Now George, get on with it....
25 February 2013
... The government's economic policy has been like someone swimming against the tide with one arm strapped behind your back.
... The government's economic policy has been like someone swimming against the tide with one arm strapped behind your back.
The one big hole in the economic policy has been supply side reform. Blocked by the LibDems.
Now the triple A rating has been lost perhaps Osborne will man-up and tell the LibDems to take a running jump.
The downgrading is more symbolic than anything else as it has largely already been worked into the market. Osborne was wrong to make such a big play of it, so this is a political own-goal for him but certainly is not a terminal issue. Bear in mind that only Canada and Germany retain their Moody's triple A ratings among the major economies and Germany is on negative watch, the first step towards a downgrade.
This is all about growth, or the lack of it, and those companies most able to deliver growth are the small and middle sized ones. For these businesses there are massive risks involved and, in the case of small companies, the business owners personal assets could be at risk. If we want growth then we need to act and reduce the extraneous risks of regulation and red tape to these businesses along with the costs of employing people. They also need to be incentivised to do so and our penal personal tax rates discourage these businesses from growing. Osborne must act on this, Cameron should let him and the LibDems need to be put in their place.
PS - an interesting aside. One month before AIG went bust, Moody's confirmed their AAA rating! Might they now be over cautious?
- as usual blame is put at the door of the tiny part of the coalition.
- How can you say that Howard?
I have placed the blame on Osborne for not laying down the law to the LibDems and Cameron for not supporting him in pushing through the supply-side reforms and the tax reforms needed.
The fact is that the LDs are ideologically opposed to these changes. That is common knowledge and they boast about their opposition to these things as if it is a good thing. - quite easily barry, the blues should simply say to the yellows "we believe these measures are to the benefit of the uk economy, if you don't back us then you can leave the coalition and we will govern alone".
then watch his face as he thinks of losing the position of deputy prime minister, the salary and car that go with it. - The point you were making is that I was placing the blame on the LDs whereas I was spreading the blame to Osborne, Cameron and the LDs whose ideological opposition to the supply side reforms and tax cuts/reform are to blame.
The question is Howard - would you support the reforms needed, these include:
Reducing the marginal rates of tax on the way to low, flat and simple taxes - i.e. the highest rate of tax anyone should pay on their income should be 37p (2p of which would be NI) as opposed to the highest rate now at 62p (at £100k).
Making it easier to sack people to encourage more employment and business growth.
Reducing, significantly, the employer's NI.
Getting rid of a whole swathe of the more recent so called equality legislation.
A more balanced approach the Health & Safety.
I could go on but that lot would make a good start. - So...
People on the highest incomes could award themselves more. (this is point No.1)
-reducing the personal significance of the employee...
-reducing the significance of an employee still further...
-what little notion of 'equality/dignity' remaining must go...
-allow an employer to be his own judge, jury and coroner.
Each of which intended to assist with Point No.1 - It strikes me Barry, that you are to modern commercial activity what the leech farmer was to the Quackery of old. The same 'bleeding' response no matter the ailment.
- Tom - you and other socialists might live in hope that 1 plus 1 might suddenly make 3 but you will always be disappointed in that, as it will always make 2. So of course my analysis is consistent as it reflects what needs to be done rather than the expediency of politicians. The quackery belongs to those claiming that you can spend and borrow your way out of a spending and debt crisis.
- "Making it easier to sack people to encourage more employment and business growth." You say.
And yet I am the one that gets 1+1=3? - Yes exactly - you de-risk employing people, reduce the cost and generate more jobs. It is simple actually.
But you, you would prefer to protect those in jobs and in so doing damage the prospects of those in work.
You would rather punish the higher earning with high tax rates even if it means lower tax revenues received by HMRC meaning more spending cuts having to be made.
There are many other socialist inconsistencies that also show how those pretending to be a friend to the unemployed and poor are the ones condemning them to unemployment and relative poverty. - Typo there in my last post, second sentence, it is those out of work who suffer from job protectionism, the true 'I'm all right Jack' positioning.
- I do see these 'high earners' you speak of Barry, I cannot see them because the cash-abstractors (that accrue money through near-criminal exploitation) crowding the view.
Many other suggestions you make cannot be taken seriously because you focus on de-risking as if it were cost free and omni-advantageous. If you made some mention of addressing these free/Government induced wealth opportunities by offsetting them with a higher rate of CGT down the line, and made some provision for increased unemployment payments and a broad scope of training availability, then advance could be envisaged. - Tom. You are clearly happy to keep a low growth economy with millions out of work with low wages and high levels of dependency. What matters to you is punishing those who are wealthy and those who dare to take risks and build businesses.
You speak as someone who has never employed people, who has never put his home at risk to build a business. Probably someone who has lived his live at the expense of the taxpayer working in the public sector, or ultimately that means lived at the expense of those who have taken the risks and employed people - the ones who generate all the tax revenues.
All this guff about 'regulation and red tape' is the application of yesterday's failed response to today's real problems and is sadly emblematic of the ya-boo politico-economic mix we seem to be stuck with.
The plain truth is that Party-Political Ideology is what is anchoring the economy in the economic Doldrums.
What we need soon is a General Election. For all the growth inducing thinking is geared-up to provide a sticking plaster to be applied only in early 2015.
A faint heart never won a fair maid.