Osbornes medicine is working!

[Hillpig]

For me the answer is obvious. We have debts to bring under control. Within the current system the best way to achieve that is to get some growth, get more money flowing into the treasury and less flowing out in welfare. We can't risk a boom again so growth has to be modest at 3% a year. It's going to take time, maybe 10 years from now to bring the debt fully under control.

 

Even that 3% is probably not sustainable long-term. We have to transition to a more sustainable mode. People will have to accept that debt-driven rampant consumerism will not work any more. We will have to accept lower wages perhaps in return for a shorter working week. We will have to focus again on local economies and communities and turn away from unbridled globalisation. We need to accept that energy will be limited. We need to redefine how we measure our living standards, away from a focus on material possessions. And we need to be planning this transition now, something that can gradually replace the current model as we clear the debt.

 

The problem is of course that it's not friendly to global used big business. None of the parties will take it on. The debt will be brought under control and as soon as it is then it'll be the green light to push the economic self-destruct button again. We never learn

 

I understand the points you make. I think it is unlikely that people will accept lower standards with equanimity. I suppose what none of us is really addressing is the fact that if people feel that they are being unfairly dealt with this could lead to destabilisation and ultimately violence. An overcrowded world with less resources to go around and a capitalist system unchallenged and unregulated is a dangerous cocktail.

[Mister M]

Brilliance? Going all out to make benefit claimants reviled is brilliance?

 

Benefit cheats cost the Treasury £1.2billion. Whilst tax dodgers such as yourself cost the nation £25b.

Yet again the Tories use fear to control the electorate, by turning the majority against their natural opponents.

 

£25b is a very conservative estimate!

 

As well as rarely hearing about the tax dodgers as compare to welfare scroungers, you never hear about the amount of money that goes unclaimed by people on benefits either (£16 billion per year)

Many report that the stigmatisation of those on benefits is a key reason why this should be the case.

The way benefit claimants are talked about in some quarters, they are as reviled as paedophiles

[Hillpig]

Thatcher was the architect of the debt is profit mindset, Blair made his career on that very Thatcherite mindset and is culpable in putting himself before doing the right thing, Brown was Blair's patsy just a useful idiot.

 

 

 

Your blinkered flag waving is a very good example of exactly how they've got away with it for so long. These career politicians are only interested in short term gain and not in doing the right thing for our country.

 

The current crop of filth are trying to pull off the same trick, unfortunately there's no more road left and that is why they appear to be throwing us

under the bus.

 

Is it really necessary to use such language? Filth? If someone has a difference of opinion with you why is that "blinkerd flag waving".

 

If politicians are only interested in short terms gains to get them through to the next election surely it the electoral system that is wrong, why not go for 10year parliaments?

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 17:56 ----------

 

Brilliance? Going all out to make benefit claimants reviled is brilliance?

 

Benefit cheats cost the Treasury £1.2billion. Whilst tax dodgers such as yourself cost the nation £25b.

Yet again the Tories use fear to control the electorate, by turning the majority against their natural opponents.

 

Really some of you do rush to judgement, I am not a tax dodger, I am employed by a non British company and have dual nationality.

 

How do you substantiate the figues you quote?

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 17:59 ----------

 

£25b is a very conservative estimate!

 

As well as rarely hearing about the tax dodgers as compare to welfare scroungers, you never hear about the amount of money that goes unclaimed by people on benefits either (£16 billion per year)

Many report that the stigmatisation of those on benefits is a key reason why this should be the case.

The way benefit claimants are talked about in some quarters, they are as reviled as paedophiles

 

I do not understand why you compare one class of criminal with another, a tax cheat is as bad as a welfare cheat. How do you define the difference?

[NorthernStar]

That’s a load of crap, they were in decline well before Thatcher, employment down the mines decreased more the previous decades than under Thatcher.

 

Not entirely, but to say that Thatcher didn't throw out the good industry with the bad is simply ignoring the facts.

 

Crap, UK oil and gas output peaked in 2002 under labour, where is all the money they made.

The debt fuelled frenzy between 2000 and 2008 was nothing to do with Thatcher.

 

Unlike you, I have the benefit of objectivity, your need to take a side causes you to blind yourself with confirmation bias.

 

Sure Blair benefited too but so did Thatcher but I wouldn't be so stupid as to try and defend Blair the Thatcherite as you do with your blinkered conservative flag waving.

 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00870/money-graphics-2008_870811a.gif

[tinfoilhat]

£25b is a very conservative estimate!

 

As well as rarely hearing about the tax dodgers as compare to welfare scroungers, you never hear about the amount of money that goes unclaimed by people on benefits either (£16 billion per year)

Many report that the stigmatisation of those on benefits is a key reason why this should be the case.

The way benefit claimants are talked about in some quarters, they are as reviled as paedophiles

 

In fairness, labour didnt do much to get at tax dodgers either did they? I do recall labour lowering the threshold where small businesses could make x amount of profit without paying corporation tax - (can't find or remember the figures - sorry!).

[MrSmith]

Not entirely, but to say that Thatcher didn't throw out the good industry with the bad is simply ignoring the facts.

Which industries that were not already in decline did she destroy?

 

 

 

 

Unlike you, I have the benefit of objectivity, your need to take a side causes you to blind yourself with confirmation bias.

 

Clearly you don't.

 

Sure Blair benefited too but so did Thatcher but I wouldn't be so stupid as to try and defend Blair the Thatcherite as you do with your blinkered conservative flag waving.

 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00870/money-graphics-2008_870811a.gif

 

How did Blair and Thatcher benefit from our oil and gas industries, other than they had more money in the pot to spend. What do you think they did with this money and how do you think they wasted it?

[Mister M]

Is it really necessary to use such language? Filth? If someone has a difference of opinion with you why is that "blinkerd flag waving".

 

If politicians are only interested in short terms gains to get them through to the next election surely it the electoral system that is wrong, why not go for 10year parliaments?

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 17:56 ----------

 

 

Really some of you do rush to judgement, I am not a tax dodger, I am employed by a non British company and have dual nationality.

 

How do you substantiate the figues you quote?

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 17:59 ----------

 

 

I do not understand why you compare one class of criminal with another, a tax cheat is as bad as a welfare cheat. How do you define the difference?[/QUOTE]

 

The point I was making was that the press and politicians often define the difference! They are 2 sides of the same coin.

How do you account for the fact that much more publicity is generated by someone cheating the DWP, than someone cheating HMRC? Yet less money is defrauded by wefare cheats than it is by tax dodgers.

[Obelix]

If politicians are only interested in short terms gains to get them through to the next election surely it the electoral system that is wrong, why not go for 10year parliaments.

 

That would be good, but I'd like to see it possible to have some change.... albeit slower, just in case they went silly.

 

How about once elected you are in for nine years, but they elect a third of the chamber every three years? Like in some council elections? I can think of lots of problems sure, such as voter burnout for a start but is such an idea worth considering?

[Mister M]

In fairness, labour didnt do much to get at tax dodgers either did they? I do recall labour lowering the threshold where small businesses could make x amount of profit without paying corporation tax - (can't find or remember the figures - sorry!).

 

No they didn't. It was business as usual from labour.

We do know with some certainty that £1.3 billion is defrauded every year from social security.

With Tax Fraud the governments 'think', it's over £30 billion per year.

Though Richard Murphy from Tax Research UK has evidence that it's much higher http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

[NorthernStar]

Is it really necessary to use such language? Filth? If someone has a difference of opinion with you why is that "blinkerd flag waving".

 

If politicians are only interested in short terms gains to get them through to the next election surely it the electoral system that is wrong, why not go for 10year parliaments?

 

I think politicians are filth, they are generally dishonest and self serving at the expense of the people they claim to represent.

 

We need a new politics with a way to vote them out at anytime for no confidence, there's far too many wrongs going on with impunity for privilege.

 

As for the flag waving comment it is apparent that people will just follow without questioning, even to a point that they can't/wont see what's in front of them it's toe curling to see adults with such childish devotion, it's ridiculous.