Comments on: Labour’s unfunded tax cuts?

By: Henry Schnarr

Henry Schnarr — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:12:35 +0000

In May 1997, when Gordon Brown had his first meeting with his Treasury officials, it is reported that they told him that Ken Clarke had left the economy in much better shape than they had anticipated – to which Gordon Brown is alleged to have said, “What do you want me to do? Congratulate him?”

Well, when George Osbourne takes over as Chancellor, he can rest assured that he won’t have that luxury. His work will be cut out for him and it won’t be easy! I reckon that we will have to have at the very least two years of considerable austerity, just to achieve stability.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:54:33 +0000

The Tories must pledge to halve public spending on QUANGO’s & consultants while cutting the state sector payroll by at least 50% of what Labour increased it by . The aim should be to slash public spending growth to 0.5% p/a in real terms until the PSBR has been wiped out . Big government means more taxes now and more taxes for future generations in the form of a high PSBR and that paves the way for Euro-land style decline . As someone on just over Â£12,000 p/a I want ‘ Tory Cuts ‘ if it means a basic personal allowance of say Â£12,000 ! Why not redistribute money towards the working poor away from Labour waste ? Sounds like modern compassionate conservatism furthering the cause of social justice to me…..

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:45:48 +0000

We must pay back not only the debt but the interest as well.
I ask again, Why doesn’t Govt Mint the money it requires rather than borrow it.
That way we dont pay interest on it.
If the National Debt is Â£1.3 Trillion Dollars, what is the Interest alone on this !!!!
We would be saving this amount of Interest per year

This is the real reason why costs are rising, there are no oil shortages and there are no new food shortages, what is happening is that in order to repay these debts ( Gilts & Govt Bonds / Securities ), the Govt is Borrowing more money.
The Instant it is Borrowed, it is devalued because of the attached interest charge.
Prices are not going up, the Value of our fiat Money is going down.

This happens to all fiat money systems.

It happened in Germany in the 20’s 30’s

The same people are responsible, except now the Bankers responsible are not just in Germany and Russia, they are Global.

What is happening, is deliberate.

I don’t rate Browns intelligence either but he must be in on this scam which is the western banking system, a system designed purely to hoover the wealth of Nations into the Vaults of the Global Elite.

And Labour call themselves Socisalists, now you see the real intent behind socialism / communism to eradicate private property, like all socialist communist states, it is about total dominance and rule over the masses.
Communism, is and always was about Greed, Power and Despotic control.
Many of their activists have believed the lies and spin about issues such as taxation is about redistribution, but as the Global Communist endgame plays out, its true nature will become obvious to all.
Collapse the worlds economies and hundreds of million lose their homes and become enslsaved by the real ’state’, the Global Elite, the International Bankers.

Reply: If a government prints too much money it just causes inflation so we are all worse off

By: Alastair Stewart

Alastair Stewart — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:37:46 +0000

It isn’t difficult to foresee Labour (further?) developing a complete indifference to the consequences, especially financial, of their actions. This in the expectation that they won’t be the ones who have to pick up the pieces, as the chances of losing power increase. Before the last GE we saw Rover receiving a huge and pointless handout. Expect electoral bribes prior to the next GE to be funded from fresh borrowing.

It would be fascinating to see a national balance sheet at the GE of all govt creditors and debtors, including all those hidden PFI debts, with restated comparison figures back to 1997. ‘Simply dire’ probably won’t even begin to describe it.

Reply: My estimate of debts and unfunded liabilities is Â£1500 billion.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:53:24 +0000

Our National Debt according to EU is = Â£63,690,000 =3.3% of GDP @Â£1,930,000,000. The EU is not happy about this and wants it down to sort of around 2%. But – Hey! – some of Europe is even worse! So who cares?
I do not understand figures – especially government figures – any more. So I strongly expect that, once all the little left-outs – Northern Rock for instance – are slipped back in when the Labour Party leaves office, that things will be revealed as simply dire.
I just hope that the Conservatives have the strength of will that Mrs Thatcher had.

By: Jon Carter

Jon Carter — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:56:52 +0000

Brian,

Which “dreadful man” are you talking about, and exactly which “stealth taxes”?

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:01 +0000

There would be a good case for unfunded reductions in corporation tax since this money all goes to supporting investment & economic growth. This would be a gamble but even a small increase in growth would increase revenues to match it. There is no economic case for focussing cuts on feel good tax reductions.

The hypocrisy of such actions after attacking Tories for lesser crimes against prudence is obvious but it is up to them to point this out. Instead they have tended to go along with Gordo’s programme promising to maintain his spending commitments & agreeing how well the economy has done because we are growing faster than the old EU countries withput mentioning how badly, at 2.5% our economy was underperforming the world average of 5%.

By: Brian Tomkinson

Brian Tomkinson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:11:52 +0000

Don’t forget the ten years of stealth taxes under this dreadful man!

By: Stewart Knight

Stewart Knight — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:38:23 +0000

Simple and to the point where the normal man in the street can understand the hypothesis being offered.

So why doesn’t Cameron explain the situation exactly like this and negate all the charges from Liebour?

I sometimes despair of the Tory party getting away from Liebour style statistic fights and manipulation and start winning the arguments by simply telling it like it is to cater to the whole vast swathe of voters who just want to hear the truth. Most of us can understand well, but few are interested enough to make a difference.

Couldn’t you persuade Cameron to start being more succinct?