2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Guest]

It isn't inconsistent to want to live in a market economy while not wanting the government to run a permanent budget deficit. It's perfectly possible to hold both views.

 

Well in reality it is. It's the credit/debt that is buying your unaffordable material benefits, but I wasn't really talking about national debt, I was talking about personal debt. The UK is full of people (especially the young) you are living far outside their means by buying all manner of "wants" with money that they haven't earnt.

[Guest]

It isn't inconsistent to want to live in a market economy while not wanting the government to run a permanent budget deficit. It's perfectly possible to hold both views.

 

You are believing in a fantasy scenario and hiding your head in the sand if you really believe that.

[Carl the Llama]

You are believing in a fantasy scenario and hiding your head in the sand if you really believe that.

Why?  Gordon Brown managed to avoid a budget deficit from '98-'01, as did John Major from '88-'89.  If it weren't for the banking crisis we may well have circled back to another short period of budget surplus under a labour government by now.  Instead everyone with remaining vestiges of ignorance regarding the crash (which is pretty unacceptable for anyone wishing to contribute to discourse on it given the amount of time elapsed since and the numerous reiterations of the facts on here) is rushing to blame Labour for careless borrowing and making them out to be fiscally irresponsible for inheriting a problem caused by private sector activity in the USA.

[MooseBreath]

Why? Gordon Brown managed to avoid a budget deficit from '98-'01, as did John Major from '88-'89. If it weren't for the banking crisis we may well have circled back to another short period of budget surplus under a labour government by now. Instead everyone with remaining vestiges of ignorance regarding the crash (which is pretty unacceptable for anyone wishing to contribute to discourse on it given the amount of time elapsed since and the numerous reiterations of the facts on here) is rushing to blame Labour for careless borrowing and making them out to be fiscally irresponsible for inheriting a problem caused by private sector activity in the USA.

It's more the lack of preparation that people blame labour for. That and poor regulation, but I doubt the tories would have done any different there. But continuing to run up the debt during a period of global calm and economic growth was extraordinarily irresponsible. Brown talking about "the end of boom and bust" while borrowing to fund growth serves to highlight just how clueless they were.

[Alf Bentley]

It's more the lack of preparation that people blame labour for. That and poor regulation, but I doubt the tories would have done any different there. But continuing to run up the debt during a period of global calm and economic growth was extraordinarily irresponsible. Brown talking about "the end of boom and bust" while borrowing to fund growth serves to highlight just how clueless they were.

 

No more irresponsible and clueless than Thatcher or Major, presumably?

 

The Thatcher governments ran deficits for 9 out of their 11 years, while the Major government ran a deficit every single year (and at a slightly higher level than Blair/Brown before the 2008 financial crash.

Labour ran a surplus in 4 years out of 11 before the crash (1998-2001).

[breadandcheese]

No more irresponsible and clueless than Thatcher or Major, presumably?

 

The Thatcher governments ran deficits for 9 out of their 11 years, while the Major government ran a deficit every single year (and at a slightly higher level than Blair/Brown before the 2008 financial crash.

Labour ran a surplus in 4 years out of 11 before the crash (1998-2001).

 

Not to ruin statistics but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as part of their election strategy in 1997, promised to follow the spending plans drafted by the then Conservative government. So the surplus years you mention should probably be credited to John Major's government's strategy post 1991 recession.

[Alf Bentley]

Not to ruin statistics but Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as part of their election strategy in 1997, promised to follow the spending plans drafted by the then Conservative government. So the surplus years you mention should probably be credited to John Major's government's strategy post 1991 recession.

 

 

Blair/Brown did make that choice, as you say, but it was their policy decision..... Giving the Tories credit for Labour's policy decisions in office, that's a new one! 

[Guest MattP]

More totally unbiased and balanced journalism from the Beeb yesterday

[Guest MattP]

Although still more balanced than last week.

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

Blair/Brown did make that choice, as you say, but it was their policy decision..... Giving the Tories credit for Labour's policy decisions in office, that's a new one! 

Plenty of people use the argument that the Conservatives said they would match Labour's spending plans and supported the continuing deregulation of the banks before the 2007/2008 crisis as a way to deflect some of the criticism away from Labour

[Alf Bentley]

On the point about cash in hand, in my experience, its always the customer pushing for a cash discount. Maybe you all need to check your morales, as its not just the end receiver taking the benefits.

 

We clearly have different experiences there, Strokes. On many occasions, I've asked tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, decorators) whether they wanted payment by cheque or in cash, and they've always opted for cash. I can vaguely recall someone offering me a cheaper rate for cash, but just the once. I've never sought to negotiate a lower charge for cash, but maybe I'm an idiot.

 

Of course, I don't know that they're not declaring all their cash payments for tax....but I'd be surprised! Mind you, I always declare the few cash payments that I get (most of my work is paid by BACS), so maybe there are other naive fools out there who choose not to evade tax? 

 

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me why it's apparently morally acceptable to take cash-in-hand payments to evade tax, but unacceptable to work and make fraudulent benefits claims. Both involve financial dishonesty detrimental to the treasury....

 

I've obviously got it all wrong. I should be taking cash payments, under-declaring my income for tax, and then hiding behind my twitching curtain chuntering jealously about other people claiming benefits they don't deserve as they sit in front of their massive flat-screen TVs smoking ganja and necking Stella. Flawed tosser as I am in other ways, I just couldn't be arsed filling my brain with such avarice or such bitterness and resentment. 

[Alf Bentley]

Plenty of people use the argument that the Conservatives said they would match Labour's spending plans and supported the continuing deregulation of the banks before the 2007/2008 crisis as a way to deflect some of the criticism away from Labour

 

 

True, but that argument is used to say that the Tories cannot criticise what Labour did as they'd announced that they'd do the same. Claiming credit for something that someone else actually did is a bit different.

 

If the Tories want to claim credit for the Labour surplus 1998-2001, logically they should also accept the blame for the deficit that Labour left in 2010, but they obviously don't do that!

 

Incidentally, I remember Ken Clarke (outgoing Tory chancellor in 1997) stating that he would NOT have stuck to his own spending plans....he considered Brown naive to have done so!  

 

In further news..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498033

Quarterly growth has slowed to 0.3%. According to the BBC lunchtime news, that's 5 quarters in a row that the growth rate has fallen. Only the services sector grew at all. Industry, agriculture and construction all shrank..

Looks like the economy needs a Keynesian demand stimulus, public investment and a house-building initiative from a Labour government. 

[Strokes]

We clearly have different experiences there, Strokes. On many occasions, I've asked tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, decorators) whether they wanted payment by cheque or in cash, and they've always opted for cash. I can vaguely recall someone offering me a cheaper rate for cash, but just the once. I've never sought to negotiate a lower charge for cash, but maybe I'm an idiot.

Of course, I don't know that they're not declaring all their cash payments for tax....but I'd be surprised! Mind you, I always declare the few cash payments that I get (most of my work is paid by BACS), so maybe there are other naive fools out there who choose not to evade tax?

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me why it's apparently morally acceptable to take cash-in-hand payments to evade tax, but unacceptable to work and make fraudulent benefits claims. Both involve financial dishonesty detrimental to the treasury....

I've obviously got it all wrong. I should be taking cash payments, under-declaring my income for tax, and then hiding behind my twitching curtain chuntering jealously about other people claiming benefits they don't deserve as they sit in front of their massive flat-screen TVs smoking ganja and necking Stella. Flawed tosser as I am in other ways, I just couldn't be arsed filling my brain with such avarice or such bitterness and resentment.

If you are self employed, a cash in hand job is a headache, you have to source materials for cash and go to extreme lengths to cover the paper trail.

I'm employed now but I will do a weekend here and there for other tradesman on a cash only basis, if I declare it, I then have to do accounts and need to pay for an accountant etc by the time you are done, it really isn't worth the effort.

I also do, the odd job for friends and family too but again I really only cover costs and get my whistle wet, so I would say the whole cash in hand thing is exaggerated.

Let me attempt the benefit question as my view is a little scewed on it.

If a person is claiming benefits but picks up some casual work on a non frequent basis, I'm cool with it. If a person is picking up consistent work and fraudulently claiming, its wrong.

If I worked cash in hand permanently, its wrong. That's my viewpoint, and I think its relatively consistent.

[Strokes]

Oh I'd just like to add regarding the benefit fraud question. If the person is claiming for disability, whilst doing a casual days manual labour here and their. They are also wankers

[Buce]

Oh I'd just like to add regarding the benefit fraud question. If the person is claiming for disability, whilst doing a casual days manual labour here and their. They are also wankers

What about if their disability is intermittant (depression, for example)? Would you be ok with them working on their 'better' days?

[Strokes]

What about if their disability is intermittant (depression, for example)? Would you be ok with them working on their 'better' days?

The less said on my views of depression the better buce, last time out I upset quite a few on here.

I find invisible illnesses to be a very grey area, so open to abuse. Having lived with someone growing up with severe depression, I'd say that morality over employment/benefits is the least of the worries. I hope that helps

[Alf Bentley]

If you are self employed, a cash in hand job is a headache, you have to source materials for cash and go to extreme lengths to cover the paper trail.

I'm employed now but I will do a weekend here and there for other tradesman on a cash only basis, if I declare it, I then have to do accounts and need to pay for an accountant etc by the time you are done, it really isn't worth the effort.

I also do, the odd job for friends and family too but again I really only cover costs and get my whistle wet, so I would say the whole cash in hand thing is exaggerated.

Let me attempt the benefit question as my view is a little scewed on it.

If a person is claiming benefits but picks up some casual work on a non frequent basis, I'm cool with it. If a person is picking up consistent work and fraudulently claiming, its wrong.

If I worked cash in hand permanently, its wrong. That's my viewpoint, and I think its relatively consistent.

 

 

That seems a fairly balanced attitude to benefit fraud v. tax evasion. It's the people who go on about benefit fraudsters while evading tax that haven't got a leg to stand on IMHO.

 

If it's such a hassle to do jobs cash in hand, I wonder why so many tradesmen prefer to be paid in cash, in my experience? Or maybe my experience is untypical?

[ramboacdc]

 

BBC

Labour’s Keith Vaz - above right - has been accused by his rivals of producing excessive noise on the campaign trial. Conservatives are raising a din with Leicester City Council after videoing a vehicle pumping out messages via loud speaker calling to for people to vote for Mr Vaz.

City hall officials have confirmed it is an offence to use a loudspeaker in the street, and anyone in breach of the rules can face a fine of up to £5,000. A Leicester City Council spokesman said the allegation was now under investigation.

A spokesman for Mr Vaz told the Leicester Mercury the Conservatives were "running scared". "We have received no complaints from any members of the public," he said. The spokesman went on to say Mr Vaz had not been in the vehicle at the time, as he could not be in two places at once.

With tongue firmly in cheek, he added: "The Conservative Party should note: There is only one Keith Vaz."

 

Vaz's van

Posted at15:49

Vinod Popat/Leicester Conservative Party/PA

We mentioned a complaint made against Labour's Keith Vaz for apparently using a loud-hailer on his campaign van. Well it appears this is the vehicle at the centre of the drama.

[Strokes]

That seems a fairly balanced attitude to benefit fraud v. tax evasion. It's the people who go on about benefit fraudsters while evading tax that haven't got a leg to stand on IMHO.

If it's such a hassle to do jobs cash in hand, I wonder why so many tradesmen prefer to be paid in cash, in my experience? Or maybe my experience is untypical?

I can only talk about my experience, and I guess it depends on what you have to outlay for the jobs.

I'd just like to add, if I manage to wangle a few bob out of the crooked revenue and customs the mores the better. I got fined a few years back to the tune of 3k for a late return, despite it being a zero balance and me sending them a letter to de-register. It will be a long time before I'm in a surplus that's for sure.

[MooseBreath]

No more irresponsible and clueless than Thatcher or Major, presumably?

The Thatcher governments ran deficits for 9 out of their 11 years, while the Major government ran a deficit every single year (and at a slightly higher level than Blair/Brown before the 2008 financial crash.

Labour ran a surplus in 4 years out of 11 before the crash (1998-2001).

Thatcher helped to transform the economy from being at the mercy of trade unions from increasingly obsolete industries into being a world leader in financial services. I'll give Thatcher a bit of leeway on spending given how tough the climate was at that time. Labour reaped the rewards, of course, overseeing a period of relative calm, yet they still couldn't manage much of a surplus. Awful. We now know of course that labour were paying for huge numbers of people to live off the state, that's why the tories have found it so easy to achieve record employment figures. So labour used the potential that Thatcher had created not to save money and put the country on a sound footing, but to waste that money buying votes in the creation of a large scale welfare dependency culture. Abysmal.

[Buce]

The less said on my views of depression the better buce, last time out I upset quite a few on here.

I find invisible illnesses to be a very grey area, so open to abuse. Having lived with someone growing up with severe depression, I'd say that morality over employment/benefits is the least of the worries. I hope that helps

Depression was just a random example: choose your own intermittant disability, and answer again.

I'm not being hostile, just genuinely trying to understand your thinking on this.

[MooseBreath]

Easily my favourite story of the week, where do the Lib Dems manage to find these people? I'm surprised the Greens didn't get there first.

Here's their candidate for Maldon.

Zoe O'Connell, who used to be a man, is in what is described as a three-way lesbian relationship with two people who used to be a heterosexual married couple, but are now civil partners after getting divorced when one of them had a sex-change operation to become a woman.

I think that's right, but I've only read it half a dozen times.

One of the women is a father-of-three, if that helps. We live in interesting times, but somehow I don't think John Whittingdale's 19,000 Tory majority is in much danger.

Wow

I think that's what they call providing a platform for the most absolutely batshit crazy people you can find and using it to show how 'progressive' you are.

[Alf Bentley]

I can only talk about my experience, and I guess it depends on what you have to outlay for the jobs.

I'd just like to add, if I manage to wangle a few bob out of the crooked revenue and customs the mores the better. I got fined a few years back to the tune of 3k for a late return, despite it being a zero balance and me sending them a letter to de-register. It will be a long time before I'm in a surplus that's for sure.

 

£3k fine for something like that?! Ouch!

 

HMRC have always left me in peace so far. They haven't even asked to check any records in 16 years of self-employment (famous last words - I'll get a massive fine now!). Not sure whether this is because they know how honest I am or because they know how little I earn....probably the latter.

 

Back in the 1980s, I did get done by corrupt Customs officers at Dover, though. I had a temporary job working on the ferries (including the one that sank at Zeebrugge, though I'd left by then). As crew, we were allowed to buy alcohol & tobacco at special crew discount rates, even lower than duty free prices. Technically, you were not supposed to take your purchases ashore, but to consume them while at work  . Everyone used to take booze and tobacco ashore, though, and many crew used to sell them on for profit. I just consumed the booze myself, and passed tobacco on to a mate at cost price, as I didn't smoke.

 

Normally Customs never searched crew leaving the ships. Then, on New Year's Eve, the day before I was due to get laid off, they searched me and found a couple of crew issue bottles of vodka and Old Holborn. They then drove me back to my flat in Folkestone, where they found a load more. They confiscated the lot and were supposed to fine me a set amount per item brought ashore illicitly. But they only recorded about 2/3 of my stash, fined me for that, but confiscated the lot....helped their works New Year party go with a swing, I expect!   Bastards strip-searched me coming back from the continent once, too, after I said something cheeky to them! 

[Strokes]

Depression was just a random example: choose your own intermittant disability, and answer again.

I'm not being hostile, just genuinely trying to understand your thinking on this.

Its a bit ambiguous now buce

Seriously though, its the intention that is important. If it is a genuine case of intermittent disability, I would like it to be seen favourably but in reality it probably wouldn't be, such is the fine line of truth. I'm not perfect buce and I don't always play by even my own rules and I sometimes wish I could be a little more forgiving and compassionate.

[Buce]

That seems a fairly balanced attitude to benefit fraud v. tax evasion. It's the people who go on about benefit fraudsters while evading tax that haven't got a leg to stand on IMHO.

If it's such a hassle to do jobs cash in hand, I wonder why so many tradesmen prefer to be paid in cash, in my experience? Or maybe my experience is untypical?

Although I have no personal experience of being paid in cash (I don't meet my clients face-to-face), I've yet to meet a tradesman who wouldn't jump at the chance. It can't be that hard to hide it from the taxman.