[BnB]

Originally Posted by Dyl

You think experts in tax avoidance pay "lots" of tax? I put it to you that they probably don't pay the same % as an average U.K. employee.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I can assure you that Tax lawyers in the UK pay 45% income tax rate. It's the pool I swim in. Offshore tax avoidance providers on the other hand indulge in all sorts of avoidance/evasion but then they aren't in the UK!!

[mcoops]

Every day I just feel angrier and more despondent about Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell. The poll gap is narrowing to the Tories based on their manifesto, which does have some bonkers stuff in it, but also some appealing policies. If they had different leadership, it could all have been so different.

At least the economy will be safe in the hands of the Tories eh? Look at the cracking job they've done with it over the last 7 years. Yes, austerity has been hard, but that deficit has come right down hasn't it? Oh wait...

Still, they should at least get credit for getting near-full employment by cleverly allowing big business to make everyone their own boss with no benefits or employment rights and less than minimum wage. Don't you just love wealth creation and the good old trickle-down effect?

Never mind, there's always Brexit. The EU negotiators must be trembling in their boots looking at May's performances under pressure with Neil and Paxman.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by mcoops

At least the economy will be safe in the hands of the Tories eh? Look at the cracking job they've done with it over the last 7 years. Yes, austerity has been hard, but that deficit has come right down hasn't it? Oh wait...

Not sure how to break this to you without spoiling the rant, but yes the deficit has come right down.



Are you Diane Abbott?

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JD6

Not sure how to break this to you without spoiling the rant, but yes the deficit has come right down.

I think that is the annual deficit - but as we are still running a deficit each year the overall debt has actually gone up...

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say....

[Dyl]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I think that is the annual deficit - but as we are still running a deficit each year the overall debt has actually gone up...

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say....

...

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I think that is the annual deficit - but as we are still running a deficit each year the overall debt has actually gone up...

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say....

You are right. As far as I recall, Cameron and Osborne were clear (in 2010) that it was about reducing the annual deficit until we got to the point that we could begin reducing the overall debt.

Thanks to Brown and the global situation, they inherited a mess in 2010 and it was never going to be anything but an uphill struggle for the length of the Parliament and more. All the same, I am sure we were meant to be in a better position now than we actually are (i.e. that graph should have dropped faster).

mcoops completely agree on Corbyn, Abbot et al. A complete bunch of clowns who are as un-electable as any that we have ever seen. In a parallel universe, D.Milliband's or A.N.Other's New Labour leadership group would be looking like favourites for this election.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I think that is the annual deficit - but as we are still running a deficit each year the overall debt has actually gone up...

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say....

Well of course the debt has gone up while we still have a deficit . That wasn't the point that was being made. If you inherit a huge deficit, the only way you could stop debt going up at all is extreme austerity and savage cuts, which isn't sensible. The Tories have done it rather more gently with mild austerity, and it appears to be working - the deficit is shrinking quickly, unemployment is very low and the economy has performed pretty well,

The Tories have made their fair share of mistakes and crap decisions (such as Brexit), but this isn't one of them IMO.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I think that is the annual deficit - but as we are still running a deficit each year the overall debt has actually gone up...

Lies, damn lies and statistics, as they say....

No lies there (assuming that the graph is accurate). Deficit and debt are entirely different things, as the second graph shows.

The Tories always claimed they would tackle the deficit, and to a large degree they have. Unfortunately too many people interpreted it as reducing the national debt. Debt, both in outright terms and as a proportion of GDP, is absolutely huge and will take a very very long time to reduce to acceptable levels.

[mcoops]

Crikey, you guys are fast. My fault - in my haste (rant) I wrote deficit when I meant debt. And yes, fair play, deficit has reduced over that period. That said, OBR reckon there's a good chance it's going to head back up. And of course the Tories have now given themselves until 2026 to clear it (the deficit, not the debt) down.

[TouringPleb]

Corbyn does an Abbott!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Watsey

No lies there (assuming that the graph is accurate). Deficit and debt are entirely different things, as the second graph shows.

The Tories always claimed they would tackle the deficit, and to a large degree they have. Unfortunately too many people interpreted it as reducing the national debt. Debt, both in outright terms and as a proportion of GDP, is absolutely huge and will take a very very long time to reduce to acceptable levels.

The point I was making is that it is very easy to spin the same thing different ways - falling deficit, increasing debt, is it better than it was / should be / could be.

They havent done what they said they would - they reset their target for when we would stop being in deficit. And if you aremt actually getting the debt down this way - just slowing the rate of increase - then should you be looking at another way?

[Dyl]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

they reset their target for when we would stop being in deficit.

At every election.

2010: Eliminate Deficit by 2014/15

2015: Eliminate by 2018/19

2017: Eliminate by 2025/26

[JD6]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

The point I was making is that it is very easy to spin the same thing different ways - falling deficit, increasing debt, is it better than it was / should be / could be.

They havent done what they said they would - they reset their target for when we would stop being in deficit. And if you aremt actually getting the debt down this way - just slowing the rate of increase - then should you be looking at another way?

I think you may need to brush up on your economics a little. Debt was never going to drop during the last parliament and it was never forecast to. The economy is like a supertanker - it takes a very long time to turn it round without crashing it!

Yes the deficit has gone down at a slower rate than anticipated, partly due to slower growth in the first few years, but they have broadly been following the path that they set out at the beginning.

They could have reduced the deficit faster by cutting more, but presumably you would then be accusing them of savage austerity and putting lives/eduction/prosperity at risk. They can't do anything right in your eyes unless they find a money tree - perhaps the same one that Corbyn is banking on to pay for free everything...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think you may need to brush up on your economics a little. Debt was never going to drop during the last parliament and it was never forecast to. The economy is like a supertanker - it takes a very long time to turn it round without crashing it!

Yes the deficit has gone down at a slower rate than anticipated, partly due to slower growth in the first few years, but they have broadly been following the path that they set out at the beginning.

They could have reduced the deficit faster by cutting more, but presumably you would then be accusing them of savage austerity and putting lives/eduction/prosperity at risk. They can't do anything right in your eyes unless they find a money tree - perhaps the same one that Corbyn is banking on to pay for free everything...

My economics is fine thanks - and I have no allegiance to either party. The point I was making is that they deliberately use language that creates a different impression to the average voter. Reducing the deficit sounds much better than slowing down how quickly our debt level increases. Its man maths at its best - the level of deficit isnt really important, the interest on the total debt level is much more relevant.

But to answer your last point - they have changed their dates on moving to surplus multiple times. Its very hard to project the future so I dont blame them for that. However, I do have an issue with how BOTH sides dress up their facts to try and sound like they are doing what they arent.

but my real gripe is that they tinker round the edges and dont really think of radical changes that might be needed to resolve these problems in a better way....

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by JD6

Yes the deficit has gone down at a slower rate than anticipated, partly due to slower growth in the first few years, but they have broadly been following the path that they set out at the beginning.

They could have reduced the deficit faster by cutting more, but presumably you would then be accusing them of savage austerity and putting lives/eduction/prosperity at risk. They can't do anything right in your eyes unless they find a money tree - perhaps the same one that Corbyn is banking on to pay for free everything...

This is where it all gets into a circular debate. To slightly channel Mrs Merton - who is responsible for the slower growth during 7 years of Conservative government? Or, if you like, the overly-optimistic original projection?

I think what some would like to have seen is some significant programmes of investment alongside the cuts.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think you may need to brush up on your economics a little. Debt was never going to drop during the last parliament and it was never forecast to. The economy is like a supertanker - it takes a very long time to turn it round without crashing it!

Yes the deficit has gone down at a slower rate than anticipated, partly due to slower growth in the first few years, but they have broadly been following the path that they set out at the beginning.

They could have reduced the deficit faster by cutting more, but presumably you would then be accusing them of savage austerity and putting lives/eduction/prosperity at risk. They can't do anything right in your eyes unless they find a money tree - perhaps the same one that Corbyn is banking on to pay for free everything...

Completely agree.

People complain about austerity, complain about tax, complain about the current reality.

Modest, sustainable changes in taxation and spending are obviously the way to go. Unfortunately too many people don't have the patience to see it through, and that's where Labour's mirage of the promised land scores big in desirability.

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Unfortunately too many people don't have the patience to see it through, and that's where Labour's mirage of the promised land scores big in desirability.

Easier for us to be patient in our 40 grand cars than in the queue for a food bank I'd venture.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Completely agree.

People complain about austerity, complain about tax, complain about the current reality.

Modest, sustainable changes in taxation and spending are obviously the way to go. Unfortunately too many people don't have the patience to see it through, and that's where Labour's mirage of the promised land scores big in desirability.

Patience to see what through? The end of the NHS, the ruination of the education system, police force broken and ineffective. Most of that's half way to completion now, won't take much longer anyway.

Anyone would think that we were the only country in the world with an older population. Austerity through public services is not the only way, it is just the EASY way.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by mcoops

Easy for us to be patient in our 40 grand cars than in the queue for a food bank I'd venture.

very true (although mine is 6 years old and only worth 10k!) - but lets be honest, the worst thing the Tories did was reduce the top rate of tax for higher paid individuals. Like it or not, it sent the wrong signal.

They should have kept that at 50% and increased the NI rate above the UEL to 3% and then 4% - and maybe at the same time increased the level at which you pay NI to be the same as tax free pay over life of parliament...

[MashinBenzin]

I'm currently dealing with the Conservatives and a couple of government departments; the lack of organisation, attention to detail and simple inability to address points accurately or coherently is shocking. What they are astoundingly good at is deflection, time-wasting, stone-walling and arse covering. They are world-class in all of those skills.

The tories are not pulling the wool over my eyes with the crock of crap that they push about their wise and stable governance.

Of course, [most of] the same incompetent senior civil servants will be doing the exact same job under Labour. They will just be working to different targets for a while.

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

very true (although mine is 6 years old and only worth 10k!) - but lets be honest, the worst thing the Tories did was reduce the top rate of tax for higher paid individuals. Like it or not, it sent the wrong signal.

They should have kept that at 50% and increased the NI rate above the UEL to 3% and then 4% - and maybe at the same time increased the level at which you pay NI to be the same as tax free pay over life of parliament...

When is a government do what seems common sense to me and combine income tax and national insurance? That way you would know exactly what percentage you pay rather than the current system where you pay this as such a rate and that at t'other rate..

Just a thought

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

When is a government do what seems common sense to me and combine income tax and national insurance? That way you would know exactly what percentage you pay rather than the current system where you pay this as such a rate and that at t'other rate..

Just a thought

Its more than a thought - its an absolute necessity. NI kicks in at £8k plus, but tax at £12k. NI drops from 12% to 2% after the UEL (about £45k I think).....

So you pay 12% from £8k ish to £12k, then 32% combined from 12k to 45k, then 42% from 45 to £100k, then you get the stupid bit where they take your tax free pay back so you effectively pay 62% up to £123k, from then you pay 42% again and then at £150k you pay 47% for all income above. Hardly progressive and easy to understand and explain.

Combine and make it grow from 15% at 12k to 55% at £150k in some sensible pattern would be so much better...