Not that you can tell by the way our media continues to cover this government, but I'll save that for one of the other threads.
Okay, but:
"The chancellor today confirmed her rules will “make space for increased investment in the fabric of our economy”, amid widespread expectation she will change the way debt is measured."
On that basis I don't see why this doesn't fall prey to 'this is just spin, wait for the budget' with which you greet every other story.
Not that you can tell by the way our media continues to cover this government, but I'll save that for one of the other threads.
Okay, but:
"The chancellor today confirmed her rules will “make space for increased investment in the fabric of our economy”, amid widespread expectation she will change the way debt is measured."
On that basis I don't see why this doesn't fall prey to 'this is just spin, wait for the budget' with which you greet every other story.
confirmation bias? Frankly, any commentary - from anyone - is pretty much worthless until about 4-5 days after the budget. Which is when things generally unravel.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
Not that you can tell by the way our media continues to cover this government, but I'll save that for one of the other threads.
Okay, but:
"The chancellor today confirmed her rules will “make space for increased investment in the fabric of our economy”, amid widespread expectation she will change the way debt is measured."
On that basis I don't see why this doesn't fall prey to 'this is just spin, wait for the budget' with which you greet every other story.
Maybe. But it is an announcement by the Chancellor herself of a specific policy change which affects the budget. Hence, whilst I will form a judgement based on the budget itself, this is more than just spin and a signal of an intention to move in the right direction.
Which basically serve as a haven for firms generating a lot of externalities which thrive from lower regulation (and the ability to pay lower wages).
Yep. I'm happy to change my mind if anyone can show me some evidence but freeports are a stupid idea, whoever is proposing them.
However, they are a rounding error in terms of public finances, whilst the fiscal rules are the most important part of a budget, followed by the OBR modelling because these two define the overall taxation and spending envelopes.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
I did say that it sounds great
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
I did say that it sounds great
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
But above all else, you want me to agree with you. Labour are breaking all manifesto prmises and I do not approve
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
I did say that it sounds great
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
But above all else, you want me to agree with you. Labour are breaking all manifesto prmises and I do not approve
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
Then it's possible for me to ask you how exactly are Labour 'breaking all manifesto promises'? And you to give me a reasoned answer that could convince me to agree with you. And if not then we could have a sensible discussion on what's actually going on.
If you look at this and other recent threads, you'll see that there are several Shipmates with whom I have had robust discussions. All possible because even though we may disagree, it's a good faith discussion. An even better example is how @betjemaniac called me on getting the story of JCB wrong. I was wrong, he was right. I admitted it.
I may well be wrong about lots of things but when you post something without justification, expect a response. This is Purg. I could not care less if you agree with me or not but I have very little tolerance for nonsense arguments hiding behind affront.
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
I did say that it sounds great
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
But above all else, you want me to agree with you. Labour are breaking all manifesto prmises and I do not approve
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
Then it's possible for me to ask you how exactly are Labour 'breaking all manifesto promises'? And you to give me a reasoned answer that could convince me to agree with you. And if not then we could have a sensible discussion on what's actually going on.[.b]
If you look at this and other recent threads, you'll see that there are several Shipmates with whom I have had robust discussions. All possible because even though we may disagree, it's a good faith discussion. An even better example is how @betjemaniac called me on getting the story of JCB wrong. I was wrong, he was right. I admitted it.
I may well be wrong about lots of things but when you post something without justification, expect a response. This is Purg. I could not care less if you agree with me or not but I have very little tolerance for nonsense arguments hiding behind affront.
AFZ
I am going to ignore your insults this time and attempt to answer the paragraph in bold.
They have cancelled my winter fuel allowance... Did not even have the courage to put this in their manifesto
Promised not to tax working people even though they are unable to defoine a working person
Promised not to borrow more money because everything was fully costed.
I would be able to add more after we have had the budget
When your debt is the biggest ever. Just borrow a lot more. Sounds great.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
I did say that it sounds great
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
But above all else, you want me to agree with you. Labour are breaking all manifesto prmises and I do not approve
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
Then it's possible for me to ask you how exactly are Labour 'breaking all manifesto promises'? And you to give me a reasoned answer that could convince me to agree with you. And if not then we could have a sensible discussion on what's actually going on.[.b]
If you look at this and other recent threads, you'll see that there are several Shipmates with whom I have had robust discussions. All possible because even though we may disagree, it's a good faith discussion. An even better example is how @betjemaniac called me on getting the story of JCB wrong. I was wrong, he was right. I admitted it.
I may well be wrong about lots of things but when you post something without justification, expect a response. This is Purg. I could not care less if you agree with me or not but I have very little tolerance for nonsense arguments hiding behind affront.
AFZ
I am going to ignore your insults this time and attempt to answer the paragraph in bold.
They have cancelled my winter fuel allowance... Did not even have the courage to put this in their manifesto
Promised not to tax working people even though they are unable to defoine a working person
Promised not to borrow more money because everything was fully costed.
I would be able to add more after we have had the budget
Ok. I'd love you to point out which insults you are ignoring but that's probably not constructive.
1. There was no manifesto promise on WFP. Therefore, whilst you are of course entitled to be disappointed about it being cancelled, it is simply not true that it's a breach of a manifesto promise.
2. As discussed, It was a clever rhetorical trap for Rayner at PMQs. However, since then, you may wish to see the interview with Starmer. Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does. Either way, what promise is being broken?
3. On borrowing, you are conflating two different things. They promised that they had costed the specific things they wanted to do. Please point me to this promise on 'not borrowing more.' Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
2. As discussed, It was a clever rhetorical trap for Rayner at PMQs. However, since then, you may wish to see the interview with Starmer. Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does. Either way, what promise is being broken?
Starmer was quite straightforward about what he thinks "working people" are. People who can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties" - in other words, people who live paycheque to paycheque and don't have savings. A spokesman later tried to walk this back a bit and say "well, some savings are OK".
But Sir Keir is quite clear that if you have a job, and derive essentially all your income from that job, and have also built up let's say a year's worth of income as a savings buffer to protect against unexpected "difficulties" such as job loss, then you are not a working person.
That is not the definition that I would have assumed for "working people". My assumption (which I think is quite a natural assumption) would have been that "working people" referred to anyone who derived the bulk of their income from their own active labour, rather than from passive investments.
ETA: I think, if you wanted, you could make quite a clear statement that you are going to update the tax regime to ensure that people who derive their income from passive investment do not pay less tax than those who derive their income from their work. That's easy to bill as "making work pay" or some similar slogan.
Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
If I had debt equivalent to my annual income do you think the bank would be happy to lend me the money for a new conservatory ?
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
Of course, you're moving the goalposts again. And you also have not acknowledged that UK debt, despite what you claimed earlier, is not at record levels.
Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
If I had debt equivalent to my annual income do you think the bank would be happy to lend me the money for a new conservatory ?
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
Of course, you're moving the goalposts again. And you also have not acknowledged that UK debt, despite what you claimed earlier, is not at record levels.
Never the less the repayments are. If the ability to create your own currency is such an advantage, why do we need to have increasees in taxation ? In fact, why do we need to have any taxation ?
Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
If I had debt equivalent to my annual income do you think the bank would be happy to lend me the money for a new conservatory ?
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
Of course, you're moving the goalposts again. And you also have not acknowledged that UK debt, despite what you claimed earlier, is not at record levels.
Never the less the repayments are. If the ability to create your own currency is such an advantage, why do we need to have increasees in taxation ? In fact, why do we need to have any taxation ?
No, they're not.
Well, now we're into macroeconomics 101.
2. As discussed, It was a clever rhetorical trap for Rayner at PMQs. However, since then, you may wish to see the interview with Starmer. Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does. Either way, what promise is being broken?
Starmer was quite straightforward about what he thinks "working people" are. People who can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties" - in other words, people who live paycheque to paycheque and don't have savings. A spokesman later tried to walk this back a bit and say "well, some savings are OK".
His comments are somewhat jumbled; nonetheless he actually started his qualifiers with "maybe saved a bit of money" (you can watch the video of his response below):
2. As discussed, It was a clever rhetorical trap for Rayner at PMQs. However, since then, you may wish to see the interview with Starmer. Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does. Either way, what promise is being broken?
Starmer was quite straightforward about what he thinks "working people" are. People who can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties" - in other words, people who live paycheque to paycheque and don't have savings. A spokesman later tried to walk this back a bit and say "well, some savings are OK".
His comments are somewhat jumbled; nonetheless he actually started his qualifiers with "maybe saved a bit of money" (you can watch the video of his response below):
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Or to put it another way, you don't believe in any public service.
l, and as others have said defining what you mean by Working People is a trap. It can become a stick to beat you with. There of course has to be a definition but they will not want to be too specific.
Starmer fans are saying water now honey later. By the time the next elections come round things will be lot better. I will withhold my judgement. It is a bad start with bad communication, the budget has a lot riding on it.
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Or to put it another way, you don't believe in any public service.
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Or to put it another way, you don't believe in any public service.
Massive non sequitur.
Not remotely.
You said:
"I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes..."
and
"we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax."
You could justly accuse me of over-interpreting you but it's not even close to a non-sequitur.
Yes, I don’t expect there to be any improvement to public services despite us all paying more for them. Some may well get even worse. The fact that I even said as much implies that if public services were going to improve as a result of the extra tax take then that would go some way toward justifying it.
OK, so I was being argumentative but you're not actually making sense.
There is no one who doesn't think our public realm is falling apart.
There is undoubtedly a massive need for this to be tackled.
Whilst it is not the only answer, the injection of more resources is a key and vital part of the answer - arguably the majority of the answer. Not least because public services have been cut to the bone for a decade and a half. Once you cut out all the fat (usually in the first couple of rounds of belt-tightening) further cuts just make the services fail to some extent. We have many efficiency paradoxes now. Having cut out any reserve in the system, there is no way of coping with normal flexibility needs - like staff being off sick or whatever. This means that it ends up costing a lot more. I can think of so many examples of this in the NHS, just off the top of my head.
So an increase in tax take (or borrowing) to pay for such services is unquestionably needed.
You are asserting that even such an injection of resources will make no difference. So therefore you presumably don't believe in such services being public services at all?
Thinking about it, I'm not sure I was even over-interpreting you...
Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does.
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Or to put it another way, you don't believe in any public service.
Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
If I had debt equivalent to my annual income do you think the bank would be happy to lend me the money for a new conservatory ?
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
There are several million people in the UK with mortgages, most of whom have debt greater than their annual income. Some of them use the money to make home improvements.
There's a difference between secured and unsecured debt. Unless you're a government, in which case debt is, in effect, secured on your reputation - hence the significance of the IMF endorsing the Chancellor's plans.
Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
If I had debt equivalent to my annual income do you think the bank would be happy to lend me the money for a new conservatory ?
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
There are several million people in the UK with mortgages, most of whom have debt greater than their annual income. Some of them use the money to make home improvements.
There's a difference between secured and unsecured debt. Unless you're a government, in which case debt is, in effect, secured on your reputation - hence the significance of the IMF endorsing the Chancellor's plans.
Indeed. But the myth that government finances can be equated with a household is incredibly persistent.
Created by Thatcher, I think, at the kitchen table in 10 Downing Street. Keynesian economics is what we need now, not that sort of self-restricting nonsense.
Created by Thatcher, I think, at the kitchen table in 10 Downing Street. Keynesian economics is what we need now, not that sort of self-restricting nonsense.
Indeed. Which is why the change of fiscal rules is so important. Even if it's not as good as it could be.
(See above)
It is entirely possible that increased taxes fail to improve public services - they might well just stabilise things and prevent further deterioration in the short to medium term. That's because leaving things as they are will cause public services to collapse, literally in the case of some hospitals and schools.
It is entirely possible that increased taxes fail to improve public services - they might well just stabilise things and prevent further deterioration in the short to medium term. That's because leaving things as they are will cause public services to collapse, literally in the case of some hospitals and schools.
Indeed. Hence my provocative answer. Which remains not a non-sequitur and deeply serious.
Once you cut out all the fat (usually in the first couple of rounds of belt-tightening) further cuts just make the services fail to some extent.
Also note that a common response to budget cuts is to delay maintenance and replacement of obsolete equipment. This works in the short term, but skipping out on maintenance is usually a long-term cost, because stuff breaks, and then costs you more money and disruption than planned maintenance would have.
Once you cut out all the fat (usually in the first couple of rounds of belt-tightening) further cuts just make the services fail to some extent.
Also note that a common response to budget cuts is to delay maintenance and replacement of obsolete equipment. This works in the short term, but skipping out on maintenance is usually a long-term cost, because stuff breaks, and then costs you more money and disruption than planned maintenance would have.
You are asserting that even such an injection of resources will make no difference.
No, I’m asserting that such an injection of resources isn't going to happen. The various ministries and departments are being asked by Starmer/Reeves to make cuts, not spend more.
You are asserting that even such an injection of resources will make no difference.
No, I’m asserting that such an injection of resources isn't going to happen. The various ministries and departments are being asked by Starmer/Reeves to make cuts, not spend more.
That's an interesting point. The numbers here will be key.
It seems a bit odd that Reeves is bigging the Budget up as "[matching] the greatest economic moments in Labour history". I am not sure this is managing expectations very sensibly. Is it really going to be "all that"?
Oversteer response to being told they were being too depressing perhaps ?
That must certainly be part of it. They are failing to show people hope for something new. That is partly because there communication department is rubbish.
Oversteer response to being told they were being too depressing perhaps ?
That must certainly be part of it. They are failing to show people hope for something new. That is partly because there communication department is rubbish.
You must be reading different media. I'm reading that they have plans to refurbish schools and hospitals, make big investments in energy and the digital sector, etc. Are you reading the Telegraph?
Comments
Okay, but:
"The chancellor today confirmed her rules will “make space for increased investment in the fabric of our economy”, amid widespread expectation she will change the way debt is measured."
On that basis I don't see why this doesn't fall prey to 'this is just spin, wait for the budget' with which you greet every other story.
confirmation bias? Frankly, any commentary - from anyone - is pretty much worthless until about 4-5 days after the budget. Which is when things generally unravel.
It's not the biggest ever in real terms.
1. Our debt is not the biggest ever. Not by a long way
2. The cost of borrowing is in the servicing of the debt. That's the number that really matters. If you invest properly, the beneficial effects of the investment mean significantly more tax revenue than the increase in debt payments.
3. Not investing because of a fear of debt costs a helluva lot more.
Maybe. But it is an announcement by the Chancellor herself of a specific policy change which affects the budget. Hence, whilst I will form a judgement based on the budget itself, this is more than just spin and a signal of an intention to move in the right direction.
In which case so is the announcement to increase the number of freeports: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j8w73pdn8o
Which basically serve as a haven for firms generating a lot of externalities which thrive from lower regulation (and the ability to pay lower wages).
Yep. I'm happy to change my mind if anyone can show me some evidence but freeports are a stupid idea, whoever is proposing them.
However, they are a rounding error in terms of public finances, whilst the fiscal rules are the most important part of a budget, followed by the OBR modelling because these two define the overall taxation and spending envelopes.
Are you denying that you meant it sarcastically?
Do you want me to go into Francis Urquhart mode ?
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
No. I want you to engage in debate properly and in good faith.
Then it's possible for me to ask you how exactly are Labour 'breaking all manifesto promises'? And you to give me a reasoned answer that could convince me to agree with you. And if not then we could have a sensible discussion on what's actually going on.
If you look at this and other recent threads, you'll see that there are several Shipmates with whom I have had robust discussions. All possible because even though we may disagree, it's a good faith discussion. An even better example is how @betjemaniac called me on getting the story of JCB wrong. I was wrong, he was right. I admitted it.
I may well be wrong about lots of things but when you post something without justification, expect a response. This is Purg. I could not care less if you agree with me or not but I have very little tolerance for nonsense arguments hiding behind affront.
AFZ
I am going to ignore your insults this time and attempt to answer the paragraph in bold.
They have cancelled my winter fuel allowance... Did not even have the courage to put this in their manifesto
Promised not to tax working people even though they are unable to defoine a working person
Promised not to borrow more money because everything was fully costed.
I would be able to add more after we have had the budget
Ok. I'd love you to point out which insults you are ignoring but that's probably not constructive.
1. There was no manifesto promise on WFP. Therefore, whilst you are of course entitled to be disappointed about it being cancelled, it is simply not true that it's a breach of a manifesto promise.
2. As discussed, It was a clever rhetorical trap for Rayner at PMQs. However, since then, you may wish to see the interview with Starmer. Moreover, you know this is a typical political phrase and I'm fairly confident you know what was meant by it, the same as everyone else does. Either way, what promise is being broken?
3. On borrowing, you are conflating two different things. They promised that they had costed the specific things they wanted to do. Please point me to this promise on 'not borrowing more.' Moreover, as I have now said, several times, borrowing for capital investment is not the same thing as borrowing for day to day expenditure.
AFZ
What do you think it means, then?
Anyone who's primary source of income is earned rather than unearned income. As you know, earned income is currently taxed at roughly twice the rate as unearned.
Or you could read the specific pledge in the manifesto: no rise in Income Tax, employees Nation Insurance contributions or VAT. Now, none of us have read the budget, obviously but do you really think any of those three are going up?
Starmer was quite straightforward about what he thinks "working people" are. People who can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties" - in other words, people who live paycheque to paycheque and don't have savings. A spokesman later tried to walk this back a bit and say "well, some savings are OK".
But Sir Keir is quite clear that if you have a job, and derive essentially all your income from that job, and have also built up let's say a year's worth of income as a savings buffer to protect against unexpected "difficulties" such as job loss, then you are not a working person.
That is not the definition that I would have assumed for "working people". My assumption (which I think is quite a natural assumption) would have been that "working people" referred to anyone who derived the bulk of their income from their own active labour, rather than from passive investments.
ETA: I think, if you wanted, you could make quite a clear statement that you are going to update the tax regime to ensure that people who derive their income from passive investment do not pay less tax than those who derive their income from their work. That's easy to bill as "making work pay" or some similar slogan.
That depends. Do you have the ability to create your own currency?
Of course, you're moving the goalposts again. And you also have not acknowledged that UK debt, despite what you claimed earlier, is not at record levels.
Very, very few.
https://www.bellfinancialsolutions.co.uk/blog/how-long-could-you-last-without-an-income
No, they're not.
Well, now we're into macroeconomics 101.
His comments are somewhat jumbled; nonetheless he actually started his qualifiers with "maybe saved a bit of money" (you can watch the video of his response below):
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-those-with-assets-not-working-people-paving-way-for-possible-tax-rises-13240521
Perhaps he should have briefed his deputy.
Oh, I’m sure they’ll stick to the technical wording of their actual manifesto rather than the spun version they actually told people, but I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes that will really bite (and that they’ll be given a free ride for doing so by the same people on here who would be excoriating the Conservatives for similar duplicity). Maybe a raid on our pensions or savings as well. Big increases to fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty. And we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax. We’re all going to be worse off this time next year, mark my words.
Of course, they’ll blame it all on the Conservatives.
Or to put it another way, you don't believe in any public service.
Would they be wrong to, given what the tories did over the last 14 years?
Starmer fans are saying water now honey later. By the time the next elections come round things will be lot better. I will withhold my judgement. It is a bad start with bad communication, the budget has a lot riding on it.
Massive non sequitur.
Not remotely.
You said:
"I fully expect them to increase plenty of other taxes..."
and
"we’ll get very little back for all that extra tax."
You could justly accuse me of over-interpreting you but it's not even close to a non-sequitur.
There is no one who doesn't think our public realm is falling apart.
There is undoubtedly a massive need for this to be tackled.
Whilst it is not the only answer, the injection of more resources is a key and vital part of the answer - arguably the majority of the answer. Not least because public services have been cut to the bone for a decade and a half. Once you cut out all the fat (usually in the first couple of rounds of belt-tightening) further cuts just make the services fail to some extent. We have many efficiency paradoxes now. Having cut out any reserve in the system, there is no way of coping with normal flexibility needs - like staff being off sick or whatever. This means that it ends up costing a lot more. I can think of so many examples of this in the NHS, just off the top of my head.
So an increase in tax take (or borrowing) to pay for such services is unquestionably needed.
You are asserting that even such an injection of resources will make no difference. So therefore you presumably don't believe in such services being public services at all?
Thinking about it, I'm not sure I was even over-interpreting you...
AFZ
That is a very silly response
There's a difference between secured and unsecured debt. Unless you're a government, in which case debt is, in effect, secured on your reputation - hence the significance of the IMF endorsing the Chancellor's plans.
Indeed. But the myth that government finances can be equated with a household is incredibly persistent.
Indeed. Which is why the change of fiscal rules is so important. Even if it's not as good as it could be.
(See above)
Indeed. Hence my provocative answer. Which remains not a non-sequitur and deeply serious.
YMMV, of course.
Also note that a common response to budget cuts is to delay maintenance and replacement of obsolete equipment. This works in the short term, but skipping out on maintenance is usually a long-term cost, because stuff breaks, and then costs you more money and disruption than planned maintenance would have.
Absolutely. Many examples of this.
No, I’m asserting that such an injection of resources isn't going to happen. The various ministries and departments are being asked by Starmer/Reeves to make cuts, not spend more.
That's an interesting point. The numbers here will be key.
That must certainly be part of it. They are failing to show people hope for something new. That is partly because there communication department is rubbish.
You must be reading different media. I'm reading that they have plans to refurbish schools and hospitals, make big investments in energy and the digital sector, etc. Are you reading the Telegraph?