Politics

[NJS 3978]

Bet that bar chart goes off the scale when the last two years are added on!

 

There's a lot of shit being taked about "millions of pointless public sector jobs" being created by Labour - I saw some figures yesterday which showed the percentage of public workers of all jobs and its been pretty set at about 20% even going back through Major's time.

 

If the bank bailout is included then the figures will go "off the scale" if it isn't then they won't.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Bet that bar chart goes off the scale when the last two years are added on!

 

There's a lot of shit being taked about "millions of pointless public sector jobs" being created by Labour - I saw some figures yesterday which showed the percentage of public workers of all jobs and its been pretty set at about 20% even going back through Major's time.

 

If the bank bailout is included then the figures will go "off the scale" if it isn't then they won't.

 

That's what I was referring to.

[Renton 17783]

Bet that bar chart goes off the scale when the last two years are added on!

 

There's a lot of shit being taked about "millions of pointless public sector jobs" being created by Labour - I saw some figures yesterday which showed the percentage of public workers of all jobs and its been pretty set at about 20% even going back through Major's time.

 

If the bank bailout is included then the figures will go "off the scale" if it isn't then they won't.

 

That's what I was referring to.

 

You've said Labour had been overspending in the public sector for years though?

 

For any economists out there, shouldn't the government expect a good return when it sells its shares in the banks, and has this been taken into consideration when forecasting future deficits?

[NJS 3978]

For any economists out there, shouldn't the government expect a good return when it sells its shares in the banks, and has this been taken into consideration when forecasting future deficits?

 

The shares will depend on timing but I've mentioned before that a lot of the loans given wwre at 11% which will raise a fortune - not sure if it's counted though.

[peasepud 59]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Bet that bar chart goes off the scale when the last two years are added on!

 

There's a lot of shit being taked about "millions of pointless public sector jobs" being created by Labour - I saw some figures yesterday which showed the percentage of public workers of all jobs and its been pretty set at about 20% even going back through Major's time.

 

If the bank bailout is included then the figures will go "off the scale" if it isn't then they won't.

 

That's what I was referring to.

 

You've said Labour had been overspending in the public sector for years though?

 

For any economists out there, shouldn't the government expect a good return when it sells its shares in the banks, and has this been taken into consideration when forecasting future deficits?

 

I do think they've been overspending for years but the bar chart comment was about the banks and light hearted

 

With regard to selling bank shares it's not as straightforward. The trillion pumped in will never be recovered.

 

Take Northern Rock. Yesterday they were saying it now only does a fifth of the business it used to do, hence the heavy job losses to try and make it saleable.

[Renton 17783]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Getting taxi drivers to declare their earnings would be good n'arl.

[spongebob toonpants 3604]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Is this really a loophole though - I am pretty certain this is already illegal. Sounds like one of those things that is really cost inneficient to pursue aswell.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Getting taxi drivers to declare their earnings would be good n'arl.

 

 

I think the likes of BP and big business would be on the radar, before your average taxi driver, window cleaner or gardener allegedly pocketing a few tips etc.

[Renton 17783]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Getting taxi drivers to declare their earnings would be good n'arl.

 

 

I think the likes of BP and big business would be on the radar, before your average taxi driver, window cleaner or gardener allegedly pocketing a few tips etc.

 

Came safety wink supplied you daft knacker.

 

Proper response was me wasting public sector money typing this shit.

[spongebob toonpants 3604]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Getting taxi drivers to declare their earnings would be good n'arl.

 

 

I think the likes of BP and big business would be on the radar, before your average taxi driver, window cleaner or gardener allegedly pocketing a few tips etc.

 

Deck out the bunting I agree with CT. Well nearly anyway. If we are all in it together, Mr Osborne, lets see the superrich paying a healthy chunk of tax for the next couple of years.

And lets tax the fuck out of the banks

Edited June 9, 2010 by spongebob toonpants

[Happy Face 29]

Some thoughts on the fiscal austerity mania now sweeping Europe: is anyone thinking seriously about how this affects the rest of the world, the US included?

 

We do have a framework for thinking about this issue: the Mundell-Fleming model. And according to that model (does anyone still learn this stuff?), fiscal contraction in one country under floating exchange rates is in fact contractionary for the world as a hole. The reason is that fiscal contraction leads to lower interest rates, which leads to currency depreciation, which improves the trade balance of the contracting country — partly offsetting the fiscal contraction, but also imposing a contraction on the rest of the world. (Rudi Dornbusch’s 1976 Brookings Paper went through all this.)

 

Now, the situation is complicated by the fact that monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound. Nonetheless, something much like this transmission mechanism seems to be happening right now, with the weakness of the euro turning eurozone fiscal contraction into a global problem.

 

Folks, this is getting ugly. And the US needs to be thinking about how to insulate itself from European masochism.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...pean-austerity/

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Cameron confirms Nissan grant honoured at PMQ's

[Happy Face 29]

Calling for austerity and tight money feels courageous, tough-minded, and virtuous; it allows the economist making such calls to take the pose of a Serious Person standing firm against the easy-money guys.

 

Yes, I know that’s insulting. But highly trained economists — that is, people who have spent their whole lives arguing in terms of carefully laid out models — are making arguments that aren’t backed by any model I can see.

 

And may I say, I think that by giving in to the seductiveness of calls for pain, some of my colleagues are doing a lot of damage; at a time when we really need clarity of thought, they’re adding to the intellectual murk instead.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0...mands-for-pain/

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Cameron confirms Nissan grant honoured at PMQ's

 

 

Come on Renty, give the "question dodger" some credit.

 

Within the space of 7 days, he's not only written to bridget promising to fast track that decision, but then confirms the grant today as well!

 

Cheeky young girl tried to sneak in another favour about a local school as well....

[Renton 17783]

Cameron confirms Nissan grant honoured at PMQ's

 

 

Come on Renty, give the "question dodger" some credit.

 

Within the space of 7 days, he's not only written to bridget promising to fast track that decision, but then confirms the grant today as well!

 

Cheeky young girl tried to sneak in another favour about a local school as well....

 

Not listening to it, but fair play, that's good news. Fair play to Bridget as well.

[peasepud 59]

There was an interesting point made on News at Ten last night, they were talking to a carpenter who pointed out the money that could be raised simply by closing off the "cash in hand" loophole.

 

What he was saying is that, as a small business hes regularly told by people that he wont get the job unless he does it cash in hand to save the VAT, as a legit business he refuses and therefore loses the work.

 

What he then pointed out was that as the cuts deepen and more people become unemployed then you'll get a load of new tradesmen setting up on their own and agreeing to this. The resulting VAT loss already is huge but will be much, much bigger as times get harder.

 

Close that loophole with big penalties for those that flaunt the rules and you'll get a lot more VAT in and at the same time increase the likes of PAYE/NIC as a consequence because these backhander jobs are therefore adding into peoples profits/ hours worked etc.

 

Seems like a sensible logic and again, as I mentioned yeserday we currently have thousands of staff in HMRC who dont have proper jobs (3,500 was the figure I heard mentioned earlier today) who we could move onto this literally overnight.

 

Is this really a loophole though - I am pretty certain this is already illegal. Sounds like one of those things that is really cost inneficient to pursue aswell.

 

Maybe loophole is the wrong wording to use.

 

As for cost inefficient I dont think it would be, off the top of my head (without use of any valid data of course) you could make it self policing. Basically, when a legitimate business is asked to do work in this way and then doesnt get the contract then they pass the details of the customer onto a department in HMRC. That department would then check out of the work had been carried out and who by, they then do a quick compliance check of the books to see if that job is recorded. If not, hefty penalty on both the supplier and customer. Just the threat of this happening would be enough to make many many more businesses fall into line. The compliance check could even be a random sample telephoned and asked to confirm that the work has been carried out, this then recorded and used in any future action. Receiving the telephone call would be enough to make the supplier add the work to their books, just in case. This means they've done work at a loss and therefore would be less likely to accept another of those jobs.

 

It would also be possible to police the work via the planning permission route, when applying for permission the customer must name the builder, details of all planning permission data is then passed to HMRC and used in any future compliance investigation.

 

A lot of anti-fraud measures are more scare tactics than actual investigation, put the fear into suppliers that they'll lose thousands if they do this and they'll refuse the work. Make it known that the customer will also have to repay the VAT plus a hefty fine and many will simply not bother asking in the first place.

[Matt 0]

He could then have secured ordinary deposits, up to any limit, ringfenced business lending (as the Treasury did when it nationalised banks during the war), and put the casino divisions into bankruptcy administration, dumping their worst debts on the vulture fund market. He could then have rebuilt good and bad banks, and eventually resold them.

 

I'm glad Northern Rock and B&B closed down their "casino" divisions, doing crazy things like mortgages and these exotic "ISA" things.

 

The harsh reality is that bog-standard lending to Joe Bloggs did as much damage than anything- hence B&B and NR being fully nationalised. However, it's much easier to scare the public with tales of mind-boggling complexities and blaming it all on derivatives. The guy who wrote that article would simply have found himself with a lump of liabilities and no way to trade his way out of it. It really sells short the real problem underlying the whole economic situation. No-one can call it the 'crisis of 2008' because it has been in full swing well before that and some would say it's been coming since Bretton Woods.

 

This was as much a liquidity crisis as a credit crisis- some banks relied too heavily on short-term funding and when that dried up, the business model withered. The credit losses may have finished others off, but it would not have caused imminent widespread collapse, this has been bourne out. The government provided this liquidity through QE which may not have stopped the crash, but at least acted to contain the impact. The idea of forcing banks to firesale assets is insane. With a collapsed banking system, UK investors would be in no state to buy those assets and we'd simply have sold what UK plc was owed for a fraction of its value to a delighted sovereign wealth fund.

 

Sadly the view that this is a recent crisis that was spawned becuase banks collapsed (when of course, banks collapsed becuase they were lending beyond economic reality). Banks may or may not have collapsed, may have wobbled, may have survived unscathed- it would not have altered the underlying economic condition. Normally in crises, corporates wobble first, which then puts pressure on the banks. In the period from the early 90s to 08, banks levered theselves so that they were now closest to the sun when things turned sour, which then had an impact on corporates. Unsustainable growth will cause pain when it judders to a halt.

 

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

[NJS 3978]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

[Happy Face 29]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

 

I think I've responded to this a few times and said it's baloney.

 

If the government said loan companies could and should be allowed to shotgun your ankles off for defaulting then people who are desparate enough will go ahead and take out that loan.

 

The governments role is to protect those idiotic enough to take out a loan with an APR of 2600% or mortgages worth 150% of the property value.....as well as the intelligent ones like you who know not to take out those loans but suffer the consequences of those that do.

 

That's not limiting lending, it's limiting the return from a loan that's likely to default....and for that he wouldn't have been crucified, because it was already the approach.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

 

Thats the difference between strong rulers and weak ones.

 

I was talking to one of my daughters about this sort of thing recently and explained that less than 20 years ago, if I went overdrawn (a common occurence), my presence was requested at the bank for a very tough talking too, an explaination and a promise to bank more responsibly.

 

A loan was not easy to get.

 

Compare that with two years ago when I could happily sit at my computer and get loans of upto 30,000 with 2 minutes typing. No checks, nothing.

 

I hope controls are brought in so that consumer credit does become a lot harder to get, permanently.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

 

I think I've responded to this a few times and said it's baloney.

 

If the government said loan companies could and should be allowed to shotgun your ankles off for defaulting then people who are desparate enough will go ahead and take out that loan.

 

The governments role is to protect those idiotic enough to take out a loan with an APR of 2600% or mortgages worth 150% of the property value.....as well as the intelligent ones like you who know not to take out those loans but suffer the consequences of those that do.

 

That's not limiting lending, it's limiting the return from a loan that's likely to default....and for that he wouldn't have been crucified, because it was already the approach.

 

 

Spot on.

[Renton 17783]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

 

Thats the difference between strong rulers and weak ones.

 

I was talking to one of my daughters about this sort of thing recently and explained that less than 20 years ago, if I went overdrawn (a common occurence), my presence was requested at the bank for a very tough talking too, an explaination and a promise to bank more responsibly.

 

A loan was not easy to get.

 

Compare that with two years ago when I could happily sit at my computer and get loans of upto 30,000 with 2 minutes typing. No checks, nothing.

 

I hope controls are brought in so that consumer credit does become a lot harder to get, permanently.

 

£30K loans with no credit checks?? WTF? You normally need a credit check to buy a TV from Comet, or do I just look untrustworthy?

 

Also, are you including mortgages in this? Strikes me we already have a whole generation who can't afford to get on the housing ladder without substantial help from parents.

[NJS 3978]

Okay maybe not at a personal level but I still think any regulation of the City or the banks as people have called for with hindsight would have been met with "Old labour, attacking business as usual". I may have been the right thing to do (though of course it would have reduced income as well) but politically it would have been suicide. The Tories would never have even contemplated it.

[Guest alex]

Labour's economic crime was not in 2008, it was in the years before which further deregualted the financial sector and held it up to the world as a beacon of growth.

 

Of course Joe Public himself has to shoulder some blame for revelling in the credit provided by that deregulation. As I've said before if Brown had at any time said "I'm going to massively limit personal credit and lending" he would have been crucified.

 

Thats the difference between strong rulers and weak ones.

 

I was talking to one of my daughters about this sort of thing recently and explained that less than 20 years ago, if I went overdrawn (a common occurence), my presence was requested at the bank for a very tough talking too, an explaination and a promise to bank more responsibly.

 

A loan was not easy to get.

 

Compare that with two years ago when I could happily sit at my computer and get loans of upto 30,000 with 2 minutes typing. No checks, nothing.

 

I hope controls are brought in so that consumer credit does become a lot harder to get, permanently.

I think it's more about a change in society than strong / weak leadership. In that I think they're all weak so far as the financial sector is concerned and banks etc. are much more gung-ho about lending (or they were). It is true though that more 'old fashioned' institutions like the Co-Op have had much lower repossession rates than the average due to their having had much stronger criteria before giving out mortgages etc. You'd like to think some lessons would be learned. Totally agree with HF's post as well.