Ebay, private income and declaration of tax.

[KermitTheFrag]

Well over the last year or so (hypothetically so to avoid incrimination) I've done some private work for people and sold a fair amount of profitable goods on eBay. This begs the question of where I stand regarding tax?

Do I have to declare eBay sale of private items for profit as taxable earnings?

Do I have to declare private work as taxable earnings on the basis that it was inflated pocket money from my parents (about £1k and a dual Xeon server)?

Remember we're talking hypothetically here.

Where does the line get drawn between personal items sold and taxable earnings?

[Gifted]

as far as im concerned it simple... wont they dont know wont hurt them!

i do allot of private work for cash and there no way im declaring it..


i pay so much tax anyway its not even funny.... i mean a 'K' code for someone thats only 19 is a joke...

[Cheez]

Wouldn't the CAB be a better place to ask than here? :)

[Afty]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
Do I have to declare eBay sale of private items for profit as taxable earnings?
I'm not sure... I seem to recall there being some kind of breakpoint or limit.

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
Do I have to declare private work as taxable earnings on the basis that it was inflated pocket money from my parents (about £1k and a dual Xeon server)?

Without a doubt, *YES*. Simply by not declaring it you have committed income tax evasion, a crime which carries a very severe penalty including serious jail time if you get a magistrate or judge with a bad temper. IIRC you have to declare goods received based on their market worth - not sure about that though.

My advice would be to consult a solicitor about this, as there is AFAIK no statute of limitations on tax evasion. Furthermore, if you're chosen at random (only a VERY slim chance) to have a tax audit performed on you in the next five years or so (thinking of being self employed? starting your own business? chances rise dramatically) then you will be shafted if you were paid in anything except cold hard cash.

[KermitTheFrag]

paid in cash. as always. Cheques/postal orders off ebay.

Cash doesn't even go near my account so in theory it doesn't exist.

[Gifted]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag

Cash doesn't even go near my account so in theory it doesn't exist.

exactly m8

[Sainteh]

STUDEN o' JOY!

[Noodleman]

tbh,

f**k the lot of em :)

No way im gonna pay extra tax for items that you probably have already paid tax on. (VAT) etc

this country is seriously overtaxed due to the goverments lack of skill. Im in the same boat as Gifted, 19 and in a high tax group. IT SUX!

/me cant wait to move to another country

kermit, tbh. If I were you i would just not even bother thinking about it.

[Groodles]

The fact that the cash in question is not "in" your account has nothing to do with a random tax audit.

They will want to know what you purchased, and where the money came from for that purchase. "Cash" purchases which cannot be traced, especially lots of them in short periods of time, will cause the auditors to be suspicious.

And, Afty is totally correct. The law states it's up to the individual to declare sources of income for tax. It is NOT upto the tax office to find them and then ask you "Oh what about this extra source of funding your failed to mention Mr. X" Cos if that happens, you're in serious trouble.

[Say_Ten]

I think you people complaining about being on a high tax band and being only 19 should stfu and count your lucky stars tbfh. Means you're earning enough to be that tax bracket in the first place!!!

[Groodles]

On another note.....

No matter how anonymous internet forums might (or might not) be, I would never EVER do work on the side and then say that I'd deliberately not declare it.

That's just asking for trouble tbh. It only takes a 3 minute phone call to the tax office to submit the name of someone you don't particularly like.

my 2p.

[bvark]

Those of you earning any amount of money in Britain and complaining about the high taxes should move to Germany. If that doesn't fix you, move to Holland.

[Cheez]

Then multiple subpoena's required to first Multiplay to get the IP address kermit posted from. Then the ISP that owns that address to find out which user it belongs to.

It wouldn't be worth the tax offices time or money, to catch one person.

[BugAlugs]

being a tax band 'k' dosen't mean you get paid lots.

It means your have some company benefits that offset and exceed your personal allowance.

ie a single person that has a company car and some sort of medical plan will get close if not into the K

Add 'all fuel on company' and other perks and you can really rack it up.

[KermitTheFrag]

I really don't mind getting audited by the tax office as in reality I have nothing to hide whatsoever. (I do declare earnings)

On a side note (this is actually information gained from a colleague which I didn't know)... ways to dispose of cash legitimately and untracably:-

1/ Restaurants.
2/ Hotels.
3/ Fuel to get to the restaurants and hotels.
4/ PAYG mobile phones.
5/ Gambling - the winnings are legitimate even if the initial expenditure isn't.
6/ Paying into an overseas account via recorded postal mail.

[Gifted]

Originally posted by BugAlugs
being a tax band 'k' dosen't mean you get paid lots.

It means your have some company benefits that offset and exceed your personal allowance.

ie a single person that has a company car and some sort of medical plan will get close if not into the K

Add 'all fuel on company' and other perks and you can really rack it up.

exactly... its not tax bracket its a tax coding im complaining about...

tax brackets are 10% 22% and 40%.. the first 36k you earn is 22% then 40% for anything over and above... i understand that.. im fine with that

but Company fuel benefit for example... Fuel is 83% tax... then the bast4rds go tax you on whats already 83% tax, its stupid!

how is a younger person supposed to able to get going and move into his own house etc. etc. when the government is stopping sh!t loads out of our wages in tax. its deppressing more than anything

[Jez_Gafys]

grrr I hate tax ...


K band

if you tax code is a letter 'K' followed by a number, it means that the total allowances in your code are less that the total deductions to be taken from your allowances.

say_Ten

I'm Tax code L and my Tax and Insurance togther equals approx 700 quid a month. Fair enough I'm not 19 (23) but why shouldn't I complain?? Ive worked hard for the last 5 years to achieve a wage like this started on 98 quid a week in the same job .. it's far from luck. I complain that Im paying all this tax a year for what... a countyr full of illegal imagrants living of the goverment getting free medical car, driving lessons etc and when good tax payers ask for something they get told where they can shove it .... I think you would be pissed when yah look at yah wage slip each month and see that in total 700 pound is been taken from you each month!!!

And don't get me started on National Insurance Contributions... GRRR ... being an Asthma Suffer I have to pay more money to the goverment (of course chemists etc take their share) to litterally stay alive, I have to pay exstortionate rates at the Denist because "Sorry the NHS are not talking anymore Patients" and the trouble I had getting registered with my local Docter again similar problems to the Denist. So what kind of goverment do we have that takes my money to pay for a world envious Health Service but when I want any of this service I have to pay even more money!!!!

Just so fecked up and I dont give a f*ck what the government is like in Germany or Holland I dont live there... I live in the UK!!!!!!

[Space Cowboy]

Let's think about tax though...

Why are you paying tax? To keep this countries services running.

I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the police were doing a **** job in your area etc...

[Noodleman]

Originally posted by Space Cowboy
Let's think about tax though...

Why are you paying tax? To keep this countries services running.

I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the police were doing a **** job in your area etc...

They are lol.

I think that there is more than enough £$£ for the core services, I dont believe that the goverment focuses the right balances of £$£ in the areas needed. :-p

[phil]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
grrr I hate tax ...

Yeah, I hate streetlights, roads, parks, police, firemen, the health service, disability support, shools, libraries, child support, an army to defend us ...

I complain that Im paying all this tax a year for what... a countyr full of illegal imagrants living of the goverment getting free medical car, driving lessons etc and when good tax payers ask for something they get told where they can shove it ....


I take it you read The Mail.

And don't get me started on National Insurance Contributions... GRRR ... being an Asthma Suffer I have to pay more money to the goverment...

I didn't know this happened. In that case I think smokers should pay more too. I'm not sure about this paying more if you're more at risk business, although I suppose it fits the insurance model. Although you're paying more, your treatment (ongoing and potential) costs way more than you pay extra. If we didn't have a national insurance system you'd probably be paying a lot more than you are now.

I've never been in hospital (/me touches wood), or had to have any treatment other than vaccinations and basic dentistry. I've already more than paid for this in NI contributions. I'm subsidising you right now, but you don't hear me complaining, because if something does go wrong I don't want to be stuck with the bill - hence the name, National Insurance.

[KermitTheFrag]

Originally posted by Space Cowboy
Let's think about tax though...

Why are you paying tax? To keep this countries services running.

I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the police were doing a **** job in your area etc...

No in actual fact:


my road tax is used to make speed humps which damage my vehicle and make ambulance driver's lifes more difficult whilst not saving any additional accidents.
my council tax is being used to fund an immigration center in my local area and to cover the local unemployment (which is by choice) of many foreign origin people.
my national insurance is used to fund the NHS which cannot even provide a midwife for my wife during her pregnancy.
my employment tax this year bought the guidance systems of a tomahawk missile which was used to kill people in a country which is not of concern to me.


Why should I pay as much as I do when there is a lot of cash burned on issues not of my creation?

Out with the government. Live like the swiss - they look after their OWN then everyone else.

[10acious]

wow bitch bitch bitch

and to throw some wood onto the fire

i paid £5 tax for a fortnights full time work

oh and jez.....

shut up

[Jez_Gafys]

The correct tax brackets are correct

On the first £1,880 - 10% (starting rate)
on the next £27,520 - 22% (the basic rate)
on any income over £29,400 - 40% (the higher rate)

Now I think that 40% tax is just plain stupid, and too high

[bvark]

"Oh my god I hate Britain so much but won't leave."

Yawn - go back to doing the Daily Mail crossword then - it's the only paper that really understands you.

[KermitTheFrag]

I would leave but I can't afford the swiss-german lessons for two people BECUASE OF THE FECKING TAX.

[bvark]

Jez, you have just wasted a significant number of minutes of your life making it abundantly clear you don't understand marginal rates of tax.

Congratulations, you're a ****wit.

[Jez_Gafys]

btw phil the tax I pay out of my salary each month doesnt even include streetlights, parks, police, firemen, shools, libraries thats then even more money taken in the form of council tax.

Id say im not gunna get much change from 10k a year which all goes to the government.

Im with kermit hear tbh. I dont really think its a gripe I have with the tax I pay as bvark says if you dont like, it leave... but its what it is spent on thats the annoyance.

[HalOS]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
No in actual fact:


my road tax is used to make speed humps which damage my vehicle and make ambulance driver's lifes more difficult whilst not saving any additional accidents.
my council tax is being used to fund an immigration center in my local area and to cover the local unemployment (which is by choice) of many foreign origin people.
my national insurance is used to fund the NHS which cannot even provide a midwife for my wife during her pregnancy.
my employment tax this year bought the guidance systems of a tomahawk missile which was used to kill people in a country which is not of concern to me.



You can counter-argue all those points... speed bumps save lives, council tax pays for local services like transport for ederly/disabled ppl (you're not gonna be old one day?), national insurance ensures that if you or I break a leg we don't pay an large amount of money to get it reset and put in plaster.. and employment tax.. well I don't think i'd be in the job im in today without going to the educational establishments my tax pays for..

End of the day, would you rather keep your money and have none of these benefits? Majority of ppl say they'd pay more tax to get better services (or at least they did the last time there was a poll on this).

[Jez_Gafys]

bvark thats not my wording thats the inlandrevenue read their article on "understanding your tax code" (sorry bvark I edited my above post cause it kinda ended up a lot of dribble) :)

Halos

End of the day, would you rather keep your money and have none of these benefits? Majority of ppl say they'd pay more tax to get better services (or at least they did the last time there was a poll on this).

Thats just it ppl are paying higher tax and not getting better services

[bvark]

.

[10acious]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
Im with kermit hear tbh. I dont really think its a gripe I have with the tax I pay as bvark says if you dont like, it leave... but its what it is spent on thats the annoyance.

ok jez
firstly its spelt HERE

secondly kermits stance that u agree with (that he dosnet want to live in uk) was immediately contadicted in the following sentence

i mean the asylum seekers u complain about speak better english then you do

please dont bother entering a discussion unless u feel ur opion is valid and clear thanks

[Jez_Gafys]

How about you stfu you little ****, how about you grow up and get a proper job where you actually pay proper tax then maybe you can join in, in a discussion about taxes!!!

You do it every time you little bastard every post you have to be ****ing smart and out post me trying to get the better of me... EVERY F*CKING TIME!!!!!

[Culture]

In answer to your:
"Do I have to declare eBay sale of private items for profit as taxable earnings?"

I believe this comes under capital gains tax (although i am not 100% sure) which only kicks in after you make (around) £8000 in profit in one tax year.
After that it hits the usual tax rates.

Usually though the amount you sell something for (second hand) is below the original retail price which means you dont gain any capital (hence no tax) and you dont owe anything.

[Cheez]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
I'm Tax code L and my Tax and Insurance togther equals approx 700 quid a month. I'm sorry, but someone as stupid as you could NEVER get a good enough salary to have to pay £700 a month in tax and National Insurance.

[10acious]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
How about you stfu you little ****, how about you grow up and get a proper job where you actually pay proper tax then maybe you can join in, in a discussion about taxes!!!

You do it every time you little bastard every post you have to be ****ing smart and out post me trying to get the better of me... EVERY F*CKING TIME!!!!!

i say again
please dont bother entering a discussion unless u feel ur opion is valid and clear thanks

oh and outposting u, just means im pointing out the bits where u make yourself look stupid
if u was less stupid id out post you less frequently

surely u can understand the logic

[Jez_Gafys]

There's no logic in your posting dick head you just have to get one up on me on my every post. Lets start from your first post in this thread you just had to open your stupid little mouth didnt you!!

[10acious]

ahh its the simple things (you) in life that amuse me jez

[Tom]

That reminds me.. how did the fishing lessons go 10?

[Cabe]

/me starts handing out bags of troll food at 50p each

Get yer sarcasm, hot meaty chunks of sarcasm....

[Bob^^]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
You do it every time you little bastard every post you have to be ****ing smart and out post me trying to get the better of me... EVERY F*CKING TIME!!!!! [/B]

but,,, he does it so well... anyone would think it was hard...

[10acious]

jez why did u edit ur post

im sure cheez was very threatened by ur remark (+ smilie)

but im sure hed have let it slide if only to experience ur wonderful abuse of the the english language

[Cabe]

he brings it apon himself

[Jez_Gafys]

Thats just it he's a little kid and does it everytime I bet he wouldn't dare do it in person!!!!!!


Cabe explain when did I bring it upon my self??

[Mingtea]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
You do it every time you little bastard every post you have to be ****ing smart and out post me trying to get the better of me... EVERY F*CKING TIME!!!!!

Everyday i think "Jez can't possibly get any more stupid."

Congratulations you just proved me wrong.

[10acious]

ud think that wouldnt you

unfortunately id probably point out all of your faults in person too

not too mention id have more fun cause ur small and ugly

[Cheez]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
Thats just it he's a little kid and does it everytime I bet he wouldn't dare do it in person!!!!!! I have to admit to being confused here. Is this about me in response to 10acious's comment. Or is it about 10acious himself?

[Cabe]

Due to popular demand, edited.

[KermitTheFrag]

"speed bumps save lives" ... no they don't. That has been proven many times. They make the road surface hazardous and are rarely visible. Also, whilst doing the speed limit in any area of speed humps in will cause your car to go off the road and onto some pedestrians.

anyone who sees the logic in speed humps has a serious problem and needs to seek psychiatric evaluation.

[Jez_Gafys]

Well sorry cabe thats just me I have been treated for possible BPD before and **** like this just is just the exact reason why it just reall pees me off and I go off on one I am not the one in the wrong here 10 started it as he always does and because of my possible illness there is nothing I can do to stop it. :(

It wasnt enough for 10 just to post that he didnt agress with what I posted all he had to state was that what I said was wrong and then started taking the piss so who's in the wrong there!!!

[KermitTheFrag]

Oh and 10acious. Please grow up and stop causing inciting a flamewar - you have added nothing valuable to a serious conversation apart from trolling and spam.

[10acious]

UGLY is not an illness (http://10acious.dynu.com/jez.jpg)

[KermitTheFrag]

Grow up.

That is all.

[Limi]

Well.. arn't we constructive!

(as in general of the whole thread)

[Jez_Gafys]

But surely you other ppl see what a dickhead he is?


Oh btw ppl that picture was taken at i18 after lots of red bull and booze and ffs Im not fat they are blueyonder t-shirts couldnt hold onto em for the picture show shoved em all up me shirt.

[Limi]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
But surely you other ppl see what a dickhead he is? actually all i see is you slagging off everyone else..

[Jez_Gafys]

err Limited quote my posts in this thred then where I slag everyone off please!!!


Ohhh deary me there is non ......

[Gifted]

Originally posted by 10acious

but im sure hed have let it slide if only to experience ur wonderful abuse of the the english language

As you made a point of slating off the spelling of someone I couldn’t help myself! :D

[HalOS]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
"speed bumps save lives" ... no they don't. That has been proven many times. They make the road surface hazardous and are rarely visible. Also, whilst doing the speed limit in any area of speed humps in will cause your car to go off the road and onto some pedestrians.

anyone who sees the logic in speed humps has a serious problem and needs to seek psychiatric evaluation.

"Everyone drives too fast. I do. It isn't conscious. Speed bumps are annoying because they awaken us from this semi-comatose autopilot state when we are driving. But this is precisely why they save lives." Quoted from a guy who's daughter was killed by a speeding driver...

You may be right about the psychiatric evaluation though.. he may need it after losing his child.

[Limi]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
How about you stfu you little ****, how about you grow up and get a proper job where you actually pay proper tax then maybe you can join in, in a discussion about taxes!!!

You do it every time you little bastard every post you have to be ****ing smart and out post me trying to get the better of me... EVERY F*CKING TIME!!!!! deary me, such abuse of the english language!

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
There's no logic in your posting dick head you just have to get one up on me on my every post. Lets start from your first post in this thread you just had to open your stupid little mouth didnt you!! tum de tum

[Jez_Gafys]

like I said Limited there are not slags to everyone but just 10

[10acious]

profanity is such a horrible waste of the queens english

[Limi]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
like I said Limited there are not slags to everyone but just 10 Well im quite offended by your harsh age discrimination... i don't see why 10 can't contribute to this thread, he's got a job (probably) he pays taxes (probably).. don't see the problem. Just because he may not be as old as you or doesnt have such an extentsive knowledge of the matter does not mean he isnt entitled to his comment or ideas. (Remember, its a forum ffs!)

[Gifted]

tbfh..... LMAO!

i find it very funny you can get so wound up on a forum!
and as for taxes love them or hate them we have to pay them... end of storey... granted i do get a tad annoyed about it sometimes but thats life!

10 - i do think its a tad pathetic blatently slating people, but thats just you init...

and jez... dont bite... no need to get so wound up m8.

maybe best if someone just closes this thread now i think! lol :rolleyes:

[Jez_Gafys]

Limited I take it you didnt read from the start there was nothing wrong with my first post it was all legit and on topic.. ohoh 10 came and ****ed it all up like he always does

[Limi]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
ohoh 10 came and ****ed it all up like he always does if he always does it.. why'd did you go off on one when he did? :rolleyes:

[Bluey]

[none of my business but my 2 cents]
Can it be dropped i think both sides have been bad, 10 did a nice job of winding jez up, its ok but obviously not if you do it all the time and as we can see he doesn't need the **** you give him. Hence the over reaction and abuse thrown your way, jez mate calm down I can see he’s been annoying but that’s life and if I reacted like you did then every time someone was that annoying I would be doing life :D
[/none of my business but my 2 cents]

[Afty]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
I think you would be pissed when yah look at yah wage slip each month and see that in total 700 pound is been taken from you each month!!!

I pay an amount in tax and NI every year similar to that, and I'm not pissed, we're actually taxed very reasonably in this country compared with most others - I would argue about some of the uses though like going to war, speed bumps etc.

Official government figures show speed as causative in 3% of accidents... so why is so much money spent on anti-speeding measures?

[Afty]

Originally posted by Space Cowboy
Let's think about tax though...

Of course tax pays for services like those, but some countries do have lower tax and we need to emulate them. An almost universal indicator of economic growth is the level of tax the average man or woman pays... in general the lower the tax the greater the economic growth and vice-versa, this is why it's important both to minimise the tax we pay and maximise the benefit we get for it. Simply doing one or the other is very short-termist.

[Jez_Gafys]

Afty I dont think I really have a hate to paying tax is more a hate to what the government appears to be spending ppl tax money on surely everyone doesnt agree that they are spending it well??

I did go off on one, last time aswell Limited, but I asked for the thread to be deleted before I went too far which im sad to say happens and I can't help it

[Afty]

Originally posted by HalOS
"Everyone drives too fast. I do. It isn't conscious. Speed bumps are annoying because they awaken us from this semi-comatose autopilot state when we are driving. But this is precisely why they save lives." Quoted from a guy who's daughter was killed by a speeding driver...
Not exactly an impartial or balanced source for your views on speeding though, is he? There's a reason why we don't let police officers investigate crimes against people they know, or perpetrated by people they know, and that's because emotional involvement makes rational decision making conisderably harder.

The same should apply to victims of accidents and parents of drugs using children who've had bad experiences. They make nice reading in the newspaper but that's where it should stay, the emotionally charged rantings of people post-trauma are not to be used when deciding policy.

Just my $0.02

[HalOS]

well.. quoted from http://www.cfit.gov.uk/factsheets/03/


Accidents involving speeding cost the taxpayer £885 million in terms of lost output, medical, ambulance and human costs in 1998
A year later it also cost the criminal justice system (including the police) nearly £1 billion
Illegal and inappropriate speed kills around 1200 people every year and injures a further 100,000 - a third of all road casualties


:angel:

Feels slightly off-topic mind.. but its all about what your income tax/road tax/council tax are being spent on... ho hum :)

[Afty]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
Afty I dont think I really have a hate to paying tax is more a hate to what the government appears to be spending ppl tax money on surely everyone doesnt agree that they are spending it well??

No, but the majority seem to.... and like I said, we are blessed with fairly low rates of tax in this country.

[Afty]

Originally posted by LimitedEdition
i don't see why 10 can't contribute to this thread, he's got a job (probably) he pays taxes (probably).. don't see the problem.

Yeah, 10 works for a huge multinational with an enormous budget that operates in nearly every country of the world. Oh that we should all be so lucky :)

(P.S. GL with your apps to education again 10)

[10acious]

****

i better actually do those apps

so i can put my tax money to good use :D

[HalOS]

from slacker worker... to slacker student... seems like a natural move to me :p: :D

[Gifted]

Originally posted by HalOS

but its all about what your income tax/road tax/council tax are being spent on... ho hum :)

one thing... its not called road tax anymore... its called vehicle tax, because of the trades discrimination...


as obviously the 40billion the previously so called 'Road tax' brought into the government was not being pumped back into the roads... or we wouldnt have the worst roads in western europe.

[10acious]

must.....

demoralize.....


fellow students.....


or get drunk and flunk uni

its a win win situation

p.s. im pretty sure we dont have the worst roads in western europe

[Gifted]

oh and second....

all those facts are well and good but i should imagine a massive preportion of accidents also occur because of poor roads... yes people may be going over the speed limit but more often than not road coniditions play a large factor in high speed accidents...


maybe if the government made some investment in actually repairing the roads instead of slowing people down the reduction in deaths would be the same if not more...

the above is all hyperthetical and i have no figures to back what im saying... but then the governement are hardly going to publish a report on deaths caused by their own negligence.

[KermitTheFrag]

they would never do that.

good points made.

[HalOS]

Originally posted by Gifted
... yes people may be going over the speed limit but more often than not road coniditions play a large factor in high speed accidents...


!?!

although I do agree the road quality is pitiful (especially in London) and just for driving at legal speeds it needs to be sorted.

[KermitTheFrag]

It is true.

In irony, a police car (after hitting a pot hole) in our local area swerved off the road and into a ditch nearly mowing down 3 people.

In not irony, I have a very badly scraped underpan and a damaged shock absorber after I drove over an UNLIT, UNMARKED and UNFINISHED (two bricks and a bit of soft tarmac) speed hump at 30mph. I should take action to refund the repair costs against the council for having an unmarked dangerous road obstacle.

[KermitTheFrag]

Another thing.

When I purchase a service, if I am not happy I can complain and get a refund.

When I pay tax for a service, if I am not happy I can't complain and will never get a refund.

?

I EXPECT value for money.

[10acious]

theres two certainties in life

taxes and death

surely youve all realised this by now

[Cabe]

and this is why you should vote

[10acious]

so the other guy can make a load of promises slate off everyone else and then tax me ???

sadly i believe labour is about as good as its gonna get

[Jez_Gafys]

kermit its easy to give money to the council virtually impossible to get anything back, its been almost 12 months and claim is still ongoing after my GF had a fall coming home down a zero light snicket her leg is still damaged now. There is alot of humming and arrring because she had had a couple of drinks before hand but that doesnt give them excuses for making insafe public walk ways

[Noodleman]

polatics make me chuckle...

1 year. 1 party will be going on about everything they wanna do.

the other partys will have a go at them, and try and do the oposite of everything they do. When they balls it up, everyine thinks, ooO mayby the other way.. etc..

i mean it s like tennis! lol

Polatics / Goverments SUCK! :)

[Jez_Gafys]

aye going on about what they wanna do and what they actually do do though is another thing..

[Afty]

What I think Gifted is getting at, is that having good quality road surfaces laid flat and recent with good drainage (and micro-drainage, or whatever it is called) will help to reduce "stopping distances" especially in inclement weather conditions, which would definitely reduce a lot of accidents.

IIRC the two most common causes of accident were "Driver Inattentiveness" (falling asleep at wheel / using phone / looking away / talking / playing with stereo) and "Maneuver Error" which is basically failing to look, indicate, or just plain performing a maneuver that was stupid or inappropriate.

Quite high up there are severe weather conditions, all appearing before speed... which is the primary cause in only around 3% of accidents.

Note that your earlier post saying speed is a factor in 33% of injuries can be reconciled with the fact that that it's causative in only 3% by taking note of the language. In other words, 3 out of 100 accidents are caused mainly by speed and nothing else, whereas in a further 30 out of 100 accidents speed may have contributed to the accident or not to the accident itself, but to more severe injuries or the driver may simply have been speeding, but speed was not the *CAUSE* only a small factor.

This is why I think it's important to ensure our law enforcement on the road is prosecuting people like those who drive significantly below the speed limit, fail to indicate, hog middle or outer lane, fail to observe before manuever etc. with a much higher priority than people who drive faster than the stated limit. Currently the VAST majority of law enforcement time and money is spent on stopping people speeding, and this has been to the DETRIMENT of enforcement of other offences because fewer and fewer officers even bother with them. This is justified by the claims that "it pays for itself" and the profit they make... which is balloney. If we had a spot fine of £150 for failing to indicate / look before maneuver / hog lanes etc. then that activity would pay for itself too.

A camera in the front of the police car (and possibly one mounted on top to take another angle) could rack up approximately 1 hit a MINUTE driving down any major motorway in the UK. The forward facing cameras would show the car in the middle lane, nothing in the inside lane for a significant distance ahead (or behind) and would prove they hogged the lane.

Same with a mini-DV cam which could be "always on" but not makin a permanent record a-la TIVO style, and when the police officers see someone change without indicating they just press a button and the last 30 seconds of video are spooled to hard disk.... they could accumulate THOUSANDS of pounds an hour with just one patrol car.... and at the same time have far more effect on road safety than a dozen speed cameras.

[Noodleman]

I think i will get into polatics..


Ladies & Gents,

I, The leader of the "I dont know what im doing" party have decided to mess things up a bit..

For my campaign i have decided to venture into these very, VERY important, country changing points...

1) I want more police"people" on the beat all over the country.

2) Free tiny cocktail umbrella's for pints

3) Lets lower VAT to say 8%

4) Weekends will become workdays, and mon-fri will be the weekends.



Now, i make point 1, becuase it makes me laugh, n the south westm i have only EVER seen 1 policeman doing a beat.. The goverments says, "We have more people on the beat"

What they really mean is, "We have more cops running around our buildings in london so we are fooling ourselves"

point 2, Cmon.. arnt those umbrella's so cute :)

VAT sux!!!!! Bring on a lower VAT. although, since it's a goverment proposal, they missed a 0 off, so 8 will become 80... dont they just love typo's.

point 4, YES PLZ :)


Disclamer:

Igmore my blatent useless ramblings

[Afty]

Originally posted by Jez_Gafys
kermit its easy to give money to the council virtually impossible to get anything back
Same with the government. A company I worked for went bust, owing me approximately £4500 a few years ago. You pay your national insurance so that when this sort of thing happens, the government reimburses you.

Only they didn't - they refused to do so because two companies which part owned the company I was employed by both acknowledged I was an employee but said it was the other companies responsibility. The DTI contacts I went through all said the same thing "hire a lawyer and go to court".

Like that's affordable to do when you have student debt, loans and you haven't been paid for two months.... and just had to rent a new place. It was the biggest crock of **** I've ever come across, and what really rubbed my face in it was when they TAXED ME for the income I had NEVER RECEIVED - that's hundreds of pounds - and I didn't receive the tax back for over two years.

Bástards,

[10acious]

would u like some cheese to go with that whine, sir!!

teehee :D

[Limi]

Originally posted by afty
they could accumulate THOUSANDS of pounds an hour with just one patrol car.... and at the same time have far more effect on road safety than a dozen speed cameras. fortuantly they have better things to do than catching people who hog lanes...

[TE-Hellfire]

Why don't they just fit physical speed limiters on cars to prevent them from speeding in the first place. Also, disable the ability to adjust the stereo whilst the car is in motion. That would cut down a bit on accidents :)

In the far future I hope we can have cars which can detect each other's presence and be able to drive themselves safely.

[Say_Ten]

Originally posted by Gifted
but i should imagine a massive preportion of accidents also occur because of poor roads... yes people may be going over the speed limit but more often than not road coniditions play a large factor in high speed accidents...

Then these people were not driving safely and appropriatly to the road conditions. Yes the roads may be **** but then the people should be driving according to the fact they're driving on **** roads.

[Say_Ten]

Originally posted by TE-Hellfire
Why don't they just fit physical speed limiters on cars to prevent them from speeding in the first place.

You mean like the ones they fit in lorries and which are disabled by removing the fuse?

[Jez_Gafys]

TE-Hellfire you been watching too much Tomorrows World.

[Gifted]

Originally posted by 10acious

p.s. im pretty sure we dont have the worst roads in western europe

Well i have driven in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and believe you me they are 100% better...

and to be perfectly honest i went to turkey and all the new roads are imaculate! they are doing a mass improvment scheme on their raods and while some of the old ones are appauling the new ones are as good as any roads i have been on... and that Turkey ffs!

Originally posted by Say_Ten

Then these people were not driving safely and appropriatly to the road conditions. Yes the roads may be **** but then the people should be driving according to the fact they're driving on **** roads.

sorry Say_Ten i agree that drivers should always drive to the conditions of the road but sometimes things can be out of your control. granted you wont go 60 round a tight corner even though technically its nationial speed limit.... but what if you are traveling down a nationial speed classed road and hit an unexpected pot hole for example... im affraid that isnt the drivers fault at all... the chances of him seeing a pothole first of all at 60mph are slim.... yet alone slowing down with the posability of causing a different accident because of his caution.

id ont think many of you realise how bad our roads actually are! and you never will untill you drive in another country and realise the HUGE difference a good surface brings to your driving experience. its smoother and you feel more in control for a start.

[Groodles]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
Why should I pay as much as I do when there is a lot of cash burned on issues not of my creation?


One reason, and one reason only.

I.E. You live in the UK and hence are subject to UK Law and taxation.

If you don't like it, move abroad.

[Say_Ten]

I know how bad our roads are, I drive the M6 nuff said ;p

[KermitTheFrag]

Originally posted by Groodles
One reason, and one reason only.

I.E. You live in the UK and hence are subject to UK Law and taxation.

If you don't like it, move abroad.

Thats defies the objective of democracy. I should be able to vote to get what I so wish. Unfortunately all major political parties are full of empty promises. A failing of democracy is a limited number of ruling bodies. Call it selective dictatorship.

You think the M6 is bad - Try the A406, M11, A10, most london roads...

[Afty]

Originally posted by KermitTheFrag
Thats defies the objective of democracy. I should be able to vote to get what I so wish.

Not stricly true. In democracy you vote for a representative who then votes once again in parliament in order to get what *he* wishes.

What you seem to be advocating is mob rule - where the majority of the voting populace (51% or more) gets to decide on each issue. It seems attractive at first - 1] It's incredibly inneficient and 2] Poor decisions are made by ill educated people.

Personally, I do think we should strive to follow the Swiss system of regular referendums on important subjects with mandatory voting...

[KermitTheFrag]

Yes I agree there.

Been to Switzerland a few times (relatives there). They seem clued on pretty much every matter. The country works like clockwork.

[Elbonio]

the swiss do have it sorted


their banks have the right idea too

Your country: "Erm, we need to know how much money Mr Smith has in his bank account with you - we think he's evading tax"

Swiss bank "That's not our problem, go away"

Your country: "ah... erm.. ok"

Though i've read articles that this is changing and the EU are putting pressure on the swiss to change their attitude - especially in the current climate with possible terrorists hiding their money there...

[BatWick]

Taxation helps the economy, due to the balannced budget multiplier if a governent taxes and spends the same amount of money, it circulates through the economy many times, stimulating demand and making the orders that keep a lot of people in jobs.

Basically this country invests in people, it educates us, ensures we live to a basic standard, protects against illness, etc. you get IT jobs that without the help of the government would either not exist due to a lack of infrastructure or you probably wouldnt be qualified for, you would also have to go cross country to get there because of a lack of roads. Taxes are you paying back the investment.

I think things are better this way (taxation), we get equality (to a point), nobody is left behind, and the economy performs better than if there was no government intervention (though this is a point of debate). Unfortunately we dont pull it off perfectly in the execution, but at least we thave a go and are still very well off.

The swiss banking rules are rediculous IMO. I am a strong advocate of high tax rates for the wealthy - why should just because some distant relative oppressed the peasents i the 14th centuary, you own a massive estate which you have not earned, and people in your family continue to be rich for many many gereations, maybe getting richer due to rising property prices, (and unearned wealth ie. interest), so the idea of the rich secreting their money in offshore bank accounts does not appeal to me - if you are earning your money i think tax should be paid at higher rates than it is now - a basic rate of 25p but NI cut to 5% so not a lot of change although it becomes more progressive and slightly more tax. I would also introduce a 50% levy on money over £100,000. As well the elimination of loopholes allowing people to evade tax eg. share options, and everything else they use. HTe money would be used for healthcare providing a truly world class system - solving the shortage of staff by making more training places - i have friends predicted 3,4 and 5 As at A level who cannot get on medicine courses, no wonder there is a shortage! Also child poverty would be eliminated with the helkp of means tested benefits that do not reduce the incentive to work - child tax credits, etc.

but I bet you get guess how i feel about the monarchy given my dislike of dynasties that build up stupid amounts of wealth......... VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

[Gifted]

Originally posted by Say_Ten
I know how bad our roads are, I drive the M6 nuff said ;p

tbh my argument isnt based on moterway roads... believe it or not they prolly the best we got! come done here in the cotswolds and drive round the country roads... you will be shocked at how bad they really are! infact i seem to remember reading that oxfordshire is the worst country in england for roads.. mainly due to the fact that all the country roads havnt been resurfaced for decades... and by re surfaced i dont meen throwing fecking chippings on it! GRRR

[Noodleman]

Agreed,

in the southwest, the roads are pritty bad.. they *NEVER* get fixed..

[Afty]

Originally posted by BatWick
Taxation helps the economy, due to the balanced budget multiplier if a governent taxes and spends the same amount of money, it circulates through the economy many times

No. Quite simply, lower taxation correlates very strongly with economic growth, has done since at least the early part of this century from when we have detailed economic data.

Government spending by its' nature has 2 problems : 1] it is inefficient and 2] it is often spent in the wrong areas - conversely "commercial" spending is always spent in the right areas e.g. where the demand is.

Originally posted by BatWick
I think things are better this way (taxation), we get equality (to a point), nobody is left behind, and the economy performs better than if there was no government intervention (though this is a point of debate). Unfortunately we dont pull it off perfectly in the execution, but at least we thave a go and are still very well off.
I'm not arguing for no taxation, I'm arguing for low taxation.

Originally posted by BatWick
The swiss banking rules are rediculous IMO. I am a strong advocate of high tax rates for the wealthy - why should just because some distant relative oppressed the peasents i the 14th centuary, you own a massive estate which you have not earned, and people in your family continue to be rich for many many gereations, maybe getting richer due to rising property prices, (and unearned wealth ie. interest), so the idea of the rich secreting their money in offshore bank accounts does not appeal to me - if you are earning your money i think tax should be paid at higher rates than it is now - a basic rate of 25p but NI cut to 5% so not a lot of change although it becomes more progressive and slightly more tax. I would also introduce a 50% levy on money over £100,000.

Currently earnings more than thirty-odd thousand pounds are taxed at 40% (which is siimlar to the 50% you have mentioned, but starts at a much lower threshhold). Furthermore, the majority of people earning more than about 75k or so a year are not salaried (probably 99.5% of salaried employees earn < 75k/annum) so that tax wouldn't do much good - which is why we have capital gains tax which *does* tax those people who earn over 100k a year. Unfortunately, if you tax those people too much on capital gains they will invest that capital in another country - this is where the government economy takes on an element of competitive capitalism - you can't simply say "Our population made capital gains of 800 Bn last year, let's up capital gains tax by 10%" because you'll find that peoples' investments in many of these arenas are quite liquid, and they can be transferred overseas very very quickly if somewhere else has lower capital gains tax and an economy with similar potential.

Secondly, the bit about dynasties is crazy... you advocate taxing the rich but don't state how... you mention "unearned income" like interest, but neglect to remember that 1] Their parents already paid high rate tax on the money in the bank once 2] People *are* taxed on their interest accrued in bank accounts / capital gains etc. 3] Taxing income will do little to prevent hand-me-downs of vast sums in rich families.

What you need to advocate here is inheritance tax, which already exists and is pretty damn hefty above a certain threshhold.

Now I'm all in favour of steeply increasing inheritance tax rates as the amount increases however remember that part of the incentive for people to earn monye, particularly people later in life, is to set up their sons and daughters for a good life. Take that away, and you take away the incentive for someone to contribute to the economy... and not only that, but by targetting those with more money, you are taking away the incentive from someone who has already proved they have a higher value to the economy than the average person.

Originally posted by BatWick
As well the elimination of loopholes allowing people to evade tax eg. share options, and everything else they use.
If it was that easy it would have been done. They're called loopholes for a reason : because they are people getting around the law by exploiting holes in the wording or implementation. You can make more laws if you like but they will still have holes...

Originally posted by BatWick
HTe money would be used for healthcare providing a truly world class system - solving the shortage of staff by making more training places - i have friends predicted 3,4 and 5 As at A level who cannot get on medicine courses, no wonder there is a shortage!

There isn't really a shortage - it's an illusion designed to bring more people into the system - more competition = lower wages. And those people getting 3,4,5 As at A-level - that's just tough. There is a lot of competition for those courses and not everyone is suitable. Funnily enough many of the game development courses are oversubscribes too - things that many people want to do when they are young are hard to get into university for, that doesn't mean we should make another 20% of places available to make it easy. There is a demand for xxx qualified people a year in a given subject - if we create xxx + 20% then we put that 20% out of work, and in doing so shaft the economy that little bit more.


Originally posted by BatWick
Also child poverty would be eliminated with the help of means tested benefits that do not reduce the incentive to work - child tax credits, etc.
Child poverty pretty much is eliminated in this country. Just about everything that can be done is being done for single parents or couples with children to ensure adequate housing, heating and food. That lifts them above poverty right away. I come from a place where people *DO* get pregnant in order to move out of their parents place at the expense of the tax payer, so I have seen first hand what a devastating effect handouts for single mums can have on peoples' life. Ask many of those girls if they regret having the child they will say "no, I love him/her" which is of course a good motherly instinct, but then they spend every day pining about how they want an "ordinary life" with holidays, meeting some wonderful husband (clue : it ain't going to happen in a run-down ex fishing town with an enormous teenage pregnancy rate and crappy civic facilities), a job to go to etc. They make one stupid decision and it sets them into a cycle of depression or close to it for the rest of their lives, and that stupid decision is encouraged by "alleviating child poverty" by regulations that say things like microwaves, TVs, videos etc. are "essential items" that people can't live without.

You can probably tell from my comments that I don't think you've fully thought through either what exists now, or the ramifications of what you're proposing... have you?

[Say_Ten]

The M6 is subsiding and the pipes are rising out of it, tell me that's in good condition. Anyway, country roads, been there done that, I learnt in The Fenns where the roads actually ripple with what's left of the fen. There's some pretty shocking roads that way, enough people end themselves in rivers by not driving to the road conditions.

However, if they repaired those roads I bet you'd be sitting there going "****ing roadworks"...

[KermitTheFrag]

Roadworks are another issue. Why are roadworks started yet there are never workmen on them? London is a mess of thousands of traffic reducing roadworks with noone completing them. Isn't that costing people a lot of money? Isn't that costing US a lot of money?

I don't mind roadworks at all, but when it takes 4 weeks to patch a one lane, 2 meter section of the M11, I start to wonder if the people doing it are raking in the cash for doing no work.

[Triprotic-Acid]

There is a road near me, where one side the road is slipping into a feild, and on the other side is land slides (small ones, just mud + small rocks slipping down from bad weather).

The road has had roadworks on it for nearly 5 years, there are perminent traffic lights up and big signs saying "sorry for the delay".


mmm, joy! :rolleyes:

[BatWick]

Firstly government spending *does* create jobs.

Any time an injection of cash is made to the economy, it is spent, then the money is respent, and this circles round and round. It is called the multiplier.

Now imagine if the government takjes £1 extra from everybodies wages. Now remember if this went to people, a certain amount would be saved, however to government will spend it all. THis is the increased demand, and in a time when demand is slowing, falling back in some areas this additional government spending eg. improveing the NHS is a boost to the economy that is greatly needed.

Yes you are correct in saying lower taxes promote economic growth. But it is not the be all and end all - economic growth is not the holy grail - Japan increased Aggregate supply massivly in the 80s/90s, lots of growth but not very much good - the economy is stagnant, teetering on the brink of the very rare phenomenon of deflation.

See demand management is also important - Bush has cut taxes massively to create an incentive to work harder. Is it making a difference? yes, the economy is still stumbling, what is needed is more government spending, boosting demand and hence jobs, then those people spend the money and itt goes round and round. Unfortunately for the rest of the woreld (so dependant on America), he is a rebublican, and does not believe in the idea of taxes, etc.

Governemnt spending can also boost Economic Growth remember - research and development tax breaks, good control of monetary policy, etc. Anoither pro busineess AND pro consumer benefit would be entry to the Euro.

Yes i am arguing for inheritance tax, the levels are just about right now - i believe anything over £250k gets taxed when somebody dies, but also a more progressive tax system to fund public services that do more than just get by.

RE the medical training issue, i believe training more doctors and nurses would be a good idea, wages would probably not fall - to keep the incentive for peopel to train for 7 years they could not fall too far, ratehr pay increases wopuld be more moderate, and these doctors will be needed as the UK's population start to age more and more. But if we have people skilled enough to be medical professionals, I believe we should give them that chance.

Child poverty does still exist - Labour has done a lot to reduce it, and tony blair set the challenge of eliminating it by 2020, a very admirable and ambitious target. But not likely to happen unless there is a lot of change in government policy. Other types of poverty are also around - in work poverty is one, many people who work are still; struggling to get by, then theres the poeple who don't appear in the poverty figures because they work 60, 70, 80 and 90 hours a week.

You don't think i have thought everything through, but I say that i have, and considered everything about it. Prehaps you should consider the implications of government spending reducing, and the inevitable mass unemployment that would follow.

[10acious]

wow
at least when i invaded this thread and started 'debating' i made it intresting

[Asterix]

Aye i must say the 40% tax bracket sucks, i mean so what if i drive a £30k car, does that mean i should have a proportion of that added to my salary over the year so that my P11D goes mental??

I pay nigh on £800 pounds a month in Tax let alone NI.

However, I have found a cunning way not to have a K code, mine is still L, get kids, the WFTC's own!! LOL

[Afty]

Originally posted by BatWick
Firstly government spending *does* create jobs.

Any time an injection of cash is made to the economy, it is spent, then respent, and this circles round and round. It is called the multiplier.
Yes. Government taxes take money out of the economy, then put it back in. Net gain = ZERO. Well, not zero because effort had to be expended in order to collect the taxes and then again to decide what to expend them on so there is a net loss.

What's important to remember is that "money" when we're talking about it in such macro terms represents human work - that is all. When taxes are raised the governments takes away the fruits of human work and decides what to spend it on itself - this is inefficient as if the demand was there for the new services the government is now to provide, the money would have been spent on those services already.

The government and taxes should exist only where needed to provide services which suffer from "tragedy of the commons" effects - such as the NHS, police, fire and rescue services, army, roads etc.


Originally posted by BatWick
Now imagine if the government takes £1 extra from everybodys wages. Now remember if this went to people, a certain amount would be saved, however to government will spend it all.
First of all, people have a right to save the money they've earned if they want. If people are saving large sums of money it means that the commercial and industrial sectors are not producing goods of sufficient quality and price to tempt them to spend their money. The government cannot help in this situation.
Furthermore, people may save a small percentage of it, but as we stated above the government DEFINITELY wastes a percentage of it in collecting, and furthermore may waste it on obscene spending plans... Millenium Dome anyone? If the money for the Millenium Dome had been left in private hands instead of taxed, the incredible wastage would not have occured, and everyone in the country would be richer for it today.


Originally posted by BatWick
THis is the increased demand, and in a time when demand is slowing, ... this additional government spending eg. improveing the NHS is a boost to the economy that is greatly needed.
It's not greatly needed though... the economy is doing fine, people live very well, technology is roaring ahead - perhaps there have simply been no compelling new products to increase fad-spending in recent years? Perhaps something has dampened innovation or progress, perhaps the incredibly increasing house price saga is simply sucking most peoples' money away from consumer goods? Whatever the problem is, spending unnecessary money on the NHS will not help the overall quality of life in this country... If the NHS needed improvement, it should already have been done - if it doesn't need improvement, spending more money on it will be a waste.

Originally posted by BatWick
Yes you are correct in saying lower taxes promote economic growth. But ... economic growth is not the holy grail - Japan increased Aggregate supply massivly in the 80s/90s, lots of growth but not very much good - the economy is stagnant, teetering on the brink of the very rare phenomenon of deflation.
But the overall quality of life is significantly higher now in Japan than it was before that boom - every economy has extensive boom/bust periods that's the nature of the market - the cycle repeats. And you're right that economic growth is not the holy grail - slow, sustained economic growth *is*.

Originally posted by BatWick
See demand management is also important - Bush has cut taxes massively to create an incentive to work harder. Is it making a difference? yes, the economy is still stumbling, what is needed is more government spending, boosting demand and hence jobs, then those people spend the money and itt goes round and round.
The tax cuts Bush has implemented since he got into power almost exclusively benefit the rich and already wealthy while taking money from the hand of the average worker. When the average workers perception is that the people with money take home all the profits, and that no matter how hard he works he will never earn even a small fraction of the rich mens income he is disincentivized - in other words he doesn't work as hard. When this happens throughout the economy it becomes stagnant because the efficiency of the workforce has dropped. This leads to problems such as depreciation etc.


Originally posted by BatWick
Governemnt spending can also boost Economic Growth remember - research and development tax breaks, good control of monetary policy, etc. Anoither pro busineess AND pro consumer benefit would be entry to the Euro.
"tax breaks" are not government spending per-se, they are less tax... my point entirely...
And as for the Euro, well that's another kettle of fish entirely - I agree that recent historical trends would indicate that our economy would be stronger if we were part of the Euro, but on the other hand we would lose control of our own economy, and the ability to set our own taxes and interest rates meaning if we get into an economic crisis, we may be unable to dig ourselves out because our usual mechanisms for doing so will be controlled by a huge number of people with varied interests. I used to be quite pro-Euro but after much learning and consideration I'm now on the fence.

Originally posted by BatWick
Yes i am arguing for inheritance tax
That's good. Your last post made it sound like you weren't, but were instead arguing for income tax for the already rich which would do no good.

Originally posted by BatWick
i believe training more doctors and nurses would be a good idea, wages would probably not fall
Can you explain why not? You're creating more supply while maintaining demand.... how can wages possibly not fall?

Originally posted by BatWick
ratehr pay increases wopuld be more moderate,
A pay "increase" across an industry isn't technically an increase while we have inflation - it's ensuring that the employee maintains a purchasing power parity that he previously had. If you are saying you expect pay increases to suffer after having trained more doctors, then in real terms you are describing a long term fall in remuneration, which was exactly my point you were trying to refute.

Originally posted by BatWick
and these doctors will be needed as the UK's population start to age more and more. But if we have people skilled enough to be medical professionals, I believe we should give them that chance.
I don't disagree that we're going to need them more and more, I do disagree about my taxes going to pay for it. We're in the ****, we don't have enough births+immigration to ensure our continued population growth so we're all going to pay for our parents healthcare requirements as they get older. Oh dear :/
As for "people skilled enough to be medical professionals" I disagree entirely. The people who might consider a medical degree are likely very clever and could be employed in senior positions in any number of industries. If you take a large portion of those intelligent people and tempt them unnecessarily into one profession, all other professions suffer a skills shortage, and so does the economy in general...


Originally posted by BatWick
Child poverty does still exist - Labour has done a lot to reduce it, and tony blair set the challenge of eliminating it by 2020, a very admirable and ambitious target. ... many people who work are still; struggling to get by, then theres the poeple who don't appear in the poverty figures because they work 60, - 90 hours a week.
Show me a child who has to sleep rough on the streets tonight? Show me one child who does not have a bed waiting for them and their parents? Show me a child whose parents cannot obtain food for their child?

As for people working 60,70,80,90 hour weeks, well that's a whole other topic. Lack of education, massive over supply for drudge work from overseas workers and exploitative working contracts all contribute to that, it has nothing to do with government spending.



Originally posted by BatWick
You don't think i have thought everything through, but I say that i have, and considered everything about it. Prehaps you should consider the implications of government spending reducing, and the inevitable mass unemployment that would follow.
I disagree that mass unemployment would follow... the lower taxes would bring about more private spending, and over time the economy would benefit. Of course, we're assuming that the cut in government spending is in non-essential services and crap, rather than essential stuff.


The incredibly important thing to remember here is that "the economy" is simply a metaphor. You seem to think the important thing is how big the numbers are at the end of a financial year, I on the other hand seem to think the important things are how many goods and services does someone receive in that year, and how good are they?

If the objective was to simply have more pounds floating about the economy we could very VERY simply print some more - but it's *NOT*. The objective is to increase the value of goods and services offered by society at large on a year by year basis.

The economy is really a combination of the education, aptitude, and work ethic of the population, with existing wealth playing a part. The "pounds" are simply used to measure that relative to other economies, having more pounds floating about is no good because the other economies will simply devalue the worth of one pound.

[Afty]

Originally posted by 10acious
wow
at least when i invaded this thread and started 'debating' i made it intresting
Opinion stated as fact... nice :)

[KermitTheFrag]

Originally posted by TE-Hellfire
In the far future I hope we can have cars which can detect each other's presence and be able to drive themselves safely.

Thats the job of the drivers. When they are foreign then that doesn't apply.

[10acious]

Originally posted by afty
Opinion stated as fact... nice :)

actually i was just stating the common opinion expressed on IRC

i may not be writing 500 lines on why theres a pot hole in the road
but im a **** and its amusing tbh :D

[Nibbler]

Well said 10acious. I also have the I.Q of a potato thus do not inflict myself apon a very interesting thread. :D

+ No one would understand me anyway. My spelling/grammer is poop :D

[BatWick]

Originally posted by 10acious
actually i was just stating the common opinion expressed on IRC

i may not be writing 500 lines on why theres a pot hole in the road
but im a **** and its amusing tbh :D

see instead of just abusing people and making 0 constructive posts, simply provoking people, i also like to have the odd discussion. Using words with more than 4 letters.

[BatWick]

Originally posted by afty
Yes. Government taxes take money out of the economy, then put it back in. Net gain = ZERO. Well, not zero because effort had to be expended in order to collect the taxes and then again to decide what to expend them on so there is a net loss.

What's important to remember is that "money" when we're talking about it in such macro terms represents human work - that is all. When taxes are raised the governments takes away the fruits of human work and decides what to spend it on itself - this is inefficient as if the demand was there for the new services the government is now to provide, the money would have been spent on those services already.

The government and taxes should exist only where needed to provide services which suffer from "tragedy of the commons" effects - such as the NHS, police, fire and rescue services, army, roads etc.

First of all, people have a right to save the money they've earned if they want. If people are saving large sums of money it means that the commercial and industrial sectors are not producing goods of sufficient quality and price to tempt them to spend their money. The government cannot help in this situation.
Furthermore, people may save a small percentage of it, but as we stated above the government DEFINITELY wastes a percentage of it in collecting, and furthermore may waste it on obscene spending plans... Millenium Dome anyone? If the money for the Millenium Dome had been left in private hands instead of taxed, the incredible wastage would not have occured, and everyone in the country would be richer for it today.

It's not greatly needed though... the economy is doing fine, people live very well, technology is roaring ahead - perhaps there have simply been no compelling new products to increase fad-spending in recent years? Perhaps something has dampened innovation or progress, perhaps the incredibly increasing house price saga is simply sucking most peoples' money away from consumer goods? Whatever the problem is, spending unnecessary money on the NHS will not help the overall quality of life in this country... If the NHS needed improvement, it should already have been done - if it doesn't need improvement, spending more money on it will be a waste.

You are misuinderstandign here, i am not expressing an opinin that we are better off with governemnt spending taxing and spending the same amount, it is economic FACT. When the governemnt taxes say £1 million for the population, then spends that £1 million at the same time, imagine the money going round the economy.

At first 1 million is spent, now lets say 20% is taken in tax and withdrawn from the flow of income - savings, exports are other methods of withdrawl.

THis leaves 800,000 in circular flow of income. THis is then respent - prehaps the constructiomn workers who got jobs building a school, or the miners digging up the iron to make steel, or whatever, say they invest in a new car. Anyway the money is spent

This leaves 640k above the previous level in the economy, say the car dealer then spends more money going out, etc.

can you see what i am getting at, the effect of this is known as the balanced budget multiplier, basically an input of cash circulates around the economy creating additional demand, and at a much higher level than was inputted, this is why governemnt spending works. They remain revenue neutral yet reate a large boost to the economy.

This is part of fiscal policy, and the spending more than you take in taxes is expanionary fiscal policy - what is happening now, it boosts demand in the economy during the "recessions" "slowdowns" "downturns" or whatever else you want to call them. Times like now. THe reason we are doing alright is with the extra spending on the NHS etc. the government is spending money, which is circulating creating demand.

I'm not saying people shouldn't save, or that savings are wrong, immoral or anythign else. Just that when money is withdrawn from the circular flow of income, demand reduces - anoither reason why governemnt spending is effective is that when it takes that £1 million all of it is spent, while people are likely to save some of the money.

As im sure you will realise less demand means less is produced - the main idea behind a capitalist economy, consumer soveignty dictates this. Government spending keeps things going in the downturns, preventing "boom and bust" - what Gordon Brown is trying to avoid and IMO is doing a very good job of - if he stands for PM he will get my vote on his economic platform solely.

My point is all this is that the government does a lot more than youy realise, its spending keeps our economy stable, or at least does when decisions are made correctly - the last few years have shown this. Without government spending the economy would be a lot more volatile, and arguably less proodiuctive - in large recessions valuable capital is lost - unemployed works lose skill, factiories lie idle depreciating in value, etc. affecting long term growth rates - maybe even offsetting the reeduced growth due to taxation. Yes your precious economic growth would be lost becasue of the instability of an economy without government intervention.

But the overall quality of life is significantly higher now in Japan than it was before that boom - every economy has extensive boom/bust periods that's the nature of the market - the cycle repeats. And you're right that economic growth is not the holy grail - slow, sustained economic growth *is*.

ah so it isn't just growth you want it is sustained stable growth. I will take a guess you want low and stable inflation as well? .....prudent policies in addition? it seems like the best thing to achieve this would be what the good chap in number 11 downing street has been doing in his budgets lately. Ensuring the economy grows at a steady pace, keeping inflation under control. Without the massive financial clout of a mixed economy - where there is both public and private enterprise this would not happen. Where there is less government intervention ie. America it is more wild, massive growth rates through the 90s, now in dire straights. Government spending is the sole reason why the economic downturn hasn't hit us head on and totally devastated the economy, where slach has been left on orders the governemtn is now taking over until the economy picks up again.

[BatWick]

Also i would hardly say we have gotten worse off in the UK, like all continants bar Africa, quality of life has improved, yet we have this amazing tax burden, yet have had stable growth which you desire, around 2.5%. Where is the problem again? yes government could be a lot more efficient but they aren't doing a bad job. Factor into this the stability in peoples llives from this government, ratehr than a more libertarian one, the stable growth, "no return to boom and bust", etc.

The tax cuts Bush has implemented since he got into power almost exclusively benefit the rich and already wealthy while taking money from the hand of the average worker. When the average workers perception is that the people with money take home all the profits, and that no matter how hard he works he will never earn even a small fraction of the rich mens income he is disincentivized - in other words he doesn't work as hard. When this happens throughout the economy it becomes stagnant because the efficiency of the workforce has dropped. This leads to problems such as depreciation etc.

Well he has targeted his tax cuts at everyone in work, useless to the very poorest who do not have jobs, basically he thinks that his tax cuts will make people want to work more and so stimulate the economy by the additional spending - he believes peopel will spend their wage increases. Part of it is also his political ideology, but the "give peopel their money so they will spend it creating AMeriican jobs" is how it has all been run. Most of the attention has been paid to how the rich are getting tax breaks, but all workers are.

I don't see it myself though, as peopel get richer, their marginal propensity to save increases - a millionaire will not likely spend an extra dollar, while somebody on $10k a year will spend a much larger proportion of it. THis is where i come back to governm,ent spending and the circular flow of income.

As these people save their money, they are taking it out of circulation, less money chasing the same number of products, prices fall or stagnate, there is no surge in demand. If he wants to really stimulate the economy rather than push through a tax cut for political purposes, he should increase the burden of taxation, and either spend the money - the American multiplier will be veryhigh as all money spent has to be spent on American compnies, minimising leakages from the circular flow due to spending on imports. Or he could increase welfafe - poor peopel spend pretty much all of their income. This increases the circular flow of income, increasing demand by a much larger factor, demand means production, production means output, and to cater for more demand investment in more plant & machinery. etc. bnasically economic growth & recovery (the economy coming back closer to full output and the level of maximum output expanding)

Going off on a tangent now: this whole idea of consumer spending being the driving force is the central pillar behind the "House of Cards" theory, now as you all know a house of cards is fragile, now the theory states a modern econopmic is liek this. Government spending is a key component of Aggregate Demand, but an even bigger part of it is Consumpion ie spending. (The actual erquation is AD=C+I+G+X-M - Aggragete demand = consumption + investment + government spending + exports - imports), now due to the multiplier, any change in demand is amplified, and spending is the key, if it falls there is a knock on effect, peopels outlooks on the future change, they no longer borrow to finance the new fridge they want, tis causes a further fall in AD< peoples expectations of the future get worse.

Now occasionally something causes people's expectations of the future to change, september 11th was one such event, suddenly everything changed, the world was uncertain. the base had been knocked from under the house we had built. THe same thing can happen woith "look theres a recession coming" people prepare for the worst, save money, this reduces spending, this makes even more people suspicious, they reduce spending, and the effect rockets around the economy, the circular flow is reduced, unemployment incres, the unemployed spend less, and you get a spiral. THis is how it is possible to talk yourself into a recession.

So in am inmpredictable world, governemnt spending is like a support - there are aurtomatic stabilisers for the eonomy, you probably never thought about it before, however...

when you lose your job, now the economy loses oputput and your spending, however in an effort to put the brakes on, governemnt spending in the form of benefits to you helps the economy recover - you are given money which you spend, lessening the impact of your job loss on the economy. Also helping yuou to get by

"tax breaks" are not government spending per-se, they are less tax... my point entirely...

good point, but i suppose we are both here, although they are less tax per se, they are still directed by government, and therfore part of governemnt policy, target specifically to improve economic growth inthis case. In a way government spening. eg. when they say they are investing £100 million in iraq. they dont. they give tax breaks to companies worth 100 million for investing in iraq.

And as for the Euro, well that's another kettle of fish entirely - I agree that recent historical trends would indicate that our economy would be stronger if we were part of the Euro, but on the other hand we would lose control of our own economy, and the ability to set our own taxes and interest rates meaning if we get into an economic crisis, we may be unable to dig ourselves out because our usual mechanisms for doing so will be controlled by a huge number of people with varied interests. I used to be quite pro-Euro but after much learning and consideration I'm now on the fence.

I used to be as anti euro as possible. But as i get more and more into econpomics i realsie how much we have to gain.

We still have control over laws, and government spending - fiscal policy. But lose control over monetary policy - not a huge problem actually, to be allowed to join our inflation and interest rates have to be within a narrow band of the European ones, ie. the economies are converging. Also an intereting point i heard - interest rates do not affect business investement., Seems absurd on the surface. However, interest rates, although a short term fix (espeecially to reductions in aggregate demand), will not be a major factor for business - if they look at the long term prospects and there is no change to make a profit, they will not invest no matter how low interest rates are. Tis is the current problem in germany, although interest rates are very low, businesses are simply not investing due to the inflexability of the workforce they do not see the opportunities for profit. An although an interesting tool in managing demand, interest rates are not going to solve underlying structural problems in your economuy - actually the stability and growth pact is a very good thing - governemnt spending will help bridge the gap in a downturn, but what you cannot do is keep pumping money into the economy, at the same time you have to fix whatever is worng, limiting Euroland countries to 60% of GDP borrowing and 3% defecit is one of the best things they can do to help countries that have problems, where voters otherwise would pressure governemnts into keeping spending indefinately until they canborrow no more and a crredit crunch arises, see Argentina, Mexico, Thailand, and many many more examples. Maybe not happen in the UK but there would be a chance in Portugal if it was not stictly regulated. But this is an issue for another time/place

That's good. Your last post made it sound like you weren't, but were instead arguing for income tax for the already rich which would do no good.

no i do believe in eroding the massive amounts of cash some families command, also a progressive tax system that rewards work, but still lets the country collect back its investment in you

Can you explain why not? You're creating more supply while maintaining demand.... how can wages possibly not fall?

It's simple, peopel are very reluctant to take pay cuts, they are exceedngly rare, when was the last time public sector woks took a pay cut? The thing is wages are stiky downwards, quick to go up in times of infaltion etc. but very slow to fall, even more so when you consider the influence of unions, long term contracts etc.

In addition to this there are also 7 years of debts to pay back, with less wages less people will be prepared to take the risk of all that borrowing through uni. The NHS and private hospitals will nearly always take on more doctors, nurses, etc. and they will be taken on at the going rate, in future it may weaken their bargaining poisition in terms of pay rises, and eventually wages will fall relatively to bring them into line wioth the forces of demand and supply - by moderated increases ratehr than wage cuts. However by then the long run sate of supply and demand will have moved leaving the situation out of sync, this is constantly happening and in the unpredictability of a market system but anyway...........

[BatWick]

A pay "increase" across an industry isn't technically an increase while we have inflation - it's ensuring that the employee maintains a purchasing power parity that he previously had. If you are saying you expect pay increases to suffer after having trained more doctors, then in real terms you are describing a long term fall in remuneration, which was exactly my point you were trying to refute.

A pay increase is by its very nature, just what it says, it is the increase in wages, minus the current rate of inflation, measured by the RPI. Wages will still rise in the medican profession, wages alwasy rise faster than inflation - why pensioners are so poor relative to other countries - we link pensions to RPI ratehr than Earnings. But the point io was refuting was that "more competition = lower wages" as you state, which is not true in the sense of wahges will fall. Long Term relative wages will shift.....probably, until there is another shock to the system, but im afraid you would need a fortune teller for that one.

I don't disagree that we're going to need them more and more, I do disagree about my taxes going to pay for it. We're in the ****, we don't have enough births+immigration to ensure our continued population growth so we're all going to pay for our parents healthcare requirements as they get older. Oh dear :/
As for "people skilled enough to be medical professionals" I disagree entirely. The people who might consider a medical degree are likely very clever and could be employed in senior positions in any number of industries. If you take a large portion of those intelligent people and tempt them unnecessarily into one profession, all other professions suffer a skills shortage, and so does the economy in general...

If we finance their trianing it costw less i nthe long term - if they risk their capittal with loans et. they will want this back in their earnings, and then somehting to make up for the consumption forgone, the interest rate if you like, as well as a little for having to take the risk.

RE the taining i feel people should be able to make their own choices, and changing uni courses to reflect demand, but also the needs of the country should be our right as we are subsidising the courses.

A few peoiple will be poached by medicine who would otherwise go to otther inductries, but if they want to be doctors i doubt they would be as comitted elsewhere, letting them bve happy doign the course they want will get better results form them for our money. But i do not feel it would be a crisis for the economy in terms of skills - i have no desire to be a doc, even if you let me inwith my GCSE resulkts im afraid it's a little late - i have been seduced by economics and start a BSc in Economics in October at York. I ain't no doctor :) Remember though we will benefit from them as doctors, which will make up for anything lost from them not going to work in other inductries. WHo knows they may also invent a cure for a disease as docs, making people live longer improving the health of the population while they invent this, and we willgain from this. Either way i feel we would benefit more from them being docs, also it's what they want.

Show me a child who has to sleep rough on the streets tonight? Show me one child who does not have a bed waiting for them and their parents? Show me a child whose parents cannot obtain food for their child?

maybe not absolute poverty, but there are many kids wearing shabby clothes, hand me downs, living in cramped accomodation shared with many other people, etc.

As for people working 60,70,80,90 hour weeks, well that's a whole other topic. Lack of education, massive over supply for drudge work from overseas workers and exploitative working contracts all contribute to that, it has nothing to do with government spending.

Agreed. But it does have to do with governemnt policy - a minimum wage of £5 an hour would be a start. As would an extra fiver per pensioner per week. However this is not without a cost, and as we live loger we need to reflect this, a raising of the retirement age by 5 years would pay fopr it and then some

I disagree that mass unemployment would follow... the lower taxes would bring about more private spending, and over time the economy would benefit. Of course, we're assuming that the cut in government spending is in non-essential services and crap, rather than essential stuff.

yes more private spending, but not equal to governemnt spending, then times by the multiplier and you have a large hole in your budget. Jobs would be alost as a result of the massive fall in demand. ALso throw out your stability, stable growth, managed governemnt spending (so back to boom and bust), etc. In my opinion it's not worth it.

Scrap the milenium dome and other profects wuld net a massive amount, but in rrelation to what the conernment has control over its peanuts.

The incredibly important thing to remember here is that "the economy" is simply a metaphor. You seem to think the important thing is how big the numbers are at the end of a financial year, I on the other hand seem to think the important things are how many goods and services does someone receive in that year, and how good are they?

I would say thins was the other way around - i'm the one pushing for better health, pensions, social security, environmental protection, while you look for the economic growth. But as an economics is feel the economy is in a better state with the governemnt taxing is all, redistributing a proportion of income and wealth, providing goods and services, and helpong everythig else run smootly.

Your position on the other hand is hardly the caring compassionate one - it is one of the economic libertarian, an interesting idea but one i disagree with on principle, free eduucation, health, etc. are just some of the things i believe in, as opposed to a totally market dominated economy without government interfearence savve for paying for things like streetlighting, roads, etc. and sending us all a bill for our share. Like poll tax, a totally regressive tax system....or the TV license system

If the objective was to simply have more pounds floating about the economy we could very VERY simply print some more - but it's *NOT*. The objective is to increase the value of goods and services offered by society at large on a year by year basis.

The economy is really a combination of the education, aptitude, and work ethic of the population, with existing wealth playing a part. The "pounds" are simply used to measure that relative to other economies, having more pounds floating about is no good because the other economies will simply devalue the worth of one pound.

Printing money comes under monetary policy along with interest rates, and we do actually need to print money each year - if we dont keep up with econnomic growth, there will be the same money and more goods and services, forcing prices down and hence defaltion, we do not always print it though - it takes a lump of out of inflation figures which can be useful. But that is by the way.

The having more pounds floating about i presume refers to the circular flow of income. Now this is is a good thing having more floating about is a good thing when the amount is actually reducing. See you have misunderstood, the circular flow is not how many pounds in total. It is the amount in circulation - money stored in the bank is not being spent. But if the amount spent is reducing, it is important to boost this back up. Else we get less demand, unemployemnt and all the associated problems.

The pound falling in value will ironically happen if the economy is screwed, which would happen if the amound of money actually in circulation fell - not as you suggest with more money in the circular flow meaning the pound will fall.

[Zenith]

Apart from the flame war going on in the background, this is one of the most contentious, varied and downright interesting threads I've read in a long time. It finally sounds like people are starting to gain social conscience and taking note of what's going on in the country around them.

[Space Cowboy]

Chaps/Chapettes, don't make me delete pointless posts. Let's have a decent discussion. I'm learning more and more about economy at the mo :)

[bvark]

[Disclaimer: I did A-level economics 7 years ago, and thus have a hazy recollection of many concepts]

I'm going to jump around a large number of points made by everyone without citing anyone, because I'm lazy.

Batwick, you're certainly making a lot of valid Keynsian economic points here, but the idea of 'fiscal stimuli' (i.e. tax and spend) is not one that has a great deal of favour in modern economics, and tends to be linked with socialist governments of the 60s-80s (particularly ours).

The argument that government spending drives the level of aggregate demand more than consumer spending because of the propensity for consumers to save ignores the inefficiency in tax collection and in government planned spending - it's not at all clear whether it's a good idea in all cases.
I note the marginal incentive to work hasn't come up - people will simply not work as hard to earn more money if a high proportion is going to the government!

If you spout the 'government spending GOOD' line towards the learned Economics lecturers at UofYork (one or two of whom I met in my time there, although I was doing geek studies), you are likely to have a rough first year, especially if you insist it's an economic FACT (prove it mathematically for all economies..)

The argument about savings also ignores the fact that high levels of private savings creates a large pool of capital that banks can lend out to companies, who then invest it, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Money velocity is the key here (MV = PY and those other equations), and the key to money velocity is low regulation of credit markets and easy availability of credit.

A spot of history: A credit crunch did happen in the UK - the IMF had to bail us out in 1976. It's pretty much stopped doing that to developed countries now, thankfully.

Printing money isn't the primary cause of the increase in the money supply (and hence possibly inflation) - it's government borrowing.[http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/revus/crnewm.html]

My personal view (although i'm loathe to enter the debate) is that although the US got a lot of things wrong, they have delivered a vastly greater level of sustained economic growth over the past 30 years than any of the European economies.
A drive towards less regulation of the capital and labour whilst enforcing high standards of corporate governance will (IMO) come a lot closer to fixing Germany et als problems than raising taxes.

"The economy is what happens when government is busy doing something else" -- discuss

[Afty]

Point 1 : "balanced budget multiplier"

Your argument seems to be that if the government taxes us XXX more, they spend that XXX which makes the money circulate into the economy?

Leaving the money in private hands also sees XXX circulate within the economy though, and when it's spent by private individuals it is spent on items which are more likely to bring quality of life improvements to those individuals.

Fact 1: It costs money to introduce taxes. This is wasted work.
Fact 2: Government has a habit of sometimes spending money on crap - so statistically, a certain portion of all new taxes after collection costs will be wasted.
Fact 3: Private spending is taxed by VAT - more private spending = more VAT.

We can't go much further with this, but what I do want to say is that "multiplier" effect comes into play whether the money is spent by government *or* by private parties, so is irrelevant to the discussion. It seems to be your main thrust - do you deny that the multiplier effect can also be caused by private spending, and if you don't deny it, then what other arguments do you have for higher taxation providing some boost to the economy?



Point 2 : "savings"
You seem to believe that by giving people (private individuals) lots of money instead of taxing them, that they will save more money? You also seem to think that saved money is somehow wasted, or dormant? You actually claim:
As these people save their money, they are taking it out of circulationThese are massive fallacies.

1] People who are more affluent spend more money on luxury goods, and are less likely to expend time attempting to maximise their cost/benefit ratio on a given product. This helps to return money down the economic ladder to people who are not as affluent because the rich tend to pay higher prices for similar goods and services. (see : expensive cars, expensive restaurants, "designer" clothes etc.).

2] Savings are not lost nor are they useless or dormant. Savings are paid into the bank. What does your bank do with that money? Sit on it? Count it? Burn it? No.... somehow it manages to PAY YOU BACK for banking your savings there... it does that by investing the money in industry, directly assisting economic growth. Once again, because of the nature of profit-driven private organisations this investment is inevitably more efficient than government investment in industry.

Finally, on this subject you mention Bush multiple times - as an individual it is to his advantage to play the presidential deck of cards as well he can for personal gain. Check out the cronies around him and how much they stand to make in personal fortune, from the recent troubles, renewed military investment and tax cuts. Then tell me the average worker is better off under Bush.

Point 3 : (on a tangent?) - The House Of Cards theory, consumer spending and borrowing.
I'm struggling to understand your point in that paragraph, besides quoting verbatim some formula which is clearly over-simplified and therefore of no use in the real world. You seem to claim a drop in the multiplier reduces demand, which is a slippery slope as it gradually gets worse and worse, consumer spending dips, consumer borrowing reduces etc. which is all fine and dandy except for one thing : borrowing is going through the ROOF in this country right now. Individual debt is rising rapidly every year so our current situation does not fit your model. It is far, far more complex than simply "a drop in demand requires more money being spent".

Furthermore, what happens to the economy when someone loses their job?

Well, if their job was utterly pointless - not in demand - the economy gains. You see, unemployment benefits (what society now gives to this person) are considerably lower than the salary he/she would have received recently so the money that was previously spent on his/her salary goes to someone else somewhere else, and is still spent but hopefully on something or someone more useful. If the persons job was not utterly pointless - there was a demand for it - then he/she will find alternative employment (and here is where roads, recruitment schemes and agencies and general education come in important, the longer a useful person spends unemployed, the more the economy fails to gain).

Point 4 : more tax / less tax
good point, but i suppose we are both here, although they are less tax per se, they are still directed by government, and therfore part of governemnt policy
They are part of government policy - but you were arguing for more taxes, I was arguing for less. You can't spin the argument here and say we're both correct. On this particular instance we agree that less taxes are good.

Point 5 : perceived versus real pay cuts
It's simple, peopel are very reluctant to take pay cuts, they are exceedngly rare, when was the last time public sector woks took a pay cut?
The last time public sector workers took a pay cut? Well, the Firemen have been taking effective pay cuts for years. You don't have to LOWER the number figure of someones salary to give them a pay cut, all you have to do is prevent it rising in line with inflation.
Furthermore, restructuring which is an ongoing process in public services provides ample opportunity to give people pay cuts. There was a time when working in the civil service benefits agency was a lifelong career and fairly well paid. Today you are lucky to get a contract longer than 6 months and most earn barely more than minimum wage. That is a massive downward trend over only 15-20 years *but* no-one has ever taken a paycut in that time. Strange, huh?

Good Salary + Security..... >> 20 years >> Awful Wage + No Security - without pay cuts.

I know this, as most of my family are career civil servants.

Point 6 : skills supply + demand
A few peoiple will be poached by medicine who would otherwise go to otther inductries, but if they want to be doctors i doubt they would be as comitted elsewhere
OK, quite simply a very large number of people pick their university courses based on the perceived rewards of a particular career path, and while some have a "calling" to be a doctor, salaries (perceived) within a given sector are a large factor in how many applications are received for each area of industry.

My point was simple: if we have an oversupply of doctors/nurses leaving university that cannot be good for the economy, as other fields will miss out on talented individuals.


Point 7 : poverty
there are many kids wearing shabby clothes, hand me downs, living in cramped accomodation shared with many other people, etc.
Goddamn right. Hand-me-downs = efficiency, but then from a theoretical economists point of view, that's bad for the economy - parents should throw out those clothes and buy new ones, preferably designer labels!

Really, listen to yourself speak... you think wearing your big brothers jumper or having jeans with a rip or dirty patch, or living in a house which doesn't have a spare bedroom, or sharing a bedroom with your younger sister is poverty? I've been able to respect most of your arguments until now because they've for the most part been very reasonable but JESUS H CHRIST that is not poverty. I suggest you order some foreign newspapers from africa asia or south america, maybe watch a few documentaries or even better travel (something I plan to do soon) around some other cultures. You will really then see poverty. I actually laughed out loud at work when I read this... My family are fairly affluent middle-middle class and my little brother gets some of my old clothes and sports equipment, as did my step brother, 7 and 12 years younger than me! Jesus.


(cont...)

[Afty]

Point 8 : Minimum wage
a minimum wage of £5 an hour would be a start
I don't know how old you were when the current minimum wage was introduced, and I don't know how many people you know who actually have jobs, but there are problems with the minimum wage and raising it won't help either:

1] Unemployment. Every time min. wage rises or when it is introduced (particularly then) people lose their jobs as companies can no longer afford to employ them.

2] Loopholes. I know people who recently earned £1.50 an hour, others who earned £2.50. How? Simply call an employee a trainee or triallist... you can do this for years if you like.employ someone on a "work completed" basis when you *know* roughly how long the work will take to do...

3] Laziness. Once someone has a job, if the employer has been forced to pay minimum wage he may find it impractical to reward employees near the min. wage boundary with raises. Imagine this situation:
Carl and Andy work as cleaners. They get paid £4/hour (assume that's min. wage). They get paid in total £320 a week between them... except Andy works twice as hard as Carl and gets twice as much work done...
Now the boss can't sack Carl as he's done nothing to deserve a disciplinary but he can't afford to give Andy a raise because his budget for cleaning is only £320 a week. So the lazy employee is paid as much as the useful employee... and there is no incentive for him to work harder. I've seen this in action.

Point 9 : Socialism/Communism
But as an economics is feel the economy is in a better state with the governemnt taxing is all, redistributing a proportion of income and wealth, providing goods and services, and helpong everythig else run smootly.
There appea