Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Would have to answer D.

 

But would have thought it depended on how much they gain from austerity measures compared to what they lose in benefit payments / hit to economy.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/47-of-people-think-the-deficit-would-increase-if-we-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-12

 

It's a doomsday device put in place to force the two parties to agree a middleground. It would reduce the deficit by $607 Billion with across the board spending cuts and tax increases.

 

It's meant to be so extreme that it forces the parties to compromise on less punitive policy.

 

Unfortunately, the fiscal cliff would ONLY cut the annual deficit by two thirds. Merely slowing the rate of growth of the national debt.

 

This is why the correct policy is to grow the economy, rather than throwing yourself off ever taller fiscal cliffs...as The Tories have been repeatedly doing for a few years now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ewerk

    2533

  • Rayvin

    2441

  • Christmas Tree

    2253

  • Renton

    1803

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

But surely.....    

Roses are red Violets are blue Please vote for Labour Unless you're a Jew

Posted Images

This is why the correct policy is to grow the economy, rather than throwing yourself off ever taller fiscal cliffs...as The Tories have been repeatedly doing for a few years now.

 

Exactly, George O must have been off sick on the day his school introduced the concept of ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

an international take on osborne's autumn statement

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/12/george-osbornes-journey-from-austerity-to-cruelty.html?mbid=social_retweet

 

George Osborne’s Game: From Austerity to Cruelty

 

 

Over at our Daily Comment blog, I’ve put up a longer post on the latest failure of austerity economics: the admission by George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, after two and half years of furious budget-cutting, he’s still failing to meet his own fiscal targets.

One thing I didn’t mention in that piece is that Osborne isn’t merely reaffirming his commitment to the deflationary economics of the early nineteen-thirties. He’s coupling it with an embrace of Reaganite trickle-down economics of the nineteen-eighties and the even harsher Benthamite economics of the eighteen-thirties. Earlier this year, he cut the top tax rate from fifty per cent to forty-five per cent, claiming that Britain’s highest earners needed incentivizing. Now, with roughly one in twelve working-age Britons out of a job, he’s cutting the value of unemployment benefits—a move that harkens back to the infamous Poor Law of 1834, which was designed to stigmatize paupers and vagrants.

 

Cutting the value of unemployment benefits won’t make much of an impact on the deficit. The savings will amount to about four billion pounds in a total budget of about seven hundred billion pounds. But the cut will be felt by the jobless and their families, many of whom already live in poverty or near poverty. In the United Kingdom, unlike in the United States, the level of unemployment benefits isn’t linked to the recipient’s wages in his or her last job. Single people get a maximum of seventy-one pounds (about $115) a week, and couples get up to a hundred and twelve pounds (about $180). For decades, governments of both parties have raised the payments in line with inflation, so that their purchasing power remains steady. But with inflation currently running at more than 2.5 per cent, Osborne has ruled that over the next three years increases in benefits will be limited to one per cent. That might not sound like a big difference, but over three years it could well add up to a five per cent drop in purchasing power.

Moreover, the squeeze won’t just fall on the unemployed. The one-per-cent cap will also apply to housing and income-support benefits, which are used to top up the income of many poor and near-poor working families. Taken together, the tax and spending changes that Osborne announced on Wednesday will reduce the incomes of the poorest tenth of U.K. households by 2.7 per cent, according to the Resolution Foundation, an independent research organization.

About the only economic justification for these sorts of benefit cuts is that they render the labor market more “flexible,” a codeword for making the poor and the unemployed more eager to seek work and accept low wages. But the British labor market is already pretty flexible, and one of the few bright spots over the past couple of years has been a steady rise in total employment.

Osborne’s primary motivation wasn’t economics; it was politics. With Britain’s “lost decade” about to enter its sixth year, and the Conservatives trailing Labour in the polls, he deemed it necessary to do a bit of rabble rousing, appealing to the base instincts of middle-class voters who resent paying taxes to support the unemployed, while also throwing some meat to the Fleet Street jackals who are forever banging on about “scroungers” on the dole. The cut in benefits was “about being fair to the person who leaves home every morning to go out to work and sees their neighbor still asleep, living a life on benefits,” Osborne declared. “As well as a tax system where the richest pay their fair share, we have to have a welfare system that is fair to the working people who pay for it.”

For a time, Osborne, who hails from the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, appeared to be an ill-informed aristocratic dilettante posing as an economic authority. Now, he has revealed himself as a cynical and cruel politician, who, in order to distract attention from the failure of his policies, is heaping more financial misery on the poor. Good going, fella!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not one instance in history where austerity policy has ever worked in re-jigging an economy. The only example where it partially worked was Chile where Reaganomics was take to its limit on the back opression.

If the UK wants to spend less and earn more it needs to flush the economy with money directed at Business, invention and national building projects. People spend more when they feel good not when they are watching every penny. I look forward to a near future where economically illiterate national traitors like Osbourne are summarily executed and their heads put on sticks.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

82,000 drop in employment.

 

Biggest quarterly drop since 2001

 

Even the young unemployed 16 - 24 figures plummet.

 

Good News.

 

Unemployment was 2.49 million when Dave took office (May 2010)

 

He took it to 2.68 million (Nov 2011)

 

It's now 2.51 million. Up for his time in office.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

 

Don't take a quarterly drop as a sign of good governance when it's just a correction to the big increases in previous quarters alongside an increase in seasonal workers brought in for the christmas build up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment was 2.49 million when Dave took office (May 2010)

 

He took it to 2.68 million (Nov 2011)

 

It's now 2.51 million. Up for his time in office.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

 

Don't take a quarterly drop as a sign of good governance when it's just a correction to the big increases in previous quarters alongside an increase in seasonal workers brought in for the christmas build up.

 

Even going on your biassed figures, is it fair to say that as they predicted, the private sector is filling the vacancies created by the public sector cuts. Lots on here doubted that would happen and predicted millions more on the dole back in 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even going on your biassed figures, is it fair to say that as they predicted, the private sector is filling the vacancies created by the public sector cuts. Lots on here doubted that would happen and predicted millions more on the dole back in 2010.

 

Figures by their inherent nature can not be biased. The way they are portrayed can be but never the figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the figures biased because theyve made you look a silly sausage again CT? :)

 

Not at all, the figures do no such thing. My statement are 100% accurate as they are carried by every newspaper going today, even the Times. :)

 

HF however (as you know btw sitting there at your big new desk) has decided to ignore todays figures and produce different figures to throw a different light on the matter. I have them taken his figures and thrown them back at him again. He however is more determined than me and will wear me down with charts.

 

Time instead for me to do my chores, head for the fun park research fishies.

 

BTW, i only listened to PMQ's on the radio yesterday but it sounded like a real belter with both Cameron and Milliband producing good performances and put downs. Woth a look for those who like that sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even going on your biassed figures, is it fair to say that as they predicted, the private sector is filling the vacancies created by the public sector cuts. Lots on here doubted that would happen and predicted millions more on the dole back in 2010.

 

There are hundreds of thousands more claiming benefits now.

 

Think of Cameron as Pardew CT, just cos he managed a win against Wigan, it doesn't mean his season is looking to be a success, as pleasing as the 3 points are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair it IS good news. It's obviously not perfect news and doesn't mean the Conservatives are brilliant and are clearly doing an amazing job. I know CT's coming at it from a 'Tories are right all the time' standpoint but doing the exact opposite is hardly proving anyone wrong. Fency sitting ftw :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how CT bumps this thread whenever there is a blip that might put the coalition in a good light but ignores the long term trends. Has underemployment been analysed btw?

 

It feels very like the early 80s at present in this country. Incidentally that's a time period CT loved, isn't it?

Edited by Renton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how CT bumps this thread whenever there is a blip that might put the coalition in a good light but ignores the long term trends. Has underemployment been analysed btw?

 

It feels very like the early 80s at present in this country. Incidentally that's a time period CT loved, isn't it?

 

Tories are a one trick pony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories are going to try to take us out of the European Union by the looks of it, possibly by getting in to bed with UKIP. Dont know enough technically about it to properly debate the ins and outs of it, just to say that its a massive call by them, possibly the biggest since the end of the war. Going into it was pretty much mereley a trade agreement. Europe now has the casting vote above us on legal matters, which is what appears to piss the likes of UKIP off. I think theyve a chance of getting it through a referendum, depending what question is asked and to what extent the proposed pull back is. Will the City all piss off elsewhere? they didnt when we refused to join the euro, infact they boomed artificially for a few years beyond that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the leader of UKIP on the radio after they came 2nd in 3 bi-elections recently and he basically said the Tories could kiss his arse if they wanted to form a coalition with them as they were still seething following Cameron's 'closet racists' comments. Not that he'd be the first political leader to go back on his word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...