I don't believe any government will truly tackle the underlying problems. These problems, for there are far more than the two examples I gave, are deeply ingrained. They may take generations to fix, and politics now doesn't look to make improvements or changes that go further than the next general election, perhaps a couple or years after that.
It's about winning voters, not fixing the country. Pensions are left untouched because pensioners vote, even though their cut of the welfare system is huge and growing. Yet the government cut other benefits, side stepping pensions because who wants to lose tha mtany voters? Statistically, the unemployed, young and under educated don't vote in such large numbers. Much safer to cut things from them, a lot less votes lost. I'm not saying there aren't pensioners struggling on their pensions, but WHY are they struggling? Rising fuel costs, a rising cost of living. The retirement age seems to rise every year, I think I would be lucky to retire by the time I'm 90. It may mean the goverment can put off paying my pension for another few years, but it also means that we have an aging work force. More older people in employment means less younger people finding jobs. Swings and roundabouts.
Austerity hasn't cut the deficit by anywhere near what we were promised, and the figures promised weren't very appetizing to begin with. The economy is much more difficult than George Osborne gives it credit, it is much harder to organize than simply cutting things here there and everywhere. I fear he is using O level economics, where simply spending less money = more money. It may work for a household, but not a country. The current economic climate is depressing to say the least.
Like I said in my first post, our country only managed to balance the books for 8 years out of the last 40. Until politics stops posturing and starts looking further than their own governmental term, we won't see any positive progress. Austerity worries me. You only need look at what's happening in Spain to understand why. Without careful consideration it can cause irreparable damage to a country, and to the public's trust in it's government.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
Reading some of the most recent posts, I feel I should make some sort of response - particularly as almost no-one seems to agree with me and I always seem to have my back to the wall!
Firstly, I stated clearly in an earlier post that I felt genuinely sorry for those who were currently struggling in the present climate of austerity. So it is, to say the least, unkind to accuse me of having no empathy with those who cannot make ends meet. For the record, in my time as a soldier I had to deal with many guys who came from deprived backgrounds in the UK - which was no fault of their own - and we paid them, fed them, educated them, trained them and gave them a sense of purpose and belonging in life. In Oman, more of the same, and we recruited 15/16 year-olds who had no chance until we picked them up and nurtured them in a way which was not available to them anywhere else. I'm not in a position to do anything similar in Aberdeen or anywhere else in UK unfortunately, but I rather resent the implication that I don't understand or care. And what, usefully, (since I'm not in government) should I do?
As to government expenditure, I freely admit that I have no background in economics and that my views might seem simplistic. I can also see that the right government investment can generate jobs, increase GDP, and earn a worthwhile return for the country. So too of course can education. But at what stage does such extra expenditure stop? Are we to make no serious attempt to balance the books? Do we go on racking up more debt regardless? If on the other hand we accept that the government has to rein itself in at least a bit, then how on earth do we avoid people at the bottom end falling through the cracks? I'm not competent to discuss the details of the benefits system, but it's clearly not doing everything for everybody. And it's very expensive.
And I remain convinced that a substantial degree of austerity is necessary. Otherwise, do we go on increasing the £1.4 trillion indefinitely? And who's going to pay it back? And when and how?
^My dad would say, if you find yourself in a situation where you're against everyone, you're probably the one that's wrong. :P
I think the government, as much as I dislike the conservatives, made the right choices broadly. Let's not forget, Labour and Liberal alike were also planning to cut spending massively in 2010, along with countries across the globe. This is how to manage recessions: the public stop spending, and the government must step in to stabilise the economy with increased spending on infrastructure, housing, schools and healthcare. It is something all the countries were doing, to varying degrees. Government spending in a recession is not a bad thing; it is damage limitation. It stops a recession escalating as badly, and softens the impact of it. It is not comparable with government spending generally, or a politically driven thing; any party in any country would have made similar choices.
At what stage does the expenditure stop is an excellent question. I think the current government cut too much too soon; it caused issues with the economic recovery that needn't have happened, and this was damaging. Raking up debt, as a country, isn't the same as raking up debt as an individual or business; all the developed nations have debt (and certainly, we have a lot less than the USA).
Finally, I think helping those at the bottom starts with increasing minimum wage and making London Living Wage mandatory. Economists and social scientists consistently show that these two things increase productivity in businesses, do not result in job losses, and stimulate the economy, and I cannot understand what they do not happen when there is no real argument against either.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
No talaiporia, I don't think that the replies so far show that I am wrong - merely that those posting would prefer less, or no, austerity. But so far no-one - including yourself - has shown how our annual budget is to be balanced, still less how the massive overall debt is to be repaid. The latter by our children and grandchildren?
In an earlier post you yourself suggested that the coalition was actually spending at least as much as Labour had been when it lost office. Ergo, without restraint the national debt might now be nearer £2 trillion. And your reaction to this debt appears to be "don't worry, everybody has them"! Try telling that to the Greeks or Cyprus or Ireland. I would therefore value your opinion as to whether the national debt has to be paid off at all? And if so, how it is to be done? If our annual deficit is not to be brought under control for another 3 or 4 years (according to the forecasts), at a wild guess we might presumably have a small surplus for the years thereafter - but by which time the national debt will be of the order of £1.5 trillion or perhaps more. How much of an annual surplus will it take to pay that off within say 20 years?
I entirely accept that the economics of the nation are of a very different order to household economics. But surely the principles are the same. And if people posting here are so opposed to austerity, will you please explain to them clearly why debt doesn't matter and why it's OK to go on living beyond our means in some sort of financial fantasy-land.
I really struggle to understand people/companies who do tax avoidance. Them paying a reasonable amount of tax would make such a huge difference to this country. If I were in a position where I could make that sort of a difference, I would, and I would be so proud to be able to help the less fortunate. I realise there probably sounds to be something really judgmental of people who engage in tax avoidance, and I'm sorry for that, but I just felt I really needed to say it.
I really struggle to understand people/companies who do tax avoidance. Them paying a reasonable amount of tax would make such a huge difference to this country. If I were in a position where I could make that sort of a difference, I would, and I would be so proud to be able to help the less fortunate. I realise there probably sounds to be something really judgmental of people who engage in tax avoidance, and I'm sorry for that, but I just felt I really needed to say it.
Well greed is a big factor, if you're not a greedy person by nature it can be difficult to comprehend just how much that feeling can take hold. Plus some people don't see it as helping the less fortunate, they see it as helping 'lazy people of benefits to stay on benefits.' Also, as I have said previously its the 'I deserve to keep everything I have regardless of whether some of it needs to be shared' mentality!
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
It's important to understand the difference between "deficit" and "nation debt". They are two different things.
Our "deficit" is the difference between our spending and what we receive in income and tax, it is a yearly sum. Our "national debt" is what our government has borrowed not just this year, but in previous years. The deficit is a snap shot of how our countries finances are doing in any one year, the national debt is the big picture, what has happened in previous years and the current one. Though our national debt has risen since the recession, which is understandable, it is still lower than it's been for most of the last century. Our national debt is far smaller than many other countries world wide. Japan, for example, has a HUGE national debt. Ours is no where near that size. Right now, our national debt is about 60% of our GDP, however that average national debt between 1688-2010 is 112% of GDP. We are much better off than our government is letting on. Of course the recession has had an impact, it would be ridiculous to state otherwise, but it is not the harrowing picture that we are led to believe.
During any financial crisis, the deficit goes up. Unemployment rises and governments spend money to boost the economy. When the economy is strong, it is far easier to pay off our national debt and reduce our deficit.
It's also important to note that 70% of our debt is held within the UK, in things like pension funds. It's important to remember that we do no owe most of this money to other countries/governments/lending agencies. It is also important to remember, as you mentioned Greece in your post, that our countries debts have an average repayment length of 12 years, which is a long term repayment. Countries like Greece have to continually repay it's debts, forcing it to borrow more money. The UK does not have a problem refinancing it's debts. Our economy and finances cannot be compared to Greece.
We are not struggling to repay our debts. In 1996 we were paying 8p of every pound to debt repayments. In 2010 it was 6p. Our debts are far reduced than they have been for a long time, we were in a much more difficult situation in to 90's-00's than we are in now.
The fact that the economy is not like a household is very important to remember. A household with a huge credit card bill can look at their finances, their debts, and organize their repayments. All of these decisions do not affect the wages that they bring in. A households wages are a stable, which they can count on to reduce their debts. If they cut their spending at the supermarket, they do not care about how it affects the supermarket. A country does not work this way. Spending cuts affect tax income. It can, in some instances, completely negate the cut itself. Making it pointless to do.
So, as we can assume that the deficit is not like a credit card, how do we repay it?
Of course, it is important to repay our deficit. No one is saying we should ignore the problem, hold our fingers in our ears and hope that it'll all go away. That is no way to deal with debt. But we have to understand what the financial crisis did to our economy. We built an imaginary financial bubble, and when it popped we realized that our prosperity was a mirage. That means that even when we get the economy in a strong position, it wont be as productive as we once thought it could be.
This is where we go into the different types of deficit. Structural deficit and the cyclical deficit. The structural deficit is what is difficult and will take a long time to reduce, though it is a lot smaller than the cyclical deficit. It is the part of our deficit that is attached to the financial bubble. It does require spending cuts to reduce. However, we will not know how much our structural deficit is until our economy is strong again.
Our cyclical deficit is the deficit attached to unemployment and economic growth. This is the bigger part of our deficit but also the easiest to deal with as it will disappear with the growth of our economy and the reduction in unemployment.
The fact is, George Osborne's austerity measures are, to put it bluntly, an experiment. It is the biggest microeconomic experiment in an advanced country in our lifetime. It has been criticized by a large number of economists and educated experts since he announced it. A lot of countries are watching us, making sure they don't make the same mistakes if they happen. George Osborne is the man who threw us off the cliff, and everyone is waiting to see just how broken we will be when we land.
Austerity is a HUGE risk at the end of the day. A huge risk that many people far more knowledgeable about economics than George Osborne is, believe to be unnecessary. We need to BOOST our economy, and cuts do not do this. The best way to deal with the deficit and our national debt is to boost our economy. This does mean increase spending. But that increase of spending will fill our treasury and help us pay off the deficit and debts, increasing growth meaning that there is more money coming in, in the long term.
If austerity worked, I would be all for it. If the statistics and facts actually proved it to be worthwhile I would have no problem with spending cuts. As I stated above, we will need to do that to reduce our structural deficit. But we are not in the position to reduce that yet, reducing the larger cyclical deficit is more important in my view. And to reduce that, to raise employment and growth, we need to spend more money in the economy. George Osborne doesn't seem to understand what he is actually doing. Either that, or he's much more interested in taking huge risks with our economy on the small possibility of it actually working, therefore making him a very famous man for years to come. I think this is far more likely.
It's been reported that unemployment is falling, however this is mainly due to people taking jobs on a self employed basis, part time, or zero hour contracts. These types of employment do not increase our growth the same way that people going into full-time, sustainable employment do. They do not increase tax income in the same way. George Osborne parades the fact that unemployment is reducing as proof his austerity measures are working, but in the long term they are not nearly as beneficial as he would like to portray. The cost of living crisis, on a whole, is far more damaging to our economy than he likes to admit. Reduced spending has a roll on effect for a very long time, increased spending is damaging in the short term, not the long term.
I do not like trusting our country in the hands of someone who seems more interested in his own ego than our national future.
Last edited by Shenanigans : 25-03-2014 at 11:40 AM.
Reason: Added a bit
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
Wouldn't everyone use tax avoidance to lessen their tax burden? How many of you don't pay tax on your bank/savings accounts because you don't have to? Are ISAs considered a tax avoidance to you? What about getting a few quid back every year for uniform cleaning costs? They are common, and used by a lot of very normal people.
Every single week people ask me whether they would be 'better off' on benefits, and the sad things is that yes, sometimes, they are. This shouldn't be the case for working families! Yes it depends entirely on their circumstances, but it seems to be the case for a few too many. I see volunteers in the office and when they start they are full of the vim and vigour of combating social injustices. Give it a month or two of dealing with these sorts of things and they soon start moving more and more to the right of the political spectrum.
Wouldn't everyone use tax avoidance to lessen their tax burden? How many of you don't pay tax on your bank/savings accounts because you don't have to? Are ISAs considered a tax avoidance to you? What about getting a few quid back every year for uniform cleaning costs? They are common, and used by a lot of very normal people.
Every single week people ask me whether they would be 'better off' on benefits, and the sad things is that yes, sometimes, they are. This shouldn't be the case for working families! Yes it depends entirely on their circumstances, but it seems to be the case for a few too many. I see volunteers in the office and when they start they are full of the vim and vigour of combating social injustices. Give it a month or two of dealing with these sorts of things and they soon start moving more and more to the right of the political spectrum.
I wouldn't class uniform cleaning costs and millionaire's tax avoidance on the same scale. One is a service provided, the other is an advantage taken out of the system. They aren't the same thing.
I completely agree, however, that employment should always be more worthwhile than benefits. Does that mean we should take away from benefits? No. It means that we should be making sure that low wage workers are getting a decent wage, that the minimum wage is a livable wage. That private landlords do not take advantage of poor tenants and a system that means they can charge exorbitant prices for their properties.
I understand that dealing with these issues can make people jaded. That doesn't mean that those on benefit's are wrong and should be punished. It means our government is tackling the problem in the wrong way.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
I wouldn't class uniform cleaning costs and millionaire's tax avoidance on the same scale. One is a service provided, the other is an advantage taken out of the system. They aren't the same thing.
What about those with ISAs? Filling it each year means you can save quite a tidy sum, all tax-free. I'm not saying there aren't issues within the tax system, particularly with companies, but we all do it, just to a lesser extent.
Quote:
I completely agree, however, that employment should always be more worthwhile than benefits. Does that mean we should take away from benefits? No. It means that we should be making sure that low wage workers are getting a decent wage, that the minimum wage is a livable wage. That private landlords do not take advantage of poor tenants and a system that means they can charge exorbitant prices for their properties.
I understand that dealing with these issues can make people jaded. That doesn't mean that those on benefit's are wrong and should be punished. It means our government is tackling the problem in the wrong way.
It's not about 'taking away from benefits', it's that when you combine the benefits together you end up better off, and that should not be the case. Those who don't qualify for Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance are paying rent and mortgage out of their low wages, and are then not eligible for their children to get free school meals, or free transport costs, or social tariffs on utilities, or anything else. For far too many people, a life on benefits is much better than a life of work. Yes, we should increase the wages, but where is that money going to come from?
For the record, I wholeheartedly support the welfare system, just not in its current form. Right now, it doesn't really support those who it was meant to be, and it has now become a lifestyle choice rather than a support net. I never said those on benefits are wrong or should be punished, although certain claimants certainly should be considering the amount of attempted benefit fraud I see every day! How should we deal with benefit sanctions, as an example, particularly those who continually flout the agreement?
What about those with ISAs? Filling it each year means you can save quite a tidy sum, all tax-free. I'm not saying there aren't issues within the tax system, particularly with companies, but we all do it, just to a lesser extent.
"We all do it"? I don't. And never have. Nor has anyone in my family as far as I'm aware. I can't speak for everyone else in Britain, only for what I know personally. Personally I have never, nor has anyone I know, used any form of tax avoidance. I'm sure it does happen though, I'm just not very aware of it in my life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Who
It's not about 'taking away from benefits', it's that when you combine the benefits together you end up better off, and that should not be the case. Those who don't qualify for Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance are paying rent and mortgage out of their low wages, and are then not eligible for their children to get free school meals, or free transport costs, or social tariffs on utilities, or anything else. For far too many people, a life on benefits is much better than a life of work. Yes, we should increase the wages, but where is that money going to come from?
I think my post above demonstrated my views on austerity and the need for more economic spending. I also believe that talaiporia made a very good point her their post above about the positive reasons for increasing the minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Who
For the record, I wholeheartedly support the welfare system, just not in its current form. Right now, it doesn't really support those who it was meant to be, and it has now become a lifestyle choice rather than a support net. I never said those on benefits are wrong or should be punished, although certain claimants certainly should be considering the amount of attempted benefit fraud I see every day! How should we deal with benefit sanctions, as an example, particularly those who continually flout the agreement?
I completely agree with you, as I said in a previous post I support welfare changes. I believe the current state it's in is not helpful, is far too bureaucratic, and has been too twisted and changed over the years that now it is just a nightmare to navigate. I was very interested in the Universal Credit, but I do not support the hideous amounts we have already spent on it's failing IT systems.
As I said above, sanctions don't work for the people who are genuinely using the benefits system for what it is there for. The sanctioning system is altogether unfair, from what I've witnessed of it, and too many people are being sanctioned not by their own fault, but because their local job center have targets to fill.
Of course there are those who take advantage of the system, there are people like that for every system we shall ever have. Does that mean that the vast majority should be tarred with the same brush?
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
"We all do it"? I don't. And never have. Nor has anyone in my family as far as I'm aware. I can't speak for everyone else in Britain, only for what I know personally. Personally I have never, nor has anyone I know, used any form of tax avoidance. I'm sure it does happen though, I'm just not very aware of it in my life.
You don't know anyone with an ISA account?! Or anyone who doesn't pay tax on their bank or savings accounts? Those are the two most common.
Quote:
As I said above, sanctions don't work for the people who are genuinely using the benefits system for what it is there for. The sanctioning system is altogether unfair, from what I've witnessed of it, and too many people are being sanctioned not by their own fault, but because their local job center have targets to fill.
Of course there are those who take advantage of the system, there are people like that for every system we shall ever have. Does that mean that the vast majority should be tarred with the same brush?
If someone feels their sanction is unfair, then it can be challenged. Whether or not their think it is worth the unknown wait, by which time they will be on a hardship payment and then have their benefit fully reinstated, is up to them. I don't deny that they have targets, they probably do, but they can't sanction someone who has fully complied.
I don't think anyone is tarring those on benefits with a single brush. The situation is much more complicated than that. There is a massive difference between those who are now into the third or fourth generation of welfare-dependency (with no desire to get out of it), and those who are earning a decent wage but still claim their child benefit, or someone who has had to leave work because of an illness.
As someone who was raised in, lives in, and works in one of the most deprived areas in Scotland, I have very little sympathy for those who have no desire to get out of the benefits system. In fact, they often know more about it than I do, simply because they know exactly how to play it (and by that I do mean fiddle it!) to their own advantage. And yes, it irks me greatly that my tax is going to fund their rather leisurely lifestyles. But then again, I'll see someone who is trying to get by with their family and are hitting a brick wall time and again with little or no support to help them.
PS. Effer, along with millions of us moaners here in UK, I'm currently moaning that NZ seems to have beaten England in the T20 match in Bangladesh on the basis of the Duckworth/Lewis formula, just because rain stopped play in a match which England would undoubtedly have won had the full game been played ... It's not fair!!!
I think you're talking about....cricket? But anyway, you should know by now that life just ain't fair!
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
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 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!
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!
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.
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 ...
Tony
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!)
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
You see a mouse trap
I see free cheese
And a ****ing challenge
