For that reason I believe in a progressive and fair tax system where wealthier people pay more.
You'll be quite happy then, because that's precisely what we've got.
"The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics. The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year. By contrast, Britain’s nine million poorest paid workers contribute less than four per cent of the total income tax receipt."
(Those figures were from after the reduction to the top rate tax band by the way.)
Interesting too, that a significant minority of those 3,000 will be sportsmen like Andy Murray and, in particular, footballers in the PL where the AVERAGE salary is £2.3mn.
Rob me and you have 30+ days to form a party save the country from abyss and get that giraffe living in ten downing street
Too late mate, he's been shot and his trophy is now adorning my living room wall. Saying that, he'll still do a better job than a few that are veering for the seat at the moment, like!
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
Paul Krugman, however, is definitely left-of-centre and is a rather infamous economic commentator who has a very narrow-minded view on how national economies operate. He is completely wedded to Keynes' original vision and regularly denounces those who deviate from classical Keynesian economics. No surprise that Gordon Brown, himself a good old fashioned Keynesian, is one of his favourite politicians.
The problem with being a dogmatic Keynesian is that if you refuse to depart from what is purely theoretical Keynesian economics, you have to make some interesting assumptions as to how the global economy operates. For example, that there is no cost of borrowing money in the long-term. Krugman's argument that instead of imposing present term austerity, we should have just borrowed what we needed as according to Keynesian theory there are no long-term effects of prolonged periods of high levels of borrowing is frankly ludicrous. As our GDP-to-debt ratio increased, our creditors would start imposing sharper interest rates or investors would start demanding higher rates of return on gilts. Eventually someone somewhere is going to have to pay off that money.
Krugman also believes that high levels of government spending have no effect on levels of investment. This is demonstrably false. High levels of government spending usually goes hand in hand with markets becoming less efficient, rising inflation and investment falling as private investors find themselves crowded out by government spending. Also for those who think that having a high debt-to-GDP ratio or deficit-to-GDP ratio doesn't matter, these are actually requirements of our EU membership that should we exceed set levels (which we currently are) we need to take remedial steps to return to normality.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
Fecking Economics Graduates.........
Friedman and Keynes always confused me, should never have named that Buckinghamshire new town after them.
I will use this thread if I may.If I start another one Afka will be less pleased. Grant Shapps was on Newsnight and said that you will pay an average of £3000 more in taxes under Labour. The IFS said that the figures do not stack up, it is likely to be in the hundreds. Who do I believe, shall I just pitch a figure somewhere in the middle? The Tories are obviously not alone in producing statistics that do not add up. Before every political broadcast, they should play Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac.
I saw that news night and thought that Evan Davis was a smiling assassin, decent replacement for growler Paxman. Not impressed by the Conservative Party Chairman, whatever his name is, mind you what's the betting they keep Michael Gove off the screen during the campaign. Any news on the UKIP manifesto?
The IFS are an independent organisation with no link to any political party . Grant Shapps and the Tories are not .....
Sorry my thread was badly worded, I did realise that the IFS was independent. Best believe statistics based on facts I suppose which is obviously the IFS.
I saw that news night and thought that Evan Davis was a smiling assassin, decent replacement for growler Paxman. Not impressed by the Conservative Party Chairman, whatever his name is, mind you what's the betting they keep Michael Gove off the screen during the campaign. Any news on the UKIP manifesto?
Well if Gove does not appear that will please the missus. I hate it when she gets angry!
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
Paul Krugman, however, is definitely left-of-centre and is a rather infamous economic commentator who has a very narrow-minded view on how national economies operate. He is completely wedded to Keynes' original vision and regularly denounces those who deviate from classical Keynesian economics. No surprise that Gordon Brown, himself a good old fashioned Keynesian, is one of his favourite politicians.
The problem with being a dogmatic Keynesian is that if you refuse to depart from what is purely theoretical Keynesian economics, you have to make some interesting assumptions as to how the global economy operates. For example, that there is no cost of borrowing money in the long-term. Krugman's argument that instead of imposing present term austerity, we should have just borrowed what we needed as according to Keynesian theory there are no long-term effects of prolonged periods of high levels of borrowing is frankly ludicrous. As our GDP-to-debt ratio increased, our creditors would start imposing sharper interest rates or investors would start demanding higher rates of return on gilts. Eventually someone somewhere is going to have to pay off that money.
Krugman also believes that high levels of government spending have no effect on levels of investment. This is demonstrably false. High levels of government spending usually goes hand in hand with markets becoming less efficient, rising inflation and investment falling as private investors find themselves crowded out by government spending. Also for those who think that having a high debt-to-GDP ratio or deficit-to-GDP ratio doesn't matter, these are actually requirements of our EU membership that should we exceed set levels (which we currently are) we need to take remedial steps to return to normality.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
And there is a fine example of the dogmatic Anglo-Saxon style left-right arguments which get us precisely nowhere. What is your definition of a "high level of government spend"? Would the Scandi countries fall foul of your criteria in that respect? My point is: what is important is what the government spends the money on, and how effectively they deploy the money. George Osborne is banging on about his Northern powerhouse idea. We all know it's not going to happen. That's a pity, because the Scandis can actually show him how to do it effectively even when two different countries have to get together to do it. I'm talking about the Copenhagen-Malmo-Lund area, connected up by a massive public project, the magnificent Oresund bridge which connects CPH and Malmo by both road and rail, and the infrastructure improvements connecting the bridge on the other side. Lund is now a European powerhouse for medical research and the pharma industry, yet most people here have never heard of the place. The Swedes and Danes used a huge amount of money wisely, and did not allow any leakage through corruption or incompetence. Both countries have been governed by broadly centrist coalitions, which the Brits are constantly told are a recipe for chaos
Greenie, lets look at your points and which party seems to be the best one to deliver on it:
A decent health service, with more hospitals being built. Ostensibly Labour but their record doesn't match their promises nor do they have a plan for a sustainable NHS model A cap on immigration (the country is too bloody full) UKIP A shift in the wealth ownership of this country (I thinks its something like 10% own 90% of the wealth, how can this be right?) Greens A referendum on Europe. Tories, UKIP A cut in child benefit to only benefit for the first child. No one but Tories come closest The abolishment of positive discrimination. The best person for the job (regardless of sex, creed or colour) UKIP Proper (and enforced) regulation of the banks and bonuses. Greens The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories) Greens
Yeah it's a conundrum. Interesting that you have left and right views but you aren't centrist as the Lib Dems (who are the only true Centrist party) doesn't factor into your views.
The other issue is even though UKIP and Greens are making promises that match some of your views they don't actually have a clue on how to deliver them without causing considerable issues or damage elsewhere.
I have a mixed bag of views as well. Some people describe me as right-wing because I prefer a competitive free market over inefficient Government-led solutions, but I am also extremely concerned about the environment and also the concentration of wealth and finite resources into the hands of elites and dynasties. Unfortunately no party seems willing to address the latter in a way that doesn't compromise the former - the Government simply cannot be trusted to either responsibly protect the environment or to ensure a competitive economy with a fair wealth distribution without making a complete hash of the whole thing. This is less a symptom of the fact that no party is willing to address these issues but more a symptom of a broken political system and the rise of a political class made up almost entirely of feckless bureaucrats only looking after themselves. Our current system of electing governments and passing laws is broken. FPTP is broken. The way our politicians are selected and held to account is broken.
Despite their salaries and expenses, being an MP is a thankless, stressful and tiring job. The only people who would willingly sacrifice their privacy, their principles and their sanity for the comparatively pitiful level of reward that is paid for holding a position of national office are either extremely stupid or dangerous sociopaths. If we want any kind of meaningful change you have to wonder why all the intelligent people are working in the upper echelons of businesses whereas all the idiots and psychos sit on the green benches and what we can do to remedy that.
I will use this thread if I may.If I start another one Afka will be less pleased. Grant Shapps was on Newsnight and said that you will pay an average of £3000 more in taxes under Labour. The IFS said that the figures do not stack up, it is likely to be in the hundreds. Who do I believe, shall I just pitch a figure somewhere in the middle? The Tories are obviously not alone in producing statistics that do not add up. Before every political broadcast, they should play Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac.
That's not - quite - what the IFS said. Just what the BBC said they had said! What they actually say is that the £3,000 figure was unhelpful because it is an aggregate over the lifetime of the next parliament (and is really, therefore, disingenuous unless that is highligthed). So (on the Conservatives' calculation) it would be an extra amount per year in the region of £560 per annum per household. They went on to say that Labour might need to find only £3bn of cuts and £3bn of tax increases not the £15bn claimed by the Conservatives. But added that what Labour have been claiming repeatedly about when they would achieve budget balance is NOT what they signed up to in the Charter for Budget Responsibility. They go on to say that there is real uncertainty about what path Labour want to follow on public finances while the Conservatives have been clearer about what they want to achieve but not how they are going to achieve it. So as clear as mud then. The IFS conclude that there is little value to any figures because neither of the two main parties have said anything about what they are planning.
"Despite their salaries and expenses, being an MP is a thankless, stressful and tiring job. The only people who would willingly sacrifice their privacy, their principles and their sanity for the comparatively pitiful level of reward that is paid for holding a position of national office are either extremely stupid or dangerous sociopaths. If we want any kind of meaningful change you have to wonder why all the intelligent people are working in the upper echelons of businesses whereas all the idiots and psychos sit on the green benches and what we can do to remedy that."
Broadly agree- MP's are totally underpaid. In my view should be 80-90k if we want to attract the Broad base of skilled people to make a real difference.
I may be the only one, but I think top MPs (cabinet members and the PM) are paid way too little.
For example, the health secratary gets £135k a year, yet his immediate junior and the chief executive of the NHS gets £270K a year basic (not including bonuses)
David Cameron only earns £142k a year - lets say he works 16 hour days on average, that equates to roughly £14 an hour...pittance considering the pressure and responsibility he has.
If the salaries for these top MPs were to increase, i think we would get a more diverse government. Most in the top jobs come from considerable wealth and thus they dont really need to work. a lawyer or Dr from a more humble background could earn more in either the private sector or the nhs and with more security. Therefore i think to encourage the brightest minds from all backgrounds the wages need to reflect the pressure and responsibilities of the job and this would leace to a more diverse government with fewer career politions.
Greenie, lets look at your points and which party seems to be the best one to deliver on it:
A decent health service, with more hospitals being built. Ostensibly Labour but their record doesn't match their promises nor do they have a plan for a sustainable NHS model A cap on immigration (the country is too bloody full) UKIP A shift in the wealth ownership of this country (I thinks its something like 10% own 90% of the wealth, how can this be right?) Greens A referendum on Europe. Tories, UKIP A cut in child benefit to only benefit for the first child. No one but Tories come closest The abolishment of positive discrimination. The best person for the job (regardless of sex, creed or colour) UKIP Proper (and enforced) regulation of the banks and bonuses. Greens The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories) Greens
Yeah it's a conundrum. Interesting that you have left and right views but you aren't centrist as the Lib Dems (who are the only true Centrist party) doesn't factor into your views.
The other issue is even though UKIP and Greens are making promises that match some of your views they don't actually have a clue on how to deliver them without causing considerable issues or damage elsewhere.
I have a mixed bag of views as well. Some people describe me as right-wing because I prefer a competitive free market over inefficient Government-led solutions, but I am also extremely concerned about the environment and also the concentration of wealth and finite resources into the hands of elites and dynasties. Unfortunately no party seems willing to address the latter in a way that doesn't compromise the former - the Government simply cannot be trusted to either responsibly protect the environment or to ensure a competitive economy with a fair wealth distribution without making a complete hash of the whole thing. This is less a symptom of the fact that no party is willing to address these issues but more a symptom of a broken political system and the rise of a political class made up almost entirely of feckless bureaucrats only looking after themselves. Our current system of electing governments and passing laws is broken. FPTP is broken. The way our politicians are selected and held to account is broken.
Despite their salaries and expenses, being an MP is a thankless, stressful and tiring job. The only people who would willingly sacrifice their privacy, their principles and their sanity for the comparatively pitiful level of reward that is paid for holding a position of national office are either extremely stupid or dangerous sociopaths. If we want any kind of meaningful change you have to wonder why all the intelligent people are working in the upper echelons of businesses whereas all the idiots and psychos sit on the green benches and what we can do to remedy that.
Thanks for the interesting response Fiiish.
Traditionally I come form a Labour voting household, my father was FOC of the Evening Standard for about 20 years, so we were brought up to the Left. Although one of my brothers politics is to the right of Ghengis Khan!!! I agree, some of my views would be seen as right and some as left, however I just see my views as logical, I think in this day and age its tough to pigeon hole voters, due to the amount of information available now. I do often contemplate how interesting it would be if we had a logical/fair party to vote for, I wonder how it would do? So if any one want to start the 'Fair' party let me know.
If only we had a permanent connection to the continent shared by the Brits and French.......
Quite. And do you recall the embarassment of the first ten years when the Eurostar clanked through the Kent countryside at 60mph because we were incapable of building 70 miles of high speed line, while the French had already built TGV lines all over their country? And are you aware what will happen should you decide to take Eurostar's new service to the Med? On the way back you, and your family and your luggage will be kicked off the train at Lille, and required to present yourselves in an orderly queue to the UK border police. 90 minutes of your wasted life later, you will be allowed to get back on the " direct" train service. All in the interests of national security of course.
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
You will see there is reference to the different views of academics v financial economists, there are always different theories. The problem with theories is that they only work if a set of common conditions apply to all economies. The UK isn't exactly like the US or Japan for all sorts of reasons. He also only talks about the debt, the reality and the politics of financing the debt is not discussed, it would spoil the argument.
Low level of debt in 2007 in the UK yes, but the underlying structural deficit was not (stripping out volatility). Labour had sought to disguise the level of debt by moving infrastructure costs off the balance sheet with the likes of PFI. This investment by the private sector in the NHS and education was needed to be repaid by NHS and schools. Instead of the State borrowing at low rates of interest and putting into the NHS and education, it meant the NHS and education had to repay at commercial rates of interests and return on capital out of their allocated budgets. Relying on growth to fund the additional revenue needed by the NHS and schools is fine except when growth stops and reverses.
The US doesn't have the NHS, it doesn't have State pensions on the same scale, in fact its public sector is around 75% that of the UK, so having to finance the running costs of the public sector when they have a systemic cost escalator, will affect the UK more than the US when State cash is in short supply. The US can assume it can always borrow at reasonable rates, the UK needs to be a little more circumspect.
If the UK had followed the US and spent more to create growth it would have meant hoping that the UK could continue to borrow at cheap rates. That presents a risk and the UK government decided a prudent approach to secure the longterm was preferable to a quick fix that if it went wrong might spell disaster. The priority was to be able to secure the cash to pay the necessities. The alternative was risk running out of cash and the national debt getting out of control.
With Labour's position being what it is, the argument appears not to be over the desired outcome - lower national debt - it's about the journey. Why is there not a much stronger argument from Labour for going overboard on spending, borrow to the hilt and have a growth explosion? At least we would have some conviction to agree or disagree with.
Both parties want to go further than they are prepared to admit, but prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in power, and I think we sense this and why we are ending up with no consensus.
I saw that news night and thought that Evan Davis was a smiling assassin, decent replacement for growler Paxman. Not impressed by the Conservative Party Chairman, whatever his name is, mind you what's the betting they keep Michael Gove off the screen during the campaign. Any news on the UKIP manifesto?
Did you see the new chap on Newnight interviewing him? A great question he asked (the subject was about avoiding a debate) "What question do you think you've answered?" I quite like Evan Davis but not the lady who tried to Paxman Greg Dyke and Dapper laughs, she's an idiot!
Traditionally I come form a Labour voting household, my father was FOC of the Evening Standard for about 20 years, so we were brought up to the Left. Although one of my brothers politics is to the right of Ghengis Khan!!! I agree, some of my views would be seen as right and some as left, however I just see my views as logical, I think in this day and age its tough to pigeon hole voters, due to the amount of information available now. I do often contemplate how interesting it would be if we had a logical/fair party to vote for, I wonder how it would do? So if any one want to start the 'Fair' party let me know.
The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens et al all believe they are 'fair'. Nobody in their right minds would vote for an 'unfair' party!!
Fairness is a subjective thing, and your views, although appearing logical and fair to you, may not be viewed as fair by others.
I believable Meritocracy to be a fatuous empty philosophy( a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively according to merit.). If an entrepreneur is successful he / she has not achieved that in a vacuum. The people who make roads , mend roads , provide street lighting, protect his goods, put out fires, make people better , teach , pick fruit etc etc all play a part in that individual being successful. There success is not achieved in a vacuum. For that reason I believe in a progressive and fair tax system where wealthier people pay more.
Excellent point. I would argue that the children of the people who paid for the infrastructure and the children of the people who actually built the infrastructure that facilitated that success are entitled to a significant share of that entrpreneur's wealth.
I may be the only one, but I think top MPs (cabinet members and the PM) are paid way too little.
For example, the health secratary gets £135k a year, yet his immediate junior and the chief executive of the NHS gets £270K a year basic (not including bonuses)
David Cameron only earns £142k a year - lets say he works 16 hour days on average, that equates to roughly £14 an hour...pittance considering the pressure and responsibility he has.
If the salaries for these top MPs were to increase, i think we would get a more diverse government. Most in the top jobs come from considerable wealth and thus they dont really need to work. a lawyer or Dr from a more humble background could earn more in either the private sector or the nhs and with more security. Therefore i think to encourage the brightest minds from all backgrounds the wages need to reflect the pressure and responsibilities of the job and this would leace to a more diverse government with fewer career politions.
Heard this argument before and gotta say I agree with it 100%
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
I did not see any 'proof' in the Jeffrey Sachs artictle that Krugman was wrong.
I could say here bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29888 is an article proving Sachs has got it wrong. But it isn't. It is just another article by another freelance columnist/blogger/academic/economist stating a case for a point of view.
I will use this thread if I may.If I start another one Afka will be less pleased. Grant Shapps was on Newsnight and said that you will pay an average of £3000 more in taxes under Labour. The IFS said that the figures do not stack up, it is likely to be in the hundreds. Who do I believe, shall I just pitch a figure somewhere in the middle? The Tories are obviously not alone in producing statistics that do not add up. Before every political broadcast, they should play Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac.
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
I did not see any 'proof' in the Jeffrey Sachs artictle that Krugman was wrong.
It wasn't meant to, especially considering the Sachs piece predates Krugman's piece. The point was that Krugman regularly pontificates from a Keynesian platform where he appears to be correct but only because he moves the goalposts for his argument to work. I could point out several issues with Krugman's article, I instead gave examples of Krugman making wrong predictions in the past due to the same kind of flawed analysis he employs in the NYT article.
Greenie, lets look at your points and which party seems to be the best one to deliver on it:
The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories) Greens
Labour as well on this one, although they also promised to abolish them in '95 to show that I'm not completely biased!
The problem is the Labour Party, despite being against zero-hour contracts or unpaid internships, themselves are happy to use these within their own party for personnel. I didn't list Labour since if they can't practice what they preach then their manifesto claim cannot be taken seriously.
Comments
"The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics.
The figures show that the very highest earners - amounting to just under 3,000 people with a declared income above £2.7 million - will contribute 4.2 per cent of the total Government revenue from income tax in the current financial year.
By contrast, Britain’s nine million poorest paid workers contribute less than four per cent of the total income tax receipt."
(Those figures were from after the reduction to the top rate tax band by the way.)
Interesting too, that a significant minority of those 3,000 will be sportsmen like Andy Murray and, in particular, footballers in the PL where the AVERAGE salary is £2.3mn.
Friedman and Keynes always confused me, should never have named that Buckinghamshire new town after them.
The downing street cat has to go though,
I will register the party today the
#Eaglesfieldoldboysfixthecountry party
Grant Shapps was on Newsnight and said that you will pay an average of £3000 more in taxes under Labour. The IFS said that the figures do not stack up, it is likely to be in the hundreds.
Who do I believe, shall I just pitch a figure somewhere in the middle?
The Tories are obviously not alone in producing statistics that do not add up. Before every political broadcast, they should play Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac.
Any news on the UKIP manifesto?
I really don't understand why they keep him as chair.
Best believe statistics based on facts I suppose which is obviously the IFS.
And there is a fine example of the dogmatic Anglo-Saxon style left-right arguments which get us precisely nowhere. What is your definition of a "high level of government spend"? Would the Scandi countries fall foul of your criteria in that respect? My point is: what is important is what the government spends the money on, and how effectively they deploy the money. George Osborne is banging on about his Northern powerhouse idea. We all know it's not going to happen. That's a pity, because the Scandis can actually show him how to do it effectively even when two different countries have to get together to do it. I'm talking about the Copenhagen-Malmo-Lund area, connected up by a massive public project, the magnificent Oresund bridge which connects CPH and Malmo by both road and rail, and the infrastructure improvements connecting the bridge on the other side. Lund is now a European powerhouse for medical research and the pharma industry, yet most people here have never heard of the place. The Swedes and Danes used a huge amount of money wisely, and did not allow any leakage through corruption or incompetence. Both countries have been governed by broadly centrist coalitions, which the Brits are constantly told are a recipe for chaos
A decent health service, with more hospitals being built.
Ostensibly Labour but their record doesn't match their promises nor do they have a plan for a sustainable NHS model
A cap on immigration (the country is too bloody full)
UKIP
A shift in the wealth ownership of this country (I thinks its something like 10% own 90% of the wealth, how can this be right?)
Greens
A referendum on Europe.
Tories, UKIP
A cut in child benefit to only benefit for the first child.
No one but Tories come closest
The abolishment of positive discrimination. The best person for the job (regardless of sex, creed or colour)
UKIP
Proper (and enforced) regulation of the banks and bonuses.
Greens
The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories)
Greens
Yeah it's a conundrum. Interesting that you have left and right views but you aren't centrist as the Lib Dems (who are the only true Centrist party) doesn't factor into your views.
The other issue is even though UKIP and Greens are making promises that match some of your views they don't actually have a clue on how to deliver them without causing considerable issues or damage elsewhere.
I have a mixed bag of views as well. Some people describe me as right-wing because I prefer a competitive free market over inefficient Government-led solutions, but I am also extremely concerned about the environment and also the concentration of wealth and finite resources into the hands of elites and dynasties. Unfortunately no party seems willing to address the latter in a way that doesn't compromise the former - the Government simply cannot be trusted to either responsibly protect the environment or to ensure a competitive economy with a fair wealth distribution without making a complete hash of the whole thing. This is less a symptom of the fact that no party is willing to address these issues but more a symptom of a broken political system and the rise of a political class made up almost entirely of feckless bureaucrats only looking after themselves. Our current system of electing governments and passing laws is broken. FPTP is broken. The way our politicians are selected and held to account is broken.
Despite their salaries and expenses, being an MP is a thankless, stressful and tiring job. The only people who would willingly sacrifice their privacy, their principles and their sanity for the comparatively pitiful level of reward that is paid for holding a position of national office are either extremely stupid or dangerous sociopaths. If we want any kind of meaningful change you have to wonder why all the intelligent people are working in the upper echelons of businesses whereas all the idiots and psychos sit on the green benches and what we can do to remedy that.
They went on to say that Labour might need to find only £3bn of cuts and £3bn of tax increases not the £15bn claimed by the Conservatives. But added that what Labour have been claiming repeatedly about when they would achieve budget balance is NOT what they signed up to in the Charter for Budget Responsibility. They go on to say that there is real uncertainty about what path Labour want to follow on public finances while the Conservatives have been clearer about what they want to achieve but not how they are going to achieve it.
So as clear as mud then. The IFS conclude that there is little value to any figures because neither of the two main parties have said anything about what they are planning.
Broadly agree- MP's are totally underpaid. In my view should be 80-90k if we want to attract the Broad base of skilled people to make a real difference.
For example, the health secratary gets £135k a year, yet his immediate junior and the chief executive of the NHS gets £270K a year basic (not including bonuses)
David Cameron only earns £142k a year - lets say he works 16 hour days on average, that equates to roughly £14 an hour...pittance considering the pressure and responsibility he has.
If the salaries for these top MPs were to increase, i think we would get a more diverse government. Most in the top jobs come from considerable wealth and thus they dont really need to work. a lawyer or Dr from a more humble background could earn more in either the private sector or the nhs and with more security. Therefore i think to encourage the brightest minds from all backgrounds the wages need to reflect the pressure and responsibilities of the job and this would leace to a more diverse government with fewer career politions.
Traditionally I come form a Labour voting household, my father was FOC of the Evening Standard for about 20 years, so we were brought up to the Left. Although one of my brothers politics is to the right of Ghengis Khan!!!
I agree, some of my views would be seen as right and some as left, however I just see my views as logical, I think in this day and age its tough to pigeon hole voters, due to the amount of information available now.
I do often contemplate how interesting it would be if we had a logical/fair party to vote for, I wonder how it would do? So if any one want to start the 'Fair' party let me know.
Low level of debt in 2007 in the UK yes, but the underlying structural deficit was not (stripping out volatility). Labour had sought to disguise the level of debt by moving infrastructure costs off the balance sheet with the likes of PFI. This investment by the private sector in the NHS and education was needed to be repaid by NHS and schools. Instead of the State borrowing at low rates of interest and putting into the NHS and education, it meant the NHS and education had to repay at commercial rates of interests and return on capital out of their allocated budgets. Relying on growth to fund the additional revenue needed by the NHS and schools is fine except when growth stops and reverses.
The US doesn't have the NHS, it doesn't have State pensions on the same scale, in fact its public sector is around 75% that of the UK, so having to finance the running costs of the public sector when they have a systemic cost escalator, will affect the UK more than the US when State cash is in short supply. The US can assume it can always borrow at reasonable rates, the UK needs to be a little more circumspect.
If the UK had followed the US and spent more to create growth it would have meant hoping that the UK could continue to borrow at cheap rates. That presents a risk and the UK government decided a prudent approach to secure the longterm was preferable to a quick fix that if it went wrong might spell disaster. The priority was to be able to secure the cash to pay the necessities. The alternative was risk running out of cash and the national debt getting out of control.
With Labour's position being what it is, the argument appears not to be over the desired outcome - lower national debt - it's about the journey. Why is there not a much stronger argument from Labour for going overboard on spending, borrow to the hilt and have a growth explosion? At least we would have some conviction to agree or disagree with.
Both parties want to go further than they are prepared to admit, but prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in power, and I think we sense this and why we are ending up with no consensus.
Fairness is a subjective thing, and your views, although appearing logical and fair to you, may not be viewed as fair by others.
I could say here bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29888 is an article proving Sachs has got it wrong. But it isn't. It is just another article by another freelance columnist/blogger/academic/economist stating a case for a point of view.
You didn't post anything at 11:40am on this thread.
Lovely giraffe at 08:49 tho