If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News1 min ago
Do Labour Think Middle England Are Thick?
71 Answers
Balls seems to think hitting higher rate taxpayers (those over 150K a year so not exactly millionaires) with a punitive tax rate will attract voters.
OK, tax of envy does go down with staunch labour voters, but like the Tories that is not who he is trying to attract.
On both sides the party faithful are there already it is middle England that giveth and taketh and the majority of them are not bought by taxing the, well not very, rich. (Lets remember the real rich will have good accountants and wont pay anyway, you just hit hard working entrepreneurs)
So, is this another Balls up?
http://
OK, tax of envy does go down with staunch labour voters, but like the Tories that is not who he is trying to attract.
On both sides the party faithful are there already it is middle England that giveth and taketh and the majority of them are not bought by taxing the, well not very, rich. (Lets remember the real rich will have good accountants and wont pay anyway, you just hit hard working entrepreneurs)
So, is this another Balls up?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
DTCwordfan
That link does not say the deficit is repaid or is going down. It says we are STILL borrowing (like I said). But we are borrowing less this year than last year. Hurrah.
But the promise to pay back our debts in the term of this parliament is laughably very wide of the present reality - that it is still rising, albeit, at a slower rate last year.
That link does not say the deficit is repaid or is going down. It says we are STILL borrowing (like I said). But we are borrowing less this year than last year. Hurrah.
But the promise to pay back our debts in the term of this parliament is laughably very wide of the present reality - that it is still rising, albeit, at a slower rate last year.
emmie, more than half of GPs earn less than £100,000
http://
http://
Beware of the difference between “deficit” and “debt”, Gromit.
The annual deficit is the difference between what comes in and what goes out (as per Mr Micawber). The debt is the total money the nation owes. So although the deficit may be reducing, because we are still running a deficit the debt will continue to increase.
So, to your question “Is the deficit paid off?” The answer is not “No“. The answer is that the deficit cannot be paid off - it can only reduce to zero or change into a surplus. There is also some measure of confusion later on:
“That link does not say the deficit is repaid or is going down.”
Yes it does. Bearing in mind that the question is wrong (because the deficit cannot be repaid), it says the UK’s deficit for the first eight months of the year was £4.8bn lower than the same period last year. So by those figures the deficit is reducing (though, of course, debt is continuing to increase).
“But the promise to pay back our debts in the term of this parliament is laughably very wide of the present reality... “
The Coalition did not undertake to pay off the nation’s debts by 2015. It undertook to reduce the deficit to zero. They are still unlikely to achieve that goal, but it is a very different goal.
But anyway, enough semantics and back to the point. Mr Balls’s proposal will raise, at best, about £100m a year. The easiest way to save a hundred times that amount is to cut overseas aid to nil because the country should not be borrowing money to give to other people whilst threatening to raise taxes - even if the increases are only for the “filthy rich”.
The annual deficit is the difference between what comes in and what goes out (as per Mr Micawber). The debt is the total money the nation owes. So although the deficit may be reducing, because we are still running a deficit the debt will continue to increase.
So, to your question “Is the deficit paid off?” The answer is not “No“. The answer is that the deficit cannot be paid off - it can only reduce to zero or change into a surplus. There is also some measure of confusion later on:
“That link does not say the deficit is repaid or is going down.”
Yes it does. Bearing in mind that the question is wrong (because the deficit cannot be repaid), it says the UK’s deficit for the first eight months of the year was £4.8bn lower than the same period last year. So by those figures the deficit is reducing (though, of course, debt is continuing to increase).
“But the promise to pay back our debts in the term of this parliament is laughably very wide of the present reality... “
The Coalition did not undertake to pay off the nation’s debts by 2015. It undertook to reduce the deficit to zero. They are still unlikely to achieve that goal, but it is a very different goal.
But anyway, enough semantics and back to the point. Mr Balls’s proposal will raise, at best, about £100m a year. The easiest way to save a hundred times that amount is to cut overseas aid to nil because the country should not be borrowing money to give to other people whilst threatening to raise taxes - even if the increases are only for the “filthy rich”.
jtp // As for gaining votes - it's not the politics of envy rather the politics of outrage.
People think (whether it's true or not) that top earners are not feeling their living standards erode the way the rest of us are. They feel that we are *not* 'all in it together' and top earners are using loopholes to dodge the law. //
Sounds a bit like envy then.
I find it a strange policy. I can't see it winning them many new votes.
People think (whether it's true or not) that top earners are not feeling their living standards erode the way the rest of us are. They feel that we are *not* 'all in it together' and top earners are using loopholes to dodge the law. //
Sounds a bit like envy then.
I find it a strange policy. I can't see it winning them many new votes.
It smacks of the very image that Labour tried for so long to shake off: that being richer than most of the electorate is evil or wrong, that those who are should be made to pay ("soak the rich"), that socialism is always to be preferred to capitalism, that free enterprise is anathema...all the stuff that Old Labour stood for.
Who seriously thinks that this is to raise £100 million? It's the message not the moolah that matters; somebody thinks that this appeals to ordinary people. Ordinary people really don't care that a footballer earns £8 million, £10 million or £15 million a year or that he may pay 5% more on all but £150,000 of it (as if he would). They do care when someone gets millions for quitting their job; it doesn't seem right; but the earnings are beyond their area of worry.
Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair changed the thinking of the country or, rather, recognised that there was a new young middle class to whom that didn't appeal, though it had to their grandparents. Our Shadow Chancellor hasn't noticed.
Who seriously thinks that this is to raise £100 million? It's the message not the moolah that matters; somebody thinks that this appeals to ordinary people. Ordinary people really don't care that a footballer earns £8 million, £10 million or £15 million a year or that he may pay 5% more on all but £150,000 of it (as if he would). They do care when someone gets millions for quitting their job; it doesn't seem right; but the earnings are beyond their area of worry.
Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair changed the thinking of the country or, rather, recognised that there was a new young middle class to whom that didn't appeal, though it had to their grandparents. Our Shadow Chancellor hasn't noticed.
I haven't got the figures but would not be at all surprised.
Much of the debt has accrued because of interest payments on the huge debt built up since 2008. The economy was not going to suddenly be revived from the dead on 2nd May 2010. Of course that debt could have been reduced far more quickly had the government cut out waste and sqaundering but then they are damned if they do cut spending and damned if they run an increased debt. Alas we can only have one or the other.
Much of the debt has accrued because of interest payments on the huge debt built up since 2008. The economy was not going to suddenly be revived from the dead on 2nd May 2010. Of course that debt could have been reduced far more quickly had the government cut out waste and sqaundering but then they are damned if they do cut spending and damned if they run an increased debt. Alas we can only have one or the other.
New Judge
The figures are here
http://
The figures are here
http://
-- answer removed --
Fred,
We will never know. However, I remember Labour having a few initiatives to restart the economy, or at least stop it from collapsing.
There was the temporary reduction in VAT. And then the scrappage scheme to encourage car sales.
In the last 4 years we have had nothing. The economy has stagnated, and tax yeilds have not met expectations. Instead of paying off the deficit, we have made just a small reduction of it.
We will never know. However, I remember Labour having a few initiatives to restart the economy, or at least stop it from collapsing.
There was the temporary reduction in VAT. And then the scrappage scheme to encourage car sales.
In the last 4 years we have had nothing. The economy has stagnated, and tax yeilds have not met expectations. Instead of paying off the deficit, we have made just a small reduction of it.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.