Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html en-gb 30 Wed 20 Aug 2014 23:00:44 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html JD0 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=97#comment41 @24, 25, 26 TonyTaxso what does it tell you if the top 1% of earners are paying 25% of all income tax? It's the select few that are creaming it off. My question from this would be, are they actually paying enough tax? And I know they are not because I believe that people earning that much money should be paying a lot more tax over a certain threshold. And yes that rate should be more than 50%.As for the banks themselves, corporations, etc, their taxes should be higher too - above a certain threshold. Or maybe one of the reasons they are making so much money is because those that use banking services are being ripped off. I bet that bottom 70% of earners make a significant contribution to the banks profits. Where's the analysis and figures for that one?And re. no bonuses being paid, international banking arena, etc, see my comment #95 at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/12/young_and_jobless.html#comments Sun 05 Dec 2010 16:12:20 GMT+1 MiddleMancunian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=95#comment40 38. At 11:45am on 24 Oct 2010Why is it you go out to work....I would imagine it is to maintain and possibly improve the standard of living that you provide for your family, plus a sense of achievement in doing so.If a person takes a minimum wage job they don't improve their standard of living and quite often their standard of living goes down where's the sense of achievement in that ?Companies that pay wages that are not enough to survive on (minimum wage and in some cases less) are being subsidised by the government to bring their earnings up to subsistance level.If you can't see that or you can't see anything wrong with that then you must be an employer paying minimum wage.I say raise the minimum wage to at least £7.50 and let's see what happens. Fri 03 Dec 2010 19:53:47 GMT+1 U14710410 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=92#comment39 In the longer term the issue is not one of bottom line cost of government spending. It the governments lack of ability to deal with each citizen as an individual. For example, the Criminal Justice system is a convey belt process that simply uses the same rules for everyone. Fri 03 Dec 2010 13:16:42 GMT+1 clamdip lobster claws http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=90#comment38 The government squeezes its citizens, steals all their money through illicit wars then has the audacity to go back to the public trough and fire its own employees. Why don't citizens say, enough! Why do politicians still have their jobs if they can't deliver. Why does granny have to reach into her pocket while politicians eat lobster. Enough! Enough! Haven't people had enough? Tue 26 Oct 2010 00:57:43 GMT+1 Steve http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=88#comment37 We have a ridiculous system when it's preferrable to not work than take a relatively low paid job. It's ridiculous that some in our society earn less by working (maybe for their own pride and self worth) than others who sit and home and have everything provided by the state. The state being the other citizens who work and give some of their money towards the general pot. It has got to be addressed. We need to be careful to make sure the only people targeted are those that can and should work but don't because they're better off not working and taking the hand out from the state (again, that's the rest of us - not some big brother idea. It's us who choose to work). People who whinge about this are missing the point. Our current system allows a certain proportion of just plain lazy people to stay at home and have the rest of the county's people (state) pay for their laziness. Properly targeted it will work and needs to happen. Sun 24 Oct 2010 10:45:15 GMT+1 The Itinerant ex-pat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=85#comment36 @24 TonyTaxAbsolutely. High earners and successful businesses make a huge contribution to the country's tax take.How many of those businesses (and the people employed in them) have a) made business decisions that directly led to the current economic woes and b) needed some of that tax back in order to stop them going bankrupt.?I can only think of one. The banking business. Are there others? Thu 21 Oct 2010 19:49:28 GMT+1 The Itinerant ex-pat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=83#comment35 ... It's the Banks, stupid .... Thu 21 Oct 2010 18:57:12 GMT+1 Calum Carlyle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=80#comment34 It'll need to get a lot owrse before it comes to a war, unless you count our "peace keeping forces" in the middle east, or our Trident nuclear submarine programme, all of which (one would hope, though clearly this hope is not shared by government) should be in line for cuts, not gearing up for more war. One thing i have noticed is nobody's mentioned cutting the arts. Why? Because our country is chronically behind in funding the arts sector anyway. For the arts, this is a blessing in disguise, artists have been putting their hands to work, and not holding their hands out, all this time, maybe artists can lead the country in attitude, by showing them that you don't need state funding to work a full time job, raise kids, and still express yourself in the way you want to. And another thing, what are we actually losing? Look at our quality of life today, and compare it with fifty years ago. There's a lot of fat can be lost in our society before it becomes chronic, the only issue is maintaining those who are more vulnerable in the process (and i mean disability benefit, schools, hospitals etc). Also, if the government were to start chasing the richer tax cheats, rather than benefit cheats (do we even have reliable figures of how many of these there might be?) i think we could claw back a whole lot of money for the state. Plus, it'd be nice to know when the state is getting back all that money it lent to the banks a few years ago. Thu 21 Oct 2010 10:33:22 GMT+1 ian_northants http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=78#comment33 One thing I am a bit worried about is how this may affect people over all, it's not just what will happen to jobs and the economy, what will be the reaction from the public. As previously mentioned the last time we had this we had a war, a world war. People had been living though bad times and unfortunately use to 'getting by', but we have for a few decades now been living a very comfortable life for most of us and have never had to experience these dramatic cuts. What I'm trying to say we have been living a high life and we have a very sudden deep drop, how will people deal with the sudden change in circumstances? We see how Greece and France are responding, and we as British people do not often react other than fairly peaceful demonstrations out side number 10 & parliament. Thu 21 Oct 2010 08:20:09 GMT+1 anthonygh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=76#comment32 I am a public sector worker who was about to spend £1790 on some property improvements. Tomorrow I will be phoning the builder to say I have changed my mind.For now I think my money is better staying in the bank....even at minimal interest.Multiply this change of heart about spending money by the number of people in the public sector...or even just half of them...... Thu 21 Oct 2010 00:07:36 GMT+1 JollyJohn2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=73#comment31 Midge1098 wrote:"Who were the idiots who voted Cameron and Clegg into power....? Oh yes that was you!!! The great British public who believed that it was the Labour party that caused this crisis because you are too stupid or unwilling to recognise that it was a world crisis propagated by sub-prime lending and banking greed,something that the world banks all fell for"Absolutely - just look back at the history of what Cameron, Osborne et al were saying about how they would match the public expenditure plans of the Labour government, even up to 2009. Now they are very much being wise after the event and as I said earlier the constant blaming of the previous government is just spineless. Wed 20 Oct 2010 22:17:13 GMT+1 HLawton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=71#comment30 We're all in this together....Basic MP's salary 65k plus expensesBasic Cabinet post 145k plus expensesNo need to use any Public ServicesYes we're all in this together.....The Bankers bailed outThe Rich still evade paying taxThe Middle Class squeezedThe Poor bled dryYes we're all in this together..... Wed 20 Oct 2010 22:05:33 GMT+1 Midge1098 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=69#comment29 So now we all have to work longer, pay more to get there, pay more for the few goods we can buy,more for fuel,heating,etc. In the meantime the ill, disabled,old,young and vulnerable,low paid etc are all at greater risk of having nowhere to turn to if they encounter a problen as there will be no services for them to rely on. This is a big society is it? Who were the idiots who voted Cameron and Clegg into power....? Oh yes that was you!!! The great British public who believed that it was the Labour party that caused this crisis because you are too stupid or unwilling to recognise that it was a world crisis propagated by sub-prime lending and banking greed,something that the world banks all fell for. Now they are laughing their bl***y heads off as we all sink without trace(unless we are the moneyed rich that is).We are NOT all in this together - Brits never will be unless a war breaks out, and judging by the events in France some form of anarchy could be just around the corner. remember what happened in Germany in 1933? Who took over? What happened next? Watch this space............. Wed 20 Oct 2010 20:20:31 GMT+1 SubBritMember http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=66#comment28 Earlier a blogger wrote of the demise of industry and the 'knock on' effect this has had.Earlier governments have to take a big share of the responsibility for this as the policies of closing the Mining, Steel and Shipbuilding Industries and the domino effect this produced on smaller manufacturers who relied on these industries to survive. Plus other initiatives that finished the Manufacturing base in most disciplines save a very small number was very short sighted!Yes the Unions may not of helped - but how often do you see reported the GOOD that they do in negotiations and welfare? Rarely, if ever! Obviously there is good and bad, pros and cons in every situation and argument.The sadness of the 'close down British manufacturing' agenda is that generations of skills, knowledge and a deeper understanding of needs are lost permanently. Why is this? It can take but a few months to close any company irrespective of size, dispose of the workforce, the premises, the plant and the knowledge contained within that organisation. Conversely, if there was ever a will to reinstate those businesses, where would the plant come from? How long would it take to create and establish new premises and allow for the lead-in time? Where would the expertise and skills be found? In many areas it was through apprenticeships at all levels where the skills, methodology and 'tricks of the trade' were acquired and passed on through the generations. Now far too much time has passed and this knowledge base is lost forever.How fragile and flawed are the 'BIG IDEAS' of the government of the day when the long-term effects are either ignored, not followed through or progress is interrupted by constant realignment of targets?What a sad situation for what was once - not so long ago - a World Leader and not a second class runner-up! Wed 20 Oct 2010 19:59:06 GMT+1 SubBritMember http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=64#comment27 There was talk of the loss - or lack - of the manufacturing industry in the UK.Some of this had merit. However, the mention of the 'Japanese cheap imports' was not well placed especially with regard to the motorcycle industry. Why? As development of the British product effectively became static in the early 1950s, the Japanese developed from first principles and THIS was what killed the British motorcycle industry - a case of considering that what we had was IT! A number of other British sector manufacturing outlets suffered the same demise.The car industry was also mentioned. How many of the cars produced in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s are around today? Precious few indeed! Poor build quality, poor design and an effective 'built in decay' that saw the vehicles crumble away. Yes, the industrial action didn't help but, once again, instead of responding to a better class of import the British continued to ignore this and the result was stagnation! Wed 20 Oct 2010 19:26:48 GMT+1 JollyJohn2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=61#comment26 There's been a lot of talk about jobs being created in the private sector that will outweigh the loss of jobs in the public sector (one Conservative MP on BBC News 24 claiming that 200,000 private sector jobs were created over the last year and suggesting, by the way, that we "all get a sense of perspective over the job reductions"). Interesting, that means that many of those jobs were created under a Labour administration, doesn't it?So, we're certain that that increase in the number of private sector jobs is guaranteed to continue are we?The comment about "getting a sense of perspective" illustrates how the Tories just don't 'get' how insecure most people feel in terms of job security in the UK.Finally, regardless of the rights or wrongs of who is to blame for the deficit crisis, the constant constant constant blaming of Labour is beginning to wear very thin in our household! A plea... to the Tories - we heard you the first time - please stop reminding us "ad nauseam" Wed 20 Oct 2010 19:20:41 GMT+1 TonyTax http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=59#comment25 The BBC looked at how much tax the rich pay too - here is the article link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stmTop 1% of earners pay approx 25% of all the income tax collected. Top 10% pay just over half. The bottom 70% of earners actually take out more in the value of the services the state gives them than they pay into the pot in taxes.....Food for thought.... Wed 20 Oct 2010 18:44:16 GMT+1 TonyTax http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=57#comment24 I'm not sure the comments made by Bob matthews add up. Bob is right that someone in the public sector who earns £20k a year will pay taxes, VAT etc and that by making them redundant the government will lose that money. But on Bob's numbers; right now the government is paying the public sector worker £20k and getting back £6,501 in taxes - so a net cost to the taxpaying population of £13,499. If the worker is made redundant the former worker will per Bob's numbers cost the government £9,957 in benefits - a saving overall of £3,542 per person per year? Wed 20 Oct 2010 18:35:27 GMT+1 TonyTax http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=54#comment23 I know there has been a lot of banker bashing - but here is a thought for the tax anoraks out there...£9B has been mentioned as the bonus pot out there for bank bonuses this year. When paid out many employees will be paying tax at 50% and employers National Insurance at 1%; on top of this many employees will also mean that the banks have to pay 12.8% employers NIC - leaving the goverment with £5.742B in taxes and the bankers with £4.41B. The bankers will spend a lot of this money on goods and services and more money will come back to the government through additional VAT revenues and tax paid on profits made by the people who have sold the bankers the goods and services. If to satisfy the public rath no bonuses were paid - then the banks would be sitting on extra profits of £9B. The banks would pay extra corporation tax on these profits at a rate of 28% - so only £2.52B - a drop in tax revenue of £3B+.However; the story does not end there. If no bonuses were paid - by next year the bank's talent would have left as the banking world is an international arena - so there would be no UK profits made by the bank and no bonuses made - so no UK taxes at all - and a relatively small sector that used to generate huge amounts of money for this government may have been lost to our foreign friends for some time.Also; everyone seems to have forgotten that our high earning taxpayers have already been hit with a raft of tax rises - increase in tax rate from 40% to 50%, increase in national insurance rate due, loss of personal allowance due; and the loss of child benefit too; massive cuts in tax relief due on pension payments. Given the entrepreneurial nature of many of these people who do genuinely create wealth and jobs - moving abroad to a better tax climate is something many of them are quite prepared to do - they are happy to pay their share - but with UK plc getting more than they do and many countries offering better tax regimes there is a balancing act to be done.Another urban myth is that our highest earners are all spivs, conmen and tax dodgers who pay no taxes. There was an article in the Times this year which looked at this issue and it found that the top 1% of earners actually paid 25% of the income tax. The top 5% paid something like 45%. If I can find the link I'll post it.Another point to remember is that many of these wealthy individuals take nothing from the state in return for their 51%+ tax contribution - they have private schools, private health care; private planes etc So rather than trying to drive these people away - shouldn't we be trying to encourage them to stay and do what they do best - create money jobs and pay lots of tax ! Wed 20 Oct 2010 18:03:26 GMT+1 jon112dk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=52#comment22 Over and above any concrete effects - real human beings out of work - the other big effect is on the perception of security.How many families tonight feel secure?Council workers, prison officers, civil servants, university staff etc etc - all people on good income now uncertain if they will be in the same position.People on benefits, already feeling as if they can scarcely manage, uncertain if even that level of life will be mantained.Mark, how many of the people you are rubbing shoulders with today at the BBC are feeling confident and secure?So over and above the people who will physically lose their jobs, Osborne has caused huge harm to massive numbers of people. He won't care about that.What he may need to care about is that everyone of us who feel uncertain have made some decisions. The decision not to buy a new car. The decision not to go on holiday. The decision not fit that new kitchen. Several million people all making decisions like that adds up to a lot of money missing from his economy. Back to recession by Christmas? Wed 20 Oct 2010 17:57:06 GMT+1 Dr Bob Matthews http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=50#comment21 Same old Tories same old sad solutions. In the 1930's having cut defence budgets to the bone,the UK was not in a position to deal effectively with Nazi Germany until 1939. Then and for the following 5 years we sacrificed our young men so that bankers, the establishment and others could continue to make fortunes before, during and after world war 2. On balance, the tories have manged to cause more mass unemployment than any other political party that has held office.So what have we learned from this strange coalition government. The ideology of the tories has been swallowed by the feeble Lib Dems whose only interest was to gain some sort of semblance of public office.In the 20's and 30's the US government had the common sense to use capital expenditure to buy its way out of a full blown world recession, they won the battle and put the US on a rapid road to growth and recovery.This bunch of second rate public school boys obviously never bothered to read economic history. Government debt is paid down by 2 income streams, viz, export revenues and direct and indirect taxation. For every person made redundant and sacrificed on the altar of free market economy, there is a fiscal price to pay. A single person earning £20,000 per year contributes a combined tax and NHI contribution to the Treasury of £4,256. In addition to this, on an assumed 60% of disposable income after tax, the same taxpayer contributes a further £1,109 in VAT. If he drives car, he contributes another £140 per year in road tax, and a further £996 in fuel excise duty if he drives a car. In total, our average tax payer contributes £6,501 in the tax year 2010/2011. So he loses his job; it is now costing the treasury the following amounts:Jobseekers allowance £64,45 per week for 52 weeks = £3,351.14. Our taxpayer rents his home (he can't afford to buy a house). His rent is £500 per month = £6,000 per year. His council tax is on average £93 a month for 10 months = £930 a year. His Local council pays £473 a month of his rent, and all his council tax. The total loss of revenue at this point is £3,351.14 + (£473 x 12) + (10 x 93) = £9,957.14.From being a net contributor , our average person is now costing £9,957.14 and this does not include the loss of revenue because of his drastically reduced spending power. So the government is going to cut 500,000 job s over 4 years, what brilliant economics!! instead of reducing debt they are adding to it at the rate of 500,000/4 x £9,957 as an average of £1,244,625,000 this really is exceptionally clever, in 4 years the chancellor will have added a minimum of £4,978,500,000 to the UK debt! Wed 20 Oct 2010 16:38:24 GMT+1 salexc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=47#comment20 ian_northants wrote:"490000 public sector employees cut means - 490000 more people unemployed, 490000 additional people claiming job seekers allowence, 490000 people no longer paying NI or Tax, 490000 people not spending in the shops, and 490000 additional people looking for a job along with the already high unemployment in the UK."It also means 490000 fewer people being paid out of taxpayers' funds; whatever taxation returns the government collects from those public-sector workers, it's clearly much less than the cost of paying them in the first place plus the administrative cost of collecting the tax. Plus, some percentage of the 490000 will be lost through either natural wastage or voluntary redundancy, and more will find employment elsewhere...so I doubt the impact on the dole queue, the exchequer and the shops will be as drastic as you think. Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:43:39 GMT+1 parliament1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=45#comment19 Rob, This "moving back the role of the State" began with Thatcher in the 80's, adopted by New Labour in 1997, and now the coaltion have take it on board.We are as a nation a purely market / profit driven, with less State intervention that Europe who are not market driven.And this has been happening in Britain for nearly 30 years.This Tory lead coalition needs only Clegg to jump ship, but will he ? Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:32:24 GMT+1 squareoldccodger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=42#comment18 A deep recession is now certain, indeed there are parts of the Country that are already there. With Police, Prison Officers and Probation Offcer numbers beig cut, fewer criminals being sent to prison and more released. People being forced into criminal activies to live, one thing is certain, we will have rapid growth in one area - Crime! Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:28:32 GMT+1 squareoldccodger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=40#comment17 This post has been Removed Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:23:35 GMT+1 newblogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=38#comment16 5. At 1:27pm on 20 Oct 2010, brownandout wrote:'Many commentators now believe the Govt will eventually turn a profit on it's shares in the banking sector'Really?You mean we may actually profit from the second biggest depression in modern times?We should have them more often! Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:15:05 GMT+1 ian_northants http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=35#comment15 Ghost_Blogger wrote: We have moved away from an industry / manufacturing based economy because we simply do not have the natural resources, location or competive ability to be able to operate effectively anymore in such sectors, nor have we for a long time. Why move away as it was creating employemnt, and as for natural resources, I put boxes of recyling out each week which could be user to build products, Green products should be built from green sources.John Ellis wrote:ian northants "Where is it the private sector will benefit from this"that's easy as unemployment rises more people will have wages squeezed eventually leading to lower wages for all new staff, The higher paid people doing the same job as the new intakes will be slowly weeded out. this in turn will create more jobs within the private sector as companies will be able to employ more people for less moneyI have worked in three areas of the public sector and as employee and contractor. I have seen recently people who carry out the same job in the private sector earn about £2k - £10k less in the public sector. Also there is currently salary cuts being made prior to this anouncement today which is cutting some public sector workers joint income by £20k. These people are not on 'big money' as the goverment would lead the press to believe. Wed 20 Oct 2010 15:02:22 GMT+1 sid_ts63 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=33#comment14 afternoon, the quote at the top of this blog is the truth at last! Cameron & co simply waited and waited until the labour party did what the labour party always do when in power no matter what they want to call themselves THEY WRECK THE COUNTRY'S FIANANCES every time! not even Cameron could miss the open goal that labour left and the tory's can waltz back in to power and finish what thatcher started.make no mistake the tory's have not changed one bit from the thatcher era . if anything they are worse.Sid Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:59:58 GMT+1 John Ellis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=30#comment13 ian northants "Where is it the private sector will benefit from this"that's easy as unemployment rises more people will have wages squeezed eventually leading to lower wages for all new staff, The higher paid people doing the same job as the new intakes will be slowly weeded out. this in turn will create more jobs within the private sector as companies will be able to employ more people for less money.A company I worked for did it with each merge and rebrand you had tech analysts all doing the same job at 3 different levels of wage the first intakes were on an attractive 21k the next lot 17k and the last intake just a measly 11.5k each time the company expanded the highest paid were dropped until every one was on the same wage. value for money. More for less? whatever you want to call it this is how the private sector will grow and improve...This does not mean that your life will improve though, as in order for a company to get more for less you have to give more for less. Its funny how millionaires decide all this for us peon'sTake the good Peon's of Liverpool all asked to cut time and wages while Fat old Foulkes and his council mates award them selves 7k wage increase for having to deal with all the stress and hardship we Peon's are putting them through. Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:33:42 GMT+1 Ghost_Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=28#comment12 ian_northants: "Isnt it about time we create our own industry..... Create our own employment.... Create our own recovery......"We have moved away from an industry / manufacturing based economy because we simply do not have the natural resources, location or competive ability to be able to operate effectively anymore in such sectors, nor have we for a long time. swoopster25: "The bank contuning to pay excessive and obscene (yes that is the correct word) bonuses after being bailed out makes the delivery of the necessary cuts 20x more difficult"This is a poor argument. Its a numbers game. Banks paying big bonuses puts money directly into the economy. Not only this, but it also means that anyone getting paid over £37k and getting a bonus worth worrying about will pay 40% tax on it. This is significantly more than the corporation tax rate for large companies. That means more into the coffers. If the money also was not paid out via this means, it would almost certainly be retained for dividends, re-invested or expensed for greater return. All of this leads to reduced money for the government when compared to 40% income tax rate.Cuts are of course bad and painful, but are very necessary. The government needs to stop acting as though taxpayers have a bottomless purse. The state does not exist simply to keep people in jobs at the expense of other individuals. Efficiency and effectiveness should be aimed for and achieved, with clear strategy and responsibility put in place. Simple changes like a defined and suitable procurement approach would save a vast amount of cash. It would serve public bodies well to also actually obtain an understanding of working capital and use it to their advantage, whilst also not being unfair etc on suppliers.Personally I would like to see some zero-based budgeting occurring to get a real idea of just how much money is wasted in this country by the public sector. In the meantime, we all have to suffer due to our former government's policies. Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:30:31 GMT+1 watriler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=26#comment11 Its all about re-inventing the poor law and Americanising social policy. There is plenty of disincentive to not work but little sign of the flood of jobs to provide opportunity to work - even at the minimum wage.Over the next few months the true force of these cuts will become apparent. In Local Government Tory backwoodsmen with or without LD support will now have the reasons for dismantling the local welfare state. Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:14:38 GMT+1 ian_northants http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=23#comment10 490000 public sector employees cut means - 490000 more people unemployed, 490000 additional people claiming job seekers allowence, 490000 people no longer paying NI or Tax, 490000 people not spending in the shops, and 490000 additional people looking for a job along with the already high unemployemnt in the UK. Where is it the private sector will benifit from tis, also when projects are cut which some private sector companies were counting on to sustain their bussiness and keep people employed, instead this will result in more private sector employees being cut and companies folding who have invested money in projects to deliver to the public sector.Time for a change........ Why do they all say that then, the change is for the worse?We have little exports in this country to build on, the car industry was a large employer but we have no home grown companies. With the enviromental issues we face the Americans are finally sitting up and building eco cars which are fast and eco nomical (Hybrids) why have we not been there first, the Japaneese have been building them for years (Honda/Toyota) and we have been buying them. Isnt it about time we create our own industry..... Create our own employment...... Create our own recovery........ Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:01:27 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=21#comment9 dcacooper #8."..the sheer volume and cost of different medical treatments is very far removed from those originally envisaged ... Witness the public outcry every time a new and massively expensive treatment is declared unaffordable within NHS budgets."so what is the real problem?it isn't the concept of free (at the point of delivery) healthcare for citizens, nor is it the funding. the way I see it the problem is graft, if not outright corruption.MRI scanners cost millions, and certain drugs cost thousands (per treatment) -- why? because 'we' allow private companies to maximise their profits; apparently, that's more important than public health issues.to wrap this up, most of our financial problems are the result of ideology over best practice/common sense/whatever. Wed 20 Oct 2010 14:00:10 GMT+1 yorkshirelad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=19#comment8 5. At 1:27pm on 20 Oct 2010, brownandout wrote:Stop bleating about the banks - The NAO have said the net cash outlay by the treasury to the banking sector was £117 Billion, and the Net Cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be at the lower end of the range between £20-£50 Billion depending on the length and depth of the recession.-------------------------Ooops somebody forgot about the money lost in tax revenues and the increased welfare budget to all those folks (like myself last year) who lost their job. 52 and was unemployed for the first time in my life. No doubt I was a scrounger for the 6 months I was claiming jobseekers allowance. (I paid MORE in tax for the 3 months I worked last year !!) How many bankers lost their job and were struggling to live? There's a principle here completely lost on some folks. Wed 20 Oct 2010 13:55:16 GMT+1 DaveC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=16#comment7 And yet this Government (like previous ones) will continue to ignore the things that really need to be brought into the 21st Century.The NHS model, for example, is completely unsuitable to medical provision as it goes forward. When the NHS was introduced the NHS was a godsend for the nation and was affordable to provide. 60 years on, the sheer volume and cost of different medical treatments is very far removed from those originally envisaged and, consequently, however much money is thrown at it, there will always be something else that the NHS could spend money on. The problem is, as a nation, we now have a sense of entitlement that the NHS will always be there to provide free treatment for whatever out health problem is. Witness the public outcry every time a new and massively expensive treatment is declared unaffordable within NHS budgets.State Pension is another example. It is important that the State provides a basic level of pension for its people, because there will always be those who have worked in valuable, meaningful (but poorly paid) jobs their entire career and have been unable to save substantial funds for their own retirement ... but is it really necessary for the State to continue to provide a basic state pension for company directors retiring on significant occupational or private pensions, just because it always has? Longer life expectancy also means that a later State Retirement Age has to be a higher priority than it is at present. Yes, it is going up, but I am still 5 years from retirement and it will only have gone up from 65 to 66 by the time I get there. It is not scheduled to hit 68 for another 36 years!The government that grasps these two thorny issues (among others) and makes them work in a way consistent with how the world of the 21st Century works can genuinely claim to be reforming how the nation functions. But not this one. I am a director of two local voluntary sector agencies that already provide services at a local level. Funding for those agencies comes in the main from central government via the PCTs or local authorities. If that funding is cut off, those agencies will disappear, and who then picks up the pieces? The local council have already been told that their budget in both the affected areas is going to be cut, so they are faced with a choice of cutting something else to keep this work going, or ceasing to fund these services. Either way, the local council, and not the Government, looks like the bad guy. Maybe that is the idea. Wed 20 Oct 2010 13:30:03 GMT+1 swoopster25 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=14#comment6 5. At 1:27pm on 20 Oct 2010, brownandout wrote:1. At 12:25pm on 20 Oct 2010, newblogger wrote:Stop bleating about the banks - The NAO have said the net cash outlay by the treasury to the banking sector was £117 Billion, and the Net Cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be at the lower end of the range between £20-£50 Billion depending on the length and depth of the recession.Many commentators now believe the Govt will eventually turn a profit on it's shares in the banking sector.Yes the banks were stupid, and the FSA's regulation of the sector,a complete bad joke but the amounts involved are a drop in the ocean compared with the billions wasted by Nulab on the Public sector.We must break the long history of Govt Spending constantly rising - Governments of all colours have been too weak and have reached for the next credit card in the public sector wallet until they are all maxed out.It is time for constitution that sets a MAXIMUM level of public expenditure of 40% of GDP - that is the way to a thriving economy with high levels of (real) sustainable employment-----------------------------------------------------------------------The bank contuning to pay excessive and obscene (yes that is the correct word) bonuses after being bailed out makes the delivery of the necessary cuts 20x more difficult. That is the fundamental point. How can you justify chucking people out of jobs ( who have children and dependants) when the greedy bankers continue to have their nose in the trough nowing if they cock up they will be bailed out again. One way bet gambling , win, win, win, snort , snort , snort...vomit!I'm a free market, small state advocate, but antone who fails to see the bankers as a problem is an idiot! Wed 20 Oct 2010 13:12:27 GMT+1 Localist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=11#comment5 I do wonder how many of the people bleating about 'the poor', actually know people that are on IB/ESA/JSA or who are the most susceptible to these cuts.I don't know what people mean by ideology, but my ideology (as someone who is middle class and has a recent degree in Economics but has chosen to live in one of the most deprived areas in the UK, volunteering with alcoholics and addicts and with young people on the estate) is that just giving people more and more money (the same money that we're led to believe caused this problem at the hands of the banks) without helping them to address their problems and concerns is not something that works and is actually quite disgusting.It's one thing saying we care for the poor, but if all we do is outsource that care to the state (although when they threaten our 'universal benefits' we kick up a fuss because we're 'hard working') do we really care at all?The trouble is that as the state has grown we've left more and more people unable to engage in society, parked on the sidelines, but fortunately with more money to spend on the things that in some cases got them there in the first place and will keep them there if no one else tries to help them (other than the impersonal and inefficient state). Wed 20 Oct 2010 13:11:21 GMT+1 brownandout http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=9#comment4 1. At 12:25pm on 20 Oct 2010, newblogger wrote:Stop bleating about the banks - The NAO have said the net cash outlay by the treasury to the banking sector was £117 Billion, and the Net Cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be at the lower end of the range between £20-£50 Billion depending on the length and depth of the recession.Many commentators now believe the Govt will eventually turn a profit on it's shares in the banking sector.Yes the banks were stupid, and the FSA's regulation of the sector,a complete bad joke but the amounts involved are a drop in the ocean compared with the billions wasted by Nulab on the Public sector.We must break the long history of Govt Spending constantly rising - Governments of all colours have been too weak and have reached for the next credit card in the public sector wallet until they are all maxed out.It is time for constitution that sets a MAXIMUM level of public expenditure of 40% of GDP - that is the way to a thriving economy with high levels of (real) sustainable employment Wed 20 Oct 2010 12:27:23 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=7#comment3 Mark Easton."The question is how quickly Britain can adapt.."it took only three years in Germany (1930-1933). ;)"..and whether those unable to change will be protected."history tells us -- no. Wed 20 Oct 2010 12:16:34 GMT+1 Silvia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=4#comment2 I completely agree - it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.For ordinary working people to fully read and understand the Bible of exactly how our socio-economic system works, as follows:1. The rich will get rich, the poor will get poorer.2. The rich have a bunch of yes-men and women (otherwise known as the parliamentary reformist centre, left, left of centre, centre of left, whatever, parties), who will dole out the crumbs that when the economic system is on the up and up, doth fall from the tables of the rich - and be grateful for it.3. Unfortunately, given that: a. your brethern in Asia are on the up and up, and the west is on its way down and b. the neo-liberist free market (that would always find its balance, so that every day in every way things would get better and better) has fallen flat on its face, like the ideological fraud it always was, THERE ARE NO MORE CRUMBS.4. It behoveth us all, therefore, to tighten our belts, think of the country, make sacrifices, and all DavenNick can offer us are bloood, sweat and tears, etc, etc, etc.5. And finally, to realise that: governments have no money of their own - it all comes from the working people of the country (okay, for a short time it came from pretending bits of paper were worth more than they were, but hey, where are we with that one now?) and that if anyone is holding out their hands for money,it's not the people,but a government composed of a dinosaur born, raised and educated within the same class system that existed and ruled three hundred years ago, with a wee gloss of a party that thought it could ride the tiger and found that the tiger not only gobbled it up, but digested it and - well, what usually happens after that. The only money governments have come from the hard work of the people of the country. That's economics. Wed 20 Oct 2010 12:15:57 GMT+1 Rob http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=2#comment1 The truth is slowly beginning to emerge - that this government is using the economic issues as an excuse to push though ideological issues with little thought or care for the harm that they'll do.Rob Wed 20 Oct 2010 12:11:10 GMT+1 newblogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/10/its_not_just_the_economy_stupi.html?page=0#comment0 Mark,'Britain must break free of its "passive dependency" upon the state''the government wants people to stop holding their hands out...'Isn't the financial sector being propped up by the state to the tune of £850 Billion in loans and guarantees?Maybe they should start with the bankers.... Wed 20 Oct 2010 11:25:57 GMT+1