Can any Labour support tell answer me this?

[Du1point8]

Now I see all the threads about the slating and bhing against both parties from both lots of supports.

I also see that the 'ConDem' Coalition is the only one doing something about the huge amount of money that the country owes and how they are going about cutting the spending to make it more in line with the income of the country as that is the only way that the country can pull itself out of being declared anothe Ireland or Greece.

Yet all I see is criticism... Well not even that, its just complete and utter opposition against everything that the current government is doing to reduce the debt.

They cut the amount of money spent on A, so they oppose it and say that the people in category B will suffer and its not fair.

So they decide to cut the amount of money spent on B and then they oppose it again and say people in category A will suffer, so therefore again its not fair.

So now here is your chance, I would like the labour supports to tell me how they would sort out reducing the debts that have been accumulated in the last decade that bring us the brink of bankruptcy.

Please note that simply stating the robin hood tax (wont work) or raising the taxes of the people who earn to pay the services for the masses (doesnt adress the debts of the masses, only peanlises the few) need to be justified with a valid arguement/debate.

I would like this to be a civilised debate for once and want to see what you guys think the solution should be.

[powerstroke]

The only answer they will give is its a international banking problem and they only did or do whats best for hard working people...

[crankedup]

I was asked this very question a week or two back and I happily replied. Perhaps if that reply could be dug up and imported? Generally I would agree with the OP remarks but I do worry that the Coalition is pushing it along to rapidly. We have a huge backwash of cutbacks coming into action very shortly and I am not sure that small businesses and families will be able to stay afloat. How many casualties will the cuts cause which will lead to lower tax take and more pressure onto benefits. At the moment I would say to much to fast, a little less pace of introduction.

Expect later in this discussion to see detail of individual actions rights and wrongs.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I was asked this very question a week or two back and I happily replied. Perhaps if that reply could be dug up and imported? Generally I would agree with the OP remarks but I do worry that the Coalition is pushing it along to rapidly. We have a huge backwash of cutbacks coming into action very shortly and I am not sure that small businesses and families will be able to stay afloat. How many casualties will the cuts cause which will lead to lower tax take and more pressure onto benefits. At the moment I would say to much to fast, a little less pace of introduction.

Expect later in this discussion to see detail of individual actions rights and wrongs.

You do realise that government spending is still rising for the next few years (i.e. the debt is increasing) and the cuts are only cuts in 'real' not notional terms??

???
Sidicks

[Fittster]

Du1point8 said:

So now here is your chance, I would like the labour supports to tell me how they would sort out reducing the debts that have been accumulated in the last decade that bring us the brink of bankruptcy.

A) The debt didn't begin in 1997 and the Coalition will continue to increase it.

The debt of the UK is to big to ever be repaid so it will be defaulted on in some form. The same applied to the debt of Japan and the US.

"Expecting today’s Western leaders to run fiscal surpluses is like expecting dogs to stockpile sausages”.

Don't think the colour of the tie the politician is wearing will make any difference.

Edited by Fittster on Friday 7th January 12:01

[Victor McDade]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I was asked this very question a week or two back and I happily replied. Perhaps if that reply could be dug up and imported? Generally I would agree with the OP remarks but I do worry that the Coalition is pushing it along to rapidly. We have a huge backwash of cutbacks coming into action very shortly and I am not sure that small businesses and families will be able to stay afloat. How many casualties will the cuts cause which will lead to lower tax take and more pressure onto benefits. At the moment I would say to much to fast, a little less pace of introduction.

Expect later in this discussion to see detail of individual actions rights and wrongs.

You do realise that government spending is still rising for the next few years (i.e. the debt is increasing) and the cuts are only cuts in 'real' not notional terms??

???
Sidicks

Same st, different colour of tie. Yet there are still those around who actually buy the line that Gideon and co are actually conservative when it comes to their economic policies.

They are all fking socialists, just some more than others.

[Du1point8]

Fittster said:

Du1point8 said:

So now here is your chance, I would like the labour supports to tell me how they would sort out reducing the debts that have been accumulated in the last decade that bring us the brink of bankruptcy.

A) The debt didn't begin in 1997 and the Coalition will continue to increase it.

The debt of the UK is to big to ever be repaid so it will be defaulted on in some form. The same applied to the debt of Japan and the US.

"Expecting today’s Western leaders to run fiscal surpluses is like expecting dogs to stockpile sausages”.

Don't think the colour of the tie the politician is wearing will make any difference.

Edited by Fittster on Friday 7th January 12:01

Thank you for your effort but that is not the question Im asking... How would Labour reduce the debt?

Not about how is the coalition going to make it rise due to past choices that they cant reverse spending from day 1 and so its naturally going to increase before its brought under control.

[Tsippy]

Not a Labour supporter, but cuts I'd introduce would be a lot more harsh and hopefully create a will to make oneself better rather than sponging off the state all of their lives.

[Fittster]

Du1point8 said:

Fittster said:

Du1point8 said:

So now here is your chance, I would like the labour supports to tell me how they would sort out reducing the debts that have been accumulated in the last decade that bring us the brink of bankruptcy.

A) The debt didn't begin in 1997 and the Coalition will continue to increase it.

The debt of the UK is to big to ever be repaid so it will be defaulted on in some form. The same applied to the debt of Japan and the US.

"Expecting today’s Western leaders to run fiscal surpluses is like expecting dogs to stockpile sausages”.

Don't think the colour of the tie the politician is wearing will make any difference.

Edited by Fittster on Friday 7th January 12:01

Thank you for your effort but that is not the question Im asking... How would Labour reduce the debt?

Not about how is the coalition going to make it rise due to past choices that they cant reverse spending from day 1 and so its naturally going to increase before its brought under control.

No one is going to reduce the debt, including the current government.

There are no coalition plans to reduce the debt (unless you call letting the BoE turn a blind eye to inflation a plan), you do know that?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I was asked this very question a week or two back and I happily replied. Perhaps if that reply could be dug up and imported? Generally I would agree with the OP remarks but I do worry that the Coalition is pushing it along to rapidly. We have a huge backwash of cutbacks coming into action very shortly and I am not sure that small businesses and families will be able to stay afloat. How many casualties will the cuts cause which will lead to lower tax take and more pressure onto benefits. At the moment I would say to much to fast, a little less pace of introduction.

Expect later in this discussion to see detail of individual actions rights and wrongs.

You do realise that government spending is still rising for the next few years (i.e. the debt is increasing) and the cuts are only cuts in 'real' not notional terms??

???
Sidicks

I understand that the debt is still rising, like a credit card debt that the user only pays off the minimum each month so the interest accrues and continues to add to the debt. But I am concerned that IF the Government applies to much social pressure implementing the cuts this will have a negative impact on the debt reduction. Unfortunately none of us will know the outcome until we see the effects of the policies in action. I also understand that we have only just very recently paid off our debt to America which we accumulated due to funding WW11. In comparison to our present debt that was a drop in the ocean.

[grumbledoak]

Why do you expect any of this to be logical, or even based on reality?

The lefties/socialists will bh and whine purely because they are not in power. They are not arguing against policies because they have a better answer. Their Champagne tap is running dry and they don't like it.

[Sticks.]

Never voted Labour but as well as agreeing that some of the cuts are being done badly/too quickly, the big missing issue is not about cuts but increasing revenue. Apart from Ent Allowance the other day, has there been much?

Is it just about economics though? Imho the UK has a great sense of fairness and many people will struggle to see the way the country is going currently reflects this.

[ShadownINja]

crankedup said:

I am not sure that small businesses and families will be able to stay afloat. How many casualties will the cuts cause which will lead to lower tax take and more pressure onto benefits.

I am rather ignorant of these matters (monetary policy and macro-economics) so perhaps you can enlighten me as to the following thought I've been having since the talk of cuts. Now, what you've said has been stated by a lot of people. For the moment, consider the route money takes:
1) taxation (corporate and individual) and national debt
2) government coffers
3) government departments
4) employees of departments and outsourcing businesses
5) outsourcing businesses' employees and suppliers to outsourcers
6) suppliers' employees etc

So this is money that filters down from the government and everyone takes their share. The money only comes from private sources in the form of tax. No money comes in at any other point; it is money due to taxation. The money doesn't come from outside the country, either, apart from in the form of debt which costs us in the long term ie interest.

So my question is: isn't it cheaper to pay them benefits?

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:16

[youngsyr]

Not a labour supporter, but the OP needs to realise that the deficit is dependent upon two variables:

Expenditure > Income

So, you can reduce the deficit by either growing the income or reducing the expenditure, or a combination of both.

What's more, the income side is obviously made up of taxes, plus selling capital items etc, and if the economy grows, then the tax take tends to increase too.

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

[ShadownINja]

youngsyr said:

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

Can you explain this to me, too? If it's money coming from taxation then how can it lead to real economic growth? It's just money being circulated, surely? In fact, given that many employees are foreign, expect some of that money to be sent out of the country. (Again, I highlight my lack of macro-economic knowledge.)

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:25

[youngsyr]

ShadownINja said:

youngsyr said:

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

Can you explain this to me, too? If it's money coming from taxation then how can it lead to real economic growth? It's just money being circulated, surely? In fact, given that many employees are foreign, expect some of that money to be sent out of the country. (Again, I highlight my lack of macro-economic knowledge.)

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:25

Probably best explained as "one man's expenditure is another man's income".

That is to say that if a government spends £100 of cash on goods, it doesn't just end up with £100 worth of goods and that's the end of the story.

Rather the government ends up with £100 of goods and the supplier ends up with £100 of cash. If the supplier then spends that £100 of cash on more goods, someone else earns £100 in exchange for their goods.

At this point two people have made a total of £200 in return for a total of £200 goods being transferred between parties, which was all started by just £100 being spent by the government.

Now multiply this by a ridiculous amount of money and transactions and you'll see that government spending can be used to stimulate private sector growth.

Edited by youngsyr on Friday 7th January 12:33

[ShadownINja]

youngsyr said:

ShadownINja said:

youngsyr said:

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

Can you explain this to me, too? If it's money coming from taxation then how can it lead to real economic growth? It's just money being circulated, surely? In fact, given that many employees are foreign, expect some of that money to be sent out of the country. (Again, I highlight my lack of macro-economic knowledge.)

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:25

Probably best explained as "one man's expenditure is another man's income".

That is to say that if a government spends £100 of cash on goods, it doesn't just end up with £100 worth of goods and that's the end of the story.

Rather the government ends up with £100 of goods and the supplier ends up with £100 of cash. If the supplier then spends that £100 of cash on more goods, someone else earns £100 in exchange for their goods.

At this point two people have made a total of £200 in return for a total of £200 goods being transferred between parties, which was all started by just £100 being spent by the government.

Now multiply this by a ridiculous amount of money and transactions and you'll see that government spending can be used to stimulate private sector growth.

Edited by youngsyr on Friday 7th January 12:33

Sorry, that maths doesn't make sense. It sounds like labour budgeting statistics made up to fool people. There's still just £100 floating about and goods have been exchanged. At some point, it will end up back in the government coffers and nobody has more money. The goods will just have a different owner. Am I being thick?

[mondeoman]

youngsyr said:

ShadownINja said:

youngsyr said:

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

Can you explain this to me, too? If it's money coming from taxation then how can it lead to real economic growth? It's just money being circulated, surely? In fact, given that many employees are foreign, expect some of that money to be sent out of the country. (Again, I highlight my lack of macro-economic knowledge.)

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:25

Probably best explained as "one man's expenditure is another man's income".

That is to say that if a government spends £100 of cash on goods, it doesn't just end up with £100 worth of goods and that's the end of the story.

Rather the government ends up with £100 of goods and the supplier ends up with £100 of cash. If the supplier then spends that £100 of cash on more goods, someone else earns £100 in exchange for their goods.

At this point two people have made a total of £200 each in return for a total of £200 goods being transferred between parties, which was all started by just £100 being spent by the government.

Now multiply this by a ridiculous amount of money and transactions and you'll see that government spending can be used to stimulate private sector growth.

Ah - but you forgot about the VAT and corporation tax and income tax and fuel tax and road tax and council tax and insurance tax and packaging tax and parking space tax and road tolls and being alive tax and because we can tax and - so that £100 spend actually means 2p in someone elses pocket....

[oyster]

We've had a nasty recession so no-one expects the books to be balanced right now (if they do they they're an idiot), but what we do expect is that we live within our means and we haven't done so since about 2000. Even Tony Blair admits they spent too much - quite why the Tories don't mention this a bit more often I'll never know.

But here's the biggest defence of spending more than revenue - you will not get caught. Labour did it and had 13 years in power and when it comes home to roost it is not their problem anymore. Unless we have 10 or even 20 year parliamentary terms then this won't change.


Oh and another factor - who is more popular, the friend who has the coolest clothes, nice car and goes out every weekend but is in debt, or the friend who stays in a lot, dresses in old clothes but has a healthy savings account? Don't underestimate the stupidity of the public at large.

[JensenA]

youngsyr said:

ShadownINja said:

youngsyr said:

My understanding of Labour's criticism of the ConDem policies is that the ConDem cuts will also cut economic growth, possibly by an amount greater than the savings, therefore reducing these cuts could actually reduce the deficit.

Can you explain this to me, too? If it's money coming from taxation then how can it lead to real economic growth? It's just money being circulated, surely? In fact, given that many employees are foreign, expect some of that money to be sent out of the country. (Again, I highlight my lack of macro-economic knowledge.)

Edited by ShadownINja on Friday 7th January 12:25

Probably best explained as "one man's expenditure is another man's income".

That is to say that if a government spends £100 of cash on goods, it doesn't just end up with £100 worth of goods and that's the end of the story.

Rather the government ends up with £100 of goods and the supplier ends up with £100 of cash. If the supplier then spends that £100 of cash on more goods, someone else earns £100 in exchange for their goods.

At this point two people have made a total of £200 in return for a total of £200 goods being transferred between parties, which was all started by just £100 being spent by the government.

Now multiply this by a ridiculous amount of money and transactions and you'll see that government spending can be used to stimulate private sector growth.

Edited by youngsyr on Friday 7th January 12:33

Where did the Government get that original £100 from? They borrowed it.