profile a lib dem

[AronSearle]

permanently destroying vast swathes of jobs across mainly the north, and using all the north sea oil revenue to pay benefits. Thanks thatch!

So the right thing to do was continue to subsidise jobs?

No the right thing to do was have some sort of succession plan.

Government didn't create the jobs, why should government have to create new ones (at the cost of existing businesses through tax).

And then of course there is the absurdity of thinking any government knows the first thing about creating new business, all they know how to do is throw money at failing businesses.

The right thing to do was destroy the subsidies, allowing lower tax, creating a more favourable environment for new business.


Or maybe not, but it's better than what else was on offer at the time, which was "throw money about", didn't work so well for labour this time round did it?

 

[EddieM]

permanently destroying vast swathes of jobs across mainly the north, and using all the north sea oil revenue to pay benefits. Thanks thatch!

So the right thing to do was continue to subsidise jobs?

No the right thing to do was have some sort of succession plan.

Government didn't create the jobs, why should government have to create new ones (at the cost of existing businesses through tax).

And then of course there is the absurdity of thinking any government knows the first thing about creating new business, all they know how to do is throw money at failing businesses.

The right thing to do was destroy the subsidies, allowing lower tax, creating a more favourable environment for new business.


Or maybe not, but it's better than what else was on offer at the time, which was "throw money about", didn't work so well for labour this time round did it?

It depends on whether the subsides cost more or less than the increased welfare bill and concomitant problems.

simply closing everything, and "see what happens" attitude was at best negligent.

 

[Micilin]

permanently destroying vast swathes of jobs across mainly the north, and using all the north sea oil revenue to pay benefits. Thanks thatch!

So the right thing to do was continue to subsidise jobs?

No the right thing to do was have some sort of succession plan.

Government didn't create the jobs, why should government have to create new ones (at the cost of existing businesses through tax).

And then of course there is the absurdity of thinking any government knows the first thing about creating new business, all they know how to do is throw money at failing businesses.

The right thing to do was destroy the subsidies, allowing lower tax, creating a more favourable environment for new business.


Or maybe not, but it's better than what else was on offer at the time, which was "throw money about", didn't work so well for labour this time round did it?

Point taken on the ability of Govt to 'create' jobs per se, but surely govt has a role in creating the environment that enouragese business to flourish?

 

[AronSearle]

but surely govt has a role in creating the environment that enouragese business to flourish?

Yes, it does so through lower taxes (edit - and some spending on infrastructure).

Which is what thatcher did by killing of the subsidies.

It's why there are a number of tax "loopholes" for corporations, things like tax breaks for money spent on investment and research, or carrying forward losses.

Things that exists for very sensible reasons, that are sometimes abused, and then all the lefties go "EVIL TORIES AND CORPORATIONS WHAAAA".

 

[Micilin]

but surely govt has a role in creating the environment that enouragese business to flourish?

Yes, it does so through lower taxes (edit - and some spending on infrastructure).

Which is what thatcher did by killing of the subsidies.

It's why there are a number of tax "loopholes" for corporations, things like tax breaks for money spent on investment and research, or carrying forward losses.

Things that exists for very sensible reasons, that are sometimes abused, and then all the lefties go "EVIL TORIES AND CORPORATIONS WHAAAA".

I remember reading about NZ getting rid of all their agricultural subsidise and coming through a few years of pain to have a healthy industry (witness the lamb in our shops). The CAP subsidiies are crazy and another case of a well intentioned scheme having far reaching and sometimes the opposite effect to that intended.

I think a pressing one now is VAT accounting/collection . Some businesses have to pay their VAT before those goods are sold, and with cashflow possibly number one cause of failure for otherwise good concerns.

Tax loopholes are another form of subsidy but an indirect one.

I thought that some of the mines were viable , but Maggie didn't want the 'enemy within' ?