How does vandalism, trespass and graffitti help make the case against Coalition economic plans?

[Marmora Man]

I'm only asking as I cannot see the point.

I can see that there's a rational debate to be held about the pace and depth of "cuts" - but that's not what's happening.

The alternative set out by the TUC seem to consist of a combination of conspiracy theory - "they" are hiding huge reserves of cash somewhere and are helping their fat cat friends evade tax, with naivety - that higher taxes on the "rich" along with a "Robin Hood" tax on banks combined with cancelling Trident will resolve the deficit crisis. The answers are:

Huge Reserves: No they're not

Helping fat cat friend: No they're not

Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate - higher levels will not generate significant sums (if at all)

Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas

Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year

The problem simply stated is that government spending at the end of the last parliament was funded by approximately 25% of borrowing - roughly spending out ?750B against taxes in of ?560B annually.

The rate at which Britain is borrowing cannot be sustained.

Raising taxes will not close the gap - nor will waiting from growth and inflation to erode the value of the shortfall.

Therefore the only option is to reduce spending.

The two Coalition Budgets have "reduced" spending by reducing the rate at which government spending grows so that by then end of this parliament it will be at 2006 levels adjusted for the average growth rate achieved between 2006 and 2015. In absolute terms government spending will increase year on year in every one of the next four years.

I had this argument with two very earnest but ill informed cheerleaders for yesterday's march outside the Co-Op, last week. Reasoned argument didn't seem to dent their confidence that the Government can continue to spend money it doesn't have.

EDited to make gov't spending numbers more accurate.

[Jeremy]

Violence and destruction doesn't help the case at all. But these things always attract idiots who either just want to smash things up, or foolishly believe that it's the best way to get media coverage. See also May Day protests, 2008 bank bail-out protest, etc.

[womanofdulwich]

they are all the children of millionaries anyway................

[witsd]

Ellipses consist of three full stops. More than that makes me think I should be signing something.

The UK needs to massively back down on trying to remain a major world player. We are not, and haven't been for some decades. Pretending otherwise is costing far too much ? not only Trident, but massive military cut-backs would save a bundle.

[Marmora Man]

Witsd,

The Defence budget is a tad over ?30bn- cancelling it in its entirety would only clear approx 15% of the annual deficit, more suggestions for cuts please.

[????]

Given that her majesty's opposition can't make a decent case against the Coalitions plans, that most of the "arguments" against their policies seem to be based on some tossy wet dream of the early 1980s...and papers like the Guardian is so emotively opposed to reality that they ignore that their own poll which said the majority supported the cuts and infact a third of the population thought they didn't go far enough...it's not surprsisng bunch of trustarian retards seem to think smashing a Spanish banks windows will bring about the downfall of global capitalism is it.

[????]

We're all going to have to swallow the medecine...'left wing' middle class liberals are actually loving it

[Loz]

I'm surprised there is not more in the press about the complete stupidity of occupying Fortnum and Mason.

An article by a member of UkUncut in the Guardian said, "At 3.30pm we gathered on Oxford Street and moved toward a new tax-dodging target, Fortnum & Mason, to stage an occupation. This foodstore is owned by Whittington Investments, which runs a devious tax avoidance scheme, stuffing money in Luxembourg and avoiding ?10m a year in tax. This money could pay for about 500 nurses."

Had they done their homework, rather than just think, "oooh, get the posh shop", they might have noticed that the Garfield Weston Foundation own 80 per cent of Wittington Investments that, in turn, owns more than half of Associated British Foods (ABF).

Garfield Weston is one of the largest charitable foundations in the world, and gave away ?26 million in 2010.

So the idiots are attacking charitable institutions and calling them fat cats. I think that pretty adequately sums up the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

[Chippy Minton]

The simple and obvious answer is there is absolutely no point in vandalism, trespass and graffitti. These actions were disgusting and were comprehensively condemed by the vast and overwhemingly majority of the hundreds of thousands that were there on Saturday.

With regard to UKUncut, they are a civil disobedience group, which seemed to be hijacked by anarchists on Saturday. They had absolutely nothing to do with organising or stewarding the march.

[david_carnell]

Mamora Man - as Choppy Minton says, there is no place for violence in these sorts of demonstrations. But I'm sure you already know that. As you will also know that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. In fact my admittedly terrible maths works out it was less than 0.05% who were involved in any mess.

As for the rest of your concerns....(with apologies for the fisk)

Huge Reserves: No they're not

Agreed

Helping fat cat friend: No they're not

Really? There would appear to be some private healthcare firms who will do pretty nicely from the Healthcare Reform Bill that coincidentally have contributed significantly to Tory coffers.

Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate - higher levels will not generate significant sums (if at all)

I'm unsure on this. My instinct is to suggest that the "rich" (your quotes) could probably pay more, but in the current economic climate I think there is a need to stimulate growth and for the time being this would not be well served by tax raises.

Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas

Do you have evidence to suggest this or is it a hunch? I'd be more inclined to focus on the large scale tax-avoidance by large companies costing billions every year, however.

Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year

Other figures have put the cost at closer to ?3bn a year - not an inconsiderable chunk of change. I don't think it should be off the table.

Oh and too far, too fast.

[Jeremy]

Surely the highest tax band is 150K, not 100K?

[Marmora Man]

More Fisk - I'm afraid!

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Mamora Man - as Choppy Minton says, there is no

> place for violence in these sorts of

> demonstrations. But I'm sure you already know

> that. As you will also know that the vast majority

> of protesters were peaceful. In fact my admittedly

> terrible maths works out it was less than 0.05%

> who were involved in any mess.

>

> As for the rest of your concerns....(with

> apologies for the fisk)

>

> Huge Reserves: No they're not

> Agreed

>

> Helping fat cat friend: No they're not

Really? There would appear to be some private healthcare firms who will do pretty nicely from the Healthcare Reform Bill that coincidentally have contributed significantly to Tory coffers. Can you identify these companies? I work in this sector and can assure you that no one company feels advantaged. Additionally, every gov't changes tax regimes, incentives and disincentives to stimulate the economy in a fashion that reflects their political philosophy. This doesn't, of itself, imply favouritism or fat cat friendship

>

> Higher taxes: The "rich" (earners on more than

> ?100K) are already taxed at a 61% marginal rate -

> higher levels will not generate significant sums

> (if at all)

> I'm unsure on this. My instinct is to suggest that the "rich" (your quotes) could probably pay more,but in the current economic climate I think there is a need to stimulate growth and for the time being this would not be well served by tax> raises. Agree - stimulating growth is the key (see above). However, taking 62% of every pound earnt above ?100K is not likely to inspire the average entrepreneur to set up a new business and try to make him / herself rich [unless, of course you, or others, have philosophical objections to the concept of "rich'] - and in the course of doing so give employment to others. At the other end of the financial scale the "benefits trap" is acknowledged as a disincentive to find work when by taking on employment means losing up to 85p for every ? earned. It's wrong and illogical for those trying get out of benefits and it's wrong and illogical for those trying to progress and reward themselves and their hard work.

>

> Robin Hood tax: Will drive business overseas

> Do you have evidence to suggest this or is it a

> hunch? I'd be more inclined to focus on the large

> scale tax-avoidance by large companies costing

> billions every year, however.

Remember, tax avoidance is legal. It's merely arranging your finances so as to maximise personal / company income in accordance with prevailing tax law. Several companies have re-located overseas in last two / three years to avoid the UK tax regime [personal & corporate] which is perceived as unfavourable. One has already announced possibility of returning in response to the Budget's 2% reduction in Corporation Tax

> Cancel Trident: Might save ?500m a year

> Other figures have put the cost at closer to ?3bn a year - not an inconsiderable chunk of change. I don't think it should be off the table.

Trident replacement build and running costs are estimated as circa ?15bn - with an estimated life of 30 years. = ?500m pa. Your ?3bn a year would represent almost 10% of the total annual Defence budget, and nearly 30% of the Navy's annual budget.

> Oh and too far, too fast.

An opinion I understand - but don't agree with. Credibility is all - and Portugal* - widely recogniosed to be unwilling to embrace real and tough deficit cuts is now paying nearly 8% o for gov't borrowing - almost twice that being paid by UK, which is recognised by international finance as having a credible and realistic deficit reduction programme.

* You can, of course, add Eire, Greece and probably Spain to the list of nations whose poor / unenforced deficit reduction plans are creating high interest rates for gov't borrowing

[david_carnell]

I would suggest that Care UK, a private healthcare provider who receive 95% of their money from the NHS, donating ?21,000 via the wife of the Chief Executive to Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, would be seen as a conflict of interest.

In 2008 the Lyons report identified a string of future Tory ministers accepting donations from companies and individuals that conflicted with their own portfolios.

I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to ?150k a year should be seen as success enough - unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson, immensely relaxed about people getting extremely rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over that figure I should think it fair an equitable that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury. I'm not going to be going short any time soon.

Yes, tax avoidance is legal but it is not morally correct. Efforts should be made to close loopholes and forces business to pay what it rightfully owes. Businesses always threaten to leave countries when different governments come to power - so did Jim Davidson. Sadly, he didn't and I doubt the threats big business make are any more real.

?15bn is the lowest government estimate - forgive me but having worked in defence procurement I'd rather trust the higher figure.

There is also little indication that Morley & Poors would look to downgrade our credit rating if we embarked on a slower more measured approach to reducing the deficit. I would suggest Osborne's downgrading of growth is more of a concern. The markets seem jittery.

[Marmora Man]

I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to ?150k a year should be seen as success enough - unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson, immensely relaxed about people getting extremely rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over that figure I should think it fair an equitable that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury. I'm not going to be going short any time soon.

But if every entrepreneur stopped at ?150K there would be no new businesses of any real size. It's not personal taxes that fund gov't services in UK - it's business taxes. New businesses grow out of people becoming rich and richer [amnd vice versa] - I don't begrudge them their riches or feel cheated because Phillip Green, Alan Sugar or Richard Branson and their ilk have millions of pounds as a personal, self made, fortune. I cheer the businesses they have created - that have led to their personal wealth, thousands of jobs and billions in business taxes.

On morality of taxes - you'll recall I'm a libertarian. I consider all taxes as immoral. It's up to those that frame tax law to do it better - not for individuals to voluntarily give to fund government spending. Money in individuals pockets is inevitably spent better and more wisely than money in government budgets. Individuals may make charitable donations if they have cash to spare.

On Care UK - I've competed against them - and if they hoped that ?21K would buy them preferential treatment they've been rooked. They are losing contracts everywhere - on quality and price.

On Trident - I'm quoting MoD budget figures derived from a personal friend (1SL) and another still serving in submarines. AGree there can be a difference - but your annual figure wqould give a thru' life cost of ?90bn - which is just not realisti.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to

> ?150k a year should be seen as success enough -

> unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson,

> immensely relaxed about people getting extremely

> rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over

> that figure I should think it fair an equitable

> that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury.

> I'm not going to be going short any time soon.

If I got the point where I was 'allowed' to keep 31p in every extra pound I earned I would not be happy. If people then told me I should be paying more I would be saying, 'sod this for a game of soldiers' pretty damn quickly. I think any tax rate over 50% is unfair and unmotivating.

(And I am on nowhere near ?150k either).

[david_carnell]

[Adapted from an article by Johann Hari]

It is a falsehood we are being fed. We are not in a debt crisis of historical magnitude

As a proportion of GDP, Britain?s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years. Since 1750, there have only been two brief 30-year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. If we are broke today then we have almost always been broke. We were broke during the Industrial Revolution. We were broke when we ruled an empire. We were broke when we won World War Two. We were broke when we built the NHS.

Our debt is not high by historical standards, and it is not high by international standards. For example, Japan?s national debt is three times bigger than ours, and they are still borrowing at good rates.

The Tories claim that, despite these facts, they need to cut our debt by slashing our spending because the bond markets demand it. If they do not obey, then our national credit rating will be downgraded, and we will have to pay much higher interest on our debt. But here?s the flaw in that plan. That?s not what the bond markets say. Not at all. Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist whose predictions have consistently proved right through this crisis, says Cameron is conjuring up ?invisible bond vigilantes? who ?don?t exist.? Who is the bond market really punishing? It?s the countries that cut too fast, and so kill their economic growth. The last two nations to be down-graded were Ireland and Spain, who followed Cameron?s script to the letter.

It turns out that cutting our debt rapidly doesn?t cause an increase in ?confidence? and so save the economy. Professor Krugman mocks this idea by calling it ?The Confidence Fairy,? and goes through the historical record to show she doesn?t exist. Cutting doesn?t create fairy-magic. No: it has a very different effect.

Here?s what we learned during the Great Depression, when our view of economics was revolutionized by John Maynard Keynes. In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That?s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic break-down, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it ?the paradox of thrift?: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.

Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. Look at the last Great Depression. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Herbert Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Franklin Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending ? and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled. Then in 1936 he started listening to the Cameron debt-shriekers of his day. The result? The economy collapsed again. It was only the gigantic spending of the Second World War that finally ended it.

It is working now. There are enough countries in the world trying enough different economic solutions that we examine them like laboratories. which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts.

Indeed, there?s an irony here. It turns out that if all you do is fixate on paying your debt now now now, and so you smother your economic growth, you will end up not being able to pay your debts off anyway. That?s what just happened to our nearest neighbor Ireland, may she rest in peace. And it?s what has happened throughout British history. Professors Victoria Chick and Ann Pettifor conducted a detailed study of the last ten recessions, and they found that consistently ?fiscal consolidation increases rather than reduces the level of public debt as a share of GDP.? Think of it this way. It?s as if tomorrow you became so panicked about your mortgage that you decided to pay it all off in one year, by ceasing to buy food and water. You get sick, and your house gets repossessed.

So debt isn?t the problem. Debt is part of the cure. The facts suggest need to spend more, not less, to get the economy back to life ? and pay back the debt in the good times, when we will be able to afford it.

To claim that this crisis was caused by Labour ?racking up debt? is simply false. When the Great Crash hit, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7 club of leading economies. To react to a recession by increasing spending, and so keeping the economy afloat, is the only rational response. The real criticism is that they didn?t go anything like far enough, and now Ed Miliband?s Labour Party is now too cowardly to defy the false conventional wisdom and make the case for fiscal stimulus, instead promising merely slower, smarter cuts.

[Jeremy]

It does seem that the govt is exploiting the situation, in order to push their somewhat dubious ideology. But even so, that Johann Hari article is littered with bad examples, and simplistic anecdotes.

[Marmora Man]

David - Johann Hari is a well known left wing polemicist. Long on rhetoric and very (very) short on facts. He puts no data into his argument. Just because he is published does not give his views any validity. Simple maths will defeat his position.

By the end of 2009 UK Gov't was funding approximately 25% of its annual spend with debt. The debt was ratcheting upwards and the cost of servicing that debt was adding further to it - borrowing money to repay debt is not only Alice in Wonderland economics it leads to higher interest rates for gov't borrowing and the whole merry go round becomes an unstoppable positive feedback loop that, as S. American and other countries discovered in the 80's, leads inevitably to international loan default.

Even with the coalition economic programme National Debt will still increase over the next 4 years, not decrease, but at a slower rate. In the subsequent coalition / Conservative government UK might be able to reduce its national debt and the cost of servicing it.

As Labour and any informed commentator knows - total government spending will be higher at the end of this parliament than at the beginning. These are not savage ideological cuts that will take UK back to the dark ages, the coalition's programme represents some minimalist trimming of expenditure to bring government income and expenditure back into a form of balance by 2015.

I personally would posit a far greater cut back of state spending - but I detest the willful misrepresentation of today's true position by left leaning commentators. They are perpetuating a con trick on the population that extending gov't debt and spending is a cost (and pain) free exercise and, conveniently, forgetting that the last Labour administration was planning almost identical cost reduction programmes - albeit over a slightly more extended period. Now Labour and its cheerleaders appear bereft of any rational plan, except opportunistic cat calling.

[mockney piers]

This short article on the lunatic (tragicomic?) fringe of the protesters made me chuckle

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/28/london_burning

"A giant black banner hanging down from one of the plinths in the square read: "Tahrir. Tunisia. Trafalgar." There were no water hoses in sight, no police dogs mauling young children, no mukhabarat transporting protesters to torture chambers."

[aspidistra]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> I think the fact that your entrepreneur got to

> ?150k a year should be seen as success enough -

> unless you are, to quote Peter Mandleson,

> immensely relaxed about people getting extremely

> rich. If I was lucky enough to be earning over

> that figure I should think it fair an equitable

> that I should pay large amounts to the Treasury.

> I'm not going to be going short any time soon.

>

> But if every entrepreneur stopped at ?150K there

> would be no new businesses of any real size. It's

> not personal taxes that fund gov't services in UK

> - it's business taxes.

Poppycock.

Making up the total tax take:

The share of income tax is?

The split shares of NI are?

The share of corporation tax (paid by only a third of companies) is?

The share of business rate is? v council tax?

Even totting up the niche areas such as aggregates - and splitting those taxes payable by both - will not get you the sum you claim.

Or are you claiming - as I think Barclays did - that income tax paid by Barclays employees was tax borne by Barclays group! :) Before they were publicly derided, that is, and withdrew the statement.

The figures look even worse in the US, where personal taxation has been roaring ahead of corp taxes for 4 decades plus.

[Huguenot]

aspidistra, to be honest, you're just rehashing trite cliches with no insight or understanding.

Your point about corporation tax only being paid by a third of companies is particularly vacuous.

Corporation tax is a tax on profits. You don't pay corporation tax if you're not profitable. The fact that 2/3 of corporations don't pay this tax is predominantly a reflection of their lack of success.

Only a complete prat would try to suggest that this is a criminal offence, or an attempt at tax evasion.

Some companies also limit profits by reinvesting the money that would otherwise be taxable back into the company rather than give it to the tax man. This is a POSITIVE aspect of the corporation tax system.

You even miss the point entirely about Barclays. In fact Barclays pay almost 18% tax on their profits (exactly what would be expected of them). The annoying thing is that this payment was made across multiple countries, so that the British receipts were only 4%.

So Barclay's isn't about corporate tax evasion, but about who the taxes went to.

I don't expect you to understand any of these issues, because for you it's clearly more about foot stamping propoganda than about truth or responsibility.

[mockney piers]

Although it's not especially fair on the residents of this country, who make up the vast majority of the customers from whom Barclays make their money, that the taxes on those profits go to pay for the rather good welfare state that Luxembourg enjoys is it.

[Huguenot]

Totally agree mockney, what I was saying is that it isn't about tax evasion.

Having said that, Barclay's claim that the vast majority of their customers in the UK aren't where they make their money. I can believe that, because High Street banking isn't particularly profitable. Most of the cash is in overseas investment banking.

Whilst Barclay's looked particularly stupid over the way they handled the tax issue, I sympathise with the point they were trying to make.

People are trying to paint them as theives and parasites, but in fact the majority of the cash they generate goes in wages. In this sense they generate a huge amount of wealth that is circulated in the economy contributing to the greater good, and also goes to the government in the form of income tax.

Either way, it seems churlish to try and destroy them for having bad PR.

I don't think bankers are angels, but neither do I think there is anything rational or fair about the nature of the attacks on them.

Like Blair and the Iraq war, people are trying to find scapegoats and the truth has gone out of the window.