Calls to radically change the tax system.

[stourbridgefox]

Probably more to do with the fact that public spending accounted for 49% of GDP in 2010-11. I don't know many people who believe this is sustainable.

We have three choices, either raise taxes, reduce public spending or a combination of the two. A combination of the two seems sensible.

All parties would have reduced public spending after the last election. What get's my goat is ideological cuts which damage people's lives for little good reason and the plain greed of the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance.

I hope I don't have to have a rant about Keynesian Economics but the fact remains that no recession or depression has been eased by austerity.

I will just say that if we grow the economy rather than shrinking it, then the deficit will reduce anyway. This is what Obama and pretty much the rest of Europe other than Merkel are pointing out.

[Jon the Hat]

The Tax Payer's Alliance is a right-wing organisation that lobbies for destroying the welfare state to save rich people paying tax.

So the couple earning around £24 000 would have to factor in private healthcare and school fees into their budgets which would pretty much wipe out any savings from a tax threshold of £10 000.

Do we really want to live in a country where people cannot afford healthcare they might desperately need or where children cannot afford to go to school? The fact is, this country DID used to be like that. We had a social movement of trade unions and then the Labour Party which fought tooth and nail for these things we now take for granted, and which many would thoughtlessly give away for a few extra pennies from less tax.

If a level playing field existed in this country and anybody with the ability could make it to the top, then I could maybe give this argument some credit. But the fact remains that this country is the least socially mobile in Europe. The vast majority in very well paid jobs had parents who were very well paid too. Likewise, the children at the bottom tend to remain at the bottom.

Until this is addressed, we should have a tax system which re-distributes wealth from where it has congealed at the top to those who are in no way given the same chances in life.

How would perfect social mobility redistribute wealth? There are by definition only so many places at the top. This approach might take a little while to make any change towards your socialist utopia. In the meantime, the range of things we take for granted (because they are in fact available to us) will have increased (like they always have as long as we have had a capitalist society that rewards such improvements) and people will be whining about something else they haven't got. These things are relative, and as such there will always be a big chunk of society which doesn't have what some do have. Any attempt to thwart this and create something else will fail in a expensive mess like it always has done.

[Jon the Hat]

All parties would have reduced public spending after the last election. What get's my goat is ideological cuts which damage people's lives for little good reason and the plain greed of the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance.

I hope I don't have to have a rant about Keynesian Economics but the fact remains that no recession or depression has been eased by austerity.

I will just say that if we grow the economy rather than shrinking it, then the deficit will reduce anyway. This is what Obama and pretty much the rest of Europe other than Merkel are pointing out.

Idealogical cuts being worse than idealogical spending? Sounds like a load of idealogical nonsense to me!

[stourbridgefox]

Capitalism has not provided an improvement in living standards.

Workers in the 19th Century lived in abject poverty while their employers lived in mansions. The improvements in living standards were a result of pressure from trade unions, the emergence of the Labour Party and the good work done by a minority of employers such as Cadbury.

If capitalism had remained unchecked, we would still live in crowded terraces, children would still be working in factories at age 5 and people would still die of simple health conditions due to not being able to afford healthcare. Capitalism hasn't improved people's lives, social democracy has.

We should all rejoice in the achievements of the Labour Party and the trade unions....but not too much. There are still powerful forces in the country which would like to turn back the clock.

The Taxpayer's Alliance and the Tory Party since Thatcher spring to mind.

[Webbo]

I believe that the flat tax has been used successfully in a few of the former soviet bloc countries, not sure it would work here. I do believe we should abolish national insurance and include it in normal income tax. Removes a layer of bureaucracy and we'd all know what we were actually paying in tax. The only problem is is that pensioners don't pay NI so some sort of arrangement would have to be made.

Capitalism has not provided an improvement in living standards.

Workers in the 19th Century lived in abject poverty while their employers lived in mansions. The improvements in living standards were a result of pressure from trade unions, the emergence of the Labour Party and the good work done by a minority of employers such as Cadbury.

If capitalism had remained unchecked, we would still live in crowded terraces, children would still be working in factories at age 5 and people would still die of simple health conditions due to not being able to afford healthcare. Capitalism hasn't improved people's lives, social democracy has.

We should all rejoice in the achievements of the Labour Party and the trade unions....but not too much. There are still powerful forces in the country which would like to turn back the clock.

The Taxpayer's Alliance and the Tory Party since Thatcher spring to mind.

Name a socialist country that has ever had a better living standard than ours.

[stourbridgefox]

In the Soviet Bloc, wages were capped so there wasn't a huge disparity in what people earned. (Unless you were a member of the Communist Party)

A flat rate of tax would seem more reasonable if this was the case. Also, the state tried to provide everything that the people needed, so there was no disparity in healthcare or education. Wealth also couldn't be inherited which meant everyone started at the same point.

I'm all for removing layers of bureaucracy (probably because I don't work in the civil service) so long as the bureaucracy is still able to do an effective job. Working in the public sector, I am aware that sometimes there is waste which I would prefer didn't happen. What is currently happening isn't a reduction in waste however, it is vital workers and services being cut which has an effect on many vulnerable people.

It also has an effect on everybody. Cuts in education will not provide a well educated workforce in the future, any more than cuts in policing will result in a safer place to live.

As for the intended purpose of austerity, to reduce the deficit...well it isn't working is it.

[Guest MattP]

Capitalism hasn't improved living standards?

Go and have a wander round Beijing if you really believe that.....

Despite what the media try and tell you were are not in austerity yet, we are still borrowing more than we are taking in.

[breadandcheese]

All parties would have reduced public spending after the last election. What get's my goat is ideological cuts which damage people's lives for little good reason and the plain greed of the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance.

I hope I don't have to have a rant about Keynesian Economics but the fact remains that no recession or depression has been eased by austerity.

I will just say that if we grow the economy rather than shrinking it, then the deficit will reduce anyway. This is what Obama and pretty much the rest of Europe other than Merkel are pointing out.

What's the difference between an ideological public spending cut and well-meaning public spending cut? Genuine question, because the only difference I can find is that it depends who is making the proposal, which is ridiculous.

There are many different schools of economics (monetarists in particular) who would argue strongly against Keynesian economics.

Everybody agrees about growing the economy, the debate is how. I'm not sure more government spending is the answer, as I believe we're pretty much at our limits. It might be that some lean economic years are as good as it gets, bearing in mind how close we came to a financial depression.

[breadandcheese]

Capitalism has not provided an improvement in living standards.

Workers in the 19th Century lived in abject poverty while their employers lived in mansions. The improvements in living standards were a result of pressure from trade unions, the emergence of the Labour Party and the good work done by a minority of employers such as Cadbury.

If capitalism had remained unchecked, we would still live in crowded terraces, children would still be working in factories at age 5 and people would still die of simple health conditions due to not being able to afford healthcare. Capitalism hasn't improved people's lives, social democracy has.

We should all rejoice in the achievements of the Labour Party and the trade unions....but not too much. There are still powerful forces in the country which would like to turn back the clock.

The Taxpayer's Alliance and the Tory Party since Thatcher spring to mind.

You're confusing living standards with wage equality.

Look at all the advancements over the last century and think again.

As for this powerful forces wanting to turn the clock back. Do you really believe there is anything more than a fringe few loonie tunes who want to turn the country back to Victorian times? It's the equivalent of saying that a powerful block in the Labour party want to turn the UK into 1950's Russia.

[21st Century Fox]

So widening the economic gap is the best way to fix Broken Britain? Funny how we're up there with Greece, Spain and Italy on the Gini Index.

[stourbridgefox]

Ok, a few points.

First of all, it depends on how you view living standards. Socialist or Communist countries did a very good job of providing for people's basic needs. People had good healthcare, education, transport and a guarantee of a job. Capitalism provides consumer products, which is actually why it appears to provide better living standards. In the USA, there are a huge range of consumer products available, but 40 million people live below the poverty line. My judgement is that people's needs are more important than their shopping needs.

The difference between ideological cuts and well meaning cuts seems huge to me. Just telling government departments to cut x% of spending, regardless of any effects, appears immoral do me.

Thatcher ideologically applied monetary policy to the recession of the early 80s, which resulted in millions unemployed, the partial destruction of public healthcare and education in this country and whole industries going down the drain. Monetary Policy is not even intended to be used in times of recession, it is intended as a control of inflation. If used during recession then theoretically and actually it makes recession worse. Keynesian Economics is proven to relieve recession. There are plenty of historical examples of this and only one example of monetary policy bringing a country out of recession. This example is Canada in the early 90s, and it is debatable whether monetary policy brought Canada out of recession or whether the favourable world economic climate did.

As I'm sure people are aware, we are not currently in a favourable economic climate globally. I think we are repeating the mistakes of the 1920s and 1930s where governments tried to cut their way out of the depression and only after it had unquestionably failed did they turn to stimulating growth.

It would be nice to think that as a species we were able to learn from our mistakes.

[stourbridgefox]

btw - the UK's debt is made to look worse because we have a large financial services sector. Financial institutions constantly borrow from each other and these mainly short-term debts are included in the debt figures.

We are not Greece.

[Daggers]

Everybody agrees about growing the economy

Nope. I don't.

[stourbridgefox]

Nope. I don't.

A demand economy?

[Daggers]

A demand economy?

An agrarian economy where every man has the ability to feed his family through his own labour.

[stourbridgefox]

Wouldn't you miss the internet?

[stourbridgefox]

To be serious, you mean the system which worked so well in Nicaragua until it was destroyed by the CIA? They couldn't have a successful marxist model in their backyard.

[Rincewind]

If we shared all the wealth in the world out equally within a few years the same 10% of people would have 90% of it. Wish it wasn't so but those 10% are as good as making money as the 90% are at losing it. I'd have to admit I would probably be in the 90%.

[accessory]

I believe that the flat tax has been used successfully in a few of the former soviet bloc countries

Only at the expense of the welfare state.

Name a socialist country that has ever had a better living standard than ours.

Norway doesn't seem to be doing too badly..

[stourbridgefox]

If we shared all the wealth in the world out equally within a few years the same people would have 90% of it. Wish it wasn't so but those 10% are as good as making money as the 90% are at losing it. I'd have to admit I would probably be in the 90%.

Not if you kill the 10% !

But seriously, I don't agree.

[accessory]

To be serious, you mean the system which worked so well in Nicaragua until it was destroyed by the CIA? They couldn't have a successful marxist model in their backyard.

Or the system that is emerging in Venezuela, again despite the best efforts of the CIA.

[stourbridgefox]

Norway doesn't seem to be doing too badly..

Good point! Or any of the Scandinavian countries for that matter.

[stourbridgefox]

Or the system that is emerging in Venezuela, again despite the best efforts of the CIA.

But Venezuela has a centralised state, which Marx didn't want and Nicaragua managed to 'whither away.'

Is Venezuela truly Marxist? I'm guessing this is what Dagger's model is.

[Webbo]

Ok, a few points.

First of all, it depends on how you view living standards. Socialist or Communist countries did a very good job of providing for people's basic needs. People had good healthcare, education, transport and a guarantee of a job.

First of all, don't believe the propaganda. Not many people in the former Soviet bloc want to go back to the good old days.

Thatcher ideologically applied monetary policy to the recession of the early 80s, which resulted in millions unemployed, the partial destruction of public healthcare and education in this country and whole industries going down the drain.

Absolute bollocks. unemployment was already going up before Mrs T came into office. The industries that she is supposed to have destroyed were already haemorrhaging money , mainly due to union intransigence, and only kept going through massive govt subsidies that we couldn't afford, the Labour govt had to beg the IMF for a loan just to make ends meet. Contrary to popular belief the only party to cut NHS spending was the labour party. One of the conditions of the IMF loan. Public Healthcare was never partially destroyed.

Keynesian Economics is proven to relieve recession. There are plenty of historical examples of this and only one example of monetary policy bringing a country out of recession. This example is Canada in the early 90s, and it is debatable whether monetary policy brought Canada out of recession or whether the favourable world economic climate did.

Keynesian economics say that you should cut spending during a boom to dampen down the boom and pay back debt. The last govt actually increased spending and borrowing at the height of the boom. We couldn't even pay our bills at the height of our earning ability, so lets not pretend the Labour party practice Keynesian economics.

It would be nice to think that as a species we were able to learn from our mistakes.

Yes, lets never vote Labour again.

[Webbo]

Only at the expense of the welfare state.

Norway doesn't seem to be doing too badly..

Every business in Norway is nationalised?