Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News1 min ago
Is Obama spending too much? Are tax cuts for the wealthy the answer?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. 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.
This "all in it together" angle is interesting rhetoric, but is it borne out by fact? Not according to this article, from yesterdays Independent. What it does appear to illustrate is that the gulf between the richest and poorest in this country is widening even faster than it was under Labour, and that the idea of a "trickle-down effect" - cutting taxes aids the wealthy, who in turn create jobs for those at the bottom end of society - does not stand up to close scrutiny.
http://www.independen...-hot-air-2319907.html
When Osborne, Cameron and the rest piously lecture all of us on the need for swingeing cuts to public spending, the need for an " age of austerity", the need for us all to volunteer to do more for our fellow man , *the big society " (free of charge, of course), and that we all share the pain - "we are all in this together" - The economic arguments underpinning this article all suggest that none of the above is true.
There is a treasury report coming out on the effect of cutting the 50% tax on those who earn over £150,000 pa and it will be interesting to read - but tax cuts for the extremely wealthy does not seem a responsible way of cutting public spending and "rebalancing the economy" as far as I can see........
http://www.independen...-hot-air-2319907.html
When Osborne, Cameron and the rest piously lecture all of us on the need for swingeing cuts to public spending, the need for an " age of austerity", the need for us all to volunteer to do more for our fellow man , *the big society " (free of charge, of course), and that we all share the pain - "we are all in this together" - The economic arguments underpinning this article all suggest that none of the above is true.
There is a treasury report coming out on the effect of cutting the 50% tax on those who earn over £150,000 pa and it will be interesting to read - but tax cuts for the extremely wealthy does not seem a responsible way of cutting public spending and "rebalancing the economy" as far as I can see........
Of course jake thats all the wealthy buy. They dont hirelabourfor their homes or workplace as many are self made do they.
An article by the independant is anything but.
50% of your money plus ni is alot regardless of what you earn. Those that moan should get off their backsides and do something about their own life so they get more.
An article by the independant is anything but.
50% of your money plus ni is alot regardless of what you earn. Those that moan should get off their backsides and do something about their own life so they get more.
Sorry jake, you cannot have it both ways.
Time and again within these pages you have countenanced that increased immigration is vital to the well being of the UK and that the nation simply cannot survive without huge imports of labour to sustain the economy and run vital (and not so vital) services. I have consistently argued against this policy suggesting that it is unsustainable and that anyway a large proportion of the money earned or claimed in benefits by the incomers is sent “back home” with no apparent benefit to the UK economy. Now it is suggested that, were they to be allowed to retain a bit more of their earnings, the better off might employ a few people and you denigrate this suggestion by saying that it will only benefit the economies of Gdansk and Manilla. So which is it to be today?
It is clearly preposterous to take 50% or more of a person’s income simply because “they can afford it”. I expect it under a Labour government, I do not expect it under a Conservative led administration (even one which has to pander to the whims and fancies of a spoonful of LibDems) and that just about shows up the Cameron regime for what it is. I could afford to part with 50% of my income. I most certainly would not die as a result and I’d still be reasonably well off. But why should I? It would seriously alter my lifestyle which I have worked hard to achieve.
The notion that the wealthy would only squander their riches on foreign goods is scarcely their fault. The range of quality UK produced “big ticket” goods is hardly overwhelming and, as we are constantly being told we live in a global economy why should they be constrained to buying only UK produced goods? In any case, almost all of their additional spending that would ensue by being less harshly taxed would be subject to VAT so the Exchequer would get 40% of the waived income tax back anyway. Then of course there is business for the retailers which sell the goods to take into account.
I would be far happier to comply with the alleged austerity measures that are being widely announced if only they resulted in a reduction in public spending. But they do not. Last month the government spent more than it did in the same month last year. Hardly surprising when it is involved in two foreign escapades that have no clear objective, no identifiable benefit to the UK and no foreseeable end date; when it squanders upwards of £12bn p.a. on “overseas development” which is nothing of the sort; when it pledges £billions in “loans” to eurozone countries that have already borrowed way beyond their means; and when “Doctor” Vince Cable dismisses as “Right Wing nutters” some US politicians who are trying to rein in their President's policy of borrowing even more money that will never be repaid.
Time and again within these pages you have countenanced that increased immigration is vital to the well being of the UK and that the nation simply cannot survive without huge imports of labour to sustain the economy and run vital (and not so vital) services. I have consistently argued against this policy suggesting that it is unsustainable and that anyway a large proportion of the money earned or claimed in benefits by the incomers is sent “back home” with no apparent benefit to the UK economy. Now it is suggested that, were they to be allowed to retain a bit more of their earnings, the better off might employ a few people and you denigrate this suggestion by saying that it will only benefit the economies of Gdansk and Manilla. So which is it to be today?
It is clearly preposterous to take 50% or more of a person’s income simply because “they can afford it”. I expect it under a Labour government, I do not expect it under a Conservative led administration (even one which has to pander to the whims and fancies of a spoonful of LibDems) and that just about shows up the Cameron regime for what it is. I could afford to part with 50% of my income. I most certainly would not die as a result and I’d still be reasonably well off. But why should I? It would seriously alter my lifestyle which I have worked hard to achieve.
The notion that the wealthy would only squander their riches on foreign goods is scarcely their fault. The range of quality UK produced “big ticket” goods is hardly overwhelming and, as we are constantly being told we live in a global economy why should they be constrained to buying only UK produced goods? In any case, almost all of their additional spending that would ensue by being less harshly taxed would be subject to VAT so the Exchequer would get 40% of the waived income tax back anyway. Then of course there is business for the retailers which sell the goods to take into account.
I would be far happier to comply with the alleged austerity measures that are being widely announced if only they resulted in a reduction in public spending. But they do not. Last month the government spent more than it did in the same month last year. Hardly surprising when it is involved in two foreign escapades that have no clear objective, no identifiable benefit to the UK and no foreseeable end date; when it squanders upwards of £12bn p.a. on “overseas development” which is nothing of the sort; when it pledges £billions in “loans” to eurozone countries that have already borrowed way beyond their means; and when “Doctor” Vince Cable dismisses as “Right Wing nutters” some US politicians who are trying to rein in their President's policy of borrowing even more money that will never be repaid.
The USA needs to borrow more money to create growth, invent a job for everyone in the public sector, and then let everyone retire at 55 on a huge pension, like Greece has done so successfully.
As everyone who owns a credit card knows, the solution to debt is to always keep extending your credit limit. A bit of limagination and lateral thinking is needed to solve these problems.
As everyone who owns a credit card knows, the solution to debt is to always keep extending your credit limit. A bit of limagination and lateral thinking is needed to solve these problems.
It is reasonable to take 50% or more of a person’s income since it shows that they have managed to extract vast more wealth from society for themselves than can be justified from what they have done. It is the idea that one person is actually worth millions more than another simply because their skill is in, say, making decisions at board level instead of, say, caring for those in society that need attention that causes massive inequality.
Finally the government has accepted the concept of a minimum wage showing that no one's toil is worth less than a particular level; but they have yet to grasp the concept of a maximum income where income above this shows the ability has been simply to attract an unfair share of society's wealth, and which, in fairness, should be returned.
It beats me how one can swallow the, "You don't have much so you must take all the pain, but these folk have much so they must be allowed to keep more", argument. I can understand the 'haves' trying it on, but not the 'have nots' accepting it.
Finally the government has accepted the concept of a minimum wage showing that no one's toil is worth less than a particular level; but they have yet to grasp the concept of a maximum income where income above this shows the ability has been simply to attract an unfair share of society's wealth, and which, in fairness, should be returned.
It beats me how one can swallow the, "You don't have much so you must take all the pain, but these folk have much so they must be allowed to keep more", argument. I can understand the 'haves' trying it on, but not the 'have nots' accepting it.
New Judge
Time and Time again I've said immigration is vital to the country - the right kind of immigration.
I'll repeat it again because you're obviously not getting the message.
We need people to come and live here and settle here with their famillies.
We don't want transient workers coming here earning money and sending it all back home out of the economy.
We need to do more to encourage people to settle here if they're going to be working here
Time and Time again I've said immigration is vital to the country - the right kind of immigration.
I'll repeat it again because you're obviously not getting the message.
We need people to come and live here and settle here with their famillies.
We don't want transient workers coming here earning money and sending it all back home out of the economy.
We need to do more to encourage people to settle here if they're going to be working here
As long as they don't work as a nanny or au pair for a well off family then, jake. And as long as they don't send any money "home". I'm sure that's easily achievable.
We don't actually need any immigration to the UK - right kind or otherwise. We have upwards of five million unemployed souls many of whom just might be employable. A vast majority of jobs taken by immigrants are low paid low skilled and the five million continue to languish on the dole.
Any skills shortage that there is in the UK is the fault of the education system (which shows no signs of improvement even though the skills issue has been known about for years if not decades).
I'm afraid I can't really address the points you made, Old_Geezer, with any degree of sincerity, other than to suggest you join the Communist Party.
We don't actually need any immigration to the UK - right kind or otherwise. We have upwards of five million unemployed souls many of whom just might be employable. A vast majority of jobs taken by immigrants are low paid low skilled and the five million continue to languish on the dole.
Any skills shortage that there is in the UK is the fault of the education system (which shows no signs of improvement even though the skills issue has been known about for years if not decades).
I'm afraid I can't really address the points you made, Old_Geezer, with any degree of sincerity, other than to suggest you join the Communist Party.
From your chart Bush has been the main cause for getting into such a deficit. His tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the major mistakes that the country couldn;t afford.
Obviously an independent observer would say those tax cuts should be reversed and to hasten the exit from Afghanistan.
Obamas expenditure seems paltry compared with that of Bush so there is little he could do to reverse his policies.
Obviously an independent observer would say those tax cuts should be reversed and to hasten the exit from Afghanistan.
Obamas expenditure seems paltry compared with that of Bush so there is little he could do to reverse his policies.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Technology3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Looks Like Bob The Builder Has Done A...
News4 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.