Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu
I am a definate yes, Since this government has been in we have;
CUTS in nearly every service going, Now we have the armed services being cut, the Armed services keep our shores safe,
AND yet they are giving millions of pounds to overseas countries and today Cameron agreed to give a country 600 Million pounds in aid.
WE pay our taxes, and we the ones being shafted.
|
How much tax have you paid this year Arthur? If you want shafting this is how much I gave the government as of 28th February 2011 for the year 2010-2011
PAYE to date 29147.33
Net Nat Ins Employees 4381.96
Net Nat Ins Employers 11314.82
You actually just got a tax cut, paid for by a tax rise for me and everyone else who now pays top rate tax.
So presumably I should pay more as cuts are impossible to consider and we can't really borrow any more with borrowing already going up to >80% GDP even on the OBR's rather selective figures?
---------- Post added at 22:39 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
funny enough that budget was even ringfenced. Another oddity for a country that is supposedbly close to calling the IMF.
|
No-one suggested that we are 'close' to calling in the IMF.
---------- Post added at 22:43 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
The welfare state clearly will boost the economy as people are given the ability to spend when they otherwise would be out on the streets, someone on the streests with no money isnt buying anything from shops, not renting from a landlord and so on. Whilst a benefit claimant is doing those things, even if its not earnt money it is still been done. Taxation and welfare is enforced circulation of money which is crucial to an economy, if money stops circulating then the economy stops with it.
|
The welfare state will still exist, people won't be dumped en masse onto the streets. You're, again, exaggerating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Same principles to other government spending, it is enforced circulation of money, it makes jobs that would otherwise probably not exist and supplies work to the private sector. Reduced taxation/spending would make 'some' people better of, I dont dispute this however the benefit would be to a minority of society who dont depend on any part of the state. There is a magnitude of reasons why rely on just the private sector for growth isnt going to work, one been that we now live in a global marketplace, the uk competes with other countries for business. There is cheaper countries to employ staff and cheaper countries to set up businesses. The best days are behind us. What we going to see over the next decades is the wealth shift from western countries to developing countries as a balance correction. The only thing that can truly save us in a way you will like is if we develop something that can be exported en masse and create employment here. The problem is we tend to sell the invention rather than the product as its a quicker profit.
|
The section I put into bold speaks volumes. There are reasons why those jobs otherwise wouldn't exist.
Again for money to be put into public spending it has to be taken out via taxation, either now or later with interest paid in the interim. Far more elegant and efficient to just leave that money in people's pockets to spend as they see fit. Lower taxes encourage investment and consumption and incentivise work and enterprise both on a national and internationally competitive basis.
You would love the kind of cuts I would institute, I would have the state providing basic services, health care and a social security safety net and as little as possible outside of this core mission. If people want those additional services I'll keep the taxes down so that they have the money to go and purchase them themselves. Now that's ideological
