You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Budget 2017
November 22 2024 2.04pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Budget 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 11 of 13 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

  

CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 12.40am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is my experience of Labour.
This Labour Party is as far left as is has ever been and the idea that productivity will increase under them is frankly hilarious.
The unions will have their foot on Corbyn's neck before you can say Vic Feather.

I'm not sure you understand what drives productivity. Inequality is one of the biggest breaks on an economy.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 12.42am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So by investment you mean borrowing?


If you borrow to invest you create an asset so the net position is zero, or possibly even positive if you do it right (developers of assets usually get an immediate uplift on cost on completion). The asset then creates a return, which is extremely likely to yield in excess of the rate of borrowing. So the net effect is positive. Simple economics.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 23 Nov 17 7.32am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

If you lot can tear yourselves away from posturing can anyone explain why diesel cars that don't meet current emissions limits are being penalised but vans and HGVs that are far worse polluting are exempt

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 23 Nov 17 7.58am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I'm not sure you understand what drives productivity. Inequality is one of the biggest breaks on an economy.

If everyone had exactly the same amount of money and assets, the economy would be fine would it?

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 9.06am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

If everyone had exactly the same amount of money and assets, the economy would be fine would it?

Inequality is too high and is a cost to the economy. If you don't think that you've got your head in the sand.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 9.23am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Notable that the government slyly admitted yesterday that they have taken Britain from 5th largest world economy into 6th place behind France. They have Macron and we have May and her shower. I fear we may soon be slipping further behind France given anaemic growth projections and soon in 7th behind India. The government is taking us backwards and making us irrelevant on the world stage, while reducing living standards and decimating services at home.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 23 Nov 17 9.26am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Inequality is too high and is a cost to the economy. If you don't think that you've got your head in the sand.

Why don't you answer the question?

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 9.30am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Why don't you answer the question?


It's a pointless question as I'm not advocating perfect equality.

Just less inequality. It's socially and economically damaging.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 23 Nov 17 9.33am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

It's a pointless question as I'm not advocating perfect equality.

Just less inequality. It's socially and economically damaging.

You have to quantify it don't you, otherwise it is a pointless aim. Like saying it would be better if we were all good.

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 23 Nov 17 9.39am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

You have to quantify it don't you, otherwise it is a pointless aim. Like saying it would be better if we were all good.

Less than now. That's quantifying it. Keep going until the benefits diminish.

Quote from Resolution Foundation on yesterday's budget:

On average, we expect the combined impact of policies announced from the Summer Budget 2015
onwards to leave each of the bottom five deciles as net losers. The poorest third of households will be
an average £715 a year worse off by 2022-23, while the richest third of households will be an average
of £185 a year better off.

Different household types are set to experience different impacts from changes to policy and the
economy. Looking purely at the economic forecast changes in the Autumn Budget, a low paid dual
-earning couple with children are set to be £280 a year worse off in 2022-23 from a combination of
higher inflation increasing the effect of the benefit squeeze and weaker pay growth. Accounting for all economic and policy changes from the Summer Budget 2015 onwards, some working families
face losses of as much as £4,000.

The pay downgrade feeds through into weak projections for family incomes, despite offsetting
revisions to employment levels and hours worked. Disposable income per person is now set to be
£540 lower by 2022 than previously expected, with the current fall in real incomes set to continue
and to become the longest on record. Indeed the OBR projects that the current period of falling
incomes will last 19 quarters: longer than the (deeper) 17 quarter income squeeze recorded in the
immediate aftermath of the financial crisis.


Pretty woeful

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 23 Nov 17 9.52am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Less than now. That's quantifying it. Keep going until the benefits diminish.

How you going to measure this? Why would the benefits diminish?

Edited by hedgehog50 (23 Nov 2017 9.56am)

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 23 Nov 17 10.14am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

So who will be happiest about the budget? Who benefits the most?

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Pensioners. Quelle surprise.

How so as according to my calculations the budget has had no effect on pensioners' incomes.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 11 of 13 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The Budget 2017