The EU debate - Part III

please log in to view this image

 

Must have missed it, do tell me again please.

 

Then I suggest you read back over yesterday's posts!...

 

Who ordered the floor show? Bernard Manning not available, obviously

 

A Marxist, a Marxist-Leninist and a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist walked into a bar.
It’s wonderful to see such variety at this year’s conference.

 

Wow! What a wonderful array of what I assume Pete thinks are jokes. Sorry Pete but you are the joke and the rest of us just laugh at you

 

How many shadow ministers does it take to change a lightbulb?
I don’t know. The lightbulb tends to outlast them.

 

Funny you say that we are all laughing at you and your remoaners

PS remember what the mod said at the end of the last thread.

 

Don't confuse the issue by quoting facts!
It seems this is usually the case: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

 

Kustard thought it was so funny he re-posted it. That's par for the course.

 

Go check out the forum rules on multiple accounts

 

from one of the replies


In your analysis you acknowledge that whoever was in power post 2008 was going to have to borrow more. You also acknowledge that this would distort the results of your analysis and adjust the data to make for a fairer comparison.

However the conservatives were in power for most of the post WWII (1951-1964) rebuilding period. Another period when whoever was in power would also have had to borrow lots. How come you have made no attempt to adjust for this? The impact of rebuilding the country post WWII will have had an impact on government borrowing that was very similar in magnitude to the Global Financial Crisis.

 

Pete and Kustard, what a double act.

And what a pair of failures!

 

I actually think this is more relevant

'Richard is merely stating the borrowing. Labour may not have needed to borrow as much as tax revenues might have been higher. As Labour tends to redistribute money to people with a higher marginal propensity to consume, more of that money goes back into the economy leading to job creation and higher tax revenues. The Tories, on the other hand, cut taxes, usually for the wealthier, so have a reduced income and may need to borrow more. It does seem rather bizarre that in today’s budget they are cutting money to local authorities and the public sector, which they know is needed, and lowering taxes for wealthier people. People who are more likely to use that money to invest in property or lock away in savings. Given that the banks aren’t lending at the moment, and that we have a housing shortage, this type of economics is not helpful to our economy.'

If you cut taxes, reduce civil/public servants and sell off industry that provides jobs/income then your tax receipts are lower and you end up borrowing more.
It's why Hinckley, HS2, housebuilding and Heathrow are now so attractive. Every pound spent largely comes back in tax, ni, vat and corporate tax and so you get a bigger bang for your buck than simply cutting inheritance tax and propping up the housing market

 

I see where you are coming from.

But under labour the working man is stuffed as well, so to be fair Labour and Tories dont suit the working man at all.
Dont forget Labour under Blair cut income tax to 20%

 

Certainly not disagreeing with you. Labour just carried on from where Tories left off, which is why they carried the can for the deregulation of finance and rent markets done before they got in power

 

Manning was occasionally funny, at least..

 

I don't get this one. I guess it's funny if you think wireless is a radio.

 

He was a horrible ****, but yeah, ****ing funny at times.

Pete is not funny so where does that leave him?

 

As a fat ****....?