'Decades of austerity needed to cut debt'

[Anna B]

By its nature a multi national will file its accounts and register itself in the country that is most favorable for tax. As anyone managing a multinational must put the interests of its shareholders first it is right that they do so.

 

Therefore as the man from Google said, change the law and I will comply. The fault is not with multinational companies it is with national governments failing to work together to address multinational tax issues.

 

Considering that the multinationals have got most governments by the short and curlies, that's easier said than done.

 

When governments and the movers and shakers get together at meetings like Bilderberg, they are all scratching each others backs. Why spoil a good deal when you can always screw the taxpayer and the little man in the street instead...? What they gonna do about it?

[Vincero dOro]

You did? So why did you reply to it as you did?

 

Because this is a public forum and I can post what I want. :hihi::hihi:

[Vincero dOro]

Keep'em coming, you've yet to reach "mildly titillating"

 

I don't think that is for you to judge. I'm sure there are many on here who are laughing at you right now. :hihi::hihi:

 

I'm splitting my sides at your pathetic attempts at self importance.

[Peer Gynt]

The debt needs to be paid it's as simple as that, if the OP can come up with a brilliant scheme then I'm all ears.

 

Currently the only option is to slash costs and/or increase taxes.

 

Since most people don't want massive tax increases we'll have to slash costs.

 

What about the 50 years of Shale Fracking reserves?

Don't hold your breath this will go the same way as the profits as North Sea Oil and Gas did.

[Staunton]

Vincero dOro, you should check your joke-o-meter, looks like it's broken

 

Either people want to discuss, moan about and 'solve' the problem. On SF. Why not

 

Or they acknowledge what the system is (was, and will become), get on with their lives and try and better their lot the best they can. That's me.

 

Or they acknowledge what the system is (was, and is likely to become), try to get on with their lives and hope for better things for everybody. That's me.

[Vague_Boy]

Don't get your hopes up anytime soon, if you thought the economy was on the mend

 

Even if the economy was growing at the level of China (7% +) we can't "grow our way" out of trillions of debt and unfunded liabilities.

 

The only time Britain did this in the past was in 1816 (240% debt to GDP), with a little something called the Industrial Revolution.

 

That's not going to happen this time.

 

(That debt BTW was the result of 125 years of war with France. Contrast that to our current debt, run up in an era of peace.)

 

The deficit (and thus the debt) was already reaching (then) record levels even in 2006 [LINK]. A time before the financial crisis, when the economy was supposedly doing well.

 

A certain Gordon Brown was responsible:

 

begun by pursuing an extremely conservative fiscal policy during the late 1990s, Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister, presided over a massive expansion in public spending to improve public services. This expansion of spending was justifiable in many ways, given poor investment in public services during the Thatcher-Major years. But it was arguably not sufficiently financed through taxation, and direct taxation in particular. The result was a run up of public deficits prior to the current financial and economic crisis, which broke the government's own fiscal rules. This in turn prepared the way for a substantial deterioration in public finances when the current crisis broke, a deterioration which may take years, if not decades to set right.

 

LINK

 

 

Ever get the feeling we're been played as suckers? Not really fair is it?

 

You should have been complaining when Gordon Brown was spending money like it was going out of fashion. But people never do protest "free money" do they?

[Anna B]

Even if the economy was growing at the level of China (7% +) we can't "grow our way" out of trillions of debt and unfunded liabilities.

 

The only time Britain did this in the past was in 1816 (240% debt to GDP), with a little something called the Industrial Revolution.

 

That's not going to happen this time.

 

(That debt BTW was the result of 125 years of war with France. Contrast that to our current debt, run up in an era of peace.)

 

The deficit (and thus the debt) was already reaching (then) record levels even in 2006 [LINK]. A time before the financial crisis, when the economy was supposedly doing well.

 

A certain Gordon Brown was responsible:

 

 

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

You should have been complaining when Gordon Brown was spending money like it was going out of fashion. But people never do protest "free money" do they?

 

Well nobody asked me, but I didn't personally wrack up a load of debt, and I couldn't believe how much others were spending on credit.

 

I can't say I noticed any particular increase in the level of public spending or much improvement in services for that matter, but perhaps that's just me.

 

Iwas however already on my soapbox saying it was unsustainable and was all going to end in tears, as were many other people, but it wasn't in the mainstream media so it wasn't believed.

 

It gives me no pleasure to say I told you so.

[mjw47]

 

 

 

 

You should have been complaining when Gordon Brown was spending money like it was going out of fashion. But people never do protest "free money" do they?

 

And what precisely do you think ordinary people could have done to prevent Gordon 'is a moron' Brown from borrowing & spending?

 

That's the problem isn't it? Once in power Governments do virtually what they want according to 'policy' or 'current fiscal strategy'.

 

According to a recent article I read George Osborne is basing his actions on an economic paper written by two American academics.

Unfortunately, the figures these two economists based their conclusions on have subsequently been proven to be flawed.

Apparently they set out to prove that austerity was the solution & conveniently omitted data which disproved the theory. As I understand it they left out information on countries such as Canada & Austria who chose, successfully, to opt for a different solution.

 

Presumably George Osborne is now in possession of this information. Do you think it will alter his stance?

 

No, me neither, can't be opening yourself up to ridicule by the opposition when your in a coalition & the next election is going to be tight.

After all, the main purpose of any political party is to get elected & retain power, bugger the country, it's merely incidental.

[Riannon]

[/b]

 

Well nobody asked me, but I didn't personally wrack up a load of debt, and I couldn't believe how much others were spending on credit.

 

I can't say I noticed any particular increase in the level of public spending or much improvement in services for that matter, but perhaps that's just me.

 

Iwas however already on my soapbox saying it was unsustainable and was all going to end in tears, as were many other people, but it wasn't in the mainstream media so it wasn't believed.

 

It gives me no pleasure to say I told you so.

 

I was watching BBC News this evening re the drop in crime. It seems that round about 2005/2006 there was a massive increase in police numbers at a time when crime was falling rapidly and had been for a decade. Police numbers went up by about 10,000. All these guys need kit, salary, pension fund etc. A similar thing was happening with numbers of nurses.

 

Whilst it is good to have more police and more nurses there is a huge price to pay for the extra man power. Particularly at a time when there was no extra government revenue to pay for it. It was this type of increased spending that sent our borrowing spiraling out of control

[Anna B]

I was watching BBC News this evening re the drop in crime. It seems that round about 2005/2006 there was a massive increase in police numbers at a time when crime was falling rapidly and had been for a decade. Police numbers went up by about 10,000. All these guys need kit, salary, pension fund etc. A similar thing was happening with numbers of nurses.

 

Whilst it is good to have more police and more nurses there is a huge price to pay for the extra man power. Particularly at a time when there was no extra government revenue to pay for it. It was this type of increased spending that sent our borrowing spiraling out of control

 

Mmmm.... Not sure about this. Can I give you apersonal example of falling crime figures;

 

A friend of mine's daughter was recently the victim of an unprovoked attack in the street by 3 girls, (this was mid afternoon in the centre of town.) She went to her Mum's place of work and mum patched her up etc.

While she was with her Mum, she saw the 3 girls hanging about outside then going into a pub across the street.

Her mum phoned the police and told them the situation, but it took them 3 hours to turn up, by which time the girls had gone. The police said sorry, there was nothing further they could do.

End of story.

I crime was commited, but nothing was done, and it wouldn't appear in any crime figures. It might not seem important, but those 3 girls now know they can punch people with impunity, and will no doubt continue.

 

It's a story that's often repeated. Could this be why crime figures are dropping?

 

As for the NHS. I'd sack one manager and employ 3 nurses instead.