In Times of Austerity (10 Viewers)

[mrtrench]

I'm not going to discuss how hard MPs work, I have no idea. I do have strong views on managing the economy. Fantastic maths not needed, just addition and subtraction. Which of the following points do you disagree with:

1. The country must over the medium term spend only what it collects. If you borrow too much you get into a downward spiral and leads to a Greek-type situation or worse.
2. World economics tend to go in cycles: growth and recession.
3. It makes sense therefore to spend more than tax revenue during recession, so it doesn't get so bad.
4. To balance the books hence you need to spend less than tax income during periods of growth.
5. If you lower the rate of corporation tax, it will attract companies to the UK and provide more jobs and higher tax revenue.
6. If you raise income tax too high, the wealthiest people will move somewhere else.
7. It is wrong to evade tax and the government should make all efforts to stop people avoiding tax in ways not specifically designed (such as ISAs) when they live in the UK.
8. Benefits should be targeted at those unable to work, not those unwilling to do so.
9. It must be more attractive to work than not to.
10. All people should share in a country's economic health.
11. We have a dysfunctional system, where politicians do what is best for them and their electability rather than what is necessarily right for the country.
12. Key functions and utilities should be owned by the state and run efficiently for the benefit of the people.

 

---

[Grendel]

Almost evidence it's not true. The Huffington post is a left wing comic.

Try a right wing one then;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-438308/Deerstalker-Dave-fell-stags-shot.html

 

[mrtrench]

Try a right wing one then;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-438308/Deerstalker-Dave-fell-stags-shot.html

Well, I don't think much of the Mail either but I guess if they both have it it must be true. Shocking behaviour.

 

[mrtrench]

yet be against privatisation that would enable these businesses to be ran more efficiently and probably give higher wages.

This isn't necessarily so. I'd like to see the state invest in running nationalised concerns efficiently and for a profit. IMO it is a scandal that they are permitted to be managed so poorly.

 

[Huckerby]

I'm not going to discuss how hard MPs work, I have no idea. I do have strong views on managing the economy. Fantastic maths not needed, just addition and subtraction. Which of the following points do you disagree with:

1. The country must over the medium term spend only what it collects. If you borrow too much you get into a downward spiral and leads to a Greek-type situation or worse.
2. World economics tend to go in cycles: growth and recession.
3. It makes sense therefore to spend more than tax revenue during recession, so it doesn't get so bad.
4. To balance the books hence you need to spend less than tax income during periods of growth.
5. If you lower the rate of corporation tax, it will attract companies to the UK and provide more jobs and higher tax revenue.
6. If you raise income tax too high, the wealthiest people will move somewhere else.
7. It is wrong to evade tax and the government should make all efforts to stop people avoiding tax in ways not specifically designed (such as ISAs) when they live in the UK.
8. Benefits should be targeted at those unable to work, not those unwilling to do so.
9. It must be more attractive to work than not to.
10. All people should share in a country's economic health.
11. We have a dysfunctional system, where politicians do what is best for them and their electability rather than what is necessarily right for the country.
12. Key functions and utilities should be owned by the state and run efficiently for the benefit of the people.

I agree with everything you said apart from 12. I don't think they need to be state ran at all, and in reality the govt are almost incapable of running an enterprise efficiently. I think in some (a lot) cases privatisation and heavy regulation is the way forward.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

Well, I don't think much of the Mail either but I guess if they both have it it must be true. Shocking behaviour.

The government aren't exactly a bunch of animal lovers;

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7808812

 

[mrtrench]

I agree with everything you said apart from 12. I don't think they need to be state ran at all, and in reality the govt are almost incapable of running an enterprise efficiently. I think in some (a lot) cases privatisation and heavy regulation is the way forward.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Well, if a private company can be run efficiently why can't a nationalised one? The only difference is motivation. I'd come up with some kind of system whereby nationalised industries such as power, water, trains are incentivised to produce a profit for the state. They some run as independent state-owned firms. That would reduce the burden on the tax-payer and provide a great incentive for privately owned competitors to not abuse or act like a cartel.

What about 3)? The coalition was cutting during recession.

I've a theory that most people want the same things, it's just down to opinion on how to achieve them. Over-simplified: The Left decides to spend to achieve 10 forgetting 1 and the Right focuses on 1, sometimes to the detriment of 10.

 

[Huckerby]

This isn't necessarily so. I'd like to see the state invest in running nationalised concerns efficiently and for a profit. IMO it is a scandal that they are permitted to be managed so poorly.

Whilst in principle I'd agree with that, in practice this would be near impossible. Could you imagine the uproar if they started to make a profit out of the NHS? Or any of the state ran ventures?

Then there's the allocation of time, and incentive.

When I imagine privatisation of the NHS though I think of a private firm coming in to run it, but instead of everyone paying individual premiums based on their risk like traditional insurance, this is spread evenly and we all pay the same amount (preferably still through some kind of NI contribution). So the main thing that chances is that you a private firm with the opportunity to make profits, giving them incentive to reduce the mammoth inefficiencies we see today. Don't make it a monopoly either, introduce competition to force them to keep striving to improve. All this while having a regulatory body who makes sure they don't do anything shady.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[mrtrench]

Whilst in principle I'd agree with that, in practice this would be near impossible. Could you imagine the uproar if they started to make a profit out of the NHS? Or any of the state ran ventures?

Then there's the allocation of time, and incentive.

When I imagine privatisation of the NHS though I think of a private firm coming in to run it, but instead of everyone paying individual premiums based on their risk like traditional insurance, this is spread evenly and we all pay the same amount (preferably still through some kind of NI contribution). So the main thing that chances is that you a private firm with the opportunity to make profits, giving them incentive to reduce the mammoth inefficiencies we see today. Don't make it a monopoly either, introduce competition to force them to keep striving to improve. All this while having a regulatory body who makes sure they don't do anything shady.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don't trust a private company not to cut essentials to increase profit. Central legislation is inefficient and would be abused.

 

[stupot07]

Whilst in principle I'd agree with that, in practice this would be near impossible. Could you imagine the uproar if they started to make a profit out of the NHS? Or any of the state ran ventures?

Then there's the allocation of time, and incentive.

When I imagine privatisation of the NHS though I think of a private firm coming in to run it, but instead of everyone paying individual premiums based on their risk like traditional insurance, this is spread evenly and we all pay the same amount (preferably still through some kind of NI contribution). So the main thing that chances is that you a private firm with the opportunity to make profits, giving them incentive to reduce the mammoth inefficiencies we see today. Don't make it a monopoly either, introduce competition to force them to keep striving to improve. All this while having a regulatory body who makes sure they don't do anything shady.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The NHS is already one of the most efficient and effective health care systems in the world, why would we want to privatise it? You're not going to get bupa / Harley street service, you'll get a Ryanair version. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health and I don't think MrTrench was suggesting we make a profit from the health service, he meant water, gas, electric, rail, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

I don't trust a private company not to cut essentials to increase profit. Central legislation is inefficient and would be abused.

Of course they would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Huckerby]

I don't trust a private company not to cut essentials to increase profit. Central legislation is inefficient and would be abused.

Hence the legislation? Why would it be abused? How?

 

[Huckerby]

Well, if a private company can be run efficiently why can't a nationalised one? The only difference is motivation. I'd come up with some kind of system whereby nationalised industries such as power, water, trains are incentivised to produce a profit for the state. They some run as independent state-owned firms. That would reduce the burden on the tax-payer and provide a great incentive for privately owned competitors to not abuse or act like a cartel.

What about 3)? The coalition was cutting during recession.

I've a theory that most people want the same things, it's just down to opinion on how to achieve them. Over-simplified: The Left decides to spend to achieve 10 forgetting 1 and the Right focuses on 1, sometimes to the detriment of 10.

Because there is no competition. As times change, technology advances and so do methodologies and practices. You need competition for firms to invest in staying on top and keeping their house in tact. With nationalised industries you simply dont have that...so they fall behind all the time and don't concentrate on improvements. Of course you can counter that and say "why can't we make them" but it's an idealist response. It doesn't happen because it doesn't have to.

Second bold point - yes they were cutting, because it has to even out. We had a deficit of 10% of GDP...unsustainable (not to mention against EU rules). When was the last time we had a surplus of that amount?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Whilst in principle I'd agree with that, in practice this would be near impossible. Could you imagine the uproar if they started to make a profit out of the NHS? Or any of the state ran ventures?

Then there's the allocation of time, and incentive.

When I imagine privatisation of the NHS though I think of a private firm coming in to run it, but instead of everyone paying individual premiums based on their risk like traditional insurance, this is spread evenly and we all pay the same amount (preferably still through some kind of NI contribution). So the main thing that chances is that you a private firm with the opportunity to make profits, giving them incentive to reduce the mammoth inefficiencies we see today. Don't make it a monopoly either, introduce competition to force them to keep striving to improve. All this while having a regulatory body who makes sure they don't do anything shady.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Are you blind?

Water
Utilities
Rail
Nhs
Prisons

The list is endless

 

[mrtrench]

Because there is no competition. As times change, technology advances and so do methodologies and practices. You need competition for firms to invest in staying on top and keeping their house in tact. With nationalised industries you simply dont have that...so they fall behind all the time and don't concentrate on improvements. Of course you can counter that and say "why can't we make them" but it's an idealist response. It doesn't happen because it doesn't have to.

Second bold point - yes they were cutting, because it has to even out. We had a deficit of 10% of GDP...unsustainable (not to mention against EU rules). When was the last time we had a surplus of that amount?

I'm not suggesting a nationalised monopoly - a nationalised competitor. I'm also aware that there is no party with a policy such as I am suggesting. Legislation is inefficient because it cannot be comprehensive and weasels find ways to abuse it. What we need is a firm with values for great service and efficiency.

Second point. Yes - correct answer. My question was disingenuous. Actually it was 11%. Brown managed the economy well for about 3 years and then ran an ever increasing deficit during the growth years. He then ran amok committing to spending when he realised the writing was on the wall for New Labour - handing a poisoned chalice to the coalition. I'll never forgive Brown, Balls etc. for that - fuck the country, if we cripple the economy the Tories will struggle and all the stupids will blame them - then we'll get re-elected in 2015.

When the coalition started cuts in 2010, Balls quoted Keynes (spend during recession) deliberately forgetting that Keynes also said 'save during growth' - which of course he hadn't done.

My conclusion is that the pain now is directly attributable to the crazy over-spending during growth and forces the Tories to cut beyond what is comfortable. If you actually look at the last budget it is not right wing: tax hikes for dividends & landlords, extended the time to reach a surplus by one year so they could reduce cuts... And yet all the stupids protested it anyway in an event organised before they even knew what was in it.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I'm not going to discuss how hard MPs work, I have no idea. I do have strong views on managing the economy. Fantastic maths not needed, just addition and subtraction. Which of the following points do you disagree with:

1. The country must over the medium term spend only what it collects. If you borrow too much you get into a downward spiral and leads to a Greek-type situation or worse.
2. World economics tend to go in cycles: growth and recession.
3. It makes sense therefore to spend more than tax revenue during recession, so it doesn't get so bad.
4. To balance the books hence you need to spend less than tax income during periods of growth.
5. If you lower the rate of corporation tax, it will attract companies to the UK and provide more jobs and higher tax revenue.
6. If you raise income tax too high, the wealthiest people will move somewhere else.
7. It is wrong to evade tax and the government should make all efforts to stop people avoiding tax in ways not specifically designed (such as ISAs) when they live in the UK.
8. Benefits should be targeted at those unable to work, not those unwilling to do so.
9. It must be more attractive to work than not to.
10. All people should share in a country's economic health.
11. We have a dysfunctional system, where politicians do what is best for them and their electability rather than what is necessarily right for the country.
12. Key functions and utilities should be owned by the state and run efficiently for the benefit of the people.

Personal wealth increased by about £1trn during the last 10 years of labour as the deficit increased by a similar amount. The state stepped in where private investors got greedy and kept it to themselves

 

[chiefdave]

Are you blind?

Water
Utilities
Rail
Nhs
Prisons

The list is endless

Was just going to say the same thing. Can't think of a single thing that has been privatised that has led to a better service and / or better value for us as consumers.

 

[mrtrench]

Personal wealth increased by about £1trn during the last 10 years of labour as the deficit increased by a similar amount. The state stepped in where private investors got greedy and kept it to themselves

Not sure I understand this post

1. The deficit is the annual difference between income and expense. I assume you mean national borrowing, not the deficit?
2. Don't understand the point about the state stepping in at all, or indeed how you know this if it was kept secret.

 

[Huckerby]

Was just going to say the same thing. Can't think of a single thing that has been privatised that has led to a better service and / or better value for us as consumers.

You're right. Let's just keep everything how it is and keeping throwing dead money at everything and not dare to make any efficiency improvements in case people have a hissy fit and scream austerity

 

[Huckerby]

I'm not suggesting a nationalised monopoly - a nationalised competitor. I'm also aware that there is no party with a policy such as I am suggesting. Legislation is inefficient because it cannot be comprehensive and weasels find ways to abuse it. What we need is a firm with values for great service and efficiency.

Second point. Yes - correct answer. My question was disingenuous. Actually it was 11%. Brown managed the economy well for about 3 years and then ran an ever increasing deficit during the growth years. He then ran amok committing to spending when he realised the writing was on the wall for New Labour - handing a poisoned chalice to the coalition. I'll never forgive Brown, Balls etc. for that - fuck the country, if we cripple the economy the Tories will struggle and all the stupids will blame them - then we'll get re-elected in 2015.

When the coalition started cuts in 2010, Balls quoted Keynes (spend during recession) deliberately forgetting that Keynes also said 'save during growth' - which of course he hadn't done.

My conclusion is that the pain now is directly attributable to the crazy over-spending during growth and forces the Tories to cut beyond what is comfortable. If you actually look at the last budget it is not right wing: tax hikes for dividends & landlords, extended the time to reach a surplus by one year so they could reduce cuts... And yet all the stupids protested it anyway in an event organised before they even knew what was in it.

You're completely right. Seems we share the opinions on a lot of things, just maybe I'm a little more skeptical.

I also feel like Labour have a blatant policy of promising the world, no matter how unsustainable, just to get votes off the people who will benefit most for it (lower earners and people on benefits, as an example). I know i'll probably get a lot of heat for that but it's infuriating.

 

[Huckerby]

Are you blind?

Water
Utilities
Rail
Nhs
Prisons

The list is endless

You're a very aggressive person.

 

[mrtrench]

You're completely right. Seems we share the opinions on a lot of things, just maybe I'm a little more skeptical.

I also feel like Labour have a blatant policy of promising the world, no matter how unsustainable, just to get votes off the people who will benefit most for it (lower earners and people on benefits, as an example). I know i'll probably get a lot of heat for that but it's infuriating.

You do realise that was your 666th post on here. Apt?

 

[stupot07]

You're completely right. Seems we share the opinions on a lot of things, just maybe I'm a little more skeptical.

I also feel like Labour have a blatant policy of promising the world, no matter how unsustainable, just to get votes off the people who will benefit most for it (lower earners and people on benefits, as an example). I know i'll probably get a lot of heat for that but it's infuriating.

the tory's do exactly the same thing for the middle class and pension. In fact the middle class and pension aged are more likely to vote than those in poverty. Hence why they dare not suggest means taxing winter fuel allowance for example,

Funny really just had a go on the budget calculator on the bbc. A family of 4 with 2 kids earning the national average of £25k will be £1,351 worse off, yet a family of 4 with 2 kids earning £100k will be £141 better off. We're all in it together....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Im really not. Sorry the overall national debt not the individual year on year deficit

It's not secret to those willing to look beyond the austerity myth.

Have a read

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-wealth-hits-record-high

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

You do have to make the connections but if the private wealth increases by £1trn and government debt increases by a similar amount what is the link?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You're right. Let's just keep everything how it is and keeping throwing dead money at everything and not dare to make any efficiency improvements in case people have a hissy fit and scream austerity

'Efficiency improvements' is a lazy, uneducated throwaway phrase that suggests all that doesn't make vast profits is 'inefficient'.

It's a lazy, throwaway comment that allows workers to be used, abused, and dragged down.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so blind they would rather drag others down, rather than seek to raise everybody up. And peoples' lives are improved if they live in a fair society with adequate services across both needs and wants.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Funny really just had a go on the budget calculator on the bbc. A family of 4 with 2 kids earning the national average of £25k will be £1,351 worse off, yet a family of 4 with 2 kids earning £100k will be £141 better off. We're all in it together....

And yet for some reason the tax cutting is an easy vote winner, and we've got to a stage where raising taxes can't even be discussed.

 

[Huckerby]

'Efficiency improvements' is a lazy, uneducated throwaway phrase that suggests all that doesn't make vast profits is 'inefficient'.

It's a lazy, throwaway comment that allows workers to be used, abused, and dragged down.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so blind they would rather drag others down, rather than seek to raise everybody up. And peoples' lives are improved if they live in a fair society with adequate services across both needs and wants.

Not at all. Doesn't have to make vast profits (love that you threw vast in there for effect) just not waste loads of money, and have a workforce that is horribly overloaded and generally at breaking point.



Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Huckerby]

And yet for some reason the tax cutting is an easy vote winner, and we've got to a stage where raising taxes can't even be discussed.

Well what would you do if you were ever to find yourself in a position where you were spending more (unsustainably more) than you were earning each month? Do you immediately try and get another job or more shifts/that bonus? Or do you think hold on a second I'm going to curb this spending a bit until I'm back on my feet and things settle down a bit, then I'll have a look at increasing my income so that I can bring some of these things back.

The welfare system and the NHS is a luxury many countries cannot afford. People here are so used to it that they regard it as a given

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not at all. Doesn't have to make vast profits (love that you threw vast in there for effect) just not waste loads of money, and have a workforce that is horribly overloaded and generally at breaking point.

I have worked for private companies and public. My experience is it is an absolute myth that public sector throws away money - where I have worked is far, far more efficient than any private...

As with anywhere, there are efficient and inefficient areas in public sector and also private sector. The lazy generalisation is downright pathetic however.

And wrong.

But is a handy excuse to beat people down with.

And what I would do if I weren't in a position to fund the spending needed in an economy with the current tax rate would be to... raise taxes.

But man (and woman) is alas self-centred.

 

[Huckerby]

I have worked for private companies and public. My experience is it is an absolute myth that public sector throws away money - where I have worked is far, far more efficient than any private...

As with anywhere, there are efficient and inefficient areas in public sector and also private sector. The lazy generalisation is downright pathetic however.

And wrong.

But is a handy excuse to beat people down with.

And what I would do if I weren't in a position to fund the spending needed in an economy with the current tax rate would be to... raise taxes.

But man (and woman) is alas self-centred.

So for you, all govt spending is absolutely fixed and won't budge at all (downwards at least) and the only way to change the level of net public borrowing is the use of taxation. Is that right? Solid plan.

Self centred yes. Fortunately, when an individual acts in ones own best interests more often than not this ends up being in the best interests of society also believe it or not.

"lazy" "pathetic" "beat people down". Yeesh, you really don't like people expressing views that don't match your own do you.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

I have worked for private companies and public. My experience is it is an absolute myth that public sector throws away money - where I have worked is far, far more efficient than any private...

As with anywhere, there are efficient and inefficient areas in public sector and also private sector. The lazy generalisation is downright pathetic however.

And wrong.

But is a handy excuse to beat people down with.

Bang on. It's an easy stick to which those that have never worked in the public sector and therefore have no real idea to use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

The welfare system and the NHS is a luxury many countries cannot afford. People here are so used to it that they regard it as a given

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

You seem adamant to want to privatise the NHS, which is already one of the most efficient health care systems which is envied by most countries. Ok let's say we privatise it, what level of saving will the government expect when it goes out to tender? 10%,15%,20%? Then whatever that is, the private company will be wanting to make 10-20% profit, so do you think the private industry will be able to deliver the quality NHS service (yes, it could be a lot worse) for 60-70% of the present budget? What happens when the service impacts on the profit margin? Refuse treatment? Reduce the number of ambulance's? Reduce the number of doctors? And where does that lead you? Higher waiting lists, more avoidable deaths, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors