The Tories and Libs aren't saying they will cut tuition fees are they?
No they haven't and nor should they.
Labour haven't said anything about reducing the monthly repayments so someone earning over the threshold will still pay back the same amount out of each payslip.
Yes cap. I get the impression that you can't handle the policy because its appealing and its a Labour policy and if they have ammended it, so what? I wish Governments would ammend policies more to suit changing circumstances more often rather than bringing in new laws all the time to replace the old ones.
Haven't ukip already said they'll wait until as late as possible to release their manifesto, the better to subject it to as little scrutiny as possible? Doesn't bode well for the faith ol' Farage has in it...
Lower taxation attracts more businesses
Successful businesses employ more people
More people working means more income tax
But this simple logic always seems to go straight over lefties heads.
ps the reverse of this applies
That's why the 50% tax rate will result in lower overall tax receipts
But this seems to have evaded the brain of the 2-Edded monster.
roll eyes at that! Corporation Tax has been cut by 7p and the Tories want to cut it down by another penny and what has it got us? Zero hour contracts, mickey mouse wages, and these flaming Tories forcing unemployed people to declare themselves as internet traders to get them off the JSA claimant figures! >:(
Labour haven't said anything about reducing the monthly repayments so someone earning over the threshold will still pay back the same amount out of each payslip.
£20 a month or so and with less to pay, how can it be bad?
Haven't ukip already said they'll wait until as late as possible to release their manifesto, the better to subject it to as little scrutiny as possible? Doesn't bode well for the faith ol' Farage has in it...
Farage was on the daily politics a few days ago, didn't hear him say that.
Ed Balls has said there was nothing in a "pretty empty" Budget which Labour would reverse if it won the election. The shadow chancellor told the BBC he welcomed the plan to axe tax on the first £1,000 of interest from savings and to give help for first time buyers.
Pretty astonishing stuff from Labour. I can't recall a budget where the opposition haven't found anything to criticise or anything they would change...!
Although Johnson said that household incomes ‘have just about regained their pre-recession levels’ and are possibly even higher than their 2009 peak it ‘still represents by far the slowest recovery in incomes in modern history’.
‘Having household incomes crawl back up above pre-recession levels six or seven years after the recession hit is no cause for celebration,’ he said.
The recovery has not benefited every household equally either, said Johnson, with experiences being very different depending on age.
‘The experience has been very different by age,’ he said. ‘Average incomes among pensioners have risen, among those of working age they have fallen, with especially big falls for those in their 20s.
‘This pattern has largely been driven by falls in earnings.’
The changes to tax and benefits have also affected people disproportionately; with working age people receiving benefits hit the hardest by social security cuts and the richest hit hardest by tax increases.
The ‘squeezed middle’ has largely been shielded and is no longer feeling the pinch. ‘People on middle and upper middle incomes have been remarkably insulated on average from tax and benefit changes,’ said Johnson.
How about the fastest growing major economy in the world?
An economy that is growing but on a very delayed catch up basis way behind Osborne's own forecasts of 2010. Don't forgert that Labour had us out of recession in the space of a year and we were out of the "great recession" by the final quarter of 2009 and it continued until Osborne done his emergency budget of 2010 and scared the public that we where bankrupt and then we had 3 years of a flatlined economy.
But we are doing better than any other advanced country in Europe.
And where is France?
That model of economic brilliance that the 2 Ed's wanted us to emulate?
They are at the bottom of the table.
How much profit can an energy company make from a consumer then? or is that down to someone else, at some other time to decide? Seems a bit woolly to me.
Edit: What if the global prices go up, are these companies supposed to make a loss? or should they cut jobs until they break even?
2 things. The energy companies have made plenty of profit over the years so they can use that and or the shareholders can dip into their own pockets instead of raising the bills all the time! That is what we where told by the Tories in the 1980's would happen, that shareholders would pay for investments and consumers/tax payers would get lower prices and taxes by privatising things.
An economy that is growing but on a very delayed catch up basis way behind Osborne's own forecasts of 2010. Don't forgert that Labour had us out of recession in the space of a year and we were out of the "great recession" by the final quarter of 2009 and it continued until Osborne done his emergency budget of 2010 and scared the public that we where bankrupt and then we had 3 years of a flatlined economy.
Thats rubbish
Labour were borrowing even more money
Anyone can boost GDP by borrowing and spending.
"There is no more money"
Have you forgotten that already?
Thats rubbish
Labour were borrowing even more money
Anyone can boost GDP by borrowing and spending.
"There is no more money"
Have you forgotten that already?
Wrong. Tories said they wouldn't borrow any more money and they have borrowed more than Labour have done in 13 years! Labour had the excuse of bailing out the banks, what are the tories excuse?
As for that note, according to the man who left it, its a tradional thing to do by Chiefs Secs as a joke regardless of how good or bad the economy is. The Government collate at least 600 Billion in taxes before a penny is borrowed, sow how is that a "no money" situation?
Ed Balls has said there was nothing in a "pretty empty" Budget which Labour would reverse if it won the election. The shadow chancellor told the BBC he welcomed the plan to axe tax on the first £1,000 of interest from savings and to give help for first time buyers.
Pretty astonishing stuff from Labour. I can't recall a budget where the opposition haven't found anything to criticise or anything they would change...!
Ah the good old Tory "selective reading blindness" kicks in again I see.
from YOUR link the part you decided not to mention.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said he would not reverse any of the measures in Wednesday's "pretty empty" Budget.
That's what he said,..... and what are these things in the empty budget that he would not reverse?
Mr Balls said it was "good" that Mr Osborne had announced help for savers in the Budget and he thought the new Help to Buy ISA was an "interesting idea", which would not be scrapped if Labour wins power in May.
Mr Balls said Labour would also keep the rise in the personal tax allowance, which will go up from £10,600 to £11,000 by 2016-7.
Why would you expect them to reverse these things? just because the Tories introduced them? we are talking about the Labour party not the petty minded Tories.
however, Ed Balls DID say, (this being the important part that you 'accidentally' didn't notice.)
"What I will reverse is a plan for deeper spending cuts in the next three years than the last five.
I will post it again in the hope it gets noticed this time,
"What I will reverse is a plan for deeper spending cuts in the next three years than the last five.
and you seemed to miss this part too,
"I think that is a really risky and dangerous prospect for our country. I think he'll end up cutting the National Health Service or raising VAT."
more and more desperate as the polls just won't do as they are told.
2 things. The energy companies have made plenty of profit over the years so they can use that and or the shareholders can dip into their own pockets instead of raising the bills all the time! That is what we where told by the Tories in the 1980's would happen, that shareholders would pay for investments and consumers/tax payers would get lower prices and taxes by privatising things.
Do you really think that this meant prices in 2015 would be lower than they were in the 1980s?
Quite a lot of time has passed since then, and you have no idea what prices would have been now if we had continued under the old model. One thing's for sure though - they would have gone up.
Ah the good old Tory "selective reading blindness" kicks in again I see.
from YOUR link the part you decided not to mention.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said he would not reverse any of the measures in Wednesday's "pretty empty" Budget.
That's what he said,..... and what are these things in the empty budget that he would not reverse?
Why would you expect them to reverse these things? just because the Tories introduced them? we are talking about the Labour party not the petty minded Tories.
however, Ed Balls DID say, (this being the important part that you 'accidentally' didn't notice.)
I will post it again in the hope it gets noticed this time,
more and more desperate as the polls just won't do as they are told.
Balls also said in an interview this week not to ask him anything abut maths because he leaves that to his mother in law. Idiot.
Occasionally tucking the right leg in your sock was just about acceptable compromise until you were 16 and splashed out on a Suzuki AP50 or a Yammy FS1E (the kings of the moped world round my neck of the woods back in the day).
It was a Puch Maxi that was the favourite in my home town. I never bothered as I could virtually walk faster than the bloody thing at top speed.
But we are doing better than any other advanced country in Europe.
And where is France?
That model of economic brilliance that the 2 Ed's wanted us to emulate?
They are at the bottom of the table.
Don't waste your time, mungo, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that ethel is genetically incapable of making any positive statements about this government, the economy or the country in general
Beware politicians promising to 'help first time buyers'.
All that help has done so far is price them out of housing even more by pushing up prices. And now we have a scheme whereby if they save £200 a month over 5 years the government will gift them up to £3000 to buy a property worth up to £450k in London. Wow!
If they really wanted to help they could of course just build more housing, control the population, regulate and remove tax breaks for buy to let and limit lending multiples by stopping money printing so prices become aligned to wages again. But that wouldn't push up the price of their own London homes.
Osborne makes almost as much a year in renting out his house as he earns as Chancellor now - says it all really about UK plc.
I agree with your post.
However it is not only Osbourne but a fair number of politicians from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all at it in the world of property accumulation.
Whilst MP's are also at it they have no incentive to help lower property prices, just to drive them up further.
Wrong. Tories said they wouldn't borrow any more money and they have borrowed more than Labour have done in 13 years! Labour had the excuse of bailing out the banks, what are the tories excuse?
As for that note, according to the man who left it, its a tradional thing to do by Chiefs Secs as a joke regardless of how good or bad the economy is. The Government collate at least 600 Billion in taxes before a penny is borrowed, sow how is that a "no money" situation?
Don't start with the 13 years rubbish. I know it's bad form to quote yourself but ...
... given that Labour handed over a £156.3bn per year budget deficit in April 2010, five years of that would have created £781.5bn additional debt over the five year period...
It should be noted that the actual debt itself would increase by even more given that these are budget deficit figures (earnings versus spending) and don't include interest on the debt, this goes a very long way to explaining why the debt has increased.
I don't like cuts and I don't like austerity, but please don't try and use debt or deficit as a pro-Labour argument when all the facts show that Labour trashed the budget in 2009 with the highest deficit in 30 years.
Ah the good old Tory "selective reading blindness" kicks in again I see.
from YOUR link the part you decided not to mention.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said he would not reverse any of the measures in Wednesday's "pretty empty" Budget.
That's what he said,..... and what are these things in the empty budget that he would not reverse?
Why would you expect them to reverse these things? just because the Tories introduced them? we are talking about the Labour party not the petty minded Tories.
however, Ed Balls DID say, (this being the important part that you 'accidentally' didn't notice.)
I will post it again in the hope it gets noticed this time,
and you seemed to miss this part too,
more and more desperate as the polls just won't do as they are told.
Read your post back again and think about 2 things
First, that you quote my OP and say I haven't said something that you have yourself just quoted from me.
Second the overall tone of your post. Imagine how you would react if someone came across with that rude, sneering tone.
Labour have put themselves into a difficult position. The fact they also want to make these deficit reductions just in a slightly different way basically means people cant vote for change if they vote Labour which is why they are turning to other parties because alot of people want real change.
[QUOTE=Spot;77391269]Do you really think that this meant prices in 2015 would be lower than they were in the 1980s?
Quite a lot of time has passed since then, and you have no idea what prices would have been now if we had continued under the old model. One thing's for sure though - they would have gone up.[/QUOTE]
Ttry reading the posts properly. The Tories in the 1980's justified privatisation on it would lead to lower prices and a lower burden on the customer/tax payer. What they meant by that was that shareholders would always fork out for investments in the companies instead of public subsidies being used but shareholders hardly ever use their own money for investments, they just allow the prices to go up and make the customer pay, so the Tories justification for privatisation was/is wrong.
Comments
No they haven't and nor should they.
Labour haven't said anything about reducing the monthly repayments so someone earning over the threshold will still pay back the same amount out of each payslip.
Haven't ukip already said they'll wait until as late as possible to release their manifesto, the better to subject it to as little scrutiny as possible? Doesn't bode well for the faith ol' Farage has in it...
roll eyes at that! Corporation Tax has been cut by 7p and the Tories want to cut it down by another penny and what has it got us? Zero hour contracts, mickey mouse wages, and these flaming Tories forcing unemployed people to declare themselves as internet traders to get them off the JSA claimant figures! >:(
£20 a month or so and with less to pay, how can it be bad?
Farage was on the daily politics a few days ago, didn't hear him say that.
What's the actual point of this Labour party?
How about the fastest growing major economy in the world?
To sneak back into power, like most...
http://citywire.co.uk/money/ifs-challenges-osbornes-shift-in-rollercoaster-budget/a804783
An economy that is growing but on a very delayed catch up basis way behind Osborne's own forecasts of 2010. Don't forgert that Labour had us out of recession in the space of a year and we were out of the "great recession" by the final quarter of 2009 and it continued until Osborne done his emergency budget of 2010 and scared the public that we where bankrupt and then we had 3 years of a flatlined economy.
But we are doing better than any other advanced country in Europe.
And where is France?
That model of economic brilliance that the 2 Ed's wanted us to emulate?
They are at the bottom of the table.
2 things. The energy companies have made plenty of profit over the years so they can use that and or the shareholders can dip into their own pockets instead of raising the bills all the time! That is what we where told by the Tories in the 1980's would happen, that shareholders would pay for investments and consumers/tax payers would get lower prices and taxes by privatising things.
Thats rubbish
Labour were borrowing even more money
Anyone can boost GDP by borrowing and spending.
"There is no more money"
Have you forgotten that already?
Wrong. Tories said they wouldn't borrow any more money and they have borrowed more than Labour have done in 13 years! Labour had the excuse of bailing out the banks, what are the tories excuse?
As for that note, according to the man who left it, its a tradional thing to do by Chiefs Secs as a joke regardless of how good or bad the economy is. The Government collate at least 600 Billion in taxes before a penny is borrowed, sow how is that a "no money" situation?
Ah the good old Tory "selective reading blindness" kicks in again I see.
from YOUR link the part you decided not to mention.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said he would not reverse any of the measures in Wednesday's "pretty empty" Budget.
That's what he said,..... and what are these things in the empty budget that he would not reverse?
Why would you expect them to reverse these things? just because the Tories introduced them? we are talking about the Labour party not the petty minded Tories.
however, Ed Balls DID say, (this being the important part that you 'accidentally' didn't notice.)
I will post it again in the hope it gets noticed this time,
and you seemed to miss this part too,
more and more desperate as the polls just won't do as they are told.
You wonder how Labour finds voters gulllible enough to fall for it.
We are heading in the wrong direction - vote for us so we won't change direction.
They won't say what they will cut - so we won't either.
We will balance the budget too - sometime.
They won't fund the NHS - we will spend trivial sums extra on it.
It makes even Osborne's complete obfuscation about how much will be, or can be, cut post 2010look positively honest .
It is a bit strange - makes you wonder what is the point of having an official opposition if they are not going to change anything
Do you really think that this meant prices in 2015 would be lower than they were in the 1980s?
Quite a lot of time has passed since then, and you have no idea what prices would have been now if we had continued under the old model. One thing's for sure though - they would have gone up.
Balls also said in an interview this week not to ask him anything abut maths because he leaves that to his mother in law. Idiot.
It was a Puch Maxi that was the favourite in my home town. I never bothered as I could virtually walk faster than the bloody thing at top speed.
???? eh? martin mentions that in his first line of the quote you linked - he even has the empty budget words in quotation marks.
i think the red mist has clouded your vision OHG.
All in all it was a pretty good budget. it must have because miliband only mentioned 'bullingdon club' once in his reply.:D
I agree with your post.
However it is not only Osbourne but a fair number of politicians from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all at it in the world of property accumulation.
Whilst MP's are also at it they have no incentive to help lower property prices, just to drive them up further.
Don't start with the 13 years rubbish. I know it's bad form to quote yourself but ...
Read your post back again and think about 2 things
First, that you quote my OP and say I haven't said something that you have yourself just quoted from me.
Second the overall tone of your post. Imagine how you would react if someone came across with that rude, sneering tone.
Not your finest hour.
Quite a lot of time has passed since then, and you have no idea what prices would have been now if we had continued under the old model. One thing's for sure though - they would have gone up.[/QUOTE]
Ttry reading the posts properly. The Tories in the 1980's justified privatisation on it would lead to lower prices and a lower burden on the customer/tax payer. What they meant by that was that shareholders would always fork out for investments in the companies instead of public subsidies being used but shareholders hardly ever use their own money for investments, they just allow the prices to go up and make the customer pay, so the Tories justification for privatisation was/is wrong.