| Austerity on 15:36 - Jul 29 with 631 views | Herbivore |
| Austerity on 15:31 - Jul 29 by Ewan_Oozami |
Would that "splurge of spending" have happened without Covid? |
Well quite. It's not exactly been a normal couple of years, huge spending has been needed just to prevent the country entirely collapsing because of the twin threats of the pandemic and Brexit. The choices being made now, particularly in relation to public sector salaries and future spending, are very reminiscent of austerity.
We're also seeing cuts to foreign aid, to arts and university funding. Much of the money that government has splooged has gone to its mates, and it'll be public services that suffer as we're already starting to see. If it's not austerity it's not easily distinguishable from it under any sober analysis. [Post edited 29 Jul 2021 15:38]
|  |
|  |
| Austerity on 15:38 - Jul 29 with 620 views | lowhouseblue |
| Austerity on 15:34 - Jul 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I am not talking about the past 2 years. I am talking about the Government's current policy. Now.
They are saying there is no money (using Covid as the reason). This is a political choice as there is money for them to do what they choose to do. That is the very point. They are now returning to austerity as a policy choice. I never said they had been over the past 2 years. |
they are still borrowing more now in absolute terms than any government at any point prior to 2020. you may wish that they were spending in different ways, but in macroeconomic terms this is not a government pursuing a policy of austerity. it is by any definition a massively expansionary fiscal policy backed up by major monetary expansion. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Austerity on 15:42 - Jul 29 with 610 views | Durovigutum |
| Austerity on 15:05 - Jul 29 by lowhouseblue |
yes i read the article. it was stunningly poor. printing money is the term of art for what the article is describing.
if you think we are currently in austerity then we'll definitely leave it here. |
Just using the latest post as the reply to - but to comment on a number of replies.
Yes, austerity is a political choice.
No, national finances are not the same as household - but I've covered how it's about confidence.
We tax income because traditionally the people of wealth have been the people in power. Taxing income is a drag on growth and innovative as it's working capital. Leaving wealth lying around unused and untaxed is a waste in two ways.
Our income tax system is hugely unfair. The 20 rate is really 32%, the 40% rate is really 41, but can be 60 or more if you happen to do something evil like be married and have children - but 32% can be 24% equivalent in other circumstances. 60% at £100k to 45% at £120k is also out of balance. Pension tax relief (well, any tax relief to be fair) of 60% when you earn 100k but only 20% if you earn 30k is brutally unfair.
The workarounds to tax are all tilted in favour of those with money.
Inheritance tax removal is so pushed by the right wing papers because of the naked self interest.
None of these problems are solved by printing money, they require political will and intelligence. That's why printing money has been what happens. |  | | |
| Austerity on 15:43 - Jul 29 with 609 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Austerity on 15:38 - Jul 29 by lowhouseblue |
they are still borrowing more now in absolute terms than any government at any point prior to 2020. you may wish that they were spending in different ways, but in macroeconomic terms this is not a government pursuing a policy of austerity. it is by any definition a massively expansionary fiscal policy backed up by major monetary expansion. |
As has been pointed out, they have borrowed massively in order to pay for a pandemic, Brexit and to pay a lot of money to their donors/relatives for contracts that could never be fulfilled. Yes, that has led to irresponsible borrowing and debt spiralling even further out of control than before the pandemic. This is partly due to their political choices of where to get money (what the article was about).
As has been pointed out to you twice now (after you had said you would no longer discuss it because you don't believe it), we are talking about current Government political choices moving forward and not what they have done over the past 2 years.
Do you believe that freezing public sector pay and cutting foreign aid are marks of austerity? If not, why not? Why do you think that previously austerity had no effect on Government borrowing? |  |
| |
| Austerity on 15:46 - Jul 29 with 604 views | Timefliesbyintheblue |
| Austerity on 15:32 - Jul 29 by thebooks |
“In my opinion if you have to work to live then you are working class”. Cool, that’s Marx’s starting point, and neatly skewers the idea it’s about capuccinos and avacado.
Unfortunately, impossible to take the politics out of it.
Agree about the personal tax allowance — there are lots of ways to make taxation fairer and working class people better off.
I don’t want to have a worse pension in the name of spurious “fairness”, thanks.
Labour has traditionally been far more fiscally “responsible” than the Tories, and, as has been pointed out in this thread, costed their last manifesto (although that’s PR more than anything else). |
'I don’t want to have a worse pension in the name of spurious “fairness”, thanks.'
I hear what you are saying, but where does one draw the line on being wealthy enough to pay more income tax.
For the guy earning £25000 it's anyone over £30000
For the guy earning £50000 it's anyone over £60000
For the guy earning £75000 it's anyone over £100000 etc etc...
It's hardly ever ' I think I could afford to pay more' when in reality a lot of us could afford to pay more. |  | | |
| Austerity on 15:53 - Jul 29 with 600 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Austerity on 15:46 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
'I don’t want to have a worse pension in the name of spurious “fairness”, thanks.'
I hear what you are saying, but where does one draw the line on being wealthy enough to pay more income tax.
For the guy earning £25000 it's anyone over £30000
For the guy earning £50000 it's anyone over £60000
For the guy earning £75000 it's anyone over £100000 etc etc...
It's hardly ever ' I think I could afford to pay more' when in reality a lot of us could afford to pay more. |
Hence why the party of lowest taxation is generally the one elected.
As I say, educating the electorate into the benefits of taxation and making the taxation system fairer are the keys here and where parties that choose higher taxation models have failed. That said, it is a minority of the electorate that has voted in the Government for a long time. A fairer electoral system would be beneficial too. | |
| |
| Austerity on 15:54 - Jul 29 with 595 views | thebooks |
| Austerity on 15:46 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
'I don’t want to have a worse pension in the name of spurious “fairness”, thanks.'
I hear what you are saying, but where does one draw the line on being wealthy enough to pay more income tax.
For the guy earning £25000 it's anyone over £30000
For the guy earning £50000 it's anyone over £60000
For the guy earning £75000 it's anyone over £100000 etc etc...
It's hardly ever ' I think I could afford to pay more' when in reality a lot of us could afford to pay more. |
There’s no need to raise taxes (or even worse, NI) for any working class person, even if they’re earning £100,000.
As it’s a very basic function of the state to provide for a comfortable retirement, it’s a complete failure if we start chipping away at the state pension, especially considering how woeful private sector provision is (as it with health, housing, transport etc. etc. etc.)
Also, I don’t buy into this generational conflict, and making it a race to the bottom. |  | | |
| Austerity on 16:06 - Jul 29 with 567 views | Timefliesbyintheblue |
| Austerity on 15:54 - Jul 29 by thebooks |
There’s no need to raise taxes (or even worse, NI) for any working class person, even if they’re earning £100,000.
As it’s a very basic function of the state to provide for a comfortable retirement, it’s a complete failure if we start chipping away at the state pension, especially considering how woeful private sector provision is (as it with health, housing, transport etc. etc. etc.)
Also, I don’t buy into this generational conflict, and making it a race to the bottom. |
I did not suggest we should chip away at the state pension. I said we should do away with the triple lock. Forgive me, but suggesting that the pension should increase by a far greater percentage than wage increases for public sector workers is something we should feel guilty about. I do and I voted Tory!! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Austerity on 16:10 - Jul 29 with 558 views | thebooks |
| Austerity on 16:06 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
I did not suggest we should chip away at the state pension. I said we should do away with the triple lock. Forgive me, but suggesting that the pension should increase by a far greater percentage than wage increases for public sector workers is something we should feel guilty about. I do and I voted Tory!! |
The obvious conclusion is that public sector pay should increase, not that pensions decrease. | | | |
| Austerity on 16:12 - Jul 29 with 553 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Austerity on 15:38 - Jul 29 by lowhouseblue |
they are still borrowing more now in absolute terms than any government at any point prior to 2020. you may wish that they were spending in different ways, but in macroeconomic terms this is not a government pursuing a policy of austerity. it is by any definition a massively expansionary fiscal policy backed up by major monetary expansion. |
Apart from mitigating Covid and Brexit, where's all this extra money going then? |  |
| |
| Austerity on 16:21 - Jul 29 with 540 views | Timefliesbyintheblue |
| Austerity on 16:10 - Jul 29 by thebooks |
The obvious conclusion is that public sector pay should increase, not that pensions decrease. |
Why is there this obsession with public sector pay. All folk should earn a decent wage for doing a decent days/weeks/months work. The Carers I mentioned earlier do not work in the public sector. Neither do all the shop workers that kept my local Co-op etc open all hours during Covid getting all sorts of abuse etc!
Oh and who mentioned anything about pensions decreasing! | | | |
| Austerity on 16:21 - Jul 29 with 538 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Austerity on 16:10 - Jul 29 by thebooks |
The obvious conclusion is that public sector pay should increase, not that pensions decrease. |
Not if you vote Tory! | |
| |
| Austerity on 16:27 - Jul 29 with 522 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Austerity on 16:21 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
Why is there this obsession with public sector pay. All folk should earn a decent wage for doing a decent days/weeks/months work. The Carers I mentioned earlier do not work in the public sector. Neither do all the shop workers that kept my local Co-op etc open all hours during Covid getting all sorts of abuse etc!
Oh and who mentioned anything about pensions decreasing! |
Carers are under paid yes. Maybe a proper public sector care system with proper pay for carers and valuing them would benefit there!
However, the thread is about the political decision to freeze public sector pay. Why does it matter (or in your words "the obsession")?
It matters because we cannot get enough qualified teachers to stay in the role.
It matters because we are short of qualified nursing staff staying in the profession.
It matters because the constant erosion of public sector pay under Tory Governments is symptomatic of undervaluing the public services.
It matters because it is only one part of a general policy to underfund public services.
If only the electorate could see how much more it matters than standing on a doorstep clapping every Thursday evening for a few weeks.
You said you voted Tory last election. Do you support this cutting of public sector pay? | |
| |
| Austerity on 16:50 - Jul 29 with 487 views | Timefliesbyintheblue |
| Austerity on 16:27 - Jul 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Carers are under paid yes. Maybe a proper public sector care system with proper pay for carers and valuing them would benefit there!
However, the thread is about the political decision to freeze public sector pay. Why does it matter (or in your words "the obsession")?
It matters because we cannot get enough qualified teachers to stay in the role.
It matters because we are short of qualified nursing staff staying in the profession.
It matters because the constant erosion of public sector pay under Tory Governments is symptomatic of undervaluing the public services.
It matters because it is only one part of a general policy to underfund public services.
If only the electorate could see how much more it matters than standing on a doorstep clapping every Thursday evening for a few weeks.
You said you voted Tory last election. Do you support this cutting of public sector pay? |
I do not believe in cutting anyones pay - this is why it is important to keep inflation low. I also do not believe that pay is the sole reason for shortages of teachers and nurses. | | | |
| Austerity on 18:22 - Jul 29 with 445 views | Herbivore |
| Austerity on 16:50 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
I do not believe in cutting anyones pay - this is why it is important to keep inflation low. I also do not believe that pay is the sole reason for shortages of teachers and nurses. |
It's not just pay, no. It's also working conditions, which have got significantly worse following a decade of Tory cuts and subtle demonisation of public sector employees. | |
| |
| Austerity on 18:59 - Jul 29 with 427 views | LeoMuff |
| Austerity on 16:50 - Jul 29 by Timefliesbyintheblue |
I do not believe in cutting anyones pay - this is why it is important to keep inflation low. I also do not believe that pay is the sole reason for shortages of teachers and nurses. |
For nurses it’s a combination of pay, cost of study, working conditions all of which has reduced in real terms, increased and deteriorated in the last decade or so. |  |
| |
| Austerity on 20:24 - Jul 29 with 395 views | mylittletown |
| Austerity on 18:22 - Jul 29 by Herbivore |
It's not just pay, no. It's also working conditions, which have got significantly worse following a decade of Tory cuts and subtle demonisation of public sector employees. |
Same for teachers and for most civil servants. |  | | |
| Austerity on 16:34 - Jul 30 with 337 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Austerity on 14:28 - Jul 29 by XYZ |
"Finally, one issue that the Labour party keeps on tripping itself over is telling the public how it will finance its ambitions. It is very easy to promise this and promise that without all of the detail."
Labour's 2019 manifesto was, I believe, fully costed.
The tories' 2019 manifesto wasn't, I believe and the english press hardly questioned them about it - Johnson was hiding in a fridge, if you recall. |
Just a small point of order, Labours manifesto was not fully costed- as they didn’t include any realistic market values in their nationalisation plans
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-gaps-in-labours-spending-p
This for me ruined an otherwise sensible manifesto. I’d happily vote for a left of Centre party, but forced nationalisation, It’s cost, and the risk of capital flight for me was a step to far. | | | |
| Austerity on 20:30 - Jul 30 with 289 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
It is a fair comment that they kept making extra promises after having announced their manifesto and a quite reasonable accusation that those were not included in their costings.
One that strikes me immediately was the free broadband for all. One assumes that would have had a significant cost to Government (regardless of whether it was a wise policy that would have saved all but the richest money and contributed to the education of the poorest). | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
