The bulls and the bears on this forum are the same

Cleaver

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Blank, if you are the sort of person who owns a foreign car, tv, vacuum cleaner, kettle, etc then you are as responsible for the state of the country as the bulls and bears on this site. For very many years we have been running a deficit, nothing to do with house prices but to do with people spending their money on foreign made goods (and taking holidays abroad rather than the UK etc). I fully accept that I am as guilty as the next man for the state of the country because of my buying foreign appliances etc - only difference is that I am not going around blaming others for it.

I'm not convinced that the main reason for a deficit is buying products from abroad. The very simple, yet main reason for the deficit is that the government spends more than it gets in income. One must assume that if a government decides to spend more than it brings in then it would do this anyway, regardless of the income it gets. So for example, I believe before the Torys came to power we brought in around £480bn and spent £600bn, or something like that. So obviously someone, somewhere thought "hmm, you know what, let's just spend more than we get in." So, presumably, even if we'd all bought British and gone on holiday here and pushed up the income of this country slightly, we'd still have spent relatively more and be running at a deficit.

IMHO of course.

B_Blank

Running up a deficit was the right thing to do by labour in 2009 and 2010. The problem was in 2005-2008 when brown lost control of the finances. He was spending more than we had coming in during the "good" years, which is a massive massive mistake irrespective of your politics. Brown wanted to spend more but didnt have the guts to raise taxes to fund it. He believed that the good years would never come to an end, "an end to boom and bust", basically he was a disaster. Labour did fine till 2005 because thats when they really started to overspend.

However, this isnt a party political point, because the tories (under that idiot cameron) didnt have the guts to be a sensible opposition and say that labours spending was irresponsible. There can be no good democracy without a decent opposition. So you could argue that the tories are as much to blame as labour for their reckless overspending. Cameron didnt have the guts to say labour were spending too much because he is a career politician who cares about getting elected and not about helping the UK to be a stable country. He is a disgrace.

The politicians caused the crisis with lack of regulation too. But again the tories didnt question this because they are a disgrace. But we would be fine now if we werent running a 3% deficit during the good years (which is unheard of and ridiculous).

If you want to spend more you need to raise taxes. None of our politicans had the balls to say this though. We have let our leaders be infiltrated by career politicians who simply arent fit to lead a nation.

FATBALLZ

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm not convinced that the main reason for a deficit is buying products from abroad. The very simple, yet main reason for the deficit is that the government spends more than it gets in income. One must assume that if a government decides to spend more than it brings in then it would do this anyway, regardless of the income it gets. So for example, I believe before the Torys came to power we brought in around £480bn and spent £600bn, or something like that. So obviously someone, somewhere thought "hmm, you know what, let's just spend more than we get in." So, presumably, even if we'd all bought British and gone on holiday here and pushed up the income of this country slightly, we'd still have spent relatively more and be running at a deficit.

IMHO of course.

I thought he was talking about balance of trade deficit.

grizzly1911

Cleaver wrote: »

So, presumably, even if we'd all bought British and gone on holiday here and pushed up the income of this country slightly, we'd still have spent relatively more and be running at a deficit.

IMHO of course.

You are right that if Governments spend more than they get we still end up with the defecit.

If they spend unwisely,for a political agenda, through pp planning and procurement then even more gets wasted.

I guess the only benefit would be if we could have brought more goods actually produced here and tax had been collected and reused here it would have reduced the deficit or allowed them to waste more.

grizzly1911

shortchanged wrote: »

Not quite true in my case as I am a homeowner but would be classed as a bear on here because I think house prices are overvalued.

It's just I feel that rampant HPI as we had a few years ago has done nothing but harm to the general economy apart from line the pockets of a few at the expense of many to be able to afford a roof over their heads.

Me too. I have never promoted debt for the sake of it.

We had a mortgage to provide a home for our family. It came out of fully taxed income, careful management and budgeting. I could have just rented but it didn't make sense to us or our circumstances.

If we couldn't afford it we didn't have it.

We made choices in life and sorted ourselves out. We have never asked for anything from anybody.

What I resent is people then telling me I should give it all back or for the tax man to ask for yet another cut.:cool:

grizzly1911

B_Blank wrote: »

Running up a deficit was the right thing to do by labour in 2009 and 2010. The problem was in 2005-2008 when brown lost control of the finances. He was spending more than we had coming in during the "good" years, which is a massive massive mistake irrespective of your politics. Brown wanted to spend more but didnt have the guts to raise taxes to fund it. He believed that the good years would never come to an end, "an end to boom and bust", basically he was a disaster. Labour did fine till 2005 because thats when they really started to overspend.

However, this isnt a party political point, because the tories (under that idiot cameron) didnt have the guts to be a sensible opposition and say that labours spending was irresponsible. There can be no good democracy without a decent opposition. So you could argue that the tories are as much to blame as labour for their reckless overspending. Cameron didnt have the guts to say labour were spending too much because he is a career politician who cares about getting elected and not about helping the UK to be a stable country. He is a disgrace.

The politicians caused the crisis with lack of regulation too. But again the tories didnt question this because they are a disgrace. But we would be fine now if we werent running a 3% deficit during the good years (which is unheard of and ridiculous).

If you want to spend more you need to raise taxes. None of our politicans had the balls to say this though. We have let our leaders be infiltrated by career politicians who simply arent fit to lead a nation.

I actually agree again with many points you make.

Where do you want to raise taxes and from whom?

They have "all" been increasing taxes all my working life.

If all "bodies" paid full and fair tax on income earnt in or through the UK and we still had a manufacturing base that could export more, tax revenue would increase without taxing more.

It is the volume loss of tax revenue as much as the level of tax that is an issue.

Let's not forget the other one I'm not allowed to mention the Global Banking Crash, made worse as you say by inadequate regulation.

Whilst I agree with your evaluation of most of our politicians most things are out of their control through globalisation and EU subjugation.

Just my opinion.

Sibley

Bulls feel that by owning their own home they are living the dream. They see their home as their castle, and treasure it as their best investment ever. For many it is their pension. They jeleously guard its value. Sad

Whats sad about it?

I bought something for £65,000 and now the value has risen to nearly £200,000.

If I wait until the mortgage is paid off I either get that as a lump sum or enjoy the rent money every month. A pension.

Why should I be happy if that lump sum dropped to £65,000 again?
I'd prefer it rose over £200,000. Why? Because I care about me.

Nobody on here will be paying my bills. The people wishing bad on home owners and slagging them off would be exactly the same in their position. In fact worse. I dont remember ever hearing a home owner harping on like the bears do about interest rates, savers and priced out poor souls.

If we get the 16% rise like the Express predicts that will make me very happy.

Cornholio_2

There's a lot more to it than "living the dream". We're 2 years into our mortgage but living in a place we both want to be. Prior to this my partner was sharing a house locally to where we are now, and her rent was private to a double barrelled landowner who could effectively turf her out with a months notice, and sharing with strangers basically. I had a decent secure and very cheap housing association flat- but, too small for the both of us, no garden, in a city centre with the biggest nightclub and taxi rank over the road(bedlam Thurs-sun), and some decent neighbours but also some total wasters out of the jail jumping the queue and lowering the tone(nicked my commuter bike too!!) As we have no kids we'll never get a council house anywhere, I detest the private rented sector, so buying was really the only option and therefore our combined rents now pay the mortgage.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the HA place- they maintained it, painted the communal areas etc and the rent was dirt cheap. I love the new place far more though, but the whole mortgage thing is a gamble and having paid £18k in payments in the last 2 years it's just sickening to get the second annual statement and realise we have paid off only just £4k. Makes you realise how quick it would be paid off if the interest was a lot lower!!!
I don't care what it's worth either, it's our one and only home-to LIVE IN, we're not on a ladder we're on the top rung so to speak!
I know friends who were panicking big time and paid massively over the odds in the summer of 2007 trying not to get left behind re property. I refused to even entertain the idea back then I knew this was going to blow up. They're up the creek for the foreseeable future.

B_Blank

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I actually agree again with many points you make.

Where do you want to raise taxes and from whom?

They have "all" been increasing taxes all my working life.

If all "bodies" paid full and fair tax on income earnt in or through the UK and we still had a manufacturing base that could export more, tax revenue would increase without taxing more.

It is the volume loss of tax revenue as much as the level of tax that is an issue.

Let's not forget the other one I'm not allowed to mention the Global Banking Crash, made worse as you say by inadequate regulation.

Whilst I agree with your evaluation of most of our politicians most things are out of their control through globalisation and EU subjugation.

Just my opinion.

Fair point. Proper labour voters dont agree with the EU though. Its not in a true socialists interest to give powers away to the unelected european commision. Tony Benn talks well on this subject. You cant undo eu laws which undermines the parliamentary system. The eu only has one direction - towards more integration. Reason being they designed the eu so a reverse gear wasnt possible. In the UK, all laws made by parliament can be retracted by future governments. Thus, we have true democracy here.

I think they are storing up massive trouble with this eu project. I dont think it will be long before european citizens are planting bombs at the euro parliament to try and get freedom from the eu.