• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Tangled up in Blue

Certified Senior Citizen⭐
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
36,340
Location
Sant Cugat del Vallès
News
Politics
George Osborne
George Osborne identifies cuts for first weeks of Tory governmentShadow chancellor says £178bn fiscal deficit means he cannot wait for initial post-election budget before cutting expenditure
Comments (16)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent The Guardian, Friday 15 January 2010 Article history
George Osborne speaks at the LSE. Photograph: Getty Images

George Osborne last night identified the first public spending cuts he would make within weeks if the Tories win the general election, under plans to reduce the UK's record fiscal deficit faster than Labour.

Warning of the importance of starting the "heavy lifting" early on, the shadow chancellor pledged in a lecture to cut child trust funds and tax credits for wealthier families in the spring.

Osborne would be due to hold an emergency budget within 50 days of the election. But the shadow chancellor believes Britain's £178bn deficit imposes such a burden on the public finances that he would not wait for the budget to implement the first round of cuts, which he would expect to make within weeks of a Tory victory.

He said the biggest spending cuts, such as a pay freeze for five million public sector workers earning more than £18,000, would not be made until 2011, but he identified programmes that would be cut from this year if the Tories were to win.

"Programmes that represent poor value for money, excessive spending on things like advertising and consultants, spending on tax credits for people earning over £50,000, and spending on child trust funds for better-off families will all have to be cut during the financial year," Osborne said at the London School of Economics.

Labour plans to raise spending by £31bn in the 2010-11 financial year, which begins in April, a month before the expected election. Osborne believes this 2% increase in real terms is not credible with such a large fiscal deficit and such a slow recovery.

"Everyone knows the government's spending plans for next year are driven by a looming election and not economic reality," he said. "So, with the date of the general election increasingly likely to be after the beginning of the next financial year, that means we will need to make early in-year reductions in existing plans."

The chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne said: "What is clear is that in his rush to cut spending in 2010, George Osborne would put the recovery in grave danger. But until he says how he'll do it, and whether he'll match Labour's pledge to halve the deficit in four years, his speeches must be taken with a huge pinch of salt."

"Tonight was another missed opportunity to come clean on how he'll pay for the £34bn of unfunded [Tory] tax and spending policies which he let the shadow cabinet run up while he was too busy running the Tory election campaign to keep them under control."

Byrne said Osborne appeared to hint he would shift from Labour's plan to halve the deficit by using two-thirds spending cuts and one-third taxes. Instead Osborne would adopt an 80:20 ratio, in favour of more cuts.

The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "It's foolish to set a political timetable with no regard for the state of the economy. There's a big risk that if cuts begin suddenly and on a purely political basis the economy will be plunged back into recession.

"What is needed is a set of clear economic tests, which include the growth of the economy and employment, as well as conditions in international markets, to judge when contraction of spending should begin or be accelerated."
 
Yet the ****ing bankers still get their huge bonuses to spend. We should be like America, issue statements that no bonuses will be paid until the immense public money they've received has been repaid. After all, we taxpayers own the majority of most of them don't we?
 
MK, careful of using such sweeping generalisms, the UK government does not own every bank dealing in the UK. Surprisingly there is lot of those johnny foreigner banks over here, paying into our tax system.

Although there is a lot of talk about figures most of the higher bonuses will not paid out in cash but will include a large portion of deferred equity, which means if the bank falters they will see this part lost/reduced.

Also where did you read this that no banking bonuses are going to be paid in the US until the money owed is paid back?
 
Last edited:
I thought you might be referring to that but where exactly does it say that bonuses will not be paid out until the banks have paid this new taxation?

I suggest you read this one, as you will see it is a tax levy that will be in place for at least 10 years to pay back the cost of TARP.

So not so RADICAL as you make out.
 
Yet the ****ing bankers still get their huge bonuses to spend. We should be like America, issue statements that no bonuses will be paid until the immense public money they've received has been repaid. After all, we taxpayers own the majority of most of them don't we?

No, we don't.
 
to prop up the all the nationalised industries that where poorly managed.

Oops sorry wrong decade.

Lol, I know for one that you good old taxpayers prop up Network Rail more than British Rail ever was.

Government keep that nice and quiet don't they.
 
I believe that the stakes taken in the banks will eventually lead to a profit for the taxpayer. Also think of all that 50% tax being taken from the bankers. Wouldn't you rather they took it from them than increased the tax for everyone else?
 
I believe that the stakes taken in the banks will eventually lead to a profit for the taxpayer.

Well said, although it has been mentioned before on here many times, but as per the British newspapers mantra - Why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

At the end of the day the news outlets are all competing for your attention so by providing such shocking information helps keep the public interest.

I also wonder if the papers or government will ever shout out from the roof tops how much they do eventually earn for the investment in the banks, I doubt it as we may enquire why the taxes are still high.

On the OP, I am interested to see how things pan out, a few months back I read an interesting article in the FT about out of the financial heads in each party have fared over the recent recessions. It mentioned that many people are quick to knock Osborne and that the opposition sneered when he made forecasts and how things should be dealt with.

However with hindsight the FT stated that George got it right and we would be better placed than we are now if he had been able to implement his plan, whereas Darling and Lib Dems got it spectacular wrong with their approach and why we are the slowest one to emerge from the downward trend.
 
News
Politics
George Osborne
George Osborne identifies cuts for first weeks of Tory governmentShadow chancellor says £178bn fiscal deficit means he cannot wait for initial post-election budget before cutting expenditure
Comments (16)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent The Guardian, Friday 15 January 2010 Article history
George Osborne speaks at the LSE. Photograph: Getty Images

George Osborne last night identified the first public spending cuts he would make within weeks if the Tories win the general election, under plans to reduce the UK's record fiscal deficit faster than Labour.

Warning of the importance of starting the "heavy lifting" early on, the shadow chancellor pledged in a lecture to cut child trust funds and tax credits for wealthier families in the spring.

Osborne would be due to hold an emergency budget within 50 days of the election. But the shadow chancellor believes Britain's £178bn deficit imposes such a burden on the public finances that he would not wait for the budget to implement the first round of cuts, which he would expect to make within weeks of a Tory victory.

He said the biggest spending cuts, such as a pay freeze for five million public sector workers earning more than £18,000, would not be made until 2011, but he identified programmes that would be cut from this year if the Tories were to win.

"Programmes that represent poor value for money, excessive spending on things like advertising and consultants, spending on tax credits for people earning over £50,000, and spending on child trust funds for better-off families will all have to be cut during the financial year," Osborne said at the London School of Economics.

Labour plans to raise spending by £31bn in the 2010-11 financial year, which begins in April, a month before the expected election. Osborne believes this 2% increase in real terms is not credible with such a large fiscal deficit and such a slow recovery.

"Everyone knows the government's spending plans for next year are driven by a looming election and not economic reality," he said. "So, with the date of the general election increasingly likely to be after the beginning of the next financial year, that means we will need to make early in-year reductions in existing plans."

The chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne said: "What is clear is that in his rush to cut spending in 2010, George Osborne would put the recovery in grave danger. But until he says how he'll do it, and whether he'll match Labour's pledge to halve the deficit in four years, his speeches must be taken with a huge pinch of salt."

"Tonight was another missed opportunity to come clean on how he'll pay for the £34bn of unfunded [Tory] tax and spending policies which he let the shadow cabinet run up while he was too busy running the Tory election campaign to keep them under control."

Byrne said Osborne appeared to hint he would shift from Labour's plan to halve the deficit by using two-thirds spending cuts and one-third taxes. Instead Osborne would adopt an 80:20 ratio, in favour of more cuts.

The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "It's foolish to set a political timetable with no regard for the state of the economy. There's a big risk that if cuts begin suddenly and on a purely political basis the economy will be plunged back into recession.

"What is needed is a set of clear economic tests, which include the growth of the economy and employment, as well as conditions in international markets, to judge when contraction of spending should begin or be accelerated."
I agree with every single proposal there. I'd also reinstate the pension tax relief for higher earners, and increase the compulsory pension savings for lower earners who are relying on the state.
 
Simple way to sort this all out in my book...

30% flat rate tax regardless of income.

Scrap personal allowance, family allowance, tax credits, child benefit, poorly dog benefit, invadility benefit, etc etc

NHS only free to under 16, and over 65 UNLESS drink or smoking related, in which case all pay - encourage private health cover and healthy living

Scrap child trust fund, maternity grant, if you cant afford a kid dont go shagging around

Scrap sick pay, state pension, etc etc, encourage people to take responsibility and either get insurance or take the risk...

Abolish council tax, either for a flat rate per dwelling, or charge as you go services. Why should i pay more than a pikey house round the corner, when i'm not going to use the scummy library - if i want a book i'll buy it.

And if anything can't be supported through the mechanism (ie libraries) - scrap them.
 
Simple way to sort this all out in my book...

30% flat rate tax regardless of income.

Scrap personal allowance, family allowance, tax credits, child benefit, poorly dog benefit, invadility benefit, etc etc

NHS only free to under 16, and over 65 UNLESS drink or smoking related, in which case all pay - encourage private health cover and healthy living

Scrap child trust fund, maternity grant, if you cant afford a kid dont go shagging around

Scrap sick pay, state pension, etc etc, encourage people to take responsibility and either get insurance or take the risk...

Abolish council tax, either for a flat rate per dwelling, or charge as you go services. Why should i pay more than a pikey house round the corner, when i'm not going to use the scummy library - if i want a book i'll buy it.

And if anything can't be supported through the mechanism (ie libraries) - scrap them.

Thank **** you'll never be anywhere near any form of power.
 
Thank **** you'll never be anywhere near any form of power.
Said like a true scrounger. What wouldn't work for you - are you not responsible enough to arrange your own insurances? Or do you rely too heavily on assistance from others?
 
Said like a true scrounger. What wouldn't work for you - are you not responsible enough to arrange your own insurances? Or do you rely too heavily on assistance from others?

I'm no scrounger thanks, I've got a full time job and don't claim a penny. However I know there are people who through no fault of their own, need help from the state. The way you talk, you'd like to return to a Victorian Britain where the poor are stuck in a workhouse.
 
I'm no scrounger thanks, I've got a full time job and don't claim a penny. However I know there are people who through no fault of their own, need help from the state. The way you talk, you'd like to return to a Victorian Britain where the poor are stuck in a workhouse.
I'm sure that the "poor" could better themselves if they were truly motivated to. And it'd be amazing how many bad back / stress recoveries are made. In fact, the NHS would go under through lack of custom!
 
Simple way to sort this all out in my book...

30% flat rate tax regardless of income.

Scrap personal allowance, family allowance, tax credits, child benefit, poorly dog benefit, invadility benefit, etc etc

NHS only free to under 16, and over 65 UNLESS drink or smoking related, in which case all pay - encourage private health cover and healthy living

Scrap child trust fund, maternity grant, if you cant afford a kid dont go shagging around

Scrap sick pay, state pension, etc etc, encourage people to take responsibility and either get insurance or take the risk...

Abolish council tax, either for a flat rate per dwelling, or charge as you go services. Why should i pay more than a pikey house round the corner, when i'm not going to use the scummy library - if i want a book i'll buy it.

And if anything can't be supported through the mechanism (ie libraries) - scrap them.

How would the free NHS for Under 16's and Over 65's be paid for ? or will people still be expected to pay NI contributions whilst being expected to pay large personal insurance premiums ?
I presume prescription charges will be abolished and the drugs prescribed will be charged at their costs as well as paying for each Drs visit too
 
Back
Top