|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 10:14:49 GMT
Every government says they are going to cut waste and trim inefficiency but it seems to be beyond all of them. So the Tories cut the easy bits, like social workers and state care homes by starving councils of money, and freezing public sector pay whilst certain private fat cats do just fine, thank you. I don't think we'll ever chop inefficiencies out of the public sector, but I'd rather inefficiencies than hacking public services to the bone. Still, if you think you can succeed where generations of governments have failed, you should stand for office. I might vote for you! But I don't think yatton will ☹️. It's beyond the politicians because they choose to let the civil service/public sector get away with it. Cummings had a plan to sort it out and Johnson had the parliamentary majority to get it done, but Covid got in the way and the opposite happened - more public sector jobs, more inefficiency and more waste. But even in normal times the right can't cut too hard or reform too deep as instead of agreeing to reform you just get strikes and stand-offs... Labour will never reform and make efficiencies - they were welcomed as heroes by Whitehall when they won in July and immediately paid back their union donors via public sector pay-rises without any of the reforms the Conservatives had been negotiating. As an anecdote to reinforce this - and train drivers are not quite the same as civil servants or NHS staff but I will bet there are lots of similarities - Andy Burnham (Lab Mayor of Greater Manchester) was in a meetig talking about his attempts to modernise Northern Rail. The Conservative negotiations were drilling down into updating working practices - and all of those reforms were ditched by Labour who just gave the drivers the pay increase with no efficiencies in return... ...the outdated working practices? The two examples were replacement of fax machines (they *still* use faxes to pass on critical information to drivers and other staff as the unions have not agreed to switch to anything more modern) and lunch break rules - say a driver is on a 60 minute break and a manager chooses to talk to them (about anything) during that break, the driver can restart the break for the full duration from the end of that conversation. Both are great examples of why the UK can't ever get anything done.... Manager then leaves the employee alone for the lunch break. No problem. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 10:17:37 GMT
Total tax revenue as a share of GDP in OECD countries.
UK tax revenue was 33.5% of gross domestic product
(GDP
) in 2021 – the most recent year for which there are internationally comparable data. This is slightly below the average for both the G7
(36.3%) and the OECD
(34.1%). While UK taxes are higher than in most other English-speaking developed economies (such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States), they are considerably lower than in most other western European countries (average tax revenue amongst the EU14
was 39.9% of GDP
).
Under current government plans, UK tax revenue is forecast to increase to 37.7% of GDP
by 2027–28. This would take the UK above both the current OECD
and G7
averages. It should be noted, however, that other governments may also increase their levels of taxation by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 10:44:55 GMT
Total tax revenue as a share of GDP in OECD countries. UK tax revenue was 33.5% of gross domestic product (GDP ) in 2021 – the most recent year for which there are internationally comparable data. This is slightly below the average for both the G7 (36.3%) and the OECD (34.1%). While UK taxes are higher than in most other English-speaking developed economies (such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States), they are considerably lower than in most other western European countries (average tax revenue amongst the EU14 was 39.9% of GDP ). Under current government plans, UK tax revenue is forecast to increase to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28. This would take the UK above both the current OECD and G7 averages. It should be noted, however, that other governments may also increase their levels of taxation by then. Therein lies the paradox and a phrase I've heard several times over the years, we want European levels of public services with American levels of taxation. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 10:53:15 GMT
Total tax revenue as a share of GDP in OECD countries. UK tax revenue was 33.5% of gross domestic product (GDP ) in 2021 – the most recent year for which there are internationally comparable data. This is slightly below the average for both the G7 (36.3%) and the OECD (34.1%). While UK taxes are higher than in most other English-speaking developed economies (such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and the United States), they are considerably lower than in most other western European countries (average tax revenue amongst the EU14 was 39.9% of GDP ). Under current government plans, UK tax revenue is forecast to increase to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28. This would take the UK above both the current OECD and G7 averages. It should be noted, however, that other governments may also increase their levels of taxation by then. Therein lies the paradox and a phrase I've heard several times over the years, we want European levels of public services with American levels of taxation. Yes and it always amuses me that the usual low tax loons will then complain that Labour have to raise taxes to fix all the problems the Tories caused with austerity. Cuts in certain areas end up costing the country far more in other ways. So Labour will improve the nhs , schools etc etc …..then they’ll lose power and the Tories will cut everything again. Round and round in circles we go . 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 11:47:17 GMT
Therein lies the paradox and a phrase I've heard several times over the years, we want European levels of public services with American levels of taxation. Yes and it always amuses me that the usual low tax loons will then complain that Labour have to raise taxes to fix all the problems the Tories caused with austerity. Cuts in certain areas end up costing the country far more in other ways. So Labour will improve the nhs , schools etc etc …..then they’ll lose power and the Tories will cut everything again. Round and round in circles we go . 🙄 Those cuts in 2010 to things like SureStart and the nurses bursary have really hit home, only for us to make ourselves poorer and can't afford to pay. Add in a dysfunctional government arguing amongst themselves and that leaves little room to maneuver. Maybe we should rejoin the Single Market for a boost to out economy 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2024 11:47:58 GMT
Ten years of non-reform means ten years of higher and higher taxes. Ten years of higher and higher taxes means lower and lower growth. Ten years of lower and lower growth means the economy is screwed... Well that’s just not true at all. There’s hundreds of other variables that you’ve deliberately ignored. What do you think we should do then? Go back to Truss’ proven low tax economy and completely destroy the economy in a matter of hours? When did Truss "...destroy the economy..."? Gilts are currently at a higher rate than they were after her non-budget (in fact the day after the budget they are currently 4.5% vs 3.5% - higher is worse for the government borrowing costs) and the pound is headed for it's biggest fall in 18 months. The reason Truss's budget spooked the markets was she couldn't show how they would fund the £45bn in tax cuts and so break government borrowing rules (other than a fairly reasonable assumption that it would stimulate growth and pay for itself). This begs the question why Reeves' budget didn't spook them in a similar way when she just amended the rules so she could borrow what she wants.... |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 1, 2024 12:05:02 GMT
It's beyond the politicians because they choose to let the civil service/public sector get away with it. Cummings had a plan to sort it out and Johnson had the parliamentary majority to get it done, but Covid got in the way and the opposite happened - more public sector jobs, more inefficiency and more waste. But even in normal times the right can't cut too hard or reform too deep as instead of agreeing to reform you just get strikes and stand-offs... Labour will never reform and make efficiencies - they were welcomed as heroes by Whitehall when they won in July and immediately paid back their union donors via public sector pay-rises without any of the reforms the Conservatives had been negotiating. As an anecdote to reinforce this - and train drivers are not quite the same as civil servants or NHS staff but I will bet there are lots of similarities - Andy Burnham (Lab Mayor of Greater Manchester) was in a meetig talking about his attempts to modernise Northern Rail. The Conservative negotiations were drilling down into updating working practices - and all of those reforms were ditched by Labour who just gave the drivers the pay increase with no efficiencies in return... ...the outdated working practices? The two examples were replacement of fax machines (they *still* use faxes to pass on critical information to drivers and other staff as the unions have not agreed to switch to anything more modern) and lunch break rules - say a driver is on a 60 minute break and a manager chooses to talk to them (about anything) during that break, the driver can restart the break for the full duration from the end of that conversation. Both are great examples of why the UK can't ever get anything done.... Manager then leaves the employee alone for the lunch break. No problem. TBF the managers found a workaround and just faxed their requests to pass the salt... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 12:10:40 GMT
Manager then leaves the employee alone for the lunch break. No problem. TBF the managers found a workaround and just faxed their requests to pass the salt... I knew managers just like that. 👀 |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 12:14:30 GMT
Well that’s just not true at all. There’s hundreds of other variables that you’ve deliberately ignored. What do you think we should do then? Go back to Truss’ proven low tax economy and completely destroy the economy in a matter of hours? When did Truss "...destroy the economy..."? Gilts are currently at a higher rate than they were after her non-budget (in fact the day after the budget they are currently 4.5% vs 3.5% - higher is worse for the government borrowing costs) and the pound is headed for it's biggest fall in 18 months. The reason Truss's budget spooked the markets was she couldn't show how they would fund the £45bn in tax cuts and so break government borrowing rules (other than a fairly reasonable assumption that it would stimulate growth and pay for itself). This begs the question why Reeves' budget didn't spook them in a similar way when she just amended the rules so she could borrow what she wants.... The difference is Reeves is investing that money in the nhs , schools , wages . Your mate wanted to give tax cuts to the already rich . There’s a fundamental difference. keep up old boy 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 12:20:44 GMT
When did Truss "...destroy the economy..."? Gilts are currently at a higher rate than they were after her non-budget (in fact the day after the budget they are currently 4.5% vs 3.5% - higher is worse for the government borrowing costs) and the pound is headed for it's biggest fall in 18 months. The reason Truss's budget spooked the markets was she couldn't show how they would fund the £45bn in tax cuts and so break government borrowing rules (other than a fairly reasonable assumption that it would stimulate growth and pay for itself). This begs the question why Reeves' budget didn't spook them in a similar way when she just amended the rules so she could borrow what she wants.... The difference is Reeves is investing that money in the nhs , schools , wages . Your mate wanted to give tax cuts to the already rich . There’s a fundamental difference. keep up old boy 🙄 Didn't Truss do away with the OBR requirements, too? |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 12:33:21 GMT
The difference is Reeves is investing that money in the nhs , schools , wages . Your mate wanted to give tax cuts to the already rich . There’s a fundamental difference. keep up old boy 🙄 Didn't Truss do away with the OBR requirements, too? Yep. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 12:36:23 GMT
Didn't Truss do away with the OBR requirements, too? Yep. That's a big reason why things went badly, markets lost confidence. Plus spending on the credit card to make tax cuts. 🤦♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 1, 2024 17:05:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 17:41:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 1, 2024 19:30:34 GMT
Well that’s just not true at all. There’s hundreds of other variables that you’ve deliberately ignored. What do you think we should do then? Go back to Truss’ proven low tax economy and completely destroy the economy in a matter of hours? When did Truss "...destroy the economy..."? Gilts are currently at a higher rate than they were after her non-budget (in fact the day after the budget they are currently 4.5% vs 3.5% - higher is worse for the government borrowing costs) and the pound is headed for it's biggest fall in 18 months. The reason Truss's budget spooked the markets was she couldn't show how they would fund the £45bn in tax cuts and so break government borrowing rules (other than a fairly reasonable assumption that it would stimulate growth and pay for itself). This begs the question why Reeves' budget didn't spook them in a similar way when she just amended the rules so she could borrow what she wants.... "When did Truss crash the economy"? Are you actually serious? 😂 There's delusions, and then there's just this. I haven't followed the GBP Vs USD, but a quick google shows that after Truss' budget it was £1.06 - thats the lowest the record goes on the graph i'm viewing (2003). Today its £1.29 and dropped £0.01 since the budget announcement. After Truss' budget, it had dropped 6p in 2 days. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 1, 2024 20:22:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 1, 2024 23:05:14 GMT
This must be very frustrating for the anti-commie crew.
They were hoping and praying for an economic meltdown and it just hasn't happened. In fact the budget has gone down quite well with the markets and the IMF and the haters are picking at scraps. Poor lambs.
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 2, 2024 8:25:48 GMT
This must be very frustrating for the anti-commie crew. They were hoping and praying for an economic meltdown and it just hasn't happened. In fact the budget has gone down quite well with the markets and the IMF and the haters are picking at scraps. Poor lambs. There seems to be many SMB owners that are pretty upset. You can't please all the people but there's mixed reactions here for sure. Constant division keeps the debates alive but as with these things, it'll take a few months to kick in. I shouldn't crow just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 2, 2024 11:08:57 GMT
When did Truss "...destroy the economy..."? Gilts are currently at a higher rate than they were after her non-budget (in fact the day after the budget they are currently 4.5% vs 3.5% - higher is worse for the government borrowing costs) and the pound is headed for it's biggest fall in 18 months. The reason Truss's budget spooked the markets was she couldn't show how they would fund the £45bn in tax cuts and so break government borrowing rules (other than a fairly reasonable assumption that it would stimulate growth and pay for itself). This begs the question why Reeves' budget didn't spook them in a similar way when she just amended the rules so she could borrow what she wants.... The difference is Reeves is investing that money in the nhs , schools , wages . Your mate wanted to give tax cuts to the already rich . There’s a fundamental difference. keep up old boy 🙄 You do make me laugh sometimes. Reeves doesn't have that money yet and that's the real risk. Like Blair/Brown in the early 2000s with PFI, and like Brown/Darling during and after the GFC they are busy spending money they don't have. They might get it from the tax increases but even the OBR isn't confident they will which is why she changed the rules on what she can borrow to allow her to borrow more. With a starting point of the highest tax burden in UK history, even the most ardent socialist must wonder if it's a good idea to raise it so much more, and fundamentally that's a massive risk. Chances are it will not raise what she predicts, borrowing it already costs more and the economy drags - a cycle that is very hard to break out of without spending cuts and that's clearly not on the table at all... |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Nov 2, 2024 11:27:12 GMT
Go Kemi!
So the Tories have had 4 female leaders (including now a black leader), three female Prime Ministers (possibly a fourth) as well as an Asian Leader/ Prime Minister whilst Labour......
Well they do have the first female Chancellor which they are all so very proud of and how did that go?
Tin hat on.😎👍
|
|
