Labour's Income Tax Sums - is it just me?

[alchresearch]

The deficit was low much of the time, until the crash. They used much of the borrowing to repair the damage to services caused by 18 years of Tory government.

 

According to the IFS:

 

When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993

 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn93.pdf

 

I've seen other articles stating that the UK was in a rather healthy financial state when Labour took office.

[Cyclone]

I'm not claiming anything.

 

In that case, what did this mean?

 

Honestly, I don't even know what that means.

 

What didn't you understand? There were only 2 possibilities, you didn't understand what an economic policy of austerity was, or you didn't understand what "the party" (reference to the conservative party) was.

[TheNugget]

In that case, what did this mean?

 

 

 

What didn't you understand? There were only 2 possibilities, you didn't understand what an economic policy of austerity was, or you didn't understand what "the party" (reference to the conservative party) was.

 

I meant that I didn't know how a policy of austerity, which I take to living within ones means can be claimed to have failed if its purpose was to reduce the deficit. I

[Cyclone]

The FT thinks it failed

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a4663e7e-6ad1-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

 

Other countries that didn't adopt austerity policies have seen quicker and stronger economic recoveries.

 

The guardian thinks it failed (but they're anti tory so biased.)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/19/austerity-failed-incomes-deficit-votes-cameron

 

 

I think I called it discredited by the way, not failed.

[I1L2T3]

I meant that I didn't know how a policy of austerity, which I take to living within ones means can be claimed to have failed if its purpose was to reduce the deficit. I

 

Because austerity reduces government spending and impacts aggregate demand.

 

Once demand drops then economic growth falters.

 

When economic growth falters then government income is reduced: lower tax receipts for example

 

When government income falls it needs to borrow more.

 

Osborne's plans required savage cuts to services and he believed that private business would automatically step in to fill the void caused by that spending being taken out of the economy. He was stupid because he was wrong but still persisted with the policy for three years.

 

The years 2010-13 were the ones that basically wrecked his deficit reduction plan because the magic growth he anticipated never happened. Government income didn't grow as expected and we ended up borrowing excessively.

[sgtkate]

No, tell me where I said the deficit remained high because of having to dismantle Labour policies? I didn't. If anything those actions actually made the deficit higher than it should have been because of the impact on growth.

 

Quite simply the deficit remained and remains persistently high because of gross mismananagent, for example Osborne killing demand for 3 years 2010-13

 

Exactly, you are refusing to see that a part of the reason the deficit remains high is due to the Tories still having to fork out money for some policies brought in by Labour which would be impossible to just stop dead. I'm hypothesising here but it's fairly likely. However, Osborne should have factored this into his calculations and therefore it shows his incompetence either way.

[I1L2T3]

Exactly, you are refusing to see that a part of the reason the deficit remains high is due to the Tories still having to fork out money for some policies brought in by Labour which would be impossible to just stop dead. I'm hypothesising here but it's fairly likely. However, Osborne should have factored this into his calculations and therefore it shows his incompetence either way.

 

What policies? They've had seven years.

[Cyclone]

Perhaps the policy of funding the NHS. They've been reducing it for 7 years, but if they'd just stopped it dead then people would have noticed.

[sgtkate]

Perhaps the policy of funding the NHS. They've been reducing it for 7 years, but if they'd just stopped it dead then people would have noticed.

 

And schools, except special academies. And the police, except terror ones.

[truman]

Is this how he'll plug the gap? LVT?

 

"We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.

Labour is the party of devolution "

 

Page 86 of the Manifesto...

 

Get rid of your gardens now...