase can be put towards helping employers continue to pay a living wage. It would also mean a dramatic decrease in people's wages being subsidized by tax credit benefits. That fresh money can also be put into strengthening our economy.
There are swings and roundabouts. Increasing wages, keeping them the same, god forbid decreasing them, will all have a knock on affect on our economy.
Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
Finally, I'm a bit worried that many reading this thread may be left to conclude that austerity is not really necessary, and merely something dreamed up by the Coalition to put down their Labour predecessors. Instead we should spend, spend, spend - it's all investment and it'll all be OK in the end, everybody else does it so it doesn't really matter, there are others who are far worse off (by just what criteria?) than ourselves, so stop worrying.
It would be very good, in my opinion, if you felt able to disabuse people of these ideas. I repeat that I fully accept that household budgeting is not the same thing, but I would hugely prefer to see us with something like the economic strength of Germany rather than trailing along as at present with the very poorest of our people dropping off the end ...
I'd like to repeat, again, that austerity is needed to decrease our structural deficit. As I said, this is the smaller part of our deficit. The larger part is our cyclical deficit, the part that is attached to employment and economic growth. Once these are tackled, this larger deficit will decrease. One this larger deficit decreases, we will be able to analyse our structural deficit and plan austerity accordingly. I am not against austerity. I am purely pointing out that the austerity that has been forced on this country does not match the needs of our economy. Austerity, right now, may be attacking that smaller structural deficit, but it is hideously damaging the larger cyclical deficit. Dealing with the cyclical deficit firstly, leaves us in a stronger position to deal with the structural deficit. It is not about austerity being "wrong" it is about handling austerity in a way that boosts our economy on a whole and does not damage it.
Originally Posted by
Harley's Dad
PS. Perhaps there'll be a job in the economics department of a new, independent Scotland after 14 September, alongside Alex Salmond and his crew (now there is a slimy, self-seeking fellow if ever I saw one - but of course I'm well-biased!)
I'm afraid I do not have a view on Scottish independence so I can't really comment on that. I am someone, as you can see, who basis most of their view on facts and in regards to Scottish independence I feel that neither side has published strong, sustainable facts about the situation. It's all very much guessing and bolstering from both sides. I do not much like politics in general. Facts and statistics are twisted to make a political point and I do no agree with this. Both sides are doing this. I may have a personal view on certain politicians, but a sound decision should not be based on personal opinion.
I will say that I do not have any qualifications in economics, I have never studied it at all. I am just someone who believes in facts and will find those facts when I can. Everyone has the opportunity to find the information I have and take from it what they will.