Budget 2010: EU calls for faster UK deficit cuts

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

Seems obvious, severance payments etc.

Not so obvious - according to my info, the vast majority of those looking to leave (certainly in LG) are the younger and relatively newly appointed recruits who have built up little redundancy entitlement.

Not everyone is going to get 2 or 3 years pay. Anyway, the payback is likely to be less than 6 months which doesn't seem much of a reason for a tax increase (ie after around 6 months cost effects will be positive)

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

that's a lot of people you're getting angry with and accusing that they work for the labour party :eek:

are you one of those paranoid types that thinks if someone doesn't agree with him they must be a paid up labour party member.

C'mon mate you can't be serious with a comment like that...

You're the one that have accused me from the beginning of being a full fledged member of the Tory party, just because I dare to criticise the incumbent government. Check you own post history is you don't believe me.

I'm paranoid? You're the one that insists you don't support Labour but defends everything they do...

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

Labour have already done this clever clogs. Do you remember the ongoing strike over Labour's proposal to break the contract of civil servants to reduce their entitlement to redundancy pay? It's inevitable that whoever wins the election will have to continue to things like this to make savings in the public sector budget.

Are you paid by the Labour party to post all this rubbish? It's stupid to the point of denying reality.

But it is the Tories that want to make the cuts quickly not Labour.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

C'mon mate you can't be serious with a comment like that...

You're the one that have accused me from the beginning of being a full fledged member of the Tory party, just because I dare to criticise the incumbent government. Check you own post history is you don't believe me.

I'm paranoid? You're the one that insists you don't support Labour but defends everything they do...

this post in this very thread suggests that you're talking rollox for a change

chucky wrote: »

the best thing that Big Dave can do is get Ken Clark in - he might get my vote then

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

No I didn't mean you, I meant StevieJ, he obviously thinks that only the Tories would break the contracts of public sector employees.

The comments are in response to this post by Humph, keep up

The truth that dare not speak its name is that cutting the deficit quickly would mean tax rises. It's the only way to deliver deficit reduction in the timescale being talked about.

Sir_Humphrey

Cutting taxes paid for by spending cuts is fiscally neutral. Reducing the deficit by cutting spending would not lead to tax cuts.

Reagan tried cutting spending and taxes it the 1980s though and more than trebled the US national debt.

The short term costs of cutting public spending go beyond redundancy pay. Cancelling contracts also incurs payments. This is why cutting public spending can only be a slow affair.

It also pushes up welfare payments as people are made unemployed. This is exactly what happened in the early 1980s. This problem still exists as many manual ex-industrial employees have ailments that could be seen as disabling.

I can see by the reaction why no politician is willing to be truthful on this issue.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Cutting taxes paid for by spending cuts is fiscally neutral. Reducing the deficit by cutting spending would not lead to tax cuts.

Reagan tried cutting spending and taxes it the 1980s though and more than trebled the US national debt.

The short term costs of cutting public spending go beyond redundancy pay. Cancelling contracts also incurs payments. This is why cutting public spending can only be a slow affair.

It also pushes up welfare payments as people are made unemployed. This is exactly what happened in the early 1980s. This problem still exists as many manual ex-industrial employees have ailments that could be seen as disabling.

I can see by the reaction why no politician is willing to be truthful on this issue.

The difference right now is that there are a lot of people employed by the public sector who don't produce anything at all.

For example, when my children were very young I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. There was a council run play group in the area that I took the kids to a couple of times, having taken a day off work to be with them while not mucking up Mum's carefully thought out routine.

They used to ask me to fill in a very short form. They didn't care about my name, address, date of birth or what I thought of this place to bring my children. The only things they wanted to know were do I prefer to perform an act of love with a man, a woman or was I undecided between tham and what colour my skin is.

Presumably the people performing the data crunching of those forms answers can be said to provide no helpful output in terms of the productive capacity of the United Kingdom*.

Therefore if you sack that person you save a salary and you stop accruing a pension liability. You have a lower cost which is unemployment and other benefits. The taxpayers gain and if you lower taxes and Government spending you, normally, increase the productive capacity of the country so future taxpayers gain too.

*A brief visit would have told anyone interested that the majority were white women, the largest minority were Asian women and the smallest minority was a white man, sitting in the corner reading The Times because the women weren't interested in talking to him.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

For example, when my children were very young I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. There was a council run play group in the area that I took the kids to a couple of times, having taken a day off work to be with them while not mucking up Mum's carefully thought out routine.
.

Was that Ronnie and Reggies patch?

viscione

Basically to sum this thread up

the conservatives will cut spending far too quickly when our economy is just barely coming out of recession, therefore prolonging the recession and increasing our debt sop we may be debt free by 2020 and wages will be similiar to what they are today.

Or

Labour will not increase spending but will keep spending and slowly cut the deficit over the next 4 years to ensure our economy stays in growth and we are out of debt by 2016, wages will be stronger and Britain will be a better more competitive country to live in.

Once again Labour gets my vote!

aelitaman

viscione wrote: »

Basically to sum this thread up

the conservatives will cut spending far too quickly when our economy is just barely coming out of recession, therefore prolonging the recession and increasing our debt sop we may be debt free by 2020 and wages will be similiar to what they are today.

Or

Labour will not increase spending but will keep spending and slowly cut the deficit over the next 4 years to ensure our economy stays in growth and we are out of debt by 2016, wages will be stronger and Britain will be a better more competitive country to live in.

Once again Labour gets my vote!

Only one problem with your logic. There will be no growth under Labour it will be flat at best. Meaning no increase in the tax take from growth, meaning the debt pile grows larger and larger until kaboom. UK bankrupt, IMF called in debts payed off in 2050 hopefully. 5 million unemployed.