Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html en-gb 30 Sun 13 Jul 2014 11:49:54 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html Sonseyface http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2093 Last week my partner was told he was being made redundant but they couldn't say when. I would like the government to tell me how with my part time job(because there are no full time posts) and with the job seekers allowance he will get when he is finally made redundant how we will survive on £840 a month with two teenagers at college?A tank of heating oil alone costs £700. During winter this lasts for about 9 weeks before we have to top up again. I'm sure that anyone who lives in Scotland will appreciate that heating is not a luxury we can give up. We can give up our car but as we are four miles from the nearest town and two miles from the nearest bus this might make getting the kids to college or hunting for a new job a wee bit harder. So we can have heating or a car and food. I suppose we don't really need electricity as we could use candles......and there is pleanty of "road kill" to eat and berries in the woods!!!! I appreciate cuts have to be made but are you even in the real world? I bet those who made the necesary cuts won'd have to think about how to pay for their heating, food or tansport! Thank you from my family and the thousands of others left if the same position as us. Mon 25 Oct 2010 08:05:06 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2092 nightimer writes: "No government body can hold any citizen in a state of fear in alarm of which this government is proposing by taking away housing benefit in effect, making people homeless and taking those dependent on state benefit below the official poverty line that was set at an unrealistic level to begin with."Such nonsense!But you're right about one thing: the official poverty line was set at an unrealistically high level to begin with. Mon 25 Oct 2010 04:00:39 GMT+1 Nightimer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2091 If the man of the house was out of work or sick and signed on for the family, the NHS stamp is only credited to the man, it will not count towards the womans pension until he reaches pension age. In this age of equality surly this is a blatant abuse of legislation. If the woman is older she could be well into her seventies before she is entitled, quite unjustly, after all both parties are equally responsible for the clame.Nightimer. Mon 25 Oct 2010 03:28:03 GMT+1 Nightimer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2090 Today is the day when the human rights legislation for the ordinary British citizen is disregarded. No government body can hold any citizen in a state of fear in alarm of which this government is proposing by taking away housing benefit in effect, making people homeless and taking those dependent on state benefit below the official poverty line that was set at an unrealistic level to begin with. Nightimer Mon 25 Oct 2010 03:15:12 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2089 lukethetaff asks: "with their spin getting voters to believe that the deficit was caused just through waste and the and nothing else. When the reasons why we have this deficit is partly yes because of waste but also spending on the health service etc , is spending on the health service,wasting money?"Probably not, though certainly was.The point, of course, is that WE DON'T HAVE THIS MONEY.Your question is like asking Was that first-class holiday in the Virgin Islands a waste of money? Probably not. But if you can't afford it .... Mon 25 Oct 2010 01:24:03 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2088 Niaomi you are right if we all stick together like we did with Thatchers poll tax, which was yet again aimed at kicking the poor,and hit the streets (though I don't approve of violence like the poll tax protests never any excuse for that and if we did that , that would take us to the same nasty level as the tories)that was the beginning of the end for Thatcher. Lets hope it doesn't take another poll tax too get the people to smell whats cooking. But you see the tories are so clever in dividing the nation i don't think that would work but i would certainly protest. you see it doesn't matter whether these measures are right or not it is just sick and incompassionate to see them cheering when the chancellor anncounces 4900000 job loses, cut backs in cancer treatment, cut backs to charities, cut backs to families with young children. Cuts to the disabled and care workers, cuts to the police service. and none of these catagories mentioned above caused the deficit yet these are the people of vital services we all need and depend on sometime in life, and people with cancer and disabilities are the ones being made to pay how can that be fair? Sun 24 Oct 2010 22:25:22 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2087 Thanks for your comments Naiomi I agree with what you've said Cameron and his tory nasty party have been crafty with their spin getting voters to believe that the deficit was caused just through waste and the and nothing else. When the reasons why we have this deficit is partly yes because of waste but also spending on the health service etc , is spending on the health service,wasting money? remember we will all need the best health service somtime in our life, but also because of higher borrowing to bale the banks out, because if they had not done so the banks ran a high risk of collapsing and people would have lost their savings, including Tory voters, and that would mean we would be in a much bigger mess than we are in now and also to pump money into the ecconomy so people wouldn't lose their jobs and their homes and to get the country of recession which when the Labour government left office growth was beginning to show through that's why the deficit is so high. and the tories know that. The Tories are using their spin about the deficit as just waste as an excuse to kick the poorest where it hurts. because I can assure you they would have made these cuts even if we didn't have the high deficit because that's what they've always done. But you have to give the Tories credit for convincing the gullable people of this country. What would people have said if the last government did nothing about the banking crisis and allowed the banks to collapse and they lost their savings? and did nothing about the reccesion? On Channel Four news tonight Simon Hughes the Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems expressed his opposition to housing benefit cuts stating that whether it was right or not it is nasty to make such cuts for people on job seekers allowance.He also said he and his Lib Dem colleagues would vote against it to make sure it didn't go through parliament. But he just didn't look happy. Well done Mr Hughes a true LIb Dem.I don't think he was saying it because his party are waning in the polls I think it's truly because of his Lib Dem beliefs and shows he has some compassion and some dignity which is more than you can say for this Thatcherite shower in power right now. You see the Tories have always been against the hard working people of this country because they don't want to see working people prosper or have working rights, and why you may ask? The answer, for no other reasons other than spite and nastiness and to feather the nests of those billionaire tax cheats who donate to the conservative party. They have absolutey no compassion for the sick and vulnarable and its time people woke-up and smelled the coffee. Cameron and his clan must rolling about in fits of laughter because they can convince the ordinary people with their spin. They're are just sticking two fingers up to the ordinary people of this country. Sun 24 Oct 2010 21:47:34 GMT+1 saffler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2086 The 'different' people will tend to die-off as a result i would imagine, intended or not. Sun 24 Oct 2010 21:01:18 GMT+1 TeeceOR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2085 I am absolutely astonished the present co-government can ordain expenditure on foreign aid to such an amount, over ten percent of the required deficit, when the people they have elected them to rule will lose jobs, love ones will fall under extreme hardship, and for them only to say we will prevail. The foreign expenditure /aid should be delayed while the country gets it own house in order.I call upon every UK citizens to rally and call for a petition to stop this foreign aid while we have to endure severe cuts, let’s also see the newspapers that really care for their local population draw up a petition. The government will then see how much of the population would actually be in favour of their foreign aid in comparison to saving thousands and thousands of jobs. Most of the counties they give aid to, do they really have concrete evidence of where its actually going to, ie Zimbabwe 2009 £67M Sun 24 Oct 2010 18:32:44 GMT+1 Tom_in_Exeter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2084 doomjeffs wrote:"500,000 jobs to go in the public sector....hmmm sounds about right.My wife, brother & several friends have worked for the M.O.D. for twenty years or more....My wife has told me stories of the things that happen at the M.O.D. .."This is a very interesting phenomenon. My daughter works in the NHS and displays similar disloyalty. She seems incapable of seeing that by repeating her tittle-tattle she is endangering not just her friend's jobs, but her own as well. Let's face it, the hearsay of disgruntled moaners is worthless when assessing the value of an organisation. I would suggest listening less to your wife and more reading of unbiased reviews before venturing an opinion. Are your family and friends special advisors to George Osborne? He seems to be similarly ill-informed. Sun 24 Oct 2010 18:07:51 GMT+1 johnbournemouth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2083 I have had a thought about all this and wonder if it might be a good idea to nationalise the banks and use their profits to buy us out of this mess -- after all when they went bust or nearly went bust it was taxpayers money Government used to bail them out . When the debt is paid sell them back !!! Sun 24 Oct 2010 17:58:07 GMT+1 D G Cullum http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2082 W4 have the wealthy ruling and telling the poor as they are the only one they can bully how to run their poor lives while they fill their boots we have call me Dave talking rubbish and Osborne need to grow up and get real and IDS should retire as for Danny Alexander well what is he about and Cable has lost his bottle say what ever he is told till he can retire then we have Clegg no change from when he was just Lib Dem we now have two parties Tory and Tory light what a place to be!!! Sun 24 Oct 2010 17:33:38 GMT+1 Aneeta Trikk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2081 #2079 Garth Tuxford suggests "this is a new government who has been handed an awful mess"No, Mr Tuxford, this is a government so desperate to take on "an awful mess" that it bribed a small minority party into giving them power. And as a non-Labour supporter I can criticise them for not having a clue. New Labour's spending plans were agreed by Cameron right up to November 2008, so quite what changed on Cameron's road to Damascus at that time?"Bickering and backbiting"? You mean it is okay for you to bicker and backbite Labour but not okay for the rest of us to rail against a hopeless pair of idiots who don't have a mandate for their musing. Sun 24 Oct 2010 15:38:40 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2080 If they want austerity, they got it. Things for me to knock on the head ...1- National Lottery2- Xbox Live gold membership3- Charitable donations4- DVDs5- Sky (switch to freesat)6- Mobile contractThat should save about £80pm. Mr Murdoch won't be pleased though, will he? Neither will Camelot. Nor Oxfam. When their turnover falls through the floor, i'm not the only one who will make tough decisions like this. Sun 24 Oct 2010 14:52:47 GMT+1 Nushed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2079 #2079Back a government who claim fairness in hitting the poor harder than any other group except the wealthiest two percent?Back Nick Clegg who categorically stated tuition fees wouldn't rise, then increased them within the first 6 months of being in office?Back a policy of hitting the people and leaving business and business tax debts relatively untouched?I don't think so!And if these are the measures and strategies required to put the 'Great' back into Great Britain, then I'd rather drop it for good and go forward just as Britain.The Tories are running this show; the Lib Dems are there to make up the constitutional numbers. And the Tories have waited a long time for this - 13 years to be precise.Like many people, I had lost interest in politics. My interest has been revived a little, but only because I want this coalition government OUT. Sun 24 Oct 2010 12:48:11 GMT+1 Garth Tuxford http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2078 This is a new government who has been handed an awful mess and I genuinely believe they are trying to do what is right for the country and its people. How quickly the Labour party jump in to condemn them when they bankrupted the country both morally and financially. Give David Cameron and Nick Clegg the opportunity to get on with governement without all the bickering and backbiting. I believe that most of the complainants are habitual and would complain no matter what was put in front of them. If everyone was given a million pounds they would argue that it should be two million.I think that in a 2 or 3 years when there is light at the end of the tunnel the Great will have been put back into Great Britain and we will be grateful that these difficult steps were taken. Let's back our government not knock it. Sun 24 Oct 2010 08:49:29 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2077 people on here are going on about spoungers but they seem to forget tax avoiders many of those , but not all are multi-millionaires. Now to me that is the same as spounging - milking the system, there's no difference. So why doesn't George Osbourne also chase after the Millionaire tax avoiders. I work hard for low wages and pay my taxes so why should some millionaires who can afford it be allowed to get away with this. Because these multi- millionaires are the ones really runnning the country and not the Government. It survival of the fitttest if you are weak and vulnarable people kick you while you're down in other words we are living in a selfish "I'm ok jack" society and these millionaires are the ones with the power. Sun 24 Oct 2010 08:42:41 GMT+1 Aneeta Trikk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2076 #2076 MellorSJ runs for cover with "Labour were planning to cut more"Irrelevant Mellor as you well know.The decision to cut deep and hit the poorest hardest is down to Osborne, a Chancellor who will, in time, make Brown look like a knight on a white charger by comparison. Oh course you will have choked on your words a long time before that happens. Sun 24 Oct 2010 08:02:17 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2075 Colin Day wrote: "So the country is in debt, let's kick three million people into the gutter. They are those useless unemployed and disabled people, so they don't matter right?Debt or no debt, £18bn off of welfare was brutal. Where is the rule that says £81bn had to be saved? Would £75bn not have sufficed? £77bn? £81bn was the figure because that figure gave Osborne his excuse to hammer the welfare state into oblivion. The welfare state consists of little people who can't fight back, easy prey for the elite. The banks have to pay a whole £2.5bn. Bully for them, they caused this mess and got off with a slap on the wrist."1. It's not all off welfare.2. Labour were planning to cut more. Sun 24 Oct 2010 00:31:32 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=99#comment2074 So the country is in debt, let's kick three million people into the gutter. They are those useless unemployed and disabled people, so they don't matter right?Debt or no debt, £18bn off of welfare was brutal. Where is the rule that says £81bn had to be saved? Would £75bn not have sufficed? £77bn? £81bn was the figure because that figure gave Osborne his excuse to hammer the welfare state into oblivion. The welfare state consists of little people who can't fight back, easy prey for the elite. The banks have to pay a whole £2.5bn. Bully for them, they caused this mess and got off with a slap on the wrist. Sat 23 Oct 2010 22:57:19 GMT+1 cufcjacko http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2073 Everyone on here could work for the daily mail. The country's in a bad way at the moment and things need to change. Im not even really into politics but at least government are doing something about the debt this oountry's in. fair comment or? Sat 23 Oct 2010 22:37:10 GMT+1 U14529784 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2072 The Government rescued the banks with LOANS - and, in my book a loan has to be repaid with interest.I note that there has been no mention of the payback in Osborne's statement. Why is this? Surely this should be expected to be repaid before 2015 ans so it should have appeared as a positive in his calculations.Could it be that he is not going to call in the debts from his banker friends?Are they to be written off and the rest of us can pay for it?Again he trumpets about £900M being allocated to fight the black economy, evasion and avoidance. Again there is no positive estimate shown in his calculations for the amount hat he hopes to collect.I agree that tax evasion and avoidance should be hit - and hit hard!Isn't it a coincidence that the Osborne family has set up an offshore trust Dispatches also makes claims about the Chancellor George Osborne, who stands to inherit a fortune from his father's luxury wallpaper firm.The programme is expected to say that he stands to gain more than £4m from a trust fund - three times higher than previously thought - and that the trust fund arrangements will save him and other beneficiaries £1.6million in inheritance tax.Dispatches on Channel 4 made claims about the Chancellor George Osborne, who stands to inherit a fortune from his father's luxury wallpaper firm.The programme alsosaid that he stands to gain more than £4m from a trust fund and that the trust fund arrangements will save him and other beneficiaries £1.6million in inheritance tax.Equality ??My eye !!! Sat 23 Oct 2010 19:54:26 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2071 2068. At 6:32pm on 23 Oct 2010, grumpynuts wrote:The cuts were necessary. The simple truth is we cannot afford to carry on spending and wasting money as we were: its unsustainable. People on here don't seem to understand that WE are paying for the spending of the last 13 years and will be for the next generation. --------------------------------------------------------------That is fair enough comment, but being unemployed shouldn't equate to living below the breadline. This govt, in fact the Conservative party generally, seem to be of the opinion that making work pay is achieved by forcing the unemployed into poverty. Sure, if that is the choice then work will pay. But a living wage is a fundamental right, except if you live in the US.If the choice is minimum wage or poverty, then the choice is obvious. But it is hardly a fair choice is it? The fair thing to do is to raise the working wage, not go the opposite way on welfare.I've said it before and it still holds true, that in the UK success is penalised. In varying degrees depending on who is in power. You either survive, or you die. Sat 23 Oct 2010 19:25:38 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2070 Giselle wrote: "could some knowledgeable person reading please, please, please tell me the answer of when the money owed to the taxpayer will be repaid?"It's unclear, and someone should be asking this question in Parliament.The issue is that the banks require liquidity. And they need to rebuild their balance sheets. To address the latter, they need to make money. Since the casino is closed, that means that the high street will have to fund it. (Hence, higher rates for borrowers than the banks can borrow from the BofE.) As the banks regain health and liquidity in the whole sector improves, their stock price will rise, the gov't will sell their share, and Bob's your uncle.When that will happen we don't know. But it would be good to know the gov't has a plan! Sat 23 Oct 2010 18:41:04 GMT+1 keith95a http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2069 "As time goes on, you realise that we have ex public schoolboys playing at running the country." - Again.Maybe it would be a good idea to run down our defense budget - then we could be invaded - and gain a ruling body who know what they are doing.Then - after putting everything right, we could have a revolution to get back what was our in the first place - and move on.Only one problem - who in their right mind would want to invade the UK with it lack of resources, huge debt, and workforce/management history.Defense budget has to be slashed - its old school and we need to move on. Sat 23 Oct 2010 17:45:13 GMT+1 Giselle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2068 2051. At 10:33am on 23 Oct 2010, Risteve wrote:When the government borrowed all those £ billions to fund the banking crisis, why didn't they lend the money to the banks instead of giving it to them?--------I love this post! However, could some knowledgeable person reading please, please, please tell me the answer of when the money owed to the taxpayer will be repaid? I'm asking a serious question. Sat 23 Oct 2010 17:35:53 GMT+1 grumpynuts http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2067 The cuts were necessary. The simple truth is we cannot afford to carry on spending and wasting money as we were: its unsustainable. People on here don't seem to understand that WE are paying for the spending of the last 13 years and will be for the next generation. The last labour government wasted an awful lot of our money, despite what the banks did. its about time we stopped looking at the government to help us and helped ourselves. Benefits were introduced as a support not as a lifestyle. That is what they should be. People should not rely on them and expect the tax payers to pick up the tab.No government department should be ring fenced either. Charity begins at home.The private sector has done their share, including myself - I have not had a pay rise for 3 years and have nearly been made redundant. Its time the public sector were rained in and the unions should accept that they have their part Sat 23 Oct 2010 17:32:10 GMT+1 Jim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2066 Er, is it me or wasn't the deficit caused by bailing the banks out !!!! Why isn't this being stressed on the news every day. Why aren't Bankers going to prison for all this grief they have caused. Why why why why is everybody blaming the wrong people and why aren't the banks paying it back. Its not as if they're not making fortunes. Interest rates at 0.5% and mortgages at around 4%. Its an absolute scandal !!!!! Sat 23 Oct 2010 17:08:29 GMT+1 3B http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2065 2050. At 10:13am on 23 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:"If you had half a brain, you'd realize that the UK got to where it is by trading and finance."If you are you referring to the heavy price we are paying for the global financial crises then I think most would agree. Sounds like a good argument to start doing something a bit more productive. Sat 23 Oct 2010 16:25:11 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2064 IDS made me laugh the most. "Get on the bus", "only an hour to Cardiff". Do these poor buggers get a free bus pass for this, or are they expected to pay the 20% of their minimum wage job just to get to work each day?I really sob sometimes at just how detached from reality these elitist bureaucrats are. £35pw out of net minimum wage makes that job not viable. Jesus wept.We, the people, don't get expenses from the public purse. Ignorance is not an excuse for not thinking before opening your mouth. Do your homework IDS. Sat 23 Oct 2010 14:03:07 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2063 2055. At 10:59am on 23 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:Look it up Ghost."And I do not think you know what you are talking about 'cluster phenomenon' - please explain exactly what you mean."You might actually learn something.I'm not holding my breath.----------------------------------Well MellorSJ - M.Porter was required reading on my MBA - so I think I have a fair grasp of the concept of clusters ( and the competitive advantage of nations) - the point is I am not so sure you have any idea! You are just a preacher of the Doctrine of Sacrifice with a twist of manic belief in your own self righteousness...but while you invest your sense of self esteem in such a fraudulent interpretation of what it is to be a sovereign rational being in the context of capitalism - you merely engage in an exercise of self delusion and ultimately self destruction - the question YOU should ask yourself is how many victims are you prepared to leave in your trail of exploitative destruction? If you believe you are a 'capitalist' you must necessarily accept your social responsibility - its in your own rational self interest to do so! Sat 23 Oct 2010 13:42:06 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2062 Tories effectively killing our poorest in order to maintain the lifestyle of the rich. What's new. Sat 23 Oct 2010 13:21:59 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2061 The irony is that the coalition does not even have a mandate for this. Nobody voted for a coalition, and the Conservatives had no where near enough votes to embark on a slash and burn crusade on the back of a so called 'mandate'.We need a new election, and a fully mandated govt, to strip back the country like this. Any less is criminal negligence by an unelected collective.If you can just patch a govt together with elastoplasts, then say you are "elected", then democracy is no more in this country. Sat 23 Oct 2010 12:55:55 GMT+1 Naomi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2060 2058. At 11:45am on 23 Oct 2010, lukethetaff wrote:Hi lukethestaff, I agree with what you said...not sure you'll agree with me though.We can complain or do something about it. I don't mean anything that would harm others, but people have power not Politicians.The only way to change things is to stick together as a nation...such a simple thing...yet so hard for us to do.Until we can see a way of wishing the best for all, rich or poor, nothing will change.Idealistic you may think, but it's true.The Tory's did their research well, they campaigned so hard this time because they new there was a good chance they could win. Why? they saw the fragility of the people, the division that was so widespread not between rich and poor but between those working and those not and the collapse of the economy which they could blame on Labour and we fell for it hook line and sinker.They saw their chance and pounced.Why didn't they get in last time? Does anyone recall them trying very hard? I certainly don't, I even said that they didn't want to get in last time and I believe I was right. This time was calculated to precision because they thought this time, they have the perfect excuse to impose their policies.'Labour left a deficit' we have to make cuts. They couldn't have got away with it last time.The only way they can continue is if we, as a country, are divided...the only way we can stop them is if we, as a country, are united! Loyalty can win through anything. Sat 23 Oct 2010 11:15:13 GMT+1 polly_gone http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2059 This post has been Removed Sat 23 Oct 2010 11:11:29 GMT+1 Curmudgeonly1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2058 I am a working class male single parent. I didn't see any real benefit in Blair and Brown's profligate spending over the past years, nor did i get any massive bankers bonuses, nor do I have the opportunity to retire a 60 on a final salary pension scheme. As a result I should be complaining long and hard about how these cuts and tax rises will impact me, however I don't. I realise we are all in a pretty bad place economically due in part to the Brown / Blair incompetence, in part due to Global Economic factors and in part to corporate greed. This means we all have a part to play in (what seems like) a robust plan to address these problems.So stop the whinging, accept the fact that life is going to be hard for a few years and get on with what needs to be done, rather than wallowing self pity and righteous indignation about what we are each going to lose individually. Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:49:05 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2057 the tory voters on here are not true blue tories otherwise they wouldn't be on here they would be on mr murdoch's forums for his well known tv company. Some of the tory voters on here are just ordinary working people in low paid jobs cheering mr Osbourne. they do not yet realise how much this is going to hit them but boy when they realise that these cuts are not about getting the deficit down or about fairness they are just about spite, then I tell you , you won't be praising osbourne then. It makes me laugh when they go on about scroungers when some of the millionaires avoid paying taxes why is that ok ? it no different to people milking the welfare system. If I thought this shower had the countries interest at heart then I would praise osbourne but as I've said ir just about being nasty and spiteful.When they suggest that Labour nearly bankrupted the country , that just shows they've been brainwashed by tory spin because despite the high deficit the country was doing well economically compared to others and the country isn't on it's knees but it will be in a few years after this lots finished with crumbling schools,hospitals, and health service, roads, police service high unemployment, protests ,riots, destroyed manufacturing doesn't this remind you of the eighties and early ninties , last time we had a conservative government who had the same policies as this shower don't think you can call that a fair britain then britain was on it's knees. Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:45:00 GMT+1 Naomi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2056 2021. At 3:39pm on 22 Oct 2010, haynonymouse wrote:1985. At 11:02am on 22 Oct 2010, NaomiHi haynonymouse you said,My humble opinion..spot on thereworth re-readingThank you for stroking my ego by acknowledging me, nice to know I exist lol...me thinks there are many ego's around here imho *smile*Do you know what's ironic? In the past I have voted for them all, I always voted Labour until I voted for (as I am sure many did for the same reason) Maggie Thatcher, simply because I thought a woman might get it right...I was young...that's my excuse anyway.This time I wanted to get it right so I listened intently to them all. Nick Clegg was the one that 'appeared' the most genuine, so I thought I would check his background. I read that he had studied Philosophy...one of my passions...and weighing that against what he was saying, I thought maybe just maybe here was someone who really understood people.I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong yet...though it is looking grim.Has Nick forfeited his principals for power 'or' did he not really have any in the first place and is as good an actor as the rest?Did he decide that he could do some good in Government as opposed to 'nothing' out of it?Is he hoping that the Tory's will damage their party so much that the people will vote for Lib Dems next time?I don't know, I guess the Lib Dems were my last hope.I asked my local MP, a year ago, why he became an MP his reply was 'To make a difference'.I guess the road to hell is full of good intentions because after sitting on various committees etc...most people may start out that way but the power eats them up...such is human nature!I watched question time the other night and the only person who actually came over as caring (about others' not self) was Polly Toynbee the Guardian Columnist!Quote: 'Somebody like me has not been touched by this at all......there are a lot of people, like me, quite well off who have not been touched by this while the poorest people are being hit the hardest.'When Polly said the above I thought at last, someone who isn't just thinking about what they are getting or not getting and actually thinking of others!And this is my point, when we begrudge others happiness we become the very thing that we are critical of!The new culture, sadly, is the 'ME' factor.Forget naive Governments, I'm gonna stick with Socrates: 'Goodness consists not in helping friends and harming enemies, but in not harming anybody at all.*smile* Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:41:20 GMT+1 deanoburnett http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2055 Do We need the cuts?, well mostly Yes, Are the cuts fair? Absolutely not.I detest the way Men and some woman in very nice expensive suits, driving around in posh cars, living in big posh houses, needing nothing but forever wanting more, dictate and force onto the poorer people in this country, cuts, just to make up for mistakes that the rich have made in the first place! Then they joke and grin about it saying we're all in this together!When is this going to stop.We need to start reacting the same way as the French.All I see happening is the middle to poor class in this country bearing the brunt of this awful mess and yet again the rich award themselves more money for taking these steps.And it will continue like this until something happens. Sat 23 Oct 2010 10:04:26 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2054 Look it up Ghost."And I do not think you know what you are talking about 'cluster phenomenon' - please explain exactly what you mean."You might actually learn something.I'm not holding my breath. Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:59:49 GMT+1 robert boyer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=98#comment2053 A lot has been written about the cuts £81B over 4 years or approx £20b per year out of a budget of £661b for FY 2010 or 3.3%. All of this for a 3.3% cut Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:51:06 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2052 Oh and Mellor, can you explain how exactly the British Empire and its relationship with countries like China and India was based on any principles of capitalism or free market trading? You are seriously in danger of stretching the elastic of any credibility your arguments may contain if you attempt to maintain that the British Empire was based on 'free market' capitalism!!! That is a funny revision of historical facts! Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:47:06 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2051 2050. At 10:13am on 23 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote://If you had half a brain, you'd realize that the UK got to where it is by trading and finance. //What absolute rubbish you speak - Please go and get yourself a good history book - you will realise the UK 'got where it was' (past tense) because of the industrial revolution - and what exactly was the driving force of the industrial revolution? Was it finance and trade - no it was inventiveness, innovation and creativity - trade was an 'effect' and growth of wealth the consequence of this process NOT its cause! Again you confuse your cause and effect - point at effects and call them causes - typical of the mystics of materialism! And I say 'past tense' because since the mid twentieth century our nation has be swamped by the kind of capitalism which destroys inventiveness, innovation and creativity or merely exploits to extinction any innovation or creativity rather than nurture it, or develop it! Cannibalised and sweated until it breaks or becomes worthless - that's your 'trade and finance' economy! And the UK evidently does not 'trade' which means 'exchange' - we merely import stuff to sell on at 'Mark up' and rely on the finance sector to fund the spending - but fail to produce much to trade in exchange! Our economy is about as 'wrong' as it possibly could be - and it is the short sighted, low intelligence kind of looting parasites which keep dragging our nation closer to the mystic swamp of the ZERO! And I do not think you know what you are talking about 'cluster phenomenon' - please explain exactly what you mean - it seems to me, you are a little confused..... Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:41:54 GMT+1 Risteve http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2050 When the government borrowed all those £ billions to fund the banking crisis, why didn't they lend the money to the banks instead of giving it to them? Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:33:41 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2049 Ghost writes: "Yet we appear to have a higher proportion of wealth folk hiding their cash in tax havens - according to you and others because our taxes are too high! So why the contradiction? Do please explain WHY our little gangs of exploiters stash more wealth in secret banking facilities than MOST other European countries?Yet again you demonstrate that you are a seeker of the Zero!"If you had half a brain, you'd realize that the UK got to where it is by trading and finance. The ONLY asset it has is the cluster phenomenon, based on trading and finance. It gained that position by capitalizing on that advantage from India, the Empire, and specifically the Hongs--hence the "non-dom" phenomenon. You may not like it, but there will come a time when the chipping away of the advantage offered by the ability to avoid high taxes imposed on the indigenous population will lead to a collapse on this cluster. And then, in words I'm sure the moderators will not allow me say, you're ....And then what do you have? Yup: Zero.Keep going. I don't care where I live. Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:13:59 GMT+1 citizen42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2048 today britain steps back from the brink of decency and goes head first into the pit of neo thatcherism.we the public are told to catch 309 to cardif,there you will find a city overflowing with milk and honey.the nice mr murdoch keeps virgil at the bedside of his beloved hilda looking for a light in her black eye's of past misery,he gives the boy david his blessing,to carry on the work of is beloved hilda,finish what she started and totaly destroy the wellfare state,this,he promises to do.hopless is the plight of the sick,homeles and the unemployed they are con-demed to a life abject misery and termination on the altar of monertarism,hear endeth the sermon... Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:03:13 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2047 This post has been Removed Sat 23 Oct 2010 09:02:03 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2046 And dear mellorsj you cannot have it both ways! You cannot have your cake and eat it - you cannot maintain that low tax is good for business in the context of the fact that the UK has some of the lowest taxes compared with comparable economies. Yet we appear to have a higher proportion of wealth folk hiding their cash in tax havens - according to you and others because our taxes are too high! So why the contradiction? Do please explain WHY our little gangs of exploiters stash more wealth in secret banking facilities than MOST other European countries? Yet again you demonstrate that you are a seeker of the Zero! Sat 23 Oct 2010 08:39:28 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2045 2045. At 09:02am on 23 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:The Other Ghost now claims (in post #2043) that high taxes are good, while at the same time claiming (in post #2042) that companies move their profits offshore, presumably because the taxes are lower.Or was that merely a comment about the weather?--------------------------------------------Yet again mellorsj confuses the argument - it is necessary to 'extract' value from creative productive capabilities before one can deposit the proceeds in a tax haven! Lower tax in a 'productive' nation merely facilitates faster extraction of that productive value to the tax haven - and you really are being disingenuous because as a 'business owner' you must know the distinction between company profit and personal wealth! - The game played in low tax productive economies is to facilitate the transfer of company profit and a nations collective wealth into the personal wealth of a few. And tax havens, as you well know, are NOT 'productive' economies! You know the truth but deny it - Higher corporate taxes in a 'productive economy' act as a significant barrier to the transfer of wealth into private hands/bank accounts and encourage re-investment in production - lower taxes encourage the transfer of larger surplus value out of an economy and into secret private bank accounts! It should be obvious to even the most stupidly naive the nature of the game being played by exploitative little gangs of thugs to asset strip a nation! Stealing the wealth of a nation is not capitalism at all - it's just theft sanctioned by corrupt government as a practical alternative to creating a dynamic economy - so long as the wealthy elite can get away with it - but its morally reprehensible, dishonest and short sighted - and YOU know that don't you MellorSJ?Well, your game is over mate - cos real capitalists are no longer willing to tolerate the sneaky, nasty incompetent, morally bankrupt and corrupt little looters masquerading as business leaders and entrepreneurs doing their little 'del boy' deals! You ain't going to get away with it any more - just wait and see! Sat 23 Oct 2010 08:31:37 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2044 The Other Ghost now claims (in post #2043) that high taxes are good, while at the same time claiming (in post #2042) that companies move their profits offshore, presumably because the taxes are lower.Or was that merely a comment about the weather? Sat 23 Oct 2010 08:02:25 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2043 Ghost scribles: "Oh and all have a high % of British ex-pats sitting on sun loungers drinking expensive champaign! Please provide your evidence for all those 'indirect benefits' - Incidentally, this is not particularly an 'anti- Tory rant - one should check out the 'career history' of T.Blair's big brother! I hear the Cayman and Virgin Islands are nice this time of year ;-)"Bit humid. Better to go to somewhere it's Spring. Next month, SE Asia is excellent. Rainy season over and not too hot if you go to the mountains.I got my champagne at a 75% discount. "Expensive," per se, is not good. Sat 23 Oct 2010 07:56:02 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2042 2040. At 07:49am on 23 Oct 2010, chrisk50 wrote:2039. At 07:29am on 23 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:OK so I have a tendency to over dramatise - but one must recognise that a higher tax economy should necessarily provide incentive for a business to re-invest it's 'profit' in the business rather than loose it to the taxman - surely this is more beneficial to a nations economy and businesses than high profit taking, which simply ends up in the pockets of shareholders - but does nothing to grow the business? Obviously, its a question of achieving the right balance, but the low tax=good, high tax=bad argument is just nonsensical? Sat 23 Oct 2010 07:41:47 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2041 2041. At 07:55am on 23 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:I won't copy Ghost's blather either.Suffice it to say that he did not discuss either the price of the sold business (and the direct benefit to the UK thereby), nor the productive uses to which that capital was then put (the indirect benefit to the UK).--------------------------------------I think it's a little irrelevant when the proceeds end up in an off shore tax haven ( over 50% of secret Island paradise 'off shore banking' are British or commonwealth) Oh and all have a high % of British ex-pats sitting on sun loungers drinking expensive champaign! Please provide your evidence for all those 'indirect benefits' - Incidentally, this is not particularly an 'anti- Tory rant - one should check out the 'career history' of T.Blair's big brother! I hear the Cayman and Virgin Islands are nice this time of year ;-) Sat 23 Oct 2010 07:34:57 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2040 I won't copy Ghost's blather either.Suffice it to say that he did not discuss either the price of the sold business (and the direct benefit to the UK thereby), nor the productive uses to which that capital was then put (the indirect benefit to the UK). Sat 23 Oct 2010 06:55:50 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2039 2039. At 07:29am on 23 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:I won't post the previous text.My example supports neither argument for high or low tax and as you have explained very well 'Capitalism', well western greed is the reason behind our downfall. Increase tax and the business will yet again increase the price of the goods to maintain that profit, without any thought to the consequences.It won't be long before India lures the bankers or any other low cost nation, after all a business that runs on computer data can be run anywhere in the world, ask most of our other service industries. Sat 23 Oct 2010 06:49:18 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2038 2038. At 06:56am on 23 Oct 2010, chrisk50 wrote:The end resulting percentage tax on a business bears no resemblance to whether a company is doing well or not.Company in China, output £20 billion per annum, cost of sales £10 billion, ploughs £9 billion back into business then pays 60% tax on profit, £600 million.UK company driven by shareholders must make a huge profit, output £20 Billion, cost of sales £8 billion (only makes 10% as China but charges 10 x to the consumer), puts nothing back into the business, pays 40% tax on profit £4.8 billion, pays share dividends on £7.2 billion.Year 2 UK business loses trade to China so increases cost of goods to customer to maintain dividends. China increases output due to new investment.Year 3 UK company sells plant to China as they cannot compete.There is a great deal more involved with business but this is an example in the most simplistic terms.----------------------------------------------So can we conclude therefore, that a low tax economy is most attractive to the kind of investors whom merely wish to sweat assets to maximise short term profit - and would run business into the ground rather than re-invest profits into the business? MmmmmmCould we also conclude that the kind of 'capitalism' that demand low taxes is not 'responsible' rational or self interested over the long term, but merely speculative, and exploitative for short term gain at the expense of long term economic stability and growth? Could we describe such types of investors as parasitic - those mystics of materialism that employ the language of capitalism in order to destroy it? Are we actually dealing with looters - preachers of the doctrine of sacrifice - stealing value rather than creating value through proper investment in the businesses they exploit? - Are they vampires sucking the life out of a business for personal gain, without considering the long term consequence of starving their victims? Oh yes, a perfect description of British 'capitalists' hohoho Sat 23 Oct 2010 06:29:26 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2037 The end resulting percentage tax on a business bears no resemblance to whether a company is doing well or not.Company in China, output £20 billion per annum, cost of sales £10 billion, ploughs £9 billion back into business then pays 60% tax on profit, £600 million.UK company driven by shareholders must make a huge profit, output £20 Billion, cost of sales £8 billion (only makes 10% as China but charges 10 x to the consumer), puts nothing back into the business, pays 40% tax on profit £4.8 billion, pays share dividends on £7.2 billion.Year 2 UK business loses trade to China so increases cost of goods to customer to maintain dividends. China increases output due to new investment.Year 3 UK company sells plant to China as they cannot compete.There is a great deal more involved with business but this is an example in the most simplistic terms. Sat 23 Oct 2010 05:56:52 GMT+1 eyghon23 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2036 So, how exactly do we go ahead with getting this government out before they wreck this country completely? Fri 22 Oct 2010 22:38:22 GMT+1 Nushed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2035 2033. At 10:31pm on 22 Oct 2010, Colin Day wrote:I suspect that many people will have to simply stop paying their non-critical bills to make ends meet, and they would have a perfect right to do so. After all, what's more important? Food in the children's mouths or unlimited data on your mobile phone?Also, crime will spiral for certain. Wednesday's spending review was a criminals charter. The Govt have rolled the UK back to the 80s, with a great big smug grin from the Chancellor. It will take decades to recover from this coalition's wanton destruction of our infrastructure. I remember all too readily the queuing in the 'dole' to sign on when I left school. An underfunded dump with dirty paint peeling from the walls and inadequate lighting. When you spoke to an advisor you needed to speak through an inch of reinforced glass, a surreal experience. This is what I fear millions will have to look forward to again. Welcome to austerity, Tory style. Enjoy.I'll never vote for one of the big three again, they are all liars and hypocrites. I'll put my cross against the most anti-establishment party I can find. I suspect lots will do the same.------------------I hope you're wrong. Alas, I worry you won't be and that turns out to be an accurate forecast. I am old enough to have witnessed this before under the leadership of the Iron Lady and the devasting effect it had on the British social landscape. That is her legacy.To anyone who thinks this country has problems with anti-social behaviour now - you ain't seen nothing yet. What is grim now will become even worse. And this coalition Government will be responsible. Fri 22 Oct 2010 22:34:26 GMT+1 newsman face http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2034 The cuts are not before time. The welfare system has been allowing people to avoid personal responsibilities for over 40 years. The benefits sytem needs to be dismantled to become just the safety net it should have been. No one should be allowed to 'live off the state' for year after year. I am sick and tired of having to pay for single parent families out of my taxes and then have to pay full rate for my own family. There has been a suggestion for contraceptive implants in any woman on benefits with two cildren-seems perfectly reasonable to me. Those who have fathered these chidren should also be given vasectomies unless they can pay to support their offspring. Fri 22 Oct 2010 22:31:29 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2033 SixpackerL writes: "Sorry to drone on - but on a postive note to posters... I have worked for 30-years in the IT industry for a lot of major companies - having worked with thousands of engineers of different nationalities I can honestly say I have works with many fantastically talented Brits. This is in fact one of our key areas of strength that we should be expanding, and indeed by proud of!"Here, I can agree with L.And many of them--the ones that do not conform to my view--emigrated to the US. Fri 22 Oct 2010 21:53:08 GMT+1 Colin Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=97#comment2032 I suspect that many people will have to simply stop paying their non-critical bills to make ends meet, and they would have a perfect right to do so. After all, what's more important? Food in the children's mouths or unlimited data on your mobile phone?Also, crime will spiral for certain. Wednesday's spending review was a criminals charter. The Govt have rolled the UK back to the 80s, with a great big smug grin from the Chancellor. It will take decades to recover from this coalition's wanton destruction of our infrastructure. I remember all too readily the queuing in the 'dole' to sign on when I left school. An underfunded dump with dirty paint peeling from the walls and inadequate lighting. When you spoke to an advisor you needed to speak through an inch of reinforced glass, a surreal experience. This is what I fear millions will have to look forward to again. Welcome to austerity, Tory style. Enjoy.I'll never vote for one of the big three again, they are all liars and hypocrites. I'll put my cross against the most anti-establishment party I can find. I suspect lots will do the same. Fri 22 Oct 2010 21:31:42 GMT+1 SeanT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2031 2. At 12:51pm on 21 Oct 2010, stanblogger wrote: Yes, the cuts have gone far enough to earn Mr Osbourne a place in history as the most misguided Chancellor ever.121. At 2:56pm on 21 Oct 2010, rememberdurruti wrote: The impact of the cuts is mainly that they prevent any chance of economic growth. There isn't a private sector anymore as we don't manufacture anything here so, the only jobs available to the 500,000+ public sector workers soon to be seeking alternate employment are minimum wage slave labour jobs. The cost of keeping 4.9 million people on the dole will be another factor in preventing any economic growth. Once again, don't be fooled into believing the 'it was all Labours fault' propoganda spread by the Tories and their puppets. If that was the case then the economic crisis would only affect Britain but, this is not the case, it is a GLOBAL crisis.Quite agree with both. In time, historians will look back at this period as possibly the most shameful in Britain's modern history, when the rich unflinchingly put the security of their own interests ahead of the basic needs of the citizen majority, and placed this country at the greatest risk of major social upheaval for centuries. I’d speculate that the Oxford Dictionary of the future may well adopt the expression ‘Osbornian’ over ‘Draconian’ if it weren’t such a tragic possibility, and if Osborne himself wasn’t above finding the idea so smugly amusing.Duncan Smith should be compelled to resign immediately for his contemptible, idiotic and dangerous comments last night. 'By their fruits you shall know them' - now you can see again, if you needed reminding - what the arch-Tories really think of the ordinary people of this country, who are thrown to the wind with the same carefree abandon as the thousands who served as machine-gun fodder in the fields of Flanders a century ago. You can begin to see the real meaning of the tiresomely repeated refrain "in the national interest": the Tories believe the country belongs to them; that status and wealth and power are the birthright of a rich, privileged 'elite'. You and I are simply pawns in their game. Osborne will argue that the interest on the national debt is crippling this country, and in time the present cuts will benefit everyone. If you really believe this, you are either wilfully blind or stupid. Nothing more than crumbs will ever spill from the table. The truth is, we will only all be ‘in this together’ if the country becomes bankrupt, realising the Tories’ abject fear that they will be as poor as you or I. If they cut severely now, to your detriment (not their own), they simply distance themselves from this possibility. The only cuts that will benefit this country right now will be to excise this abominable government by all legal means before it can inflict any irreparable damage to this nation. Fri 22 Oct 2010 19:10:20 GMT+1 haynonymouse http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2030 For pities sake.Super councils now?And you thought it was difficult enough to get that street lamp looked at before?Snip, snip, snip.No, no. That deckchair looks fine where you put it.HELP!Let me out of this madhouse! Fri 22 Oct 2010 17:37:07 GMT+1 X http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2029 No suprise that a conservative government is doing its best to make life unbearable for everyione whom is not super rich.anyway cuts go too far, perhaps we should insist that companies like Vodaphone pay their tax bills, and we reduce spending on foreign aid and EU subisidies to zero.Then maybe we should look at cuts to essential public services and raise unemployment Fri 22 Oct 2010 16:57:26 GMT+1 Simon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2028 Total government spending has gone from £300bn in 1995 to £630bn in 2007. Welfare spending as a percentage of government spending has gone from 20% in 1995 to 15% and in 2007. Pensions from 14% to 17%. Health spending in 1995 was 13% and in 2007 was 35%. Yet, health spending WILL INCREASE. So where was the waste and overspending?UK debt to foreigners is over 4 times GDP. UK has one of the highest levels of external debt in the world. It is second to the US. Private debt overwhelms public debt.Do the research and do the maths: CIA fact book, www.ukpublicspending.co.uk Fri 22 Oct 2010 16:04:09 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2027 Well 'SussexRokx and the really cold tory boy both have a strange habit of only reading parts of comments, taking statements out of their context and then just producing multiple different unrelated argument to justify their odd beliefs! Well, one cannot maintain illusion by denying reality! I would rather live in Germany than Hong Kong! Fri 22 Oct 2010 15:42:42 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2026 Hey, glad to see you like the Ease of Doing Business bit. ;o)For those who don't know, it was created by the World Bank, indicating better, usually simpler, regulations for businesses and stronger protections of property rights.So not, as some would suggest, subjective.The top 10 in the index, by level of ease of doing business are:1 Singapore2 New Zealand3 Hong Kong4 USA5 UK6 Denmark7 Ireland8 Canada9 Australia10 NorwayI'll leave you all to draw your own conclusions, but its pretty clear the Anglo-Saxom model dominates this index. Say no more...And just before anyone thinks I have anything against Germany - I love it, I've lived there and speak the lingo... Fri 22 Oct 2010 15:28:30 GMT+1 Nushed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2025 2023. At 3:54pm on 22 Oct 2010, 3B wrote:2013. At 2:33pm on 22 Oct 2010, SussexRokx wrote:Conversely high tax economies are also not effective over the long term.But why not let's leave this aspect of the discussion and perhaps move on to the Ease of Doing Business Index:USA 4thUK 5thSwitzerland 21stGermany 25thFrance 31st---------------------------------------------Are we supposed to take this seriously? I have no idea what the 'Ease of Doing Business Index' is, but if it suggests that somehow the UK/US economic model is preferable to the German one then it is clearly complete nonsense.How many Germans do you think are sitting at home thinking 'if only our economy was more like the British one'?====================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_IndexI didn't know either, although there is a significant clue in the title. So I took a quick look.This particular line stood out, in light of the current discussion : For instance, the easier it is to dismiss a worker for economic reasons in a country, the more one goes up in the rankings.Thanks to George for helping us to stay fifth. Although that is clearly not the reason why so many public sector workers will lose their jobs.3B, that's a very good point about the Germans and makes a mockery of this index in my opinion. Fri 22 Oct 2010 15:22:59 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2024 2023. At 3:54pm on 22 Oct 2010, 3B wrote:2013. At 2:33pm on 22 Oct 2010, SussexRokx wrote:Conversely high tax economies are also not effective over the long term.But why not let's leave this aspect of the discussion and perhaps move on to the Ease of Doing Business Index:USA 4thUK 5thSwitzerland 21stGermany 25thFrance 31st---------------------------------------------Are we supposed to take this seriously? I have no idea what the 'Ease of Doing Business Index' is, but if it suggests that somehow the UK/US economic model is preferable to the German one then it is clearly complete nonsense.How many Germans do you think are sitting at home thinking 'if only our economy was more like the British one'?-----------------------------------------------That's hilarious - I can just imagine all those highly successful profitable, socially aware business folk in Germany - demanding their Government adopted 'British' business practices and policy! NOW that is funny ;-)And as for 'Ease of doing Business' it really does depend on WHO one is asking - It must be based on 'subjective opinion' - I think one might find Germans have no trouble 'doing business' and neither do the French! Funny that the USA and UK are high up this particular ranking - as both countries have failing economies, massive deficits and chronic levels of poverty and disadvantage in the mists of obscene wealth! How strange and odd that some would prefer this kind of economy to those more stable equitable, socially responsible kind of economy! Fri 22 Oct 2010 15:13:10 GMT+1 Nushed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2023 2010. At 2:17pm on 22 Oct 2010, SussexRokx wrote:Good to see our high tax versus low tax discussion is still well and truly alive!!!For the record I'm with the lower tax lower, bureaucracy school of thought.==============For the record, I'm in no particular camp. I prefer a doctrine of responsibility and true fairness regarding the only major progressive taxation left in our society which reflects the economic situation of the times. This is of course a pipe dream in the world of conflicting political ideologies and opinion, but that doesn't make me stop yearning for it.As for bureaucracy, the less the better without being wilfully negligent... at all times. Fri 22 Oct 2010 15:11:07 GMT+1 3B http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2022 2013. At 2:33pm on 22 Oct 2010, SussexRokx wrote:Conversely high tax economies are also not effective over the long term.But why not let's leave this aspect of the discussion and perhaps move on to the Ease of Doing Business Index:USA 4thUK 5thSwitzerland 21stGermany 25thFrance 31st---------------------------------------------Are we supposed to take this seriously? I have no idea what the 'Ease of Doing Business Index' is, but if it suggests that somehow the UK/US economic model is preferable to the German one then it is clearly complete nonsense.How many Germans do you think are sitting at home thinking 'if only our economy was more like the British one'? Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:54:40 GMT+1 3B http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2021 2012. At 2:32pm on 22 Oct 2010, blurightthru wrote:BUT one thing is certain nearly ALL low tax economies are not effective over the long term and are mostly rubbish countries!Ah - it's just mostly now .Australia a rubbish country - don't make me laugh.---------------------------------Australia is also blessed with an abundance of natural resources and a very small population. We have neither of these things - North Sea oil has gone and we are burdened with a bloated and draining financial sector and a vast ageing population reliant on pensions and healthcare. Trying to base a comparison with the UK on tax rates is an irrelevance. Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:47:19 GMT+1 haynonymouse http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2020 1985. At 11:02am on 22 Oct 2010, NaomiMy humble opinion..spot on thereworth re-reading Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:39:07 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2019 Recommend Post #2014 @ 2:45pm on 22 Oct - 'Nic121'.Many will be with you there, and we all know the regulars that appear to detest each other, whatever the HYS topic. Fair enough, skip their posts - although they should get another room, or be classed spam? Don't know, but it is a ballooning problem.Unfortunately, there are also paid political bloggers too. Not sure that HYS can deal with them - perhaps those who hijack HYS debates are part of the same paid political teams, under same or new names? Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:38:35 GMT+1 haynonymouse http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2018 1979. At 09:20am on 22 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:1969. At 08:35am on 22 Oct 2010, chrislabiff wrote:Thank you both.Those were other threads of arguments that I had in mind, yet you probably phrased the responses more eloquently than I might have attempted.It really is disheartening to read statements such as:"Every employed person in this nation would be prepared to reduce the deficit through proportionate increased taxation.""The country is in a recession and it's got a deficit."and this one is an absolute hoot.."Leave the bankers out of this one, nothing to do with them."Did I miss the discussion where we apportioned responsibility, culpability, liability..(& probably other bilitys)?You like it hot?Just keep telling yourself "I'm a girl. I'm a Girl. I'm a girl."Just as you have programmed yourselves to follow the word conspiracywith the word theoryas an excuse to ease your troubled minds, rather than going to the effort of finding out if there is any fire behind the smoke.Scared you might find evidence of explosives?9_11 was a turning point for sure. It proves to the puppet masters that they can do anything in plain sight and get away with it. The control grid has had plenty of time to add its filigree to the global matrix. And the funniest thing is that they get you to think it's what you deserve. I earned it, I'm going to carry my RFID credit card that tracks my spending habits and me through Oyster turnstiles. I'm going to have the latest GPS phone that pinpoints me anywhere on earth. I must have a new computer with HoleySoft - (like the band Queen, the clue is in the title, yes Freddy was homosexual. Windows - make what security issue of that you like)Scared yet? No?Then look at the work of IBM through WWll.Hey frogs! Is just me or is this water getting warm?How about this metaphorI'd rather have you hang the label “Paranoid” around my neckthan tag my toe with #6I can live with that. How's your survival instinct?Take the blue pill: ignore or attack me?Take the red pill: Follow the links. Do your own digging. Share your information. And find out that THERE IS a rabbit hole."I can only show you the door.." (have a sedative at hand)http://tinyurl.com/3xv9xqk Gerald Celente & Max Keiser 06-2009http://tinyurl.com/3xd3mks Catherine Austin-Fitts 04-2010http://tinyurl.com/2wufs59 Lindsey Williams 10-2010 Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:30:24 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2017 Post #1738 @ 12:52pm on 21 Oct - 'The Bloke'.Post #1781 @ 1:42pm on 21 Oct - 'jamesv'.My post obviously hit a nerve; but more importantly, and more disturbing, is your discriminatory response that assumed my gender simply by the content of my post in support of women in response to the 'gothnet' attack on women living longer.So, let's be clear - never assume - because it always makes an ass of you. Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:26:25 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2016 2014. At 2:45pm on 22 Oct 2010, Nic121 wrote:A request to the BBC moderators and HYS team:Please can you do something about the few individuals who seem to constantly hijack HYS forums by getting into petty squabbles that go around in circles comment after comment? Quite often they are reposting previous comments, each time gathering more and more text like a snowball. This effectively wipes out all other comments which get lost amongst the dross. It basically turns HYS into a 'whoever shouts loudest gets heard' forum.Before certain HYSers starting telling me 'well it's our civil/human right to free speech' blah blah blah...i'm not trying to stop anyone from putting their point of view forward, I just think it's only fair that every poster is heard, which simply isn't happening amongst the mass of petty squabbling comments.Can a limit be placed on the number of posts you can make and/or a limit on the number of words in a post as before?I don't expect anyone to pick up this post (least of all HYS mods)as it will probably just get lost as above.---------------------------------------Didn't miss it here...On the one hand you say you don't want to stop anyone voicing their opinion, yet you want to regulate how much and how often they can say it.Previous posts are often included so that anyone not having read the earlier post can get the gist of what's being said. If a comment is made in isolation, its meaning can often be lost...Besides, I wouldn't call it hijacking, HYS is nearly always like this... ;o) Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:23:16 GMT+1 Downsie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2015 What an opportunity missed. Why did the chancellor not simply change the rules on 'universal' benefits so that they were taxable. In that way the poorest would continue to receive their benefits unchanged and the more wealthy would get less. There would be a lot of revenue from taxing the fuel allowance benefit. Fri 22 Oct 2010 14:18:49 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2014 Nushed, true blue tories wouldn't come on here they would go on Sky forum because Sky is Mr Murdoch who is a billionaire and he was on TV the other day praising Thatcher and these cut backs. What was the point of that we Know he's a true Blue because he a billionaire and has got off lightly with these cuts. Because it's people like him running this country it's his sort the Tories listen to. Mr Cameron(or should that be Mr Murdoch and fellow millionaires, they seem to be running this country) can be the playard bully picking on the weak and vulnarable but we know what happens with bullies Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:47:32 GMT+1 Nic121 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2013 A request to the BBC moderators and HYS team:Please can you do something about the few individuals who seem to constantly hijack HYS forums by getting into petty squabbles that go around in circles comment after comment? Quite often they are reposting previous comments, each time gathering more and more text like a snowball. This effectively wipes out all other comments which get lost amongst the dross. It basically turns HYS into a 'whoever shouts loudest gets heard' forum.Before certain HYSers starting telling me 'well it's our civil/human right to free speech' blah blah blah...i'm not trying to stop anyone from putting their point of view forward, I just think it's only fair that every poster is heard, which simply isn't happening amongst the mass of petty squabbling comments.Can a limit be placed on the number of posts you can make and/or a limit on the number of words in a post as before?I don't expect anyone to pick up this post (least of all HYS mods)as it will probably just get lost as above. Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:45:44 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2012 2007. At 2:01pm on 22 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:2002. At 1:29pm on 22 Oct 2010, blurightthru wrote:Italy has a totally RUBBISH economy!So you finally acknowledge that a high tax economy is not necessarily good Ghost-----------------------------------------------Look Blurightthru - I have never stated that HIGH TAXES are necessarily absolutely always good or right - JUST pointing out that the converse is also NOT necessarily good either! READ my comments again and you will see that I was merely highlighting the incorrect assumption that LOW taxes are necessarily good for the economy and provided evidence to illustrate this fact! Obviously, there are many other factors to take into consideration in such deliberations - BUT one thing is certain nearly ALL low tax economies are not effective over the long term and are mostly rubbish countries!Italy is different because it is run by crooks and criminals! ---------------------------------Conversely high tax economies are also not effective over the long term.But why not let's leave this aspect of the discussion and perhaps move on to the Ease of Doing Business Index:USA 4thUK 5thSwitzerland 21stGermany 25thFrance 31st Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:33:40 GMT+1 blurightthru http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=96#comment2011 BUT one thing is certain nearly ALL low tax economies are not effective over the long term and are mostly rubbish countries! Ah - it's just mostly now .Australia a rubbish country - don't make me laugh. Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:32:13 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2010 I agree with the catsmiaow it's always the same the new Government always blames the previous and the conservatives would have done exactly the same. I can only remember prime ministers from Thatcher onwards as I was too young to really remember before then. And every goverment has wasted money,a good example is Danny Alexander travelling just 100 yards in his Limo which is wasting money. Why don't they use just cheaper cars. so for all the tories on here trying to suggest otherwise is just hypocrtical. You see there are a lot of tory voters on here who are just ordinary working people and do you think Osbourne or Cameron give a toss about you. The answer to that is not a chance. and if you are a tory voter on low income and live anywhere else outside London you're going to get screwed big time. I like the way they did a U-turn on the winter fuel allowance because they was going to cut but I think they know that would cause a revolt Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:31:35 GMT+1 SussexRokx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2009 Good to see our high tax versus low tax discussion is still well and truly alive!!!For the record I'm with the lower tax lower, bureaucracy school of thought. Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:17:36 GMT+1 Baz http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2008 1990;Jaylith wrote: Margaret Thatcher began her privatisation binge and sold off thousands of council houses at a fraction of their value. And who was it that voted for her so she could do just that? All those greedy council tenants ( those staunch Labour voters HA!) who knew they could make a fast buck! Many ex-council property owners live in luxurious properties they bought from the profits they made and don't give a damn that the social housing stock in virtualy non-existent. In my experience ( and I've been round a long time) it isn't the politics of the voter that matters it's the cleverness of the politician in playing to the greed of the voters! Labour, Conservative it doesn't matter just so long as 'I'm alright Jack'. Be it the scrounging benfit sponger or the money grabbing dictatorial industrialist.That's how it has always been and always will be. Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:16:37 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2007 I think these cuts will be Camerons poll tax. causing Protest riots homelessness high unemployment just like when thatcher was in power. Putting public sector workers on the dole then after that what did she do privatised the remain public companys so where was the revenue going to come from after that ? higher taxes or cuts and high unemployment. was any riots under the last government don't think so Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:05:16 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2006 2002. At 1:29pm on 22 Oct 2010, blurightthru wrote:Italy has a totally RUBBISH economy! So you finally acknowledge that a high tax economy is not necessarily good Ghost-----------------------------------------------Look Blurightthru - I have never stated that HIGH TAXES are necessarily absolutely always good or right - JUST pointing out that the converse is also NOT necessarily good either! READ my comments again and you will see that I was merely highlighting the incorrect assumption that LOW taxes are necessarily good for the economy and provided evidence to illustrate this fact! Obviously, there are many other factors to take into consideration in such deliberations - BUT one thing is certain nearly ALL low tax economies are not effective over the long term and are mostly rubbish countries! Italy is different because it is run by crooks and criminals! Fri 22 Oct 2010 13:01:43 GMT+1 Burt Cobain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2005 Blaming George Osborne for the cuts is like blaming the fire brigade for making the scene of a fire wet. Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:56:21 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2004 2000. At 12:46pm on 22 Oct 2010, DoleBoy wrote:All this discussion about “capitalism” makes me laugh, you can't agree on anything. How can a serious discussion take place about a very fluid theory (if it is a theory at all), put into some kind of practise, which has no methodology? Yet everyone talks like they know! It is irrational and illogical. Everyone from politicians, bankers, business to economists (HYS) all argue from a selfish perspective, there is no desire for common ground, why, because there is only a perceived individual reality about what capitalism means, and the interpretation of that meaning is directly linked to how much money is in your pocket! No one knows what capitalism is.----------------------------------------------------Well Doleboy - Actually I know what capitalism IS in reality but not many other folk actually have a clue! Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:55:58 GMT+1 Nushed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2003 2001. At 1:24pm on 22 Oct 2010, jackrogers wrote:How about Vodafone paying their tax bill and then moving out of UK the money from the tax could save lots of jobs in the public sector. Will all big companies hold us to ransom. I can not see that Osbourne's decision was to save jobs as he is clearly loosing lots and lots of jobs elsewhere so it must be to keep the rich rich =====================Vodafone are not a soft target, the poor are. Not many amongst the poor voted in this coalition Government. That's why they are taking such a big hit. If the coalition applied some real fairness to these cuts, the voters who got them in would be suffering the most.Forget Clegg and the Lib Dems. They are finished after the next election; the political wilderness is where they are headed. True blue Tories are loving this. Plans for economic recovery underway and they have, as usual under a Tory administration, got off lightly. That's how it is and how it will always be. Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:54:05 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2002 1997. At 12:21pm on 22 Oct 2010, zzgrark wrote:1935. At 10:23pm on 21 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:1918. At 8:31pm on 21 Oct 2010, zzgrark wrote:1848. At 3:09pm on 21 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:///You're talking nonsense mate.///Look you just are completely failing to grasp the argument! ///Meanwhile those places with low tax rates (Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong etc) sail serenely on through the crisis./// Just examine the differences between these countries! //Acquaint yourself with the work of Arthur Laffer, mate. If you want to optimise the tax take while maintaining economic growth, keep your tax rates low.//Hahaha - A Reaganite right wing 'free market' high priest, preaching a particularly nasty version of the Doctrine of Sacrifice! And all the Laffer curve illustrates is the fact that IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS a decrease in tax rates COULD result in an increase in tax revenue - well wow, what a revelation! And Optimising tax levels is a very different argument AGAIN isn't it! You are typical of the mystics of materialism - just keep on 'changing' your argument to suit- without addressing the ORIGINAL points at all - just talk about something else - marginally related, as an exercise in justifying your own delusional beliefs! THE whole point is that LOW taxes DO NOT NECESSARILY = good as an absolute and I have provided PROOF to that effect! - YOU are just engaged in refusal to accept that PROOF.And lets be clear Canada and Australia have higher corporation tax and higher income tax than UK and Germany! While Hong Kong and Singapore are not great societies for the vast majority of their citizens! They are nice for the wealthy elites - but then they have lots and lots of POVERTY - MASS poverty in fact, and no social infrastructure and little health, education, welfare provision! Some measure of successful economy that is! WHAT exactly is the point of human society, human effort, industry and business IF it does NOTHING to improve the living standards, quality of life of ALL citizens, and does nothing for the vast majority - IT is pointless to create a social economic system which merely serves to keep the wealth elites wealth at everyone else's expense - forcing millions to live in poverty so a few can live in obscene luxury - its just stupidity! I would rather live in Europe, Germany or France than Hong Kong or Singapore - as an 'ordinary member of society! I guess my definition of what exactly constitutes a 'successful' economy is VERY different to yours! You seem to equate better economy - with better for the wealthy elites - Whereas, I think a measure of what makes a economy better is a measure of many other factors which make every citizen of that society benefit from the socio-economic system! Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:52:59 GMT+1 blurightthru http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2001 Italy has a totally RUBBISH economy! So you finally acknowledge that a high tax economy is not necessarily good Ghost Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:29:20 GMT+1 jackrogers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment2000 How about Vodafone paying their tax bill and then moving out of UK the money from the tax could save lots of jobs in the public sector. Will all big companies hold us to ransom. I can not see that Osbourne's decision was to save jobs as he is clearly loosing lots and lots of jobs elsewhere so it must be to keep the rich rich Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:24:15 GMT+1 1L19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1999 All this discussion about “capitalism” makes me laugh, you can't agree on anything. How can a serious discussion take place about a very fluid theory (if it is a theory at all), put into some kind of practise, which has no methodology? Yet everyone talks like they know! It is irrational and illogical. Everyone from politicians, bankers, business to economists (HYS) all argue from a selfish perspective, there is no desire for common ground, why, because there is only a perceived individual reality about what capitalism means, and the interpretation of that meaning is directly linked to how much money is in your pocket! No one knows what capitalism is. Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:46:10 GMT+1 Naomi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1998 Hi Codexx...you said, 1992. At 11:43am on 22 Oct 2010, Codexx wrote:All in all this comes down to attitude. I have read time and time again about the "rich and poor divide".First let me say that the real culture today exists in the following way: Most descrimination is down to what people read and not what they'experience'. Which I find pretty sad. I personally refuse to buy a newspaper...they're pretty biased anyway to whoever they support. They have too much power and whether we admit it or not they sway the populace._______________________________________________________________________You also said:Then having had it easy all along, they sit on benefits instead of being made to find a job. Why? Because they CAN. There is no pressure to get into employment nowdays._________________________________________________________________________This statement is completely incorrect hun. Of course there are people that abuse the system...find me an institution where the system is not abused. Anyone who is having it good on benefits (though I can't speak for those with children as I don't know what they get) a single person, must be doing something else on the side.My son is on JSA and if you saw how he lives you would have to eat your words.He doesn't go out anywhere (he doesn't have the money) he doesn't smoke and doesn't drink. He lives in a flat with no carpets, his furniture is sparse and he has no heating because he can't afford it!Ok he gets his rent paid and council tax but...£60 a week to live on? He's really living it up.It breaks my heart to see him living the way he does.Do you think he's happy?I KNOW he isn't. But we live in a place where unskilled jobs are rare.He did a course for FLT (fork lift truck driver) passed and then couldn't get a job because he didn't have twelve months experience! If no one will give him a go how can he get the experience????Everything is not as cut and dried as politicians would like everyone to believe. I know of many cases where the above has applied...many people (young and older) gaining passes in FLT or other such courses and not given the chance to apply what they have learnt because they don't have the relevant experience.What governments previous and present should have done/do was when industry either collapsed or was taken abroad (i.e. Textiles, Pottery, Steel, Mining, docks etc...all but one of these existed in my area) they should have trained people in new skills, of the few schemes they did set up, they didn't put in place any kind of agreement with employers to take on new inexperienced workers.Another thing that contributed to the ever increasing unemployment was the scrapping of apprenticeships.I often get annoyed at the incompetence of governments who make dicisions without actually waying up the real consequences. Sad quite sad. Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:44:09 GMT+1 Portman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1997 Fast and deep, shallow and slow - who knows - certainly not the economists. There is risk in both. Whatever the answer the cuts were going to hurt someone. Are they fair in the allocation of pain, probably not but did you really expect fairness other than in rhetoric from Clegg. Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:36:07 GMT+1 zzgrark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1996 1935. At 10:23pm on 21 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:1918. At 8:31pm on 21 Oct 2010, zzgrark wrote:1848. At 3:09pm on 21 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:"...Better economies have high taxes!..."------------------------------------------Sorry mate I am not buying it. See below:List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP--------------------------------------------------------But this does not tell you anything meaningful! Those figure I refer to clearly illustrate that there is a tendency for more successful economies to be those countries with the 'HIGHEST OVER ALL TAX TAKE' It's not a question of 'buying it' Its a simple question of understanding FACTS. Percentage of GDP is another thing all together! I do not understand how anyone cannot accept the statics as demonstrated in previous post! Its plainly obvious. -------------------------------------You're talking nonsense mate.Higher taxes go hand in hand with greater government bureaucracy, higher welfare costs and low growth.To take France as your oft quoted example. France has among the highest tax rates in the world and therefore among the highest tax takes per head. It is also mired in regulation - I have come across French people in London who are here to start businesses because it is so much harder in France. And the high social costs in France are well known - they are currently rioting to stop the pension age going up to 62!!! for goodness sake. Due to it's high tax high spend policy, France now finds itself unable to raise taxes any higher, facing rioting if it tries to cut back on welfare costs or spending generally, but with it's deficit % higher than even Italy, Belgium or the Netherlands. It's not only France; look at western Europe generally; high tax, high bureaucracy, high dependency culture, high deficits, low growth.Meanwhile those places with low tax rates (Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong etc) sail serenely on through the crisis. Acquaint yourself with the work of Arthur Laffer, mate. If you want to optimise the tax take while maintaining economic growth, keep your tax rates low.I've got stuff to do now, so best wishes & no hard feelings. Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:21:37 GMT+1 Mersey Jazz http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1995 Nick Clegg..... the voice of the conservative party. Well Nick, do you really think the electorate needs a referendum on the present voting system? I will only vote for a change of system if the result means that the Lib Dems are consigned to the history books. More Lib Dems in Parliament only means more Tories; the Lib Dems do not exist as an independent third party any longer. I voted Lib Dem at the last election I am sorry to say, I will not make the same mistake twice. Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:18:02 GMT+1 lukethetaff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/10/spending_review_your_reaction.html?page=95#comment1994 Here here I agree with Nushed 100% yes Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg can put as much spin on it as they want but the IFS findings have exposed what a bare faced liar Mr Clegg really is and he and is party were harping on in the run-up to the election that his LibDem party were the only ones being truthful and honest, well we now know that was a lie also. The IFS is a well respected and honest think tank and I believe them rather than Clegg and Cameron. And to see them squirming on TV trying to convince people they are being fair just makes me want to vomit and I seen right through their spin. Never thought I would ever say this but I would rather Thatcher as a primeminister than this bunch of liars. I think Clegg is the puppet Cameron is pulling the strings Fri 22 Oct 2010 11:12:55 GMT+1