George Osborne's autumn statement 2011

[slowcoach]

Originally Posted by martyh

cut hours of work? ban 12 hour shifts? are you nuts ?

all that will achieve is to reduce productivity and increase companies overheads as they struggle to maintain a level of productivity to remain viable because some nutter banned 12 hour shifts .Many people who work 12 hr shifts rely on the overtime or bonuses achieved by working the extra hours

When we had the three day week production went up, the Country produced more in three days than we had previously done in five, as someone who went through the three day week I found that having more time off resulted in me going into work totally refreshed and able to work twice as hard. I never understood why firms went back to a five day week resulting in higher overheads and lower productivity.

Originally Posted by mertle

squeezing the wrong people then seeing there austerity going to the toilet they squeeze more out the wrong people. Someone should tell osbourne you cant get blood out of stone but he sure trying hard.

When will this GOVERNMENT wake up do what will raise £££ and work on reducing deficet by the right way.

Leave the poor and low wages alone let them and middle class spend try drive and boost the economy.

Ignitionnet your right land tax might be good fund raiser.

Its absolute bonkers leadership will make FORCAST there latest fiasco will fail miserably we will just end up not decreasing but increase it. They wont even get close 2016 they listening to the wrong people who thinks where money can get raised.

The tax on bonuses got to be another great idea although my fear would they just trough more to ofset it.

I would not be suprised VAT will hit everything to try raise capital such essensial food. The way this government acting it must be on the cards.

Austerity was very clever ploy by the rich to put lesser well off back in there place. I really starting to believe this was all staged to create a bigger wealth bubble. However these silly rich who done it forgot who going to buy the goods which drive the economy. Minions who getting crushed spend they money that creates there wealth and drives jobs.

This will hurt private sector jobs like no tomorrow we will see waves unemployment. The world can recover but it need to be done properly.

Nobody say tax rich to hilth just make sure they pay there obligation.

I will say this there modern atitudes stink bet they would never give up some of there wealth like past wealthy did to support the war effort like those before.

This may not be using the gun but it is war like scenerio the COUNTRY NEEDS YOU to do the honourable thing stop offshoring wealth in tax havens. Pay up what you owe let country get back on its feet.

We could show the world the way with honesty commitment.

I am sure there are some good points in there, but I am sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to say....

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes they do ,they are trying to reduce borrowing, get unemployment down and reduce public spending ,for the forseable future that will be their policy .In this thread you stated you would prefer tax increases to cuts ,i'm sure that Osborne and the rest have considered that option but dismissed it because it doesn't help in reducing public spending/borrowing that much if unemployment is rising and will always be the most unpopular option

Borrowing and unemployment have risen since this govenment took office, none of the main parties has a plan to help briain at all and i do not konw any party that has a plan to help brtiain either!

[ntluser]

I think the sad truth is that the government will have to raise more money through tax rises, but protect the poor and vulnerable at the same time.

To make pensions sustainable in the future and to prevent further redundancies they will need to reduce the public sector wage bill, not by making people redundant but by having phased reductions in salary with those at the top end taking the bigger hit.

Since 1997 we have had cost of living increases and rises which have led us to the position we are in. We now need to reverse this process not only with wages but also with prices.People need to be given time to learn to live on less so that the transition is relatively painless.

We also need to get the unemployed into work of some form as the country cannot sustain the benefits burden it is carrying.Some are already are doing some kind on training but others are sitting at home waiting for a job to turn up. The private sector is struggling. Providing them with free workers from the benefit-paid unemployed will give the unemployed work experience and training as well as aiding companies to generate the growth we need.

The government itself, through its job centres, needs to organise unemployed builders, plumber, electrians etc into small businesses and pay them to renovate the million or so unused homes so that they can be used. If each of those homes was fitted with solar panels the country would have a million mini-power stations suplying electricity to the national grid.

We have no growth because the government is expecting a battered private sector to employ the unemployed and generate growth in the harshest of economic conditions.

What we need is for the government through strategic planning to mobilise its agencies to organise and assign the unemployed to specific tasks. At the moment everyone is dithering and we have economic inertia. Instead of putting aside funds for various tasks e.g. enterprise zones etc government needs to lead the way organising the unemployed because otherwise all that happens is that the money stays there in the public purse doing nothing.

Someone once said that money is like manure, it doesn't do any good unless you spread it around.That's very true and we need to get government money circulating to get the unemployed back to work.

It is possible to address the nation's problems. They can be organised away with a bit of creativity and planning and a lot of good will all around. With government, employers, unions and workers all pulling in the same direction to revive the economy we cannot fail.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ntluser

I think the sad truth is that the government will have to raise more money through tax rises, but protect the poor and vulnerable at the same time.

Not really, just reducing the amount of money they spend below 42% of our entire national output should be fine.

Further tax rises will threaten growth further.

[ntluser]

Unfortunately, the government tends to see redundancies as the main means to make spending cuts and redundancies mean increased unemployment benefit payouts.

Increased income can be used to both generate growth and reduce the black hole in the pensions funds.

Basically, the government does not have enough funds to support its commitments.

[Ignitionnet]

Taxing people and then spending the money for them does not and will never generate growth. People power economies not governments which is why tax reductions, not tax rises, are traditionally used to stimulate economies. The more money people are left with the more they can spend on goods and services from other people.

If it were as easy as taxing and spending more everyone would do it.

Targeted spending is fine but does not create long term growth. Increasing taxes would sap that growth.

[ntluser]

I guess, as always, we'll have to see what actions the government takes and what the consequences of those actions are.

[NitroNutter]

Seems Brown may have kept one pledge alive and lastingly so as they have left the potential of an era of stagnation that could last at least another term after this.

And he said his maths was never any good ?

[Chrysalis]

I see he is following gordons trend in predicting high growth and then revising downwards, something he attacked.

To those who think taxes stem growth here is a question.

I would agree to a policy like this.

"We will cut taxes businesses pay on the agreement at least 80% of the tax savings are invested instead of taken home as profits or paid to shareholders, this investment must also be for uk job creation within the uk and not abroad"

Give it 6 months to a year and if business dont comply then, enforce higher taxes and force investment via the public sector because whichever way we look at it, growth doesnt happen without investment, it has to come from somewhere.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Providing them with free workers from the benefit-paid unemployed will give the unemployed work experience and training as well as aiding companies to generate the growth we need.

Disregarding the fact that there is a minimum wage law in this country, and they would usually have to pay a ful working wage to all those that will now be working for free (just their benefits)?

I suppose we could say that it was the unemployed that fixed this country by working for free in 10 or so years.

I've just had a thought. what about if we all gave up our usual weekly wage packet and worked for the equivelant of someone unemployed is expected to work for?

All those in favour, just grunt

[Dai]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Unfortunately, the government tends to see redundancies as the main means to make spending cuts and redundancies mean increased unemployment benefit payouts.

Equally unfortunately, that actually works.

Unemployment benefit is usually much less than the salary payment.

Both come from the taxpayer's purse so it actually does save money to make people unemployed.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by ntluser

I think the sad truth is that the government will have to raise more money through tax rises, but protect the poor and vulnerable at the same time.

To make pensions sustainable in the future and to prevent further redundancies they will need to reduce the public sector wage bill, not by making people redundant but by having phased reductions in salary with those at the top end taking the bigger hit.

Since 1997 we have had cost of living increases and rises which have led us to the position we are in. We now need to reverse this process not only with wages but also with prices.People need to be given time to learn to live on less so that the transition is relatively painless.

We also need to get the unemployed into work of some form as the country cannot sustain the benefits burden it is carrying.Some are already are doing some kind on training but others are sitting at home waiting for a job to turn up. The private sector is struggling. Providing them with free workers from the benefit-paid unemployed will give the unemployed work experience and training as well as aiding companies to generate the growth we need.

The government itself, through its job centres, needs to organise unemployed builders, plumber, electrians etc into small businesses and pay them to renovate the million or so unused homes so that they can be used. If each of those homes was fitted with solar panels the country would have a million mini-power stations suplying electricity to the national grid.

We have no growth because the government is expecting a battered private sector to employ the unemployed and generate growth in the harshest of economic conditions.

What we need is for the government through strategic planning to mobilise its agencies to organise and assign the unemployed to specific tasks. At the moment everyone is dithering and we have economic inertia. Instead of putting aside funds for various tasks e.g. enterprise zones etc government needs to lead the way organising the unemployed because otherwise all that happens is that the money stays there in the public purse doing nothing.

Someone once said that money is like manure, it doesn't do any good unless you spread it around.That's very true and we need to get government money circulating to get the unemployed back to work.

It is possible to address the nation's problems. They can be organised away with a bit of creativity and planning and a lot of good will all around. With government, employers, unions and workers all pulling in the same direction to revive the economy we cannot fail.

For once a post that makes sense!

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

For once a post that makes sense!

Compared to yours -yes.....

tbf, that is a very low baseline.