Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

Afriend_2

wageslave wrote: »

Of all the hardships that are inevitably coming, the extra years we are expected to work are the most unfair.

I am not thirty plus two. My retirement age will probably be around ninety.
I had best get a few buy to lets, retire early and live on the income stream.

Ps. cannon fodder was an excellent game.
Pps. broders, if you're reading this through a russiian proxy, I want a sensi soccer rematch.

Thrugelmir

GeneHunt wrote: »

Are the Tories going to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

How many voters have they alienated this week?

Those on incapacity benefit (work or have benefits cut)
Public sector workers (who don't fancy a pay freeze)
Anyone with savings (there are more savers than people with mortgages but interest rates cannot be allowed to go up so removing tax is a bit pointless)
Anyone who likes cheap alcohol (how do they decide your motives for buying a bottle of booze?)
Middle class (remove their tax credits)
Up the retirement age (anyone looking forward to retiring at 65)
Osborne (well... does he do much for you?)

Who have they won over?

The silent majority who are currently disillusioned with Big Brother politics that has failed the country.

Thrugelmir

wageslave wrote: »

Of all the hardships that are inevitably coming, the extra years we are expected to work are the most unfair.

It isn't even remarkable that the those who do actually work are to do so for even longer to pay for those who wont. We pay our NI contributions all our working lives in the mistaken belief we can retire at a fairly reasonable age on an admittably less than adequate pension.

All this policy does is widen the gap between the fortunate few with their gold plated pensions who will retire at 55 and the rest of us.

I feel like cannon fodder.

Retirement should be the least of your worries......

kennyboy66_2

GeneHunt wrote: »

Are the Tories going to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

How many voters have they alienated this week?


Who have they won over?

I think most people realise that cuts and tax rises will start to kick in from the middle of next year, whoever wins the election. At least Osborne scores some marks for a degree of honesty, although its the tip of the iceberg as far as the cuts or freezes in public spending that will be required.

kennyboy66_2

GeneHunt wrote: »

Are the Tories going to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

How many voters have they alienated this week?


Who have they won over?

I think most people realise that cuts and tax rises will start to kick in from the middle of next year, whoever wins the election. At least Osborne scores some marks for a degree of honesty, although its the tip of the iceberg as far as the cuts or freezes in public spending that will be required.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think most people realise that cuts and tax rises will start to kick in from the middle of next year, whoever wins the election. At least Osborne scores some marks for a degree of honesty, although its the tip of the iceberg as far as the cuts or freezes in public spending that will be required.

I agree. The budget deficit is so clearly out of control that pretty much everyone (excluding a tiny lunatic fringe that want the state to provide pretty much everything) can see that state spending will have to be cut and taxes rise. IMV, Labour were bounced out of their preferred election position of 'Tory Cuts, Labour Investment' in the face of public incredulity.

As you can see from the graph below, the Government is spending a larger proportion of GDP than at any time since the 1950s bar at the very height of the 1980s unemployment and, of course, during the UK's flirtation with extremist Statist socialism and bankrupcy during the 1970s.

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Total Spending&year=1950_2010&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=34.17_37.98_38.98_38.36_36.20_34.92_35.08_34.54_35.12_35.21_35.20_37.61_38.34_38.37_38.43_39.44_40.13_43.53_43.86_42.21_41.91_42.18_41.02_41.27_46.80_48.67_46.70_42.47_42.85_43.14_45.00_45.85_46.19_43.80_43.28_42.47_41.54_39.05_36.88_34.79_35.82_37.00_38.42_40.37_40.42_41.34_40.24_39.02_37.54_35.98_35.39_36.06_36.49_37.13_38.12_39.53_38.51_40.43_40.54_43.87_46.40&legend=[/IMG]

michaels

Arguing a contrarian point of view, the structural deficit is estimated at 5-7% of GDP - if there is a sudden turn around in some of the major revenue sources that have seen the biggest falls (stamp duty, pent up demand to move following below trend numbers for 2 years, corporation tax on rebounding bank earnings with excessive margins and write-backs from an improving residential property sector, personal taxation with rebounding bonuses, capital gains from rebounding stock markets and other assets, inheritance tax with swine flu/cold winter, etc) - if the deficit quickly bounced back to 'only' 6% of gdp although historically huge it would still appear to be a huge improvement on the current year and within the realms of being pluggable with stealth taxes and a bit of creative accounting (selling back the bank stakes at a profit for example). Not saying it will happen like this but this has been a very 'curious' recession especially in the SE where not so much is manufactured so the inventory cycle was not such a biggie.

Just thinking some more - how much of the proportionate surge in Generali's graph is down to a reduction in GDP rather than an increase in Govt expenditure - if total GDP is down 5.5% and the govt sector had remained constant then the govt share would increase from 43% to 45.5%.

Money_Grabber13579

Unpleasant as it might be, we are going to have to suffer the cuts by the Tory's. But instead of blaming them, we should be blaming Labour who got us into this fine mess by squandering the money when times were good.

So the cuts have to happen if we are ever to get back on our feet again. There's too many inefficiencies in the country, and we'll just have to put up with the pain.

If Labour get in again, and continue their current statements of intent of increasing investment, the countries bankrupt. Although anything labour has said for a long time has been lies. And everything they do is just propaganda.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Arguing a contrarian point of view, the structural deficit is estimated at 5-7% of GDP - if there is a sudden turn around in some of the major revenue sources that have seen the biggest falls (stamp duty, pent up demand to move following below trend numbers for 2 years, corporation tax on rebounding bank earnings with excessive margins and write-backs from an improving residential property sector, personal taxation with rebounding bonuses, capital gains from rebounding stock markets and other assets, inheritance tax with swine flu/cold winter, etc) - if the deficit quickly bounced back to 'only' ^% of gdp although historically huge it would still appear to be a huge improvement on the current year and within the realms of being pluggable with stealth taxes and a bit of creative accounting (selling back the bank stakes at a profit for example). Not saying it will happen like this but this has been a very 'curious' recession especially in the SE where not so much is manufactured so the inventory cycle was not such a biggie.

Just thinking some more - how much of the proportionate surge in Generali's graph is down to a reduction in GDP rather than an increase in Govt expenditure - if total GDP is down 5.5% and the govt sector had remained constant then the govt share would increase from 43% to 45.5%.

It would be relatively easy to work that out from the GDP stats produced by the Government.

Unfortunately I can't do it right now as the younger Generalissimo has just turned me into, "a beautiful fairy princess butterfly, pink and purple and pink.....a-a-and purple, Daddy, and purple"(!)

I would imagine that the Government sector is increasing in size in the GDP figures a little as more is having to be spent on administering the handing out of welfare payments etc. (the actual welfare payments aren't included in Government spending for the purposes of GDP calculation to avoid double counting).

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Arguing a contrarian point of view, the structural deficit is estimated at 5-7% of GDP - if there is a sudden turn around in some of the major revenue sources that have seen the biggest falls (stamp duty, pent up demand to move following below trend numbers for 2 years, corporation tax on rebounding bank earnings with excessive margins and write-backs from an improving residential property sector, personal taxation with rebounding bonuses, capital gains from rebounding stock markets and other assets, inheritance tax with swine flu/cold winter, etc)

There is a permanent loss of Corporation tax and personal taxation from the Financial Services sector (City of London). This will never return.

We are from over resolving B&B and NR. I would guess a loss of £10 billion by the time they are wrapped up.

Personal taxation take rising with higher unemployment, pay cuts , freezes?

There are only 3 options.

Print more money.

Borrow more money.

Pay our debt back. ( ie reduce expenditure).