Will you be attending March For The Alternative?

[WhyBoilerWhy]

I'll be attending the March for the Alternative on March 26th as I don't support the current government's plans for the NHS or the cuts that are being made to pay off our massive debts. Anyone else planning on joining this?

http://marchforthealternative.org.uk/

[silverfox]

Silverfox has given up posting for Lent but if he hadn't he would answer NO to this question.

This is an automated message. Please do not reply to it.

[Loz]

From the website...

We?ve done our best to set out both the arguments against the cuts and the alternative ? and boiled down to bullet points the alternative reads:

* a crackdown on tax avoidance

* a Robin Hood tax on banks and finance

* policies and time to let economic growth and full employment raise the tax that will close the deficit

So, chase some tax that has been hidden by much smarter accountants that the government can ever afford, stick on a tax that will see a huge majority of fancial transaction be redirected away from the UK. Then for added effect, continue to p*** all the money up the wall like we have for the past 10 years.

Genius.

[WhyBoilerWhy]

So, chase some tax that has been hidden by much smarter accountants that the government can ever afford

Yes. Force larger corporations (first) to pay the tax that they are legally obliged to pay, tighten up legislation regarding off shore tax havens and fortify HMRC rather than dismantling it.

stick on a tax that will see a huge majority of fancial transaction be redirected away from the UK

This is always the threat, "tax us and we'll leave". But the levy of a Robin (Tobin perhaps) Hood tax would have no real effect on investment, only the kind of financial gambling that caused the mess we are currently in.

Then for added effect, continue to p*** all the money up the wall like we have for the past 10 years.

Vast sums have gone into investments in health and education in this country. Most people would acknowledge this though many argue that PFI was not the right way to go about it. The debt left by the previous govt. is small in comparison to that paid out by each of us to save the current deeply flawed financial system.

I will also be marching as I am truly saddened that in order to move additional funds to the tiny minority who currently run the country, the most vulnerable and needy in residential care homes will have their disability benefit cut. This means that those with severe learning disabilities will no longer be able to get out and about.

[????]

...and at this point I had proof that you didn't know what you were talking about rather than suspicion. All twaddle. You march though.

[WhyBoilerWhy]

There are plenty of figures from any number of sources (many of them right leaning) that support this view. Even a quick Google could demonstrate this. Do you believe that the cost to the UK of rescuing the banks was less than the national debt before the (most recent) crisis? I am interested to know if you can find any figures that could support that argument...

[Loz]

WhyBoilerWhy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are plenty of figures from any number of

> sources (many of them right leaning) that support

> this view. Even a quick Google could demonstrate

> this.

References, please. If the google is that simple, you do it.

> Do you believe that the cost to the UK of

> rescuing the banks was less than the national debt

> before the (most recent) crisis? I am interested

> to know if you can find any figures that could

> support that argument...

How much was actually paid out to rescue the banks? Not guarantees... actually paid out?

[WhyBoilerWhy]

There are so many figures that I could quote but we all know you can pick and choose your numbers. The actual 'cash' value of this exercise is enormous in isolation but how would you quantify the additional costs to society due to the damage that was done? Would you count the extra benefits due to unrelated individuals losing their jobs and homes? What is the cost to the UK if it's credit rating is downgraded? These are costs directly associated with the actions of a minority in the City.

[????]

Prejudice - but no doubt heartfelt - rubbish picked up from the economic illiterate. You think our credit rating has everything to do with our GURANTEES of the banks and nothing to do with NORMAL govt spending being far higher than our tax take? which you and the left want to reduce by driving international business and individual talent out of our country. God help us if these views prevail.

[WhyBoilerWhy]

International business is only of value to the UK if there is investment here. If the money simply flows in and then rapidly flows out to somewhere with even lower taxes (if there is anywhere) and more lax regulation how does anyone here (beyond a tiny minority) benefit? That is why a Tobin tax would not be harmful but helpful.

By your logic Bermuda, Jersey etc must be places of unparalleled equality and social harmony. This is not the case. It seems to me that such places harbour enormous inequalities and the City is very much central to the growth of these inequalities which are not based on creating value.

You might not agree with my views but they are constructed from listening and reading the works of some of the worlds most respected economists and financial journalists so I think "the economic illiterate" is a little wide of the mark.

[Loz]

WhyBoilerWhy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are so many figures that I could quote but

> we all know you can pick and choose your numbers.

Go for it. How much did it actually cost the government to bail out the banks. And what will be the value to the government when the stock value that was taken in return is realised?

> The actual 'cash' value of this exercise is

> enormous in isolation but how would you quantify

> the additional costs to society due to the damage

> that was done? Would you count the extra benefits

> due to unrelated individuals losing their jobs and

> homes? What is the cost to the UK if it's credit

> rating is downgraded? These are costs directly

> associated with the actions of a minority in the

> City.

I bet you weren't so worried about the nasty banks when Gordon was spending all the money that was gained from the City. Now the party is over you want to keep spending the sort of money the City generated, but have no idea where it is going to come from. That will cause the credit rating to be downgraded - economic lunacy. Cutting back will please the credit raters.

This is the main problem with the 'March for the Alternative'. None of them really have a credible, costed alternative.

Take the figures from the website you quoted...

Tax avoidance by big companies and the super-rich is more than ?40bn a year.

A Robin Hood tax on financial transactions could raise ?20bn a year

So, in the wildest dreams of the 'alternatives' you can raise ?60bn. (Even though the ?40bn is a incorrectly referenced figure... it should be ?7bn and the Robin Hood tax assumes zero changes in financial transactions passing through the UK.). That does not even cover the cuts that Osbourn is making... and you also want to spend more!! The UK borrowed ?163.4bn last financial year: you want to raise that figure. You think the banks did some damage to the economy? You ain't seen nothing yet. If these ideas are put into place we are royally screwed.

So go on your march. But if you get your way I hope you are still going to be around to take the blame.

[Jeremy]

A tax specifically directed at the financial industry doesn't make sense to me. The vast majority of the banks operating in the City were not rescued by the UK government. Those that were are now largely owned by the government, and I would not be in favour of penalising their (our) investment.

The debt left by the previous govt. is small in comparison to that paid out by each of us to save the current deeply flawed financial system.

Not only is this incorrect, but to make such a claim without at least providing your source is bad form. Also, you need to consider the amount of equity we hold in RBS and Lloyds.

[Huguenot]

WhyBoilerWhy is perpetuating myths regarding national debts abd banks that suit people who simply cannot believe that we are ALL responsible for the financial straits we're in.

First - we need to move the debate on from the taxpayer bail out of the banks.

The principle expenditure by government (i.e. the taxpayer) on the financial crisis was just over 40 billion quid in the 2009/10 tax year. Over 95% of this was spend on recapitalisation of banks including RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

This wasn't 'lost' money - it means that taxpayer retains equity in these banks that can be recouped at an appropriate time.

Only 400 million was 'lost' on the financial services compensation scheme, more than made up for by the additional value obtained in banking equity. That's 0.5% of national annual expenditure, so is not responsible for the state we're in.

So if that isn't causing the problem what is?

In the private sector, banks had been lending out more money than they could seriously expect to recoup. This undermined their ability to trade, and the subsequent belt tightening made it more difficult for business to borrow money.

This isn't a catastrophe caused by the banks - it was caused by all of us borrowing more money that we could afford and spanking it on houses and cars.

There are those who said the banks must carrry some of the blame for this, because they allowed people to borrow too much. Whilst there may be an element of truth to it, it sounds like an obese sweaty ingrate with failing health blaming his mum because she didn't lock the biscuits away strongly enough.

So what has this to do with Public Service cuts?

Public Service cuts are actually about the fact that the government is spending almost 800 billion quid every year, but only gets just over 600 billion quid in tax income. This means that they're borrowing enormous sums of cash (about 150 billion a year) from international money markets.

In total we currently owe almost 900 billion.

The banking crisis has made this cash more diffficult to come by, and made the interest costs higher - currently we pay out 40 billion a year in interest! Downgrading our debt would make it more expensive too. We don't want that.

Secondly, we mainly reassured the money markets that we could pay the debts back because we stupidly claimed that our country would get richer and richer in the future.

This turned out to be a load of bollocks when we realised we only appeared richer because we borrowed it. It's like taking a thousand pounds out on your credit card and claiming you earned it.

So what does this mean?

There is no current plausible alternative to cutting public spending. Huge windfall taxes on financial organisations won't make a dent in the debt.

so why are we criticising the banks?

Partly because they're a symbol of failure, but mainly because the government wants someone else to blame.

If you look at our neighboring nations, you'll see they're not as messed up as we are. QED.

[aspidistra]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WhyBoilerWhy is perpetuating myths regarding

> national debts abd banks that suit people who

> simply cannot believe that we are ALL responsible

> for the financial straits we're in.

>

> First - we need to move the debate on from the

> taxpayer bail out of the banks.

>

> The principle expenditure by government (i.e. the

> taxpayer) on the financial crisis was just over 40

> billion quid in the 2009/10 tax year. Over 95% of

> this was spend on recapitalisation of banks

> including RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford

> & Bingley.

>

> This wasn't 'lost' money - it means that taxpayer

> retains equity in these banks that can be recouped

> at an appropriate time.

>

> Only 400 million was 'lost' on the financial

> services compensation scheme, more than made up

> for by the additional value obtained in banking

> equity. That's 0.5% of national annual

> expenditure, so is not responsible for the state

> we're in.

>

> So if that isn't causing the problem what is?

>

> In the private sector, banks had been lending out

> more money than they could seriously expect to

> recoup. This undermined their ability to trade,

> and the subsequent belt tightening made it more

> difficult for business to borrow money.

Banks built sand castles made of falsely-triple-A rated derivatives built on shaky loans. They are solely responsible for creating those vehicles, which they though would somehow magic away all the risks. Investors (and ratings agencies) were daft enough to believe them, and are consequently also to blame for that.

>

> This isn't a catastrophe caused by the banks - it

> was caused by all of us borrowing more money that

> we could afford and spanking it on houses and

> cars.

Huge-nut, some of us never bought into that particular bubble, never bought the car, the house and the long etc., taking the view that it was all a pile of cards. Some of us decided that hamster-wheel economics was not the way to go, and never borrowed a cent, instead deciding to work hard, live within our means, and buy things only when we had the money, and some more set by for a rainy day. Are we also to blame?

>

> There are those who said the banks must carrry

> some of the blame for this, because they allowed

> people to borrow too much. Whilst there may be an

> element of truth to it, it sounds like an obese

> sweaty ingrate with failing health blaming his mum

> because she didn't lock the biscuits away strongly

> enough.

There was bad on both sides, but lots of lies told by the banks to clinch those deals. Most peeps do not expect banks to behave like casino owners or drug pushers, but maybe everyone now knows better. I hope so.

>

> So what has this to do with Public Service cuts?

>

> Public Service cuts are actually about the fact

> that the government is spending almost 800 billion

> quid every year, but only gets just over 600

> billion quid in tax income. This means that

> they're borrowing enormous sums of cash (about 150

> billion a year) from international money markets.

>

> In total we currently owe almost 900 billion.

>

> The banking crisis has made this cash more

> diffficult to come by, and made the interest costs

> higher - currently we pay out 40 billion a year in

> interest! Downgrading our debt would make it more

> expensive too. We don't want that.

>

> Secondly, we mainly reassured the money markets

> that we could pay the debts back because we

> stupidly claimed that our country would get richer

> and richer in the future.

The lie of endless growth. Growth has always been used by governments to sweeten the debt situation. We can grow our way out of debt: until we can't. There is no endless growth in a finite world.

>

> This turned out to be a load of bollocks when we

> realised we only appeared richer because we

> borrowed it. It's like taking a thousand pounds

> out on your credit card and claiming you earned

> it.

>

> So what does this mean?

>

> There is no current plausible alternative to

> cutting public spending. Huge windfall taxes on

> financial organisations won't make a dent in the

> debt.

Indeed. So how will reducing corporation tax on larger firms reduce out structural debt, or contribute towards any reduction? If government wants to send a message, at least it should be consistent!

The corp tax take as proportion of all tax take does not make an attractive sight (over last 3-4 decades). It is such disjunctures that cause people to realise the hamster-wheel nature of their (financial) lives, with majors corps contributing less and less, and payroll contributing more and more. Recent statements by one or two banks have been hilarious in their attempt to fudge this issue.

>

> so why are we criticising the banks?

>

> Partly because they're a symbol of failure, but

> mainly because the government wants someone else

> to blame.

Governments criticise banks and bankers today because it's a short-term PR gain. They only "do" short-term PR gains. Tomorrow they will be friends again.

>

> If you look at our neighboring nations, you'll see

> they're not as messed up as we are. QED.

Your neighbouring nations? Or ours? :)

I'm looking at some of my neighbouring nations where I have lived and worked and have family, and see that they are as much up shit creek as we are, if not more so. For very slightly different, but actually quite similar, reasons.

[Loz]

Well that's the "Worst Fisking Award 2011" wrapped up.

[James Barber]

I look at Germany and see they had to cut government spending by 1%. They have balance of payments surplus, high growth for Europe all within 20 years of abosrbing 15million extra souls from E.Germany.

I see Scandanvian countries doing well.

It speaks volumes that we're economically closer to southern Europe in terms of national debt than our geographic location would have suggested.

[aspidistra]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well that's the "Worst Fisking Award 2011" wrapped

> up.

Evidence, Loz, evidence? B)