Cameron makes savings tax pledge

louiser123

overlander wrote: »

Noboddy every said low earners were not important, but i for one are sick of all the focus on the low earners. Where is the help for the middle earners, you know the ones who ohhh i feel so guilty do the design jobs, research, medicine etc, ohhh you bad lot. You know the ones who actually might drag this country back from being shopkeepers to a manufacturing country. Ohh i forgot they are just shafted again.

lets face it, everyone is shaffted!!! low paid middle paid ect ect. i just feel that we are all the backbone of society( with exception to the spongers and benefit cheats ect, but thats another story)
there will always be low paid earners( the ones who look after your grans and mum and dads in the nursing homes, the ones who serve you in the shops, those who do other low paid work, but without them where would the country be!! if we all refused to do low paid jobs we would be in a mess, i would do any job with low pay if i lost my current job at least it is a wage!!

i think it was the way your post was written that i took issue with.

chewmylegoff

overlander wrote: »

Noboddy every said low earners were not important, but i for one are sick of all the focus on the low earners. Where is the help for the middle earners, you know the ones who ohhh i feel so guilty do the design jobs, research, medicine etc, ohhh you bad lot. You know the ones who actually might drag this country back from being shopkeepers to a manufacturing country. Ohh i forgot they are just shafted again.

what's your solution to stop the middle classes being shafted, and how would it be funded?

Masomnia

cogito wrote: »

How, exactly, are Brown and co 'in touch with ordinary people and their needs'? Have any of these career politicians ever had a real job at any point in their lives?

Since you ask, Brown taught in a college and worked as a journalist, Darling was a solicitor.

WTF?_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The facts disagree. We entered this recession with substantially less debt than most of our competitors even when you factored in PFI etc. In some cases (the US and Japan especially) their debt levels were double and triple our own.

So where do our debts stand now? According to Eurostat we exited 2007 with 44.2% gross debt (% of GDP). Germany had 65.7% - thats 49% more than us. We've had to spend heavily - £37bn so far on bank bailouts, and we've spent about 1.5% of GDP on the VAT reduction and other liquidity injections. Germany has spent 50bn Euros on Banks and 2% of GDP on liquidity.

Perhaps you need to read this, posted on another thread here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3078296/the-true-extent-of-britains-debt.thtml

How much is Britain’s true national debt? Gordon Brown says 37% of GDP, the ONS says 43% of GDP – but this is just government debt. The reason Britain is in so much trouble is that our corporate and household debts are huge. It is the combination that makes us such a credit liability – but no one has ever put together a combination.
Until now.
Michael Saunders from CitiGroup has calculated ‘external debt’ – ie, what Britain owes the rest of the world. It is not 40% but 400% of GDP, the highest in the G7 by some margin. The next down, France, is 176%. America, flagellating itself for blowing such a debt bubble, is just 100%. Japan is about half America. The below graph shows ‘external debt’ – both in mid-2008, and five years ago.




Narrow it down to short-term debt, ie IOUs that have to be paid back within a year, and the picture grows even bleaker. It adds up to 300% of GDP – six times that of France whose loans are long-term. Saunders says, with some understatement, that this makes “the UK economy and financial system highly vulnerable when, as now, global banking and capital flows dries up.” Here is the picture, narrowed down to short- term debt (ie, due by next Christmas).

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

We'll all exit this one up to our eyeballs in debt, all loaned to each other. This recession is global and its effects are global. We went in with substantially less government debt than most of our competitors and with everyone spending borrowed money like its going out of business we'll exit with substantially less government debt than everyone else. Yes, if we were burning money on our own then we'd be in trouble. But all burning together?

Wow. you sound exactly like a Labour party spokesman.

cogito

How much are the unfunded liabilities of public sector pensions or doesn't that count as government debt?

cogito

Masomnia wrote: »

Since you ask, Brown taught in a college and worked as a journalist, Darling was a solicitor.

To be accurate, he lectured in politics and worked for Scottish TV for a couple of years as current affairs editor. Do either of these count as real jobs? I think not.

nickmason

FrankieBoyle wrote: »

Wow, you sound like a tory party spokesman

oh no he doesn't!

EDIT: sorry, forgot the panto season was over...

WTF?_2

FrankieBoyle wrote: »

Wow, you sound like a tory party spokesman

For questioning the line that the poster was taking and providing some actual facts and figures pertinent to the discussion along with a URL?

Actually, someome professionally spinning/ spamming for a political party would surely have been a lot more subtle. Pushing the line that Cameron is a toff and therefore untrustworthy to run the country and parroting the 'it's all a global problem but Britain is well placed' excuse in a matter of a few posts is just too obvious. I'm only surprised that there weren't any lines about 'helping hard working families' in there too.

Congratulations on your first ever post, BTW

Sir_Humphrey

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

On the other side you have Cameron and Osborne. Oh, and Redwood, with his "lets fully deregulate the mortgage market" idea.

And former Oxford University Conservative Club member and former Oxford Union president Nick Mason...(Sir Humphrey BA (Oxon), student contempory of Mr Mason).

Sir_Humphrey

To address the substance (sic) of Cameron's "plan", it is to give a tax break to people who already have a large bundle of cash and do not actually work too much (i.e richer retirees), or who are basic rate taxpayers who save more than £3600 PA (not many people). The best way to encourage saving is to ensure people still have incomes to save. Income is the main determinent of saving, not the interest rate. With inflation falling fast, IRs should soon be positive in real terms anyway (banks/building society accounts cannot have negative interest anymore than the MPC base rate). It seems the Tories are back to appealling to their core vote like before the 2001 and 2005 elections.