The Budget

28 Jun 2010

Quote by JTS
Hmmm.
The lowering of vat to 2.5% didn't cost the gov much at all, since many spent a bit more.
other stuff.................
Either way, the rise in vat will generate little income but may halt the import of goods and slow the difference between imports and exports.

The increase in VAT is forecast to generate an additional £13 billion a year, I don't think the government would call that "generating little income". I also think the VAT reduction actually cost the previous government a lot more than you suggest and didn't really make any material difference to consumer spending.

28 Jun 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664

My grasp of economics is very basic at the most.
Are you saying we should just refuse to pay the debt?
Would other countries just seize our assets abroad to pay for it?
Dave_Notts

what other countries ? what countries do we owe to ? what assets abroad "our" do "we" own ? thats us the taxpayer that is being forced to pay the debt to ? must be the same countries that every other country owes it to.
Thank you for answering a question with a question. If you wish someone on a thread to understand what you are going on about then sometimes you should try and answer the questions that your writings have posed.
The best way would have been:
I am saying yes/no (delete as necessary) because................
Other countries would/would not (delete as necessary) seize our assets because.............
So unless you can show me what you mean how would I ever be able to read your future posts instead of just skipping over them as you fail to give an explanation. Not everyone has an understanding of economics or global business. My understanding of economics is making sure there is enough money at the end of the month.
Dave_Notts

28 Jun 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
My understanding of economics is making sure there is enough money at the end of the month.

I thought doing work for the council, you would have been loaded. wink

28 Jun 2010

Quote by Max777
The increase in VAT is forecast to generate an additional £13 billion a year, I don't think the government would call that "generating little income". I also think the VAT reduction actually cost the previous government a lot more than you suggest and didn't really make any material difference to consumer spending.

I work it out at 2-3 billion.
Since vat fraud is running at between 10 - 15% of revenue it can be expected to increase.
Many people will not buy new items, more will put-off buying for various lengths of time.
With gdp at about 1.4 and vat at about 6% of that gdp....mind you, with uk dept (personal) at about the same as gdp anything that stops people spending has got to be good !
And if imports go down and exports up then money going abroad will be lower and the receipts from pre export vat receipts may be worth more.
Either way, things rarely work-out as forecast.
And nothing gets to the heart of the problem...

29 Jun 2010

Quote by JTS

The increase in VAT is forecast to generate an additional £13 billion a year, I don't think the government would call that "generating little income". I also think the VAT reduction actually cost the previous government a lot more than you suggest and didn't really make any material difference to consumer spending.

I work it out at 2-3 billion.
Since vat fraud is running at between 10 - 15% of revenue it can be expected to increase.
Many people will not buy new items, more will put-off buying for various lengths of time.
With gdp at about 1.4 and vat at about 6% of that gdp....mind you, with uk dept (personal) at about the same as gdp anything that stops people spending has got to be good !
And if imports go down and exports up then money going abroad will be lower and the receipts from pre export vat receipts may be worth more.
Either way, things rarely work-out as forecast.
And nothing gets to the heart of the problem...
I'm not sure how you work it out and £2-£3 billion, think I prefer to trust the treasury model. I don't think this or the previous government would contemplate such an unpopular move if the extra revenue was as little as you suggest.
Would an extra 41p on an article currently retailing at , or on or £10 on £500 really deter you from buying something that you wanted/needed?

29 Jun 2010

That, of course, depends upon other factors such as the general level of dept the individual purchaser holds.
If the choice is between a new car and ensuring the roof remains over your head then the new car will be deferred.
Interest rates are likely to rise soon and the rise may be quite steep.
Reduction in government spending, especially on capital projects, will reduce economic activity and lead to higher unemployment (as said) which reduces revenue.
Reducing spending reduces economic activity which, in turn, reduces revenue. Leading to the need for more reduction in spending.
It is getting interesting though. The need to reduce gov spending, plus the need to increase economic activity: two courses with an inevitable collision.
Of course, if the two "horses" were unshackled then their course may be altered slightly to avoid said collision....but the largest spenders are to be allowed to spend and are not to be shackled. So..........<BANG>

29 Jun 2010

Quote by JTS
That, of course, depends upon other factors such as the general level of dept the individual purchaser holds.
If the choice is between a new car and ensuring the roof remains over your head then the new car will be deferred.
Interest rates are likely to rise soon and the rise may be quite steep.
Reduction in government spending, especially on capital projects, will reduce economic activity and lead to higher unemployment (as said) which reduces revenue.
Reducing spending reduces economic activity which, in turn, reduces revenue. Leading to the need for more reduction in spending.
It is getting interesting though. The need to reduce gov spending, plus the need to increase economic activity: two courses with an inevitable collision.
Of course, if the two "horses" were unshackled then their course may be altered slightly to avoid said collision....but the largest spenders are to be allowed to spend and are not to be shackled. So..........<BANG>

That surely would be the case, whatever the prevailing VAT rate?
From the horses mouth.........

The reduction in VAT cost the government some £11 billion on an annual basis.

29 Jun 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

My grasp of economics is very basic at the most.
Are you saying we should just refuse to pay the debt?
Would other countries just seize our assets abroad to pay for it?
Dave_Notts

what other countries ? what countries do we owe to ? what assets abroad "our" do "we" own ? thats us the taxpayer that is being forced to pay the debt to ? must be the same countries that every other country owes it to.
Thank you for answering a question with a question. If you wish someone on a thread to understand what you are going on about then sometimes you should try and answer the questions that your writings have posed.
The best way would have been:
I am saying yes/no (delete as necessary) because................
Other countries would/would not (delete as necessary) seize our assets because.............
So unless you can show me what you mean how would I ever be able to read your future posts instead of just skipping over them as you fail to give an explanation. Not everyone has an understanding of economics or global business. My understanding of economics is making sure there is enough money at the end of the month.
Dave_Nottso.k. yes refuse to pay the debt and no they would not seize our assets where ever they are ? sooner rather than later sovereign governments are going to default on debt and that will accelerate the contagion from bank to bank and country to country. why slit our own throats in the meatime trying to pay an impossible price.
why try to pay it ? we did'nt create the debt. it was transfered to the taxpayer from the banks via their puppets in westminster, who, by the way are doing very nicely thank you very much, vince cable et all.

29 Jun 2010

im sure an increase in vat will = an increase in the black economy dunno

29 Jun 2010

dave_notts
cuts in government spending along with an increase in taxation reduces the amount of money in circulation.
banks and other lenders restricting lending while the public pays more tax and services existing loans (interest) reduces the amount of money in circulation.
the aggregate of the above means that as a generalisation but not necessarily in your specific circumstances, you will have less and less at the end of the month until you dont have enough.
this immediate period that we are all facing, will be one of deflation unless, which looks more unlikely by the day, the governments embark on some new stimlus (q.e.)like money printing, inflationary, but this time ensuring that it does'nt go to bank shareholders and big bonuses, but into cash in circulation via infrastucture projects.
this would only temporarily postpone a depression that would be created by hyperinflation.
so i say again. repudiate the debt. it was created by fraud, a ponzi scheme of collaterised debt obligations, credit default swaps, securitised investment vehicles and all manner of fictional crap that has absolutely no value and the baks and politicians know it.

29 Jun 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
dave_notts
cuts in government spending along with an increase in taxation reduces the amount of money in circulation.
banks and other lenders restricting lending while the public pays more tax and services existing loans (interest) reduces the amount of money in circulation.
the aggregate of the above means that as a generalisation but not necessarily in your specific circumstances, you will have less and less at the end of the month until you dont have enough.
this immediate period that we are all facing, will be one of deflation unless, which looks more unlikely by the day, the governments embark on some new stimlus (q.e.)like money printing, inflationary, but this time ensuring that it does'nt go to bank shareholders and big bonuses, but into cash in circulation via infrastucture projects.
this would only temporarily postpone a depression that would be created by hyperinflation.
so i say again. repudiate the debt. it was created by fraud, a ponzi scheme of collaterised debt obligations, credit default swaps, securitised investment vehicles and all manner of fictional crap that has absolutely no value and the baks and politicians know it.

I take it you would be in favour of this then?

29 Jun 2010

Quote by Max777
dave_notts
cuts in government spending along with an increase in taxation reduces the amount of money in circulation.
banks and other lenders restricting lending while the public pays more tax and services existing loans (interest) reduces the amount of money in circulation.
the aggregate of the above means that as a generalisation but not necessarily in your specific circumstances, you will have less and less at the end of the month until you dont have enough.
this immediate period that we are all facing, will be one of deflation unless, which looks more unlikely by the day, the governments embark on some new stimlus (q.e.)like money printing, inflationary, but this time ensuring that it does'nt go to bank shareholders and big bonuses, but into cash in circulation via infrastucture projects.
this would only temporarily postpone a depression that would be created by hyperinflation.
so i say again. repudiate the debt. it was created by fraud, a ponzi scheme of collaterised debt obligations, credit default swaps, securitised investment vehicles and all manner of fictional crap that has absolutely no value and the baks and politicians know it.

I take it you would be in favour of this then?
its in the right direction and ceertainly means people are becoming more aware of the source of the crisis.

29 Jun 2010

Quote by JTS
That, of course, depends upon other factors such as the general level of dept the individual purchaser holds.
If the choice is between a new car and ensuring the roof remains over your head then the new car will be deferred.
Interest rates are likely to rise soon and the rise may be quite steep.
Reduction in government spending, especially on capital projects, will reduce economic activity and lead to higher unemployment (as said) which reduces revenue.
Reducing spending reduces economic activity which, in turn, reduces revenue. Leading to the need for more reduction in spending.
It is getting interesting though. The need to reduce gov spending, plus the need to increase economic activity: two courses with an inevitable collision.
Of course, if the two "horses" were unshackled then their course may be altered slightly to avoid said collision....but the largest spenders are to be allowed to spend and are not to be shackled. So..........<BANG>

You certainly do seem to like making sweeping statements..
Prey tell, on what do you base that assumption?
Are these really your views or are you just being mischievous to encourage debate?
As I understand it, getting to grips with a plausible plan to deal with the deficit has meant that UK plc retains it's triple A rating on the international money market and the BoE base interest rate should not now suffer as well it might if Labour had continued their spend spend spend philosophy. It is interesting that the G8 and G20 have endorsed the Alliance's plans to deal with the deficit whereas, in the past, Gawdy Borrown was trying to tell everyone that his "spend your way out" ideology had widespread support amongst world leaders. It did not.
And now, as the Euro plunges to new depths, do you need reminding that the Right Honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath had a plan to join the Euro which would have been equivalent to his equally bad judgement in selling the country's gold reserve when the price was at rock bottom?