Green shoots?

[buctootim]

going along with the argument that in general the higher the taxation, the better the country is to live in, it's a toss up between Denmark and Zimbabwe.

 

 

Is that really the best you can do? take one of the very few exceptions, Zimbabwe which is totally ****ed as everyone knows precisely because of corruption and taxes NOT being spent on public services and try and pretend that proves the rule? even adding a rofl for extra weight and gravitas. Desperate stuff Wes, desperate.

Edited 1 July, 2013 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

When talking about comparable tax rates, one needs to have this clearly defined in order for the comparison to be fair, as per the disclaimer on that site:-

 

Warning: tax rates do not seem to include state and local taxes because it requires a lot of work to collect data from sub-national entities.

 

Taxation covers numerous different types, what with income tax, VAT, Council Tax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc.

 

But going along with the argument that in general the higher the taxation, the better the country is to live in, it's a toss up between Denmark and Zimbabwe.

 

What's wrong with Kiribati at over 100%?

[Wes Tender]

Is that really the best you can do? take one of the very few exceptions, Zimbabwe which is totally ****ed as everyone knows precisely because of corruption and taxes NOT being spent on public services and try and pretend that proves the rule? even adding a rofl for extra weight and gravitas. Desperate stuff Wes, desperate.

 

I really couldn't care less, Tim. The LOL at the end wasn't there for extra weight or gravitas, even if that was how you interpreted it. It was there because it signified a source of amusement that the argument that the more tax a nation paid indicated a better place to live, was derailed by the basket case of Zimbabwe.

 

Did you get a bit tetchy because I spotted the flaw in your link, that the table didn't take into account the omission of local taxes like VAT or Council taxes or their equivalents?

[Batman]

the reason why this country is screwed was summed on on QT on thurs

some geordie bird ranted and said

 

"what are the government going to do for me and my son. you dont give me enough money and I have to now go out and work"

 

[Verbal]

Why didn't you choose Hong Kong?

 

Well for a start, it isn't a country! It isn't even a city-state like Singapore (which has govt borrowing at 111% of GDP). And even if we were to start considering either, the real comparison is obviously not, say, Hong Kong vs the UK, but London vs HK.

 

But let's get back to the question I asked you. You say how desirable and wonderful it would be if we were to cut the proportion of government spending to GDP from close to 50% to 20%. So what choices are you going to make to cut 30% from government spending. Here are some helpful stats, all for projected spending in 2014:

 

Total government spend: £1717 billion or about 48% of GDP

 

Of which:

 

Pensions: £144 billion or 20% of govt spending

Health care: £130 billion or 18%

Welfare: £116 billion or 16%

Education: £99 billion or 14%

Defence: £45 billion or 6%

 

So, as I said earlier, to cut 30% you'd need to abandon, for example, ALL publicly funded health care AND all publicly funded education - or mix-and-match by cutting ALL defence spending and hiring some doctors on motorbikes or something instead of hospitals.

 

You do the maths.

 

In the meantime, here (on 2011 figures) are the countries with government spending at 20% or less of GDP (excluding city states and offshore tax havens):

 

Bangladesh

Burma

Cambodia

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Ivory Coast

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Ethiopia

Guatemala

Guinea

Haiti

Indonesia

Laos

Madagascar

Nepal

Pakistan

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Taiwan

Thailand

Togo

Turkmenistan

Uganda

 

Taken together, it's not a pretty picture. But which one provides you with your ideal spending model?

 

And where are you going to make your 30% cuts?

[Whitey Grandad]

Well, if I were you I wouldn't start from here...

 

...and we both know that neither Pakistan nor Hong Kong are remotely comparable with the UK.

[Johnny Bognor]

Total government spend: £1717 billion

 

Pensions: £144 billion or 20% of govt spending

Health care: £130 billion or 18%

Welfare: £116 billion or 16%

Education: £99 billion or 14%

Defence: £45 billion or 6%

 

 

So if 74% equates to £534 billion, then 100% would equate to £721bn

 

You do the maths.

 

I have and it doesn't add up. Straight from the Gordon Brown school of economics LOL

Edited 1 July, 2013 by Johnny Bognor
Laughing too much....

[Jonnyboy]

the reason why this country is screwed was summed on on QT on thurs

some geordie bird ranted and said

 

"what are the government going to do for me and my son. you dont give me enough money and I have to now go out and work"

 

 

Why did you walk out on Catwoman?

[Jonnyboy]

So if 74% equates to £534 billion, then 100% would equate to £721bn

 

 

 

I have and it doesn't add up. Straight from the Gordon Brown school of economics LOL

 

He accidentally added the first 1 in 1717. Not that funny really.

[badgerx16]

So if 74% equates to £534 billion, then 100% would equate to £721bn

 

 

 

I have and it doesn't add up. Straight from the Gordon Brown school of economics LOL

 

Probably just a typo :

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

 

You can stop laughing now.

Edited 1 July, 2013 by badgerx16

[Johnny Bognor]

Probably just a typo :

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

 

You can stop laughing now.

 

To be fair, it is right to look at spending against GDP rather than taxation vs GDP.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp

(taken from the Guardian so it is not dismissed as right wing propaganda)

 

When you look at it that way, there are a number of desirable places with lower public spending as a proportion of GDP. Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Even the beloved Norway (often championed by the lefties), currently has lower government spending as a proportion of GDP than we do.

 

Furthermore, the countries with the largest proportion are Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea. Anyone want to live there?

Edited 1 July, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

So, yes, the figure for overall government spending in 2011 should be around £721 billion. I've fired my statistician and made sure she has no access to education, welfare or health care for the remainder of her life.

 

Well, if I were you I wouldn't start from here...

 

...and we both know that neither Pakistan nor Hong Kong are remotely comparable with the UK.

 

Well, no they're not - because Hong Kong is not a country and Pakistan's government spending (mostly on its useless, corrupt military) is around 20% of GDP not 48-50%.

 

Which brings us back to my question, which you seem to have avoided for a rather long time: how do you propose to cut that percentage from 50% to 20% without simply abandoning altogether many things that constitute a civilised society, like ALL public education, ALL publicly funded welfare, ALL publicly funded health care or ALL publicly funded pensions?

 

I suspect the reason you won't answer is you realise that such a proposal is a bit ridiculous, to put it mildly.

[Whitey Grandad]

No, you couldn't do it overnight but these services would be a lot cheaper if they weren't provided by the state.

[Johnny Bognor]

Which brings us back to my question, which you seem to have avoided for a rather long time: how do you propose to cut that percentage from 50% to 20% without simply abandoning altogether many things that constitute a civilised society, like ALL public education, ALL publicly funded welfare, ALL publicly funded health care or ALL publicly funded pensions?.

 

To start with, it's not 50%. It's 42% and it is projected to go to 39% over the next few years. If we can hold actual spending and get the economy going, we should be able to get back to 35%, which is probably about right IMO

[badgerx16]

No, you couldn't do it overnight but these services would be a lot cheaper if they weren't provided by the state.

 

So private education is cheaper than that provided by the state ? Similarly health care ?

 

Let's see the figures.

[Verbal]

No, you couldn't do it overnight but these services would be a lot cheaper if they weren't provided by the state.

 

You mean like the largely private health care system in the US?

 

Where 50 million Americans are uninsured and therefore denied any but basic palliative care? And where a QUARTER of all retired people in the US declare themselves bankrupt because of medical fees?

 

Where rates of infant mortality, disability, deaths from injuries, heart and lung disease, etc. are the highest in the western world?

 

And yet where the mostly private system costs, per capita, $8233, compared with the state system in the UK costing $3433?

 

This knee-jerk assumption that private = low cost and public = high cost is not only demonstrably false, but has been imposed in the US at a terrible price to the health of its citizens.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm hoping to retire to Cuba, great health care. True story.

[Wes Tender]

So private education is cheaper than that provided by the state ? Similarly health care ?

 

Let's see the figures.

 

Well, they're certainly generally a lot better, so it's not really a fair comparison.

[badgerx16]

Well, they're certainly generally a lot better, so it's not really a fair comparison.

 

The private systems don't have to labour under the burden of having to provide 'universal' service to all who want it. How many private hospitals still end up using NHS facilities, or pass on patients to state care ? How many private schools are there on 'sink' estates, or take pupils of a lesser ability ?

[Jonnyboy]

The endless circles of the left and the right.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I do wonder whether lefties actually realise that there are other health care systems in the world. All they ever seem to talk about is the NHS or USA , as if that's the only choice.

[Lord Duckhunter]

the reason why this country is screwed was summed on on QT on thurs

some geordie bird ranted and said

 

"what are the government going to do for me and my son. you dont give me enough money and I have to now go out and work"

 

 

It's the same every ****ing week, some numb nuts (usally a leftie) giving us their life story and telling us how the government's let them down. "What are they doing to help me do xyz". If I was Dimble I'd ban any personal woe is me tales from the show. Any Questions on R4 is so much better because the audiance just ask the questions and then stfu. You also don't get halfwits like Russell brand giving us their take on the economy.

[badgerx16]

I do wonder whether lefties actually realise that there are other health care systems in the world. All they ever seem to talk about is the NHS or USA , as if that's the only choice.

 

Why are 'righties' so hard of thinking ? Simply substitute 'NHS' for 'publicly funded health care system'. If Gov't spending was to be cut to 20% of GDP, that is something we would no longer have, whatever you want to call it.

Edited 2 July, 2013 by badgerx16

[Johnny Bognor]

Why are 'righties' so hard of thinking ? Simply substitute 'NHS' for 'publicly funded health care system'. If Gov't spending was to be cut to 20% of GDP, that is something we would no longer have, whatever you want to call it.

 

There is an alternative. The more you grow GDP, the less you would have to cut. Just a thought.

 

FWIW, I think public spending should be brought into line with what we can afford. If current public spending is £721bn and we are running a £100bn deficit, then it should be £621bn which is 36% of our current GDP. In 2001 we were running at 37%, so it is achievable and it doesn't mean losing the NHS.

Edited 2 July, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Jonnyboy]

There is an alternative. The more you grow GDP, the less you would have to cut. Just a thought.

 

Tell that to the "rightie" George Osborne.

[trousers]

Tell that to the "rightie" George Osborne.

Try telling Alan Titchmarsh to grow some begonias on the moon.

[Jonnyboy]

Try telling Alan Titchmarsh to grow some begonias on the moon.

 

You're right, neither of them have clue.

[Jonnyboy]

...

[Ex Lion Tamer]

It's the same every ****ing week, some numb nuts (usally a leftie) giving us their life story and telling us how the government's let them down. "What are they doing to help me do xyz". If I was Dimble I'd ban any personal woe is me tales from the show. Any Questions on R4 is so much better because the audiance just ask the questions and then stfu. You also don't get halfwits like Russell brand giving us their take on the economy.

QT is a joke in that the left always ends up being represented by someone like Brand. It's because they are keen to have celebrities for the ratings, and most celebrities are left wing, so the non-politician spot gets taken up by them. As a result, intelligent left wing commentators are ignored

[buctootim]

There is an alternative. The more you grow GDP, the less you would have to cut. Just a thought.

 

FWIW, I think public spending should be brought into line with what we can afford. If current public spending is £721bn and we are running a £100bn deficit, then it should be £621bn which is 36% of our current GDP. In 2001 we were running at 37%, so it is achievable and it doesn't mean losing the NHS.

 

Somewhere between 35% and 39% has been pretty the much the normal range for the UK for decades though. Its only shot up as a percentage in the last few years due to the long and deep recession. Regardless of who is in power you can bet it will be back to c37% a few years after the country returns to trend growth (assuming it ever does).

[Whitey Grandad]

Somewhere between 35% and 39% has been pretty the much the normal range for the UK for decades though. Its only shot up as a percentage in the last few years due to the long and deep recession. Regardless of who is in power you can bet it will be back to c37% a few years after the country returns to trend growth (assuming it ever does).

 

I would argue that it shot up because of reckless government overspending. Brown committed money that we didn't have and were never likely to have.

[buctootim]

I would argue that it shot up because of reckless government overspending. Brown committed money that we didn't have and were never likely to have.

 

The big spike in tax as % of GDP is much more to do with a fall in GDP than increase in spending. You can argue that Brown's increase in government spend to around 41% from around 2001 onwards was wrong and maybe 1or 2% too high but until the 2007 bank collapse (which no-one foresaw) his growth in spending was supported by growth in GDP.

 

 

Edited 2 July, 2013 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

The big spike in tax as % of GDP is much more to do with a fall in GDP than increase in spending. You can argue that Brown's increase in government spend to around 41% from around 2001 onwards was wrong and maybe 1or 2% too high but until the 2007 bank collapse (which no-one foresaw) his growth in spending was supported by growth in GDP.

 

 

 

In the 7 years to 2007 spending increased dramatically as a proportion of gdp so it was not supported by economic growth. Brown threw money at the NHS on the hope that growth would continue regardless. There have always been economic cycles and Brown's mistake was to not be prepared for a downturn. Cameron's mistake was to continue with the same spending plans.

 

On another point, the interest in our debt is now around £46bn and forecast to rise significantly over the next couple of years. This figure is greater than our defence budget.

[Jonnyboy]

In the 7 years to 2007 spending increased dramatically as a proportion of gdp so it was not supported by economic growth. Brown threw money at the NHS on the hope that growth would continue regardless. There have always been economic cycles and Brown's mistake was to not be prepared for a downturn. Cameron's mistake was to continue with the same spending plans.

 

On another point, the interest in our debt is now around £46bn and forecast to rise significantly over the next couple of years. This figure is greater than our defence budget.

 

Or Brown inherited spending at 40% and by 2007 that terrible socialist had increased it to 41% Shock horror!

[Whitey Grandad]

Or Brown inherited spending at 40% and by 2007 that terrible socialist had increased it to 41% Shock horror!

 

You're being very selective over the figures. If you look at the graphs you can see that the trend was downwards to start with and is now rocketing. I don't think you'll find anyone who would say the Brown did not drastically increase the proportion of GDP that the government spends.

 

Interest on debt is now around 3% of GDP and will rise to around 5% in the next few years. Whether it falls again is anybody's guess. Let's hope that what we spent all the money on was worth it.

[bridge too far]

You're being very selective over the figures. If you look at the graphs you can see that the trend was downwards to start with and is now rocketing. I don't think you'll find anyone who would say the Brown did not drastically increase the proportion of GDP that the government spends.

 

Interest on debt is now around 3% of GDP and will rise to around 5% in the next few years. Whether it falls again is anybody's guess. Let's hope that what we spent all the money on was worth it.

 

Do you think then that the then government shouldn't have spent billions propping up failing banks (I heard quoted yesterday that RBS was 'hours' from going to the wall). Can you just imagine the mayhem and chaos that would have ensued had the banks failed? No doubt would have cost 'us' much much more.

[Whitey Grandad]

Do you think then that the then government shouldn't have spent billions propping up failing banks (I heard quoted yesterday that RBS was 'hours' from going to the wall). Can you just imagine the mayhem and chaos that would have ensued had the banks failed? No doubt would have cost 'us' much much more.

 

Of course. It was a right old mess. Now we all own some major banks and we've bought them with printed money. Now all we have to do is to decide what to do with them. Properly handled they should be gigantic money-making machines, but what are the chances of that?

[Johnny Bognor]

Do you think then that the then government shouldn't have spent billions propping up failing banks (I heard quoted yesterday that RBS was 'hours' from going to the wall). Can you just imagine the mayhem and chaos that would have ensued had the banks failed? No doubt would have cost 'us' much much more.

 

I think they were right to, but I won't hold people (who were implicit in creating the problem in the first place) up to be heros of the day...

[bridge too far]

I think they were right to, but I won't hold people (who were implicit in creating the problem in the first place) up to be heros of the day...

 

I don't consider irresponsible bankers and US sub prime mortgage lenders to be heroes either.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think they were right to, but I won't hold people (who were implicit in creating the problem in the first place) up to be heros of the day...

 

I don't consider irresponsible bankers and US sub prime mortgage lenders to be heroes either.

 

Nobody comes out of the sorry episode covered in glory, although a lot were covered in loot..

[Jonnyboy]

Nobody comes out of the sorry episode covered in glory, although a lot were covered in loot..

 

Most of whom now reside in the carribean.

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't consider irresponsible bankers and US sub prime mortgage lenders to be heroes either.

 

I never said they were. In fact, I have said that what the bankers did was akin to fraud and as such, they should be punished like the common criminals they are. Forgetting about the international banking fraud, if we look at the whole PPI fiasco, I am amazed no one has been sent to jail.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's the enormous payoffs that really annoy me. Some of them must have known that they were in trouble and if they didn't they were grossly incompetent.

[trousers]

Do you think then that the then government shouldn't have spent billions propping up failing banks (I heard quoted yesterday that RBS was 'hours' from going to the wall). Can you just imagine the mayhem and chaos that would have ensued had the banks failed? No doubt would have cost 'us' much much more.

 

Nah... there were much more socially progressive solutions available...

 

http://americanlivewire.com/world-economic-news-icelands-economy-now-growing-fas/

 

So Iceland decided not to follow the rest of the world by bailing out the bankers. Instead, they chose to arrest them.

 

Now their economy is recovering faster than the EU and the United States. Hmmmm.

Remember when the United States government told the American people that immediate action was required to save the banks, and save our nation from complete collapse?

 

An action in the form of Billions of dollars in National Debt? Yeah, we remember that! Now Trillions of dollars in National debt later, we are in the same position we were in 4 years ago, just more debt.

 

As a matter of fact Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke has called for yet another stimulus that will add more debt onto the mountain we already have.

At the start of the world wide 2008 economic collapse, Iceland was in worse shape than almost any other country in the world. Now they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Imagine what America would be like today if we bailed out the victims of poor banking practices, while punishing the bankers who were responsible?

After watching this video tell us what you think? Was Iceland off their rocker for sending the bankers to jail, or on to something that America should have done as well?

 

[video=youtube_share;64eI831eKY8]

Edited 4 July, 2013 by trousers

[Torres]

At the start of the world wide 2008 economic collapse, Iceland was in worse shape than almost any other country in the world. Now they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

 

There's a clue there as to why they are growing so quickly.

[trousers]

[video=youtube_share;DDexDNn6vSM]http://youtu.be/DDexDNn6vSM

[pap]

Go go Comrade Trousers!

[trousers]

Go go Comrade Trousers!

 

I must go back to the doctors. These anti-schizophrenia tablets aren't working as well as they used to...

 

I'm more surprised by Bridge Too Far's capitalism protectionist stance to be honest...

[trousers]

http://news.sky.com/story/1112821/jobs-market-soaring-in-uk-report-says

 

Jobs Market 'Soaring' In UK, Report Says

 

A study reveals higher demand for staff and improving pay as the UK's economic recovery gathers pace.

 

Recruitment firms say they are placing the highest number of people into permanent jobs for two years, amid strong evidence of rising wages.The report by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) and professional services group KPMG found that demand for staff was at a three-year high, with vacancies also accelerating.

Pay for permanent staff rose at the fastest pace for two years, the survey suggested, while the position was even healthier for temporary and contract workers.

Bernard Brown of KPMG said: "The latest figures reveal permanent placements enjoying their highest growth rates for over two years and temporary roles being filled at the quickest pace since Christmas.

"Perhaps the sun has finally come out to shine on the jobs market and economy at large."

REC chief executive Kevin Green added: "The UK jobs market has been agile enough to weather the recession and emerge with more people in work than ever before and has performed considerably better than our European counterparts."

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I think most people on the left would acknowledge that the economy is now starting to pick up. Indeed it was some people on the right who argued that stagnation is 'the new normal' and that we had to cut our cloth accordingly.

 

The key thing is that cutting too deep and refusing to put in place Keynesian stimulus when the economy was weak led to to three years of stagnation when we could potentially have achieved a similar result in terms of debt as % of GDP by encouraging growth. At the least we would have avoided some of the human suffering caused by unemployment/under-employment/benefit cuts/stagnant wages.

 

The other issue is that growth will again be hindered when the next tranche of cuts come into play. Let's hope underlying growth is strong enough to counteract it.

 

Certainly the government's infrastructure stimulus should not be scheduled so late. Whoever heard of cutting during a recession and then providing Keynsian stimulus once the economy is recovered/recovering?