Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Election debates

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely this rise in popularity is only temporary off the back of the debate, of course Clegg comes across as a nice refreshing change to whats gone before but people must realise that what they are saying they will do is just impossible, we are in recession their plans will finish the country off once and for all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    Surely this rise in popularity is only temporary off the back of the debate, of course Clegg comes across as a nice refreshing change to whats gone before but people must realise that what they are saying they will do is just impossible, we are in recession their plans will finish the country off once and for all.

    really, saving £100billion on an un-needed nuclear weapon upgrade is really making the recession worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    really, saving £100billion on an un-needed nuclear weapon upgrade is really making the recession worse.

    Well of course we would all like to see the end of nuclear weapons but even if Trident was scrapped and i don't believe they will have the balls to actually do it the £100billion saved would be over many years so how in the short term do they pay for scrapping income tax under £10,000 , the free uni places , the higher pensions thats without the cost of commiting our troops to a European Army controlled from Brussels which is confusing for a party so opposed to any conflict. The immigration amnesty would cost billions alone and it will all get much worse when they take us into the Euro which is on the point of imploding as it is.
    Their ideas and principals are great but just unworkable they are sounding more and more like old Labour
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    Surely this rise in popularity is only temporary off the back of the debate, of course Clegg comes across as a nice refreshing change to whats gone before but people must realise that what they are saying they will do is just impossible, we are in recession their plans will finish the country off once and for all.

    How come?

    http://issuu.com/libdems/docs/manifesto?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true&proShowMenu=true

    Page 100 - 103

    Total spending proposals:
    2010/11 - £3.73bn
    2011/12 - £3.75bn
    2012/13 - £4.12bn
    2013/14 - £5.05bn
    2014/15 - £5.36bn

    Total savings proposals:
    2010/11 - £3.73bn
    2011/12 - £12.43bn
    2012/13 - £15.21bn
    2013/14 - £15.44bn
    2014/15 - £16.05bn

    So they are cutting the deficit quite a bit and it is set out clearly in figures in their manifesto. Which bit of their plans will finish off the economy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    Well of course we would all like to see the end of nuclear weapons but even if Trident was scrapped and i don't believe they will have the balls to actually do it the £100billion saved would be over many years so how in the short term do they pay for scrapping income tax under £10,000 , the free uni places , the higher pensions thats without the cost of commiting our troops to a European Army controlled from Brussels which is confusing for a party so opposed to any conflict. The immigration amnesty would cost billions alone and it will all get much worse when they take us into the Euro which is on the point of imploding as it is.
    Their ideas and principals are great but just unworkable they are sounding more and more like old Labour

    regarding income tax, their tax adjustments are zero-sum - in that for every tax relief they have given, they have changed a tax to cover the amount lost. Generally speaking this means closing loopholes, introducing higher tax for people on higher incomes, and reducing tax on those with the lowest incomes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    How come?

    http://issuu.com/libdems/docs/manifesto?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true&proShowMenu=true

    Page 100 - 103

    Total spending proposals:
    2010/11 - £3.73bn
    2011/12 - £3.75bn
    2012/13 - £4.12bn
    2013/14 - £5.05bn
    2014/15 - £5.36bn

    Total savings proposals:
    2010/11 - £3.73bn
    2011/12 - £12.43bn
    2012/13 - £15.21bn
    2013/14 - £15.44bn
    2014/15 - £16.05bn

    So they are cutting the deficit quite a bit and it is set out clearly in figures in their manifesto. Which bit of their plans will finish off the economy?

    " Saving Proposals " its just assumption they don't actually know it can be done, it is what they would like to do but in reality they have no idea of what can actually be done until they take power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    regarding income tax, their tax adjustments are zero-sum - in that for every tax relief they have given, they have changed a tax to cover the amount lost. Generally speaking this means closing loopholes, introducing higher tax for people on higher incomes, and reducing tax on those with the lowest incomes.

    The problem is all the mega high highers will just leave the uk rather than see all their cash disappear and that is fact because it happend before when the rich were taxed untill they squeaked and then suddenly there is no money to finance the cuts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whats this about the next debate being on Sky? :confused:

    I don't have Sky :grump:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whats this about the next debate being on Sky? :confused:

    I don't have Sky :grump:

    No doubt it will be online as well, you might be able to watch via BBC's website!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    The problem is all the mega high highers will just leave the uk rather than see all their cash disappear and that is fact because it happend before when the rich were taxed untill they squeaked and then suddenly there is no money to finance the cuts.

    Sorry, but this is just the usual ridiculous argument put forward by people who are more concerned with their own pockets than the state of society as a whole. If it's true that rich people leave high-tax economies, then it hasn't done Denmark or Sweden any harm. Maybe this "talent" is quite as talented as they like to claim? Their GDP per capita is far greater than ours. How have they managed this, if as you claim, all of the cash will disappear out of the economy if you raise taxes? What greater income equality does result in, however, is far lower levels of pretty much every social problem you care to name. You raise personal taxes, particularly on unearned income like inheritance, and make it cheaper to invest that money back into the economy instead, by having more modest taxes on businesses. That creates jobs and wealth, rather than making it profitable to hold money in a bank account doing nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, but this is just the usual ridiculous argument put forward by people who are more concerned with their own pockets than the state of society as a whole. If it's true that rich people leave high-tax economies, then it hasn't done Denmark or Sweden any harm. Maybe this "talent" is quite as talented as they like to claim? Their GDP per capita is far greater than ours. How have they managed this, if as you claim, all of the cash will disappear out of the economy if you raise taxes? What greater income equality does result in, however, is far lower levels of pretty much every social problem you care to name. You raise personal taxes, particularly on unearned income like inheritance, and make it cheaper to invest that money back into the economy instead, by having more modest taxes on businesses. That creates jobs and wealth, rather than making it profitable to hold money in a bank account doing nothing.

    As i understand it countries like Denmark and Sweden have high taxes across the board they don't just target the super wealthy.
    I totally agree that raising the tax allowences for low earners is a great idea both from a practical and a moral view, but right now it can't be done the country simply cannot afford it and gambling on an inexperianced goverment to bring us out of recesion into recovery and at the same time keep all these pie in the sky promises is not a good idea.
    It seems to me Clegg has promised everyone from students, low and middle earners and pensioners a nice little sweetner and he is hoping for a small percentage of the population to pay for it, well it just will not work.
    Would i live in London and lose 70p upwards for every pound i earn or go and live in New York for instance and keep almost all of it, it might sound greedy but its human nature successful rich people are that way because they are ruthless.
    Like it or not Labour have done a good job through this world wide recesion we are better off than other countries right now so if you want recovery and a return to a good healthy wealthy nation stick with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Chancellor would be Vince Cable, who is infinitely more experienced than George Osbourne, both in government and outside of it, and has been pretty faultless in his advice throughout this recession. Labour were happy to ignore the warnings when the going was good, but to their credit, they've done a fairly decent job of dealing with it since the fuck up happened. The only party that have consistantly made the wrong call at almost every point of this recession and prior to it are the Tories and George Osbourne. They are the only ones of the three main parties that would've ruined our economy with their advice.

    And no, Sweden and Denmark don't have high taxes across the board, they stagger it like every other Western democracy. It's quite simple. Cutting taxes for those on lower incomes does more to help the economy than raising taxes (or more accurately, closing tax avoidance loopholes) does to damage it, particularly if you offer generous returns for anyone willing to invest in the country, rather than squirrel it away. Let people on lower incomes keep more of their money, and they'll spend more of their money. Let someone earning millions keep more of their money, and they'll save it. Which is better for economic recovery? To me, it's quite obvious. Not only does it mean more spending at the low end, but it increases investment at the top end, because the potential returns are greater. That's why Sweden sometimes have the richest man in the world living there, depending on the exchange rate, and still have the sort of progressive tax system that the Lib Dems are in favour of. People don't move to another country, their money does. As long as the potential rate of return on investments in the UK remain high, there is nothing to worry about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aneyone else been keeping up with the analysis of the lies told during the debates?

    Like..

    Camerons "40 year old Black man who served in the navy for 30 years and didn't like immigration" who.... erm... isn't 40, didn't serve for 30 years and supports immigration

    Channel 4 are offering a Fact Checker which is pretty good... and shows that sometimes they actually told the truth. Albeit slight bent versions...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lol, it's Joe the Plumber all over again. They did say they'd been getting advice from America on this debate. Perhaps too much advice?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Randomgirl wrote: »
    I like the Liberal Democrats policies on mental health.
    So does Gordon Brown, I'm willing to bet...

    I'm particularly enjoying seeing all this cockwaffle about Cleggover's party now being the main opposition to the Tories. Whilst it's absolutely delightful to see Labour being reduced to nothing more than the third party - I couldn't wish it on a nicer bunch of cunts - I fear that it won't last.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I'm particularly enjoying seeing all this cockwaffle about Cleggover's party now being the main opposition to the Tories.

    You'll .. erm... love this then.

    Aparrently is the Lib Dems leading and Tories are the opposition :eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Proof that there are a lot of idiots out there. We shall see how long this lasts.

    And in the unlikely event of LibDems forming the next government, we are still going to be completely and utterly fucked. Just as fucked as we will be whether Labour or the Tories get in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And no, Sweden and Denmark don't have high taxes across the board, they stagger it like every other Western democracy. It's quite simple. Cutting taxes for those on lower incomes does more to help the economy than raising taxes (or more accurately, closing tax avoidance loopholes) does to damage it, particularly if you offer generous returns for anyone willing to invest in the country, rather than squirrel it away. Let people on lower incomes keep more of their money, and they'll spend more of their money. Let someone earning millions keep more of their money, and they'll save it. Which is better for economic recovery? To me, it's quite obvious. Not only does it mean more spending at the low end, but it increases investment at the top end, because the potential returns are greater. That's why Sweden sometimes have the richest man in the world living there, depending on the exchange rate, and still have the sort of progressive tax system that the Lib Dems are in favour of. People don't move to another country, their money does. As long as the potential rate of return on investments in the UK remain high, there is nothing to worry about.

    I realise that the tax is staggered in these countries but at every level it is high, the cost of living is enourmous.
    And i can assure you people do and will leave the country if they get taxed to highly, unless you are self employed your earnings are taxed before you even get them so even if you move all your money off shore its to late to avoid income tax.
    If you ask me Clegg has suddenly got a whiff of success and is now in a panic incase he actually has to make any of his fantasy figures work in the real world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    I realise that the tax is staggered in these countries but at every level it is high, the cost of living is enourmous.
    And i can assure you people do and will leave the country if they get taxed to highly, unless you are self employed your earnings are taxed before you even get them so even if you move all your money off shore its to late to avoid income tax.
    If you ask me Clegg has suddenly got a whiff of success and is now in a panic incase he actually has to make any of his fantasy figures work in the real world.

    It's partly people leaving the country, especially left-wing actors and musicians (it's much harder for right wing business people who are kind of stuck where there capital is). However, much more damaging is that people tend to work less hard and take less entrepreneurial risks. Why take that promotion, which means longer hours and more stress, if the state is going to take away more tax - meaning that not only does the tax take go down, but companies have to either pay more or not open up the job (usually meaning it doesn't get done and the company doesn't grow).

    Also the risk vs reward factor changes. It may be worth taking the risk of loosing everything if you get £100k and lose 40% in tax. It may be worth setting up a new business if you get £100k and loose 90% in tax.

    Also I know you didn't mention Sweden, but its worth noting Swedish Corporation Tax is 26.3% http://www.swedishwire.com/business/3148-sweden-is-a-tax-haven (UK's 28%) and that they don't have taxes on inheritance or gifts http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/Inheritance
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Labour were happy to ignore the warnings when the going was good, but to their credit, they've done a fairly decent job of dealing with it since the fuck up happened. The only party that have consistantly made the wrong call at almost every point of this recession and prior to it are the Tories and George Osbourne. They are the only ones of the three main parties that would've ruined our economy with their advice.

    You say that as if it's fact when it is only your opinion. I am no no fan of Osbourne but to say that they have made all these 'wrong calls' and to say that they would ruin the economy is pure personal supposition. They have a sizeable group of well-informed business people behind them who think that Osbourne's policies are the correct thing to do.

    Personally, I am confused by the pro and against of raising the level of National Insurance. On one hand, if Brown taxes more, then there is less money being spent within the economy so how does the economy grow?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    You say that as if it's fact when it is only your opinion. I am no no fan of Osbourne but to say that they have made all these 'wrong calls' and to say that they would ruin the economy is pure personal supposition. They have a sizeable group of well-informed business people behind them who think that Osbourne's policies are the correct thing to do.

    Personally, I am confused by the pro and against of raising the level of National Insurance. On one hand, if Brown taxes more, then there is less money being spent within the economy so how does the economy grow?

    It's marginal either way. I'll raise about £6bn (all other things being equal) UK Govt spending in 2009 was £631bn http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/index.php#ukgs302a and total UK GDP was £1.5 trillion. So cutting its not to screw the deficit, nor keeping it mean that nothing else has to be done.

    It's imapct on jobs is also likely to be marginal. A few companies which are struggling it may be the straw which breaks the camels back and lead to lay off's, also companies who are looking to recruit may be held back as the extra cost doesn't justify the extra profits.

    It'll also have an impact on the public sector, the NHS, schools etc will be faced with a jump in their costs. I can't find any figures, but I would estimate (based on roughly similar overall wage costs between the public and private sector and that the public sector has less capital and more human costs) is that it will cost the public sector about £3bn in extra wage costs, so it'll only make £3bn.

    It's marginal either way, but on balance I'd say better not to have than have
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It'll also have an impact on the public sector, the NHS, schools etc will be faced with a jump in their costs. I can't find any figures, but I would estimate (based on roughly similar overall wage costs between the public and private sector and that the public sector has less capital and more human costs) is that it will cost the public sector about £3bn in extra wage costs, so it'll only make £3bn.

    It's marginal either way, but on balance I'd say better not to have than have

    Actually from a public sector finances perspective it's not a bad deal.

    Assume (cos it's easier to explain with round figures) that £10bn is raised through increased NI. Give all of that to the NHS.

    The NHS NI contributions are raised by £5bn, so the treasury takes back £5bn. This they give to education.

    Education NI increase is £3bn, so the treasury takes this back and gives it to the police.

    So from an increased income of £10bn, you have £10bn investment in NHS, £5bn in Education and £3bn in the Police. Or in other words £18bn investment on the back of £10bn increase in NI contributions. It's a neat public sector accounting trick with huge political capitol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Actually from a public sector finances perspective it's not a bad deal.

    Assume (cos it's easier to explain with round figures) that £10bn is raised through increased NI. Give all of that to the NHS.

    The NHS NI contributions are raised by £5bn, so the treasury takes back £5bn. This they give to education.

    Education NI increase is £3bn, so the treasury takes this back and gives it to the police.

    So from an increased income of £10bn, you have £10bn investment in NHS, £5bn in Education and £3bn in the Police. Or in other words £18bn investment on the back of £10bn increase in NI contributions. It's a neat public sector accounting trick with huge political capitol.

    I think I get what you are saying, but let me just check

    NHS gets £10bn. Say £1bn of this is paying for its own NI contributions, it has £9bn to spend on new staff. Approximately half of that goes in NI contributions and income tax giving HMT £4.5bn (admittedly half seems a bit high if that's true you really need to look at the wage bill) (stick with £5bn for simplicity)

    £5bn goes to Education (£0.5bn pays there contributions £4.5bn goes on new staff, say £2bn to HMT in NI and Income Tax)

    If so that's possible, but it doesn't pay of the national debt and it doesn't factor in the impact on private sector jobs (though without modelling I couldn't say whether that's going to be a positive or negative impact)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    You say that as if it's fact when it is only your opinion. I am no no fan of Osbourne but to say that they have made all these 'wrong calls' and to say that they would ruin the economy is pure personal supposition. They have a sizeable group of well-informed business people behind them who think that Osbourne's policies are the correct thing to do.

    Personally, I am confused by the pro and against of raising the level of National Insurance. On one hand, if Brown taxes more, then there is less money being spent within the economy so how does the economy grow?

    I'm not saying it as if it's fact at all. I'm putting it in exactly the same terms the counter-argument was put to me in the first place. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's partly people leaving the country, especially left-wing actors and musicians (it's much harder for right wing business people who are kind of stuck where there capital is). However, much more damaging is that people tend to work less hard and take less entrepreneurial risks. Why take that promotion, which means longer hours and more stress, if the state is going to take away more tax - meaning that not only does the tax take go down, but companies have to either pay more or not open up the job (usually meaning it doesn't get done and the company doesn't grow).

    Do you actually have any evidence that is the case? I'd be far less inclined to take risks in America, where failure leaves you on the scrap heap, compared to Western Europe, where the safety net is usually more in place. I'd also be far less inclined to believe that people working longer hours in America or South Korea have the free time to be creative or entrepreneurial. If your warnings are correct, then why are these countries with far shorter average working weeks taking in far more money per capita per year? Why are these people working less, yet generating more wealth for the economy? Either the economy is set up in a way that better generates wealth, or the workforce is more productive per hour worked. Why do these countries have the highest standard of living, and yet at the same time, the greatest income equality, if income equality leads to everyone not bothering? Come on, where's the evidence that the increasing gap between the top earners and the rest in America has resulted in an improvement in the fortunes of the country as a whole? The top earners now earn ridiculously more than the rest of the population, so where are the results of this extra incentive? Funny, these countries also have high minimum wages. I mean come on, why are these countries the most successful societies outside of those with more oil rigs than people, despite doing everything the right-wingers warn us against? High minimum wage, again, is something that puts money in the pockets of people who spend their money, rather than those that don't, which generates wealth for the companies operating in the country, and generates opportunities for businesses to innovate and flourish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you actually have any evidence that is the case? I'd be far less inclined to take risks in America, where failure leaves you on the scrap heap, compared to Western Europe, where the safety net is usually more in place. I'd also be far less inclined to believe that people working longer hours in America or South Korea have the free time to be creative or entrepreneurial. If your warnings are correct, then why are these countries with far shorter average working weeks taking in far more money per capita per year? Why are these people working less, yet generating more wealth for the economy? Either the economy is set up in a way that better generates wealth, or the workforce is more productive per hour worked. Why do these countries have the highest standard of living, and yet at the same time, the greatest income equality, if income equality leads to everyone not bothering? Come on, where's the evidence that the increasing gap between the top earners and the rest in America has resulted in an improvement in the fortunes of the country as a whole? The top earners now earn ridiculously more than the rest of the population, so where are the results of this extra incentive? Funny, these countries also have high minimum wages. I mean come on, why are these countries the most successful societies outside of those with more oil rigs than people, despite doing everything the right-wingers warn us against? High minimum wage, again, is something that puts money in the pockets of people who spend their money, rather than those that don't, which generates wealth for the companies operating in the country, and generates opportunities for businesses to innovate and flourish.

    Or perhaps they don't have the burden of our welfare state to pay for.

    In these times of recession high minimum wages just make it harder for companys to take on new staff which means they can't expand which means the econemy stalls.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Chancellor Brown left public finances 'ill-prepared for the crunch'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/18/brown-economic-mismanagement-ifs-study

    I have never understood why people on here seem to continually cling on to the idea that Brown was a good Chancellor or a good Prime Minister. Yes, he got some things right but his personal arrogance led him to believe his own hype. While he is leader of Labour, they will not get my vote.

    But I have a dilemma. I don't like Cameron and voting for the Lib Dems will just enable Brown to continue as leader via coalition.

    However, I do believe that we need voting reform so I may just vote Lib Dem to set the stage for the next election for proportional representation. But I feel like I am cutting of my testicles ... :eek2: ... I can't bear the thought of Brown still being Prime Minister. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you actually have any evidence that is the case? I'd be far less inclined to take risks in America, where failure leaves you on the scrap heap, compared to Western Europe, where the safety net is usually more in place. I'd also be far less inclined to believe that people working longer hours in America or South Korea have the free time to be creative or entrepreneurial. If your warnings are correct, then why are these countries with far shorter average working weeks taking in far more money per capita per year? Why are these people working less, yet generating more wealth for the economy? Either the economy is set up in a way that better generates wealth, or the workforce is more productive per hour worked. Why do these countries have the highest standard of living, and yet at the same time, the greatest income equality, if income equality leads to everyone not bothering? Come on, where's the evidence that the increasing gap between the top earners and the rest in America has resulted in an improvement in the fortunes of the country as a whole? The top earners now earn ridiculously more than the rest of the population, so where are the results of this extra incentive? Funny, these countries also have high minimum wages. I mean come on, why are these countries the most successful societies outside of those with more oil rigs than people, despite doing everything the right-wingers warn us against? High minimum wage, again, is something that puts money in the pockets of people who spend their money, rather than those that don't, which generates wealth for the companies operating in the country, and generates opportunities for businesses to innovate and flourish.

    More than happy to evidence. Or at least as far as it is possible, given I am sure you understand that economic and political evidence is filled with thousands of variables.

    I'll start with the Laffer Curve, which predicts that their is an optimum level for setting tax and above this level tax income declines

    http://www.investorwords.com/2711/Laffer_Curve.html

    The evidence from the US and UK is that tax cuts stimulated both growth and increased tax.
    The economic results of the Thatcher tax cuts are similar to those of the American tax cuts from at least two points of view. First, the tax cuts had a positive impact on government revenue: per-capita GDP at constant 1995 market prices rose from £9,276 in 1979 to £11,516 by 1990. Over the same period, Inland Revenue contribution to central government tax revenue rose from 55.9 percent in 1979 to 58.2 percent in 1990. Second, high–earning individuals ended up paying a higher
    percentage of the total revenue: the top 10 percent earners went from paying a 35 percent share of total revenues collected in 1979, to contributing 42 percent of total revenues in 1990.

    http://www.itpa.org/open/archive/grecuflattax.pdf


    On business start-up a bit of a struggle to find decent figures I admit and the table of p21 of this report is the best I could find, without spending an inordinate amount of time

    New business ownership US 3.2% UK 3.2% Denmar 2% Germany 2.1%


    http://www3.babson.edu/ESHIP/research-publications/upload/GEM_2009_Global_Report.pdf

    Productivity per hour. In fact the US is the highest at 38, Sweden at 29.79 is marginally above the UK, Germany is 29.14, Denmark 29.04, so I'm not sure that its true that countries with shorter working weeks are more productive; it can be off course, because South Korea is 17.37 - not a surprise as its a developing country (as an aside South Korea is often used as an example, not because it's as wealthy as European countries, but as a comparison of what capitalism can do - it's a perfect case study in that pre 1945 it was exactly in the same position as North Korea, but both took massively differing economic routes and so you can compare and contrast)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked

    (I wouldn't normally use wiki, but it does have a link to the source material, which is in excel so I didn't know if you could open)

    On income equality, you seem to misunderstand my point. it's not that everyone doesn't bother, but enough people won't work that little bit harder to generate the extra income. It's also worth noting that of the top 5 counties for income equality Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Czech Repulbic and Norway

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_equ_un_gin_ind-income-equality-un-gini-index

    Demark public debt is 38.5% of GDP, Japan is 192.10% of GDP, Sweden is 43.2%, Czech Republic is 32.8% and Norway is 60.2% (which given the oil per head of population is shocking). UK's admittedly is 68.5%, but that includes assets from the Banks (today's RBS price is 50.4 against a payment price of 49.9). So one reason for at least two of these countries is that they're basically mortgaged their children's future.

    It should also be noted that such places as Pakistan, Ethopia and Rwanda are high up there with equality of income. I would argue that you may be better off in relatively inequal societies compared to them, so that income equality is not a good measure of economic success.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

    Minimum wage is a bit more complex and as I've been getting stats for close to an hour I can't be bothered to look into finding reputable sources. However the higher it is the less people are employed. Take picking strawberries as a simple example the first person paid five pounds pick twenty pounds of strawberries, the second person is less efficient so they pick nineteen pounds (they're partly have to cover the same ground the first picker is). So by the time you get to picker 15 who's paid £5 for £5 worth of strawberry's its not longer worth it. Now if it was £10 minimum wage you can obviously see that the level of not making it worth it is much quicker. Same with supermarkets, at a lower minimum wage it's worth having 20 people employed to keep the shelves 100% fill, the higher it gets the more likely you are to decide to do with 19 people and 96% or 18 people and 91%.

    I'm looking forward to your reply. On the evidence you'll be presenting I'm happy with adobe, word, excel or microsoft as well as normal internet. I'd prefer academic or business research, but will accept well regarded populist publications such as the Economist or FT. I'm also happy for figures from academic, business research or OECD, World Bank, EU etc. I'd for obvious reasons prefer them not to be from the Sun, Guardian, Mail, your mate down the pub or your imagination.
Sign In or Register to comment.