Brown in history books

[bengasman]

The above posts were saying we all will be paying more tax

Not true only those earning a lot will[

Indeed

There are comparatively few high earners: so no, it won't be just them who have to pay more because it doesn't bring in the revenue. Taxing them more is likely to cost more money than it brings in (according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies). It's been shown in the past (by Nigel Lawson) that lowering the rate of tax on higher earners increases tax revenue.

Indeed

It's the poorer people who will be paying more tax, simply because there are far more of them. It started with the increase of the lowest rate from 10% to 20%. Next we have the increase in National Insurance tax, with plenty more to come. These are burdens which will fall harder on low-income people than on the rich.

Exactly my point

Labour always leave the economy in a mess; they always leave misery, and wreck the country. Why does anyone vote for them?

That can only be because they benefit from the "redistribution" and get so much from the government, that they have more money to spend then before. (those that know how to play the system)
Or at least they think they do. (those that can not do the maths)

 

[tim west]

I've worked in this particular industry for over 26 years long enough to have comparison with this government and the previous one and I have to say for the past decade or more I have not had any financial worries compared to the nightmare times of the eighties.
If this present government happened to be the tories then I would be saying the same about them, it just happens to be the other way round, so thats why I say im better off under Labour.

 

[bengasman]

I've worked in this particular industry for over 26 years ....

But what is it that you do for a living?
I would love to be better off.
Surely, if you are a true socialist, you believe in sharing the wealth?
Give a poor working bloke a chance to improve himself; tell us how you earn your grub.

 

[tim west]

I've worked in this particular industry for over 26 years ....

But what is it that you do for a living?
I would love to be better off.
Surely, if you are a true socialist, you believe in sharing the wealth?
Give a poor working bloke a chance to improve himself; tell us how you earn your grub.

I'm not wealthy by a long chalk just earn a living same as others.

Its only recently that the economy has taken a downturn after more than a decade of stability, that alone points to external influence upsetting the apple cart dont you think?

 

[Norcon]

Tim what do you do for a living?
Surely it's no big secret?

 

[bengasman]

I'm not wealthy by a long chalk just earn a living same as others.

But you are better off now then before; certainly not the case for me, so I would be very greatful if you tell me what kind of work you do, which is what I meant by sharing the wealth.

Its only recently that the economy has taken a downturn after more than a decade of stability, that alone points to external influence upsetting the apple cart dont you think?[/quote]

Not at all.

It is the same as people maxing their credit card, and taking out more loans to pay for living beyond their means.
It only goes wrong when the costs become higher than the incomings, and the credit is not increased. You can keep that up for years, but the longer you do, the bigger the dept you have to pay back.
If you were part of the average family, mommy, daddy and 2 kids, your family would now be looking at paying back about 130,000 pounds of government spending.
And by next year, that would be 160,000.

 

[tim west]

Tim what do you do for a living?
Surely it's no big secret?

I've mentioned before that I work in lighting in tv studios, a well known route for sparks to follow into having previously been a construction sparks.

 

[tim west]

It is the same as people maxing their credit card, and taking out more loans to pay for living beyond their means.
It only goes wrong when the costs become higher than the incomings, and the credit is not increased. You can keep that up for years, but the longer you do, the bigger the dept you have to pay back.

And thats Labours fault?? seems to me to be the fault of those credit card companies for allowing people to get in debt.

It seems to me that the current government whoever that may be at the time tends to get blamed for all thats wrong when the economy is on its downward trend, but as i stated before downward trends are nothing new its happened since as long as i can remember, up and down, up and down.

The measure of good housekeeping though i think is how long it stays up for and under Labour it has been up for such a long time, longer than i can remember beforehand and now its dived again out come the knives against the government instead of people looking at the bigger picture and why its not just britain in trouble surely you cannot blame labour for the USA's financial problems now can you?

 

[bengasman]

I was drawing the analogy between irresponsible borrowing of individuals and governments.
Why would it be the bank's fault if I borrow too much and waste that money in stead of investing it wisely?

Should the shop owner ask me if I can really afford that new suit, and not sell it to me if he thinks I should buy a cheaper one? Should the butcher only sell me a pound of meat in stead of a kilo if he thinks I don't earn a lot?
It is precisely the nanny state that has failed to teach people personal responsibility, that has put us in this mess.

We don't need more rules for banks either, let them take risks, that is the essence of doing business. And LET them go bust if they fail, don't bail them out. That is also the essence of commercial business.
What happens when you bail them out, and make more rules to make it more difficult to take risks? They spend more money on hiring more and better lawyers, who then find loopholes to avoid the measures.
What happens when you let them go bust?
People play safe, and do not put all their money in risky ventures, and as it costs them too much if they fail, the bank dircetors go:" let's not lend to people who are not paying it back, coz I loose my bonus, my job and my pension ."

It seems to me that the current government whoever that may be at the time tends to get blamed for all thats wrong when the economy is on its downward trend, but as i stated before downward trends are nothing new its happened since as long as i can remember, up and down, up and down.[/quote="]

Economic cycles are indeed nothing new. Also true that most people are better at blaming than at accepting responsibility.
The problem with labour governments, and not just this one, is that they spend too much on what is not necessary (who needs one and a half million extra civics in the form of tree-inspectors, fat-police and all those other completely useless jobs they have created?) and fail to put something away for the hard times.
What did Brown do? He kept spending and borrowing.

The measure of good housekeeping though i think is how long it stays up for and under Labour it has been up for such a long time, longer than i can remember beforehand...

The duration of (mis)management is by no means an indication of its quality. It is merely showing how good you are at raising funds.
I know of plenty of companies that were essentially healthy, but went under due to lack of cashflow/credit facilities.
I think it was rover that existed for decades, absorbed stupefying amounts of money if the form of subsidies, NEVER made so much as a single pound profit, and eventually went under.
The same goes for governments.
The sovjet government was continuously in power for the best part of a century, and ended up as one of the poorest countries in the world.

 

[bengasman]

Oops, forgot to mention, I had no idea you worked in lighting. Unfortunately too much of a niche to trying to get into.

 

[joe-90]

Tim. No Australian bank had to go cap in hand to their government because they had a REAL regulation. London was notorious for its LACK of regulation which is why it is (or rather was) a major player in world financial markets - it was the Wild West of the money markets - do what you like. So yes - the blame falls squarely on Brown.

 

[bengasman]

Interesting, I did not know that, thought just about every country had similar situations.
Is there a short version of how ozzies avoided getting into a mess?
I know the yanks had similar problems bailing out banks, was it in the eighties? If I remember things correctly, the fed guaranteed every bank, no matter how stupid the risk. They closed the door on that, but seemed to have forgotten to lock it.

 

[tim west]

I respect that others may know more about the financial apect of whats going on today than I do but I can only speak for myself and my outlook on life and as I say I feel better off, I live comfortably and dont have the worries I did beforehand

 

[bengasman]

Hey, this is England, luckily, and not Iran or north Korea.
You can vote for whoever you want, believe whatever you want, from BNP to communist, and anything in between.
As long as people make an informed choice. If you shut people up, you end up with either fascist or communist totalitarian systems.
I would still prefer to live under Brown than under Stalin or Hitler. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest things on the planet; everybody has the right to agree with me. Fundamentally.

 

[Blasphemous]

I respect that others may know more about the financial apect of whats going on today than I do but I can only speak for myself and my outlook on life and as I say I feel better off, I live comfortably and dont have the worries I did beforehand

And to me, it matters not a jot what the Economists think. You're reasoning is the more fundamental, understandable and to be frank, 'interesting' than the rest of the Doom and Gloom Tim.

Like Tim, I've worked in the Media. Like Tim, on the periphery. But you get to know how the 'dogs bark'. The media CANNOT have 'Good News'. It just doesn't sell!

Anyway, I'm getting involved in this discussion again and I said I wouldn't. Carry on... or not!