Why is there no straight talk about the economy?

You're suggesting, I think, that the government should spend its way out of recession by building up more infra-structure. That is my thought too, as the best idea, but maybe it hasn't worked in the past. Back in the early '60s that was, I think, the approach. I

In message , Tiddy Ogg writes

The current aim of Osbourne seems to be to destroy infrastructure as fast as possible before the Lib Dem grass roots force their treacherous leaders to break up the coalition.

The red herring of the tiny minority of families with lots of kids on benefits is just an excuse to batter those at the bottom of the wealth ladder. There are billions more to be saved by tackling tax evasion, but that would hurt their own kind.

I agree with the former but not the latter. I'm not happy with the coalition but, at least we have some Lib Dem policies, rather than none. If the Lib Dems had not done a deal we would have had a minority Tory government and more extreme cuts. The government would have collapsed after a short time and we would have had another general election, probably with an even worse outcome.

Agree 100%

Eh? Are you really trying to argue that just cos the govt takes a percentage, then all the money they spent will just return to them so it doesn't matter how much they spend? Try thinking about it a bit harder.

Hint - the same applies to Tesco - they take a percentage of the general public's spending - so does the same apply to them?

The LibDems are only traitors in the minds of brain-dead Labour supporters who thought the LibDems would automatically side with them like good lapdogs. Ignoring the evidence from up and down the country in councils where the LibDems have done deals and entered coalitions with Tories. The coalition deal contains a hell of a lot of LibDem policy including 3 and a bit of their top 4 priorities, they'd have betrayed their voters if they hadn't signed up to it.

Strange how Labour hadn't already tackled this in their 13 years in power. Perhaps they were worried about upsetting their rich mates like Lord Paul, Richard Branson, Alan Sugar etc. The last Labour government was more up the arse of big business than the Tories ever were, not that the thick as pigshit "always voted Labour, father always voted Labour and his father before him, Tories are evil bastards only interested in helping the rich" types noticed.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

You live in a fantasy world...

There isn't a scrap of Lib Dem policy in what this brutish government is doing.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

Whose policy what is to increase the personal allowance?

Whose policy was it to increase CGT?

Whose policy was it to have a "pupil premium" for disadvantaged pupils?

Whose policy was it to levy aviation tax per plane not per passenger?

Whose policy was it not to increase the IHT threshold?

Plus of course loads of policy they shared with the Tories such as scrapping ID cards, stopping the third runway at Heathrow, and linking pensions to earnings.

The June budget was actually redistributive compared to Labour plans. But you've not analysed it, have you? You've not read the budget documents, have you? You just assume "it's a Tory budget therefore it must benefit the rich, cos that what Tories do".

In message , Andy Pandy writes

No I am not!

My personal allowance, and others over 75 will hardly increase, since it was already boosted by Gordon Brown. Did you know that?

I repeat what I said weeks ago, that the policies will hurt the poor more than the more affluent (like me, for example).

Since then, the IFS has said exactly the same thing, I also said that the savageness of the cuts will damage the recovery, and the IMF now say the same.

I'm not interested in exchanging insults with you, but you must be dumb if you don't recognise raw Tory policy!

No? Let's see....

So - you claim there "isn't a scrap of Lib Dem policy" in what the govt are doing, and when I quote EIGHT examples, the only reply you are capable of is "erm - one of them doesn't affect me personally". Most of them don't affect me either. Including the personal allowance increase. SFW?

The point was that your claim that there "isn't a scrap of Lib Dem policy" is utter bullshit. Like your bullshit about SERPS indexation in the previous thread, where several other people pointed out you were wrong, but you still persisted.

Even the recent IFS report, funded by the "End Child Poverty campaign" amongst others, clearly demonstrates that the biggest losers (in terms of % income as well as cash) are the richest 10%. Typical Tories, huh? If I were one of their rich mates I'd want my donation back. Or like Sugar, Branson and all the other fat cats who've seen their income soar since 1997, join Labour - after all over the last 30 years Labour governments have taxed the rich less on average than Tory ones.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

How can the richest 10% be hurt, huh? Will they have to give up one of their villas or get a smaller yacht? Hurt is relative to your position down the food chain.

The worst hurt will be felt by the poor and vulnerable, which frankly is stating the b******* obvious!

The cuts to public services and benefits won't touch the rich, with luck they won't affect me too much either, but the poor bastards who lose housing benefit or respite care for sick children or partners, or who get thrown out of public sector jobs will be the ones who suffer.

I don't want to continue this, because you just don't get it.

You haven't considered the wider ramifications.

If you make the rich poorer, you won't "hurt" them in the sense of putting their survival at risk, but it's pretty obvious that if you cut their income then they will have to cut their expenditure, and this is going to make ripples further "down the food chain". One indirect effect is that they'll spend less on luxuries, and if all the other rich folk do the same, that puts jobs at risk in the luxuries industry. A slightly more direct effect is that they might have to reduce the size of their domestic staff, who will have a hard time finding another job if all the rich folk are also shedding their staff.

The resident housekeeper in that villa they're giving up will become redundant for a start. So will the paid crew on the bigger yacht when the smaller one doesn't need so many, if any.

So many "poor and vunerable" do you, personally know, eh? I know loads, I do unofficial voluntary work helping people on benefits and tax credits, you sound like a typical middle class hand-wringing Gruniad reader who never socialises with poor people, never drinks in working class pubs, hasn't got a clue about the benefit system, yet seems to think he know all about poverty.

Shortly after the budget a single mother I know came up to me really worried because some idiot like you had been telling her how she's going to get her benefits and tax credits cut - I said it won't be that bad and went away to analyse the figures and worked out come April, she'd get more in tax credits, pay less in NI and less in tax, and in all likelyhood her HB would be unaffected. Overall she will be better off. This a single mother with 3 kids and a part time minimum wage cleaning job.

Some people will lose out, mainly those who claim HB/HRA for expensive houses or those who claim disability premiums when their disability doesn't prevent them from seeking employment (the last Tory govt are partly to blame for the latter - they tried to get people onto disability benefits rather than unemployment benefits as the unemployment figures were a political embarrasment).

This depends whether they are actually spending their "extra" money or just sticking it in offshore accounts, paying no tax.

If the current trend for the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer continues then how would it end?

In message , Mark writes

We may have a better idea when the Autumn Review is published, but it seems to me that the Lib Dems will have to continue to keep the minority Tory government in power for the full term. "He who rides the Tiger dare not dismount".

We need a few by-elections to see whether there will be a Lib Dem party in five years time. :)

Not necessarily suggesting that - maybe there are hidden reasons why it wouldn't work. But the lack of openness makes it difficult to know.

Seems to me that there's far too much doctrinaire thinking, when what's needed is to do what works not what fits partisan preconceptions. Down with '-isms' !

If one could be sure that money spent by the government didn't end up leaving the country, spending ought to do the trick, as far as I can see, because the government would get all the money back in taxes. As the cash flows from person/company to person/company, with PAYE and VAT applied at all stages, it can't take very long for that to happen (in fact isn't a speedy return the _real_ reason for such taxes?).

The down side might be an increase in wages, making exporting more difficult, but inflation isn't likely when there are few jobs.

I've seen claims that the IMF pretty much insists on destruction of infrastructure as a prerequisite for any loan. Would we hear about it beforehand if something of the sort was being arranged? It would certainly explain all the fuss about credit rating agencies.

I don't think tax evasion causes the government much harm. Of course it means that the evaders get an unfair advantage over those who do pay, but from the government viewpoint it just means that they have to wait a little longer for their next tax bite. Instead of getting x% from the evader, they have to wait until the evader passes the money on to someone else. Which doesn't take long. If they buy goods, even evaders pay VAT; if they hire someone that person or company pays tax (unless they too are tax dodgers); if they put the money in a bank the bank most certainly doesn't put the cash under the mattress instead of lending it out again, and even banks pay tax. The money flows on through the system, a bit less at each step because the gov't. has taken another bite at each step.

It isn't good that some people are at the bottom in terms of wealth, and there are certainly some scam artists, but you can hardly imagine that these people _prefer_ to be at the bottom, and using a sledgehammer to 'fix' the problem isn't likely to work. I still remember the flood of 16 year old kids who appeared on Edinburgh's streets during the last crackdown. In particular I remember passing a boy sitting opposite that large hotel at the east end of Princes St. as darkness fell and a snowstorm began one Christmas Eve. The streets were empty. You'd almost think it was something out of Dickens, that I made it up. Like most people, I didn't want to get involved, so I just gave him two quid and went on my way.

They say you need a long spoon to sup with the Devil, but I'd say you need an even longer one if a 100,000-a-year job is part of the deal. The illiberal undemocrats have thrown their lot in with the rest of the

A pity that the Monster Raving Loony Party is no more.

They don't seem to have said much about getting rid of 3 or 400 MPs, who could in any case be replaced by machines which say 'Yes, Master' when the appropriate button is pressed.

Suggesting that a lack of stable progress (towards what? Some party-political goal?) is the best that can be achieved.

The point is that they don't take a percentage just once. They take it again and again. You and I can't do that even once. Think of money as a stream of water which goes from place to place. If at each place someone takes a bit of the water, soon the river is dry (which actually happens in some parts).

The money the gov't. spend flows from person to person and from company to company, but the gov't. gets its tax bite at each step. Even if it was only 10% at each step, the money left for each person to spend gets less and less.

They can't tax the people further down the line but governments can and do.

Say the tax rate was just 10%. Say Bill gets 100 from the government. Right away they take 10.00 from him in tax (either something like PAYE, or VAT when he uses the money to buy something). So Joe, the person Bill buys from, gets only 90.00 at most, because that's all Bill has left of the money he was given. And Joe also is taxed, so when he buys from Henry he has only 81.00 to spend. And so on.

At 10% it goes like this :-

People spend quite fast, or put the money in the bank quite fast (and the bank then lend it out again for other people to spend) so it's not long before all the money has gone back to the government.

BUT, that's only true so long as the money stays in the country. If it goes out of the country, the government loses control of it.

That's why I think 'the deficit' which they never explain must be connected with payments leaving the UK.