Question about the defecit?

VIGILANT22

Fact is If you have a problem, you find the solution, if no solution, no problem.......

This was/is a man made problem...& that is where the solution is

Somerset

JamesU wrote: »

Two majors have defined the way they want to treat the electorate, a minor has chosen to do it differently. And guess what? Recent Cleggism in the polls speaks for itself (for what it is worth), and Vince Cable’s merit has been recognised for the same reasons for a long time.

JamesU

Clegg earnestly staring into the camera saying '' We need to be honest, we need to be up front with the voter's'' doesn't make it so !

The Lib Dems on tax - raise CGT, stop higher tax rate pension relief and effectively raise the personal tax allowance to 10K, restore the link between basic state pension & earnings, restrict tax credits, mansion tax, plane duty,closing ''loopholes'' for the rich.

Savings - break up banks, banking levy, public sector workers pay cap, Trident, Eurofighter.

So the message of ''We'll be honest with you'' is we'll sort the deficit out and it won't really cost you anything, just the nasty rich bankers, and public services will be bettered/improved ........... so nothing to worry about ? Honesty personified.

JamesU

Somerset wrote: »

Clegg earnestly staring into the camera saying '' We need to be honest, we need to be up front with the voter's'' doesn't make it so !

The Lib Dems on tax - raise CGT, stop higher tax rate pension relief and effectively raise the personal tax allowance to 10K, restore the link between basic state pension & earnings, restrict tax credits, mansion tax, plane duty,closing ''loopholes'' for the rich.

Savings - break up banks, banking levy, public sector workers pay cap, Trident, Eurofighter.

So the message of ''We'll be honest with you'' is we'll sort the deficit out and it won't really cost you anything, just the nasty rich bankers, and public services will be bettered/improved ........... so nothing to worry about ? Honesty personified.

Somerset, I am not sure I understand your reasoning here. For sure some of the Lib Dem standing on tax has been documented openly as described above. And the same on some of the savings to be made. These are detailed in their manifesto and how much more upfront can one be than doing this? But how you reach the end conclusion that the Lib Dems say that "this will not cost anything" and infer that this is dishonesty/"honesty personified" is a bit beyond me.

I can of course accept arguments surrounding competency and questionable judgement e.g. scrapping Trident but loosing the UK based industry surrounding it (which may be a false economy) making billions in savings and then throwing it away on an increased £10K personal allowance (which may be of questionable merit) etc etc...but these are not issues surrounding honesty.

As I said in the previous post, I see no objective evidence that the electorate prefers to be manipulated and mislead in such a condescending manner by the majors. If there was proportional representation right now, perhaps dishonesty would not be the winning format?

I am not a Lib Dem supporter or convert by the way!

JamesU

michaels

The fact that the public finances swung so sharply (2007 -3%, 2008 -5.5%) would seem to me to suggest that part of the mega deficit at the moment is 'cyclical' and assuming the credit market conditions allow a 'normal' recovery to take place (not necessarily an assumption I am happy to make but lets go with it) then we could expect probably about half the deficit to fix itself - ie we do not need to solve 160bn - only 80bn, However this would still suggest we need spending cuts / tax increases of 5% of GDP = about 10-12 of govt spending. Not sure what % of gdp is income for tax purposes but I suspect we are talking of the order of 8% more of every income being taxed to close the gap. Paying off the debt - is this an issue as growth will also impact on the ratio of debt to gdp although issues like demographics and peak oil may be relevant here.

Mention has been made of the Lib Dem personal allowance policy and the distribution of benefits - surely this is ultimate supply side economics - it is not the impact directly on low earners but the impact on incentives to earn that matters - see the thread on this board showing there are effective 95% tax rates for low earning families.

Wile we are on the subject of capital gains I can not see why they should not be taxed like income with the proviso that gains should be index linked to avoid taxing inflation and allowances should be able to be accumulated over the period the assets are held so the whole gain does not end up in a high tax bracket.

Somerset

michaels wrote: »

Wile we are on the subject of capital gains I can not see why they should not be taxed like income with the proviso that gains should be index linked to avoid taxing inflation and allowances should be able to be accumulated over the period the assets are held so the whole gain does not end up in a high tax bracket.

Sounds remarkably similar to the old system that was scrapped Still I guess we have to keep the taxation system complicated and ever-changing so that tax accountants can justify exorbitant fees.

JamesU

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The reason they are in this state is because they listened to Keynes instead of friedman and went down the supporting bad practice route.

I am out of my depth on this one, could you explain in layman's terms what the government did wrong? Thanks.

JamesU

StevieJ

JamesU wrote: »

I am out of my depth on this one, could you explain in layman's terms what the government did wrong? Thanks.

JamesU

Presumably supporting mortgage holders and propping up the banks, Mr Macho probably thinks we should have let the whole thing collapse :eek:

Blacklight

How much of the £159bn this year was due to QE? How does this fit into the equation?

JamesU

Blacklight wrote: »

How much of the £159bn this year was due to QE? How does this fit into the equation?

BlackLight, £200 billion spent on QE according to BoE, link here. Between March 09 and Feb 10 I think, and have stopped this now (or at least taken a pause!).

JamesU


http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/qe/amount.htm

Blacklight

JamesU wrote: »

BlackLight, £200 billion spent on QE according to BoE, link here. Between March 09 and Feb 10 I think, and have stopped this now (or at least taken a pause!).

JamesU


http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/qe/amount.htm

So without that would we have had a surplus then? Also, how much will the banking shares that we own go towards paying off the actual debt?