Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:15 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Yes, that old chestnut.
Do you dispute it?
If so, give reasons.

You haven't given a reason, other than others were doing it. What sort of fiscal policy is that?

That's the level of borrowing not the yield rate.
Jeez.

You said borrowing is cheaper than ever, that's simply fabrication. I mentioned the debt /gdp ratio as in indicator of what loan costs would be. Credit rating etc.

The US has had rising GDP growth for the last fourteen successive quarters, all of which were greater increases in growth than ANY that the UK has had since the recession.
e.g. Obama lent huge amounts to the US car industry, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs, the industry has restructured and has now almost completely paid back those loans.
It is not a case of kicking the debt down the road ... the greater the number of people that are employed, the greater the tax take (obviously!) to pay down debt ... and the greater the GDP (obviously!).

This obsession with the U.S economy is bizarre. Is the U.S economy a mirror of the UK? It seems to be a default comparison, with the Eurozone being completely ignored.

Who mentioned the boom?
Take a look at the house-price-to-earnings ratio which currently stands at about 5.5 ... that is to say that the average house costs around 5.5. times the average salary.
Averaged-out since 1981 the ratio has been around 4.0
Just before the banking crisis it was about 6.5 times.
It's come down since to 5.5 but is still high.
Considering that for decades up to the late 1980's the level was about 3.0, it is still nearly twice as high.
Greater supply would bring the price down in terms of multiples of annual earnings (obviously!).

the house price boom fuelled by the banking sector Brown cut loose because he wanted the tax of massively inflated profits? Oh how the gap widened between the have's & the have not's under a Labour government.
The help to buy scheme is all about kickstarting the private house market

Untrue, look at the stats, Darling's stimulus brought GDP from minus 6.8 to plus 0.5 and still rising ... until the election, two quarters later it went down again.
This government cancelled the greater part of all capital investment in infrastructure etc, immediately depressing GDP.

Absolute tosh with no basis in fact

Cuts were needed, Labour said they'd halve the deficit in one parliament ... Tories said they'd eliminate it entirely in one parliament but every year over the last four years, that estimate has moved by another year ... it's still five years away, so they say, so they have failed miserably in their own past estimation.

That's not true. Labour plans were practically the same. They may have not met their own estimation, that doesn't equate to failing to clear up the mess.

Have you not read my reply?
Who said they can afford it? Look at the earnings to price ratio.

No, it is you who is missing the point that capital outlay and ongoing capital costs don't vanish just because they are in the private sector, they are recouped via rents, hence the higher benefits required to pay for them.

No, it's you who is missing the point. In the public sector those costs are borne by the tax payer, who then pays again in the form of housing benefit. The headline figure for benefit payments may be higher, but there is no capital outlay & ongoing costs, which reduces the overall bill to the taxpayer..

Christ, this is like pulling teeth.

True dat

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:53 am  

Him wrote:

Do you think the Labour government's actions caused Lehmann Brothers to fail? If not then maybe that "old chestnut" is true? Labour are at fault for not regulating our economy, so are multiple, successive governments in multiple countries.

Let's all blame Lehmann Brothers. No hang on let's do what every Labour politician has done and blame the bankers. That old chestnut. Sorry, I meant scapegoat. Where is Gordon Brown these days?

That has nothing to do with affordability of borrowing.
You need to look at the bond yield rates and maturation.

debt/gdp ratio =-fiscal policy = credit rating = cost of borrowing

They show that in 2012 UK bond yields hit a record low of 1.5%. A low not seen in the 300+ year history of the BoE. Borrowing has literally never been so cheap. Taking inflation into account lenders were effectively paying HMG to borrow money from them. Bizarre then that dear old Osborne was so intent on lowering borrowing rather than taking advantage of that record low.
The rate has edged up slightly since then, but still lower than at any time (excluding the record low) in the last half century.

You seem to want to avoid the fact that current rates are 3% - double what you quote on 10 year bonds. Doesn't suit your argument?

Public Sector employment fell by 300,000 from 2010 to 2012, or 5% of the workforce.
To reach 1.2m by 2018.

Instead of just quoting selected newspapers reports, why not use actual statistics?

6,800 fewer police. Is that accurately reflecting what's needed? I mean there's just nothing for all these police to do!

The US model worked. Higher growth, lower unemployment. Not all hunky-dory but significantly better than the Tory way. The US spent big at the right time and can now reduce their spending because they filled at least some of the demand gap when it was most needed. Kept people in jobs, improved infrastructure, saved industries. So those people and industries can now spend and let the private sector recover.

Has the U.S model worked? In what regard? What demand was filled? This fascination with the U.S is bizarre. It's similarity to the UK economy is?

The cut in VAT did increase growth, led unemployment to fall and helped the deficit come in lower than projected by £21bn.

That is absolute tosh. The net effect was zero & it cost £12bn in receipts. That's why it didn't last.

Sadly, the current government went and increased this regressive tax.

Tax rises aren't ideal, but it doesn't impact greatly & is raising billions.

However the VAT cut should have been accompanied by a large investment in youth training and infrastructure.

That's brilliant economics. Cut your tax take & borrow more

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:50 am  

If you could, as already suggested, learn to use the quote facility, there would be a lot less confusion on every thread you join

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:07 am  

One in three behind on rent since housing benefit changes. So, an unmitigated success.

One in three behind on rent since housing benefit changes. So, an unmitigated success.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:10 am  

Regarding the "old chestnut" about the banking crisis, again I ask, do you dispute it occurred?
Or did Gordon Brown pull the rug from under banks right across the Western economies?

Regarding cost of borrowing ...

BiffasBoys wrote:

You said borrowing is cheaper than ever, that's simply fabrication. I mentioned the debt /gdp ratio as in indicator of what loan costs would be. Credit rating etc.

Nice attempt at a wriggle but wrong again.
Even though the UK's credit rating has gone down, so have bond yields.
Monthly average bond yield percent on 10 year bonds has gone from 5% (before the crash) to 1% (today).
SOURCE : Bank of England, so any disagreement you may have, take it up with Mark Carney, although I think he probably already knows the difference between debt/gdp and bond yields and which actually reflects the cost of borrowing.
So, anyway, back to the point ... you say borrowing is not cheap ... when was borrowing cheaper than this parliamentary term?

In reply to my US example of how stimulus can lead to growth (i.e. fourteen consecutive quarters of growth), you said ...

BiffasBoys wrote:

This obsession with the U.S economy is bizarre. Is the U.S economy a mirror of the UK? It seems to be a default comparison, with the Eurozone being completely ignored.

Not bizarre at all, the US case was presented to demonstrate the validity of intervention for stimulus, which you seem to want ignore now it's been pointed out to you that Osborne could have done the same but didn't, preferring instead to rely (unsuccessfully) on cuts.

In reply to my contention that house prices are high and my factual comparisons of prices to earnings over the years, you try to shift the argument as follows ...

BiffasBoys wrote:

the house price boom fuelled by the banking sector Brown cut loose because he wanted the tax of massively inflated profits? Oh how the gap widened between the have's & the have not's under a Labour government.
The help to buy scheme is all about kickstarting the private house market.

As you are switching the discussion to the house price boom, I take it that you accept my point that at 5.5 times average national earnings, prices are still historically high and are driven by supply and demand?
Why you mentioned the Help to Buy scheme, I don't know but, as you have, I'd like to ask why is it OK for HMG to subsidise private new-house purchases when you are so staunchly against social housing?
(I use the term subsidise here to mean the interest-free first-five-years of the government loan to the buyer and the lower rate that the buyer can demand from the lender because the buyer has a larger deposit courtesy of the Chancer of the Exchequer).

After I quoted the stats about Darling's stimulus, and how the current coalition government cut back on capital investment thereby depressing GDP, you responded ...

BiffasBoys wrote:

Absolute tosh with no basis in fact

I have quoted stats, are they tosh?
Where is your evidence?

Regarding the economy and cuts you say that Labour plans were practically the same as the Tories.
Unfortunately you are wrong again.
Both Lib Dems (before the election and before the 180 degree U-turn after) and Labour said they'd cut slower to avoid dips in GDP growth.

You failed to comment on the bit I mentioned about the effect of the earnings/house-price ratio as one of the reasons why people not on benefits remain in social housing.
Can I assume you agree?

You still maintain that private rental is cheaper because of the capital outlay on social housing.
Maybe if you look at the fact that surpluses from council housing (yes, surpluses, which actually exceeded the maintenance grants etc paid from HMG) were paid to the Treasury during the Labour Government (and I haven't seen any mention that this changed, although I concede it may have) ... and also recall that since the time of Thatcher's "Right to buy" councils were specifically prohibited from re-investing that capital in housing ... what actual capital outlay are you talking about?

Of course, you can just say "Tosh" again in lieu of debate or evidence.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:02 am  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:17 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-50000-people-are-now-facing-eviction-after-bedroom-tax-8825074.html

I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid.

I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon.


Edit: See Minty beat me to it

I do worry a little when reading statements like this one from the DWP (taken from the above link)...

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “The removal of the spare-room subsidy is a necessary reform to return fairness to housing benefit. Even after the reform we pay over 80 per cent of most claimants’ housing benefit – but the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need. It is right that people contribute to these costs, just as private renters do.”

That statement is clearly drafted directly from IDS, or from Tory central office, but is attributed to a civil service department - they should not be used as a mouthpiece for any political party and should not have to repeat any political dogma as part of their own statement, a simple "We are enforcing the new rules introduced by parliament" would do rather than making it appear to be their own policy, which it clearly isn't.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:53 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I do worry a little when reading statements like this one from the DWP (taken from the above link)...

That statement is clearly drafted directly from IDS, or from Tory central office, but is attributed to a civil service department - they should not be used as a mouthpiece for any political party and should not have to repeat any political dogma as part of their own statement, a simple "We are enforcing the new rules introduced by parliament" would do rather than making it appear to be their own policy, which it clearly isn't.

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:53 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I do worry a little when reading statements like this one from the DWP (taken from the above link)...

That statement is clearly drafted directly from IDS, or from Tory central office, but is attributed to a civil service department - they should not be used as a mouthpiece for any political party and should not have to repeat any political dogma as part of their own statement, a simple "We are enforcing the new rules introduced by parliament" would do rather than making it appear to be their own policy, which it clearly isn't.

"the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need"

About time the "taxpayer" started applying this logic to MPs

Re: Bedroom Tax - A Solution ? : Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:35 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

"the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need"

About time the "taxpayer" started applying this logic to MPs

It would be nice, wouldn't it?

On only a slightly different note, I commented on the BBC site the other day under the story about increased prison sentences for convicted benefit fraudsters. I simply asked what increase in sentences there was going to be for any MPs who ripped off the taxpayer via their expenses.

It was deleted.

Apparently, you can't link how MPs are paid by the taxpayer etc to benefits paid by the taxpayer.