Coffee House

Liam Fox’s Plan A++

11 March 2013

8:31 PM

11 March 2013

8:31 PM

It’s been a day of competing economic prescriptions from two doctors: Vince Cable  (‘debt’s so cheap it’d be rude not to borrow more!’) and today Liam Fox, who has delivered a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs. Here are Dr Fox’s main points.

His main proposal is a freeze on state spending, so it would not rise with inflation (right now, it’s rising by just under 1pc less than inflation each year). This would set Britain on a far faster path of fiscal consolidation: the high road, if you like, versus the current low road where there is no longer a published plan to balance the books.

[Alt-Text]


It’d mean the government spending about £90bn less. You can see the Labour war room calculating — as it did with Oliver Letwin in 2001 — £90bn of cuts! Armageddon! Fox confronts this head-on. The choice is not between government spending or hunger and destitution, he says. It’s a question of who spends money: government, or the people? Debt is nothing but deferred tax. In a way, debt is a worse tax because it allows one generation to have another pick up its bills.

Lower state spending means lower tax – this, he says, means not only a wealthier but a more socially-cohesive society. So yes, it’d be £90bn less state spending. But..

 ‘as a Conservative, such a commitment doesn’t scare me.  I believe that the country will be at its best when the Government is small and people are left to enjoy the fruits of their own labour.  I believe that in leaving money in people’s pockets, economic activity will follow.  People will buy houses, invest for their future or just go shopping.

Fox’s only point of overlap with Cable is questioning the ring- fencing of departmental. Here are his other points:

  • Scrap tax on savings interest
  • Limiting access to housing benefit for Under 25s
  • Emergency cut, or even suspension, of in capital gains tax. ‘This would create a tax window where businesses that are sitting on assets might be encouraged to sell, investment in capital becomes more attractive and where hundreds of thousands of second homes might come on to the market.’ The Sunday Telegraph also advocated this at the weekend
  • Restrict further ‘deeply immoral’ taxes on income that has already been taxed at source
  • Challenge the language of economic debate: challenge the idea of tax cuts as cash handouts ‘when they are really just letting you keep your own money’

Now, is Fox’s idea too extreme? You might have argued two years ago that if the government sought real-terms savings of just 1pc a year then the budget would be balanced within five years. This was the Treasury’s plan, reflected in the green dotted line below. But it wasn’t enough. The other colours show how the debt picture worsened with every subsequent revision and now (dark blue) Britain’s debt/GDP ratio is expected to keep on rising:

DEBT/GDP PROJECTIONS – HOW THE PICTURE HAS CHANGED. (Source: Citi)

Now, the above graph explains why Britain has lost its AAA credit rating. The markets no longer believe that Britain has a credible debt reduction strategy.

George Osborne has taken this on the chin, and next week is likely to stick to his spending plan even if it means more debt. And the markets wear it, for now. Government borrowing costs actually fell the week after the downgrade and now the 10-year gilt yield is just 2.01pc.

This is what leads Dr Cable to say: look! The markets are asking us – begging us! – to borrow more. It’s a freak economic occurrence, so let’s use this cheap debt to build schools etc. He’s right that it’s a freak condition, for reasons that Allister Heath set out in his seminal article on the ‘bond bubble’ in Sep11.

But if the bond bubble bursts, and if sentiment changes, then any Chancellor — of any party — would be forced to find more savings in state spending. And the end result may look a lot like the spending plan which Dr Fox prescribed today.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • paulus

    To be honest I think both of them are right. But people are still viewing the problem through an old paradigm.
    The State doesn’t need to privatize, with the projected growth in population it needs to commission the private sector to provide a lot of these new essential services such as : schools, hospitals, etc . These providers can access cheap debt, whilst the government can keep control of fiscal finances.

  • http://twitter.com/DHewson The BBC Sucks BBC’s

    Limiting access to housing benefit for Under 25s? That will do nothing to create the mobile workforce we need, how about limit it to a maximum or £100 a week and only for British citizens and then as you earn cash, housing benefit gets reduced at a less drastic rate than it currently is? That would work & be popular.

  • Vrai Telemachus

    25,000 people in the public sector are already being paid more than £100,000 a year. Why would all of these leaders and executives who manage all the services you rely on allow the state to reduce their incomes or numbers? Indeed the state has deliberately placed them in such over paid sinecures so that it can rely on their unwavering support. A few cleaners will get the sack perhaps, but those who are the foot soldiers in the progressive revolution will continue to be rewarded for their promotion in every place of progressive values and principles.

  • Mike Barnes

    “In a way, debt is a worse tax because it allows one generation to have another pick up its bills.”

    And in another far more sensible way, debt is much much better than tax as you can pay it off over a longer time frame with the lowest borrowing costs in our history. Bond rates lower than inflation for Pete’s sake, it’s free money and it should be used as such during the worst recession for 80+ years.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

    This thread shows the Conservative Problem. Are they really trying to generate Stable Economic Growth or are they using this mess as an opportunity to dismantle the Welfare State ? One might involve aspects of the other, but the failure to generate any Economic Growth suggests the focus is in the wrong area

  • Austin Barry

    Let’s see:

    The UK will maintain foreign aid at 0.7% of GPD or £11.0 billion per annum;

    The Afghanistan war is running at £17.3 billion per annum (not forgetting the 414 dead British soldiers); and (blast on heraldic trumpets) preparations for the 2016 Rio Olympics are, for example;

    Cycling £30.6 million

    Rowing £32.6 million

    Athletics £26.8 million

    Swimming £21.4 million

    Hockey £15.5 million

    Tiddleywinks £10.3 million (OK, I made that up).

    All of these items should be scrapped.

    More or less any sentient person on public transport, unless murdered, could produce a similar list of idiotic expenditures, yet they never feature on a politician’s list.

    We’re ruled by profligate fools.

    • Daniel Maris

      Well, we could all come up with such lists –

      Mine might include Trident and pointless treatments on the NHS.

      But the problem is that all these cuts depress the economy and reduce tax take.

      So we this is definitely tightrope walking.

      I think there was an argument for a short sharp shock back in 2010, but we are now way beyond that thanks to the Idiot Osborne putting the austerity frighteners on the economy and compeltely collapsing consumer confidence.

      A list of cuts is pointless.

      What we need now is investment to increase disposable income. First off I think is energy investment, to reduce energy bills, next I think is housing to reduce the amount people put into housing.

      • Vrai Telemachus

        of course if people were taxed less then this would also increase disposable income. we know that. But this is the last thing that the progressive programme we all support wants to happen. if the state gains an increasing % of the national economic activity then it is properly able to redistribute it for the sake of fairness and equality of outcome. in times of social crisis, such as this one which the forces of progress are rightly engineering, there will be pain and sacrifices will be required. But the outcome which is intended is not financial stability, or social integrity, it is a violence free revolution in which the dependence on the state for health, food and life becomes so great that the state gains total control for our common good.

        You may have some good ideas, but it is already too late. The client state is now the majority and while you choose only to complain, we have acted and have gained an unassailable power base.

        What do we need? Well those of us in the progressive movement know that we need chaos, confusion, social conflict, poverty, and all manner temporary evils for the sake of a greater good. There is a small window of opportunity for you to resist us, but you will not. Talk is cheap, the forceful and politically violent action that would be required of you costs more than you will bear.

        • awkwardcustomer

          So you have it all sewn up then. Admittedly, the progressives are well on their way to achieving full state control. And the conservatives/traditionalists are foundering, as you so rightly point out.
          But is there nowhere in your plan for the possibility of failure? Or for the possibility that those who oppose your vision might finally wake up and get their act together?

          • Vrai Telemachus

            awkwardcustomer, describe here what would be required for the reactionary forces to wake up? Be as detailed as you can. I’ll even add a link to the UKIP site – http://www.ukip,org – do you really believe that the conservative forces can be mobilised? Talk is easy, but there is no will among you for the violent political struggle that would be required to wrench the power we have accumulated from our hands. Even the Conservative prime minister is manifestly and explicitly one of us and not one of you.

            • awkwardcustomer

              No, I don’t believe that conservative forces can be mobilised. At least, not before it’s too late. I just wondered if you had considered how such a scenario, unlikely as it is, might play out.
              (Not sure where you’re coming from. With further reading of these blogs it might become clear, eventually.)

        • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

          Folks
          Click on both names

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          Perfect satire or perfect madness? Either way this is very entertaining.

  • Daniel Maris

    Maybe Fraser, since he often promotes Swedish fiscal policy, would like to tell us whether he thinks the Swedish tax take is “immoral”…

  • Daniel Maris

    It’s odd isn’t it how the Spectator and Liam Fox and indeed George Osborne never seem to alight on any policy proposal that might cause the super-rich the slightest bit of fiscal pain. Quite the reverse! The proposals always seem to involved shovelling in more loads of cash into their bank accounts.

    • Andy

      Who are these ‘super-rich’ you keep going on about ? I assume you are one of them.

      Why don’t you actually look at how many people pay what rates of tax.
      ANd why can’t you seem to understand that the cost of running the State increased enormously over the last Labour Government. Are you seriously telling us all that all of that huge real terms increase was necessary and there are not huge savings to be made ????

      • Vrai Telemachus

        The rich pay more than their fair share of taxes. But that is not the point is it? The rich must be soaked to pay for the poor, the migrants, those unable and unwilling to work, those who have multiple children by multiple partners. It is painful but it is not meant to be fair. The essence of the progressive agenda which we all see being worked out if we open our eyes is that half of the population must end up with less than they would earn by their own efforts while the other half must receive more than they would ever earn by their own efforts.

        Equality of outcome is not fair according to the outmoded morality of the past. But it is fair according to the new world order in which all must share in the fruits of a fair and equally ordered society.

    • HookesLaw

      The govt are spending money to catch out the rich tax avoiders. The first thing Osborne complained about on taking office was the widespread culture of tax avoidance he found.
      The govt have put up stamp duty on expensive houses. Despite raising tax allowances the govt have taken steps to make sure the higher band tax payers do not benefit.

      As ever we see idiotic pronouncements which have no basis in fact. Like far too many you spout opinion based on prejudice.

  • Daniel Maris

    “Debt is nothing but deferred tax.”

    Well this is patently false. When Mrs. T. sold off state industries and realised hundreds of millions of pounds, she wasn’t raising any taxes.If she then used money raised to pay off debt (which I believe she did) it clearly wasn’t deferred tax.

    Let’s not have glib answers.

    • Andy

      That was not a ‘glib answer’. Lady Thatcher sold off industries the State owned (and should never have owned actually) and used some of the cash to pay debt. So what can we sell today to pay off debt ??

      As a general rule if the State borrows that is merely deferred taxation. And you know that debt interest is rising at an alarming rate, and by 2015 will probably be £60+ billion.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

        Gas, electricity, Water were municipally owned before being nationalised. They were not private.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

      Funny ! She parked huge liabilities on the taxpayer like pension costs and nuclear de-commissioning and made regulation so lax that customers are now “taxed” by water, gas, electric utilities. She used North Sea Oil and OVERFUNDED National Debt as part of her wacko monetary experiment which never worked. Lawson had Gilts issued at 15% to overfund which is why he was shadowing the D-Mark to try get interest rates down

  • Daniel Maris

    I would agree with querying ring fencing. The NHS has a lot of give I would say. It seems absurd to fast track bunion ops while removing vital social care for the elderly in their homes (through local government social services cuts).

    The NHS needs a remake around personal health budgets, I think.

  • Daniel Maris

    Fox didn’t even understand the basics of being a minister: that you keep your private affairs separate from your government function. How likely is it that he has mastered all the subtleties of economic analysis and come up with the right answer?

    • 2trueblue

      Perhaps you should tell him to take lessons from Balls/Millipede? I think Balls has a degree in economics?

      • Daniel Maris

        I don’t think he needs a degree. Some people are naturals when it comes to economics. Thatcher is probably a good example – she understood how to instil confidence and zero in on the essentials.

        • Andy

          Well Balls is not. He does not understand economics and never has. We wouldn’t be in this mess if him and his stupid master had any grasp of the topic.

  • Radford_NG

    What about simple taxes [for us simple people].One rate income tax with threshold above minimum wage rates [c.£250+per. wk.].Abolish Nat. Ins.//Business tax on the percentage of profits made in Britain……(No cheating by companies paying fees for the use of their own logos to associated companies head-quartered at a post- office box in Zug.)//….Simples!

    • Daniel Maris

      Think companies will find a way round that. Probably best to have a turnover tax.

  • Makroon

    What is “”deeply immoral” taxes on income which has already been taxed at source” ?
    In English please. Sounds more like a post on Coffee House than a sobre policy proposal.

  • Troika21

    Limiting access to housing benefit for Under 25s

    So the young can stay in their parents house all that time, eating them out of house and home. Bravo Liam!

  • Count Dooku

    We need to shrink the state and to shrink it fast! The genius of Fox’s plan is that you limit the pot and then let everyone argue about what the pot should be spent on. Basically creating a political market for the best ideas. The current situation of ever increasing debt and inflation is the road to ruin and tyranny.
    I’d go as far as to back a Bill limiting the size of govt spending to 35% of GDP.

    • HookesLaw

      The genius of Fox’s plan is that it gets Labour elected.

      • Count Dooku

        Who gives a monkey’s? What’s good for the Tories /= what’s good for the country!
        After all we pay more tax as a country now that we ever did under the last Labour govt.

      • Daniel Maris

        Very true. For Labour Liam’s Plan would be like manna from heaven.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

      Who enforces said Act ? How ? Would need to default on the National Debt Servicing to make that work

      • Count Dooku

        The judiciary and police! That’s what they are paid for.
        And net interest would be excluded from this. It would force the govt to do the tricky task of actually Budgeting. You know, looking at earnings and deciding outgoings based on that.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

          W Y Police apparently has no files on Jimmy Saville. It has a DC on trial for making £600,000 selling confiscated narcotics on the street, and its Chief Constable had to resign. That is the No4 Force in the country. Not ONE Banker has been indicted for the FRAUD in the Banking system despite James Crosby having culpability and Fred Goodwin and Eric Daniels and Bob Diamond and that lovely HBOS operation in Reading with £1 billion missing. Someone has siphoned off several billions and not been brought to book…..but you think Governments that execute people like Dr David Kelly will be brought to account by the Plods when they cannot even make MPs accountable for Expense Fraud

          • Count Dooku

            Oh never mind then, we’ll just give up and let them spend as they will!

    • http://twitter.com/DHewson The BBC Sucks BBC’s

      Not even Thatcher got it down to 35%, 40% is a more realistic figure unless you wanna privatise the NHS even further, which would be political suicide.

  • DavidL

    The lesson is; if you give people extra state handouts (benefits for no work, NHS salaries and tiers of supernumary managers, central and local government jobs that have no real purpose, money thrown at education for no measurable improvement, benefits for people who have made no contribution to the UK) it becomes devilishly difficult after a few years of implementation to pursuade the public that the expenditure was not justified in the first place.

    It is a trully cowardly way to oppose the current very weak and tame measures by proposing to save the economy through spending more and borrowing more

    Arguments for taxing corporations or “the rich” may or may not have merit, but their sum total does not even make a dent in the problem. It’s like chucking snowballs at the moon and feeds only the the appetite for jealousy. Everyone should pay their fair whack of tax but please remember that it is the rich who are more likely to be the engines of power to get us out of this hole, not the poor.

    • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

      I cannot believe this preoccupation with deficit when the problem is no coherent plan for growth

      • Colonel Mustard

        That says it all really. The opposition front bench doesn’t understand it either and their “coherent” plan for growth follows the Admiral Yamamoto model – “In the first six to twelve months of office we will run wild and spend billion on billion. But then, if the deficit continues after that, we have no expectation of success.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

          It is so simple that even dunce Fox could get it
          If you do not grow and do not bring in taxes you do not bring in the taxes and your benefits bill rises
          I think a charismatic Chancellor may help here

          • Colonel Mustard

            No, I understand perfectly. It is really simple…

            • Vrai Telemachus

              The path to progress is simple. The state must become the sole centre of authority, dispensing her largesse according to need and demanding the service of all according to ability. The Balls agenda will bring this about by creating an ever expanding client base of those turning to the state to fulfill their basic needs. A little more and the client majority will be so large that the will of the silent poor and unemployed will not be able to be ignored or countermanded.

      • kyalami

        It’s not a matter of belief. It’s a matter of FACT that the spendthrift nature of the Labour government left us in such dire straits financially that we spend more on interest on the debt than we do on education and police combined. If you aren’t pre-occupied with the deficit, then you’re economically illiterate and will lead the UK into the same situation as Greece finds itself in.

        • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

          No point in attacking the deficit if you are not growing since without truly draconian social instability changes the deficit will spiral as tax receipts dwindle
          Simple economics

          • Vrai Telemachus

            indeed the aim has always been to increase the deficit, just as the Coalition is doing, and just as Labour would have done. This will certainly cause great social instability, but this is required to bring about truly revolutionay change.

    • HookesLaw

      ‘You give people “extra” state hand outs’? what ‘extra’ handouts to individuals has the state been making?
      The govt has been cutting ‘handouts’ and every time it does there are howls of complaints.

      The point is Mr Nelson’s hagiography is a load of cobblers.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

        Oh Bankers received at least £500 billion and Barclays loaned Qatar funds to buy its stock breaching Companies Acts and HMRC rules. I think this is called Lemon Socialism

    • Troika21

      state handouts

      Like pensions? I notice you don’t mention the massive sucking sound coming from the coffin-dodgers.

      I’m not opposed to a smaller state, but how is removing money from people who need it the most going to resolve anything?

      • 2trueblue

        So if you worked all your life and have paid your way, then retire and collect your pension you are suddenly a coffin dodger? What do you think should happen? Knock off everyone over a certain age? The attitude you have is what led to the vile treatment of the elderly and infirm in the North Staffs and other hospitals. You would have been really at home in Hitler youth.

        Those who have contributed to the system by working and creating wealth are worth nothing in your terms compared to those who spend their time drinking themselves stupid, end up in the gutter, need treatment because they have wrecked their livers with their excessive drinking and the use of recreation drugs?

        You often find that the houses where there is a lot of need have the biggest TVs etc. Get out more and do some voluntary work and see where the real need is and who contributes. Your coffin dodgers have often been the biggest contributors in the community.

        • Troika21

          The state pension is a benefit just as much as Jobseekers or Housing Benefit is, but pensioners don’t see it like that. Oh no. Everyone else is on benefit, but not them!

          Governments attempt to buy their votes, too. New Labour did (Winter Fuel Payments, Free TV licence, tax free savings of up to £10,000, etc), and so has this government (protection from cuts mostly).

          The end result is today’s pensioners paid lower amounts into a stingier system, and keep voting themselves more and more for taxpayers to pay for.

          As for “Get out more and do some voluntary work”, I do.
          I’ve volunteered at my local Citizens Advice Bureau since 2010, there’s plenty of need to go around.

          • 2trueblue

            The state pension is paid according to your contributions over your years in work, so is not related to benefits. That is a fact, the less years you work the less you get. Those who paid into SERPs get a higher pension.

            If your pension and other funds do not cover your day to day needs then you can be in receipt of benefits to top this up. That is not the same as you wish to class it.

            The winter fuel allowance, free TV licence, were Liebores sweet to win the votes, and should be redressed.

            I am surprised that with a distinct prejudice towards one sector of society (the retired/elderley) that you were deemed suitable to join the CAB and deal with those members of the public in vulnerable situations.

            • Troika21

              “The state pension is paid according to your contributions over your years in work”

              The state pension is a benefit. JSA is paid (for one year) according to contributions. Pensioners have not paid in to the system, as many think they have. People in work are taxed to provide for those not in work. How do you define benefit, then?

              “If your [JSA] and other funds do not cover your day to day needs then you can be in receipt of benefits to top this up.” ‘Nuff said.

              “The winter fuel allowance, free TV licence, free bus passes were Liebores sweetner to win the votes, and should be redressed.”

              But the Coalitions protecting pensioners from their welfare cuts are nothing of the sort, right? Not done the bastards any good though, all voting UKIP.

              I have no hatred of the elderly. I just wish they understood how showered by the state they really are.

              • DWWolds

                When today’s pensioners started work they paid for a National Insurance stamp on the understanding that they were funding a safety net whilst in work and a pension for their old age when they could not work.

                Somewhere along the line we have seen a change from a safety net system to an entitlement system. It is that sense of entitlement, particularly from those who have never worked or contributed via taxes and NI, that is fueling the sense of resentment. It is also fueling the massive overspending problem we have with the national Exechequer.

                • http://twitter.com/ianwalkeruk Ian Walker

                  If the government had more debt when you left work than when you started, then on average you have been a recipient either indirectly or directly of state aid. Individual circumstances of course vary wildly around this middle point, but on the whole, it’s fair to class certain generations as being well-treated by the state.

                  Todays pensioners voted for the millstone of the EU, the wrecking Labour governments of the seventies and nineties, and the current bunch of spivs and charlatans. Maybe they should reflect on that as they huddle under the tartan blankets?

                • cerberus

                  Voted for the millstone of the EU ? anybody who was around at the time to vote and I doubt you were old enough or you would have known , voted for a common market, whats been foisted upon us since then has nothing to do with those who voted, although Cameron got it wrong on that as well.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

                  £100 in 1973 is now worth £6 so reverse calculate what interest rate is needed to generate £100 today from that 1973 contribution. The British economy has not grown especially much in real terms since 1973 and the value of Sterling in terms of gold is sad to behold. There is simply no way people earning £40/week in 1973 could contribute to generate pensions of £71/week today

                  Reply

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

                You are correct about Pay As You Go Benefits…..DWWolds must think pensioners are financial geniuses to think their contributions can produce such stellar investment returns. If 10% population pays 52% Income Tax it is clear who is paying the bills in a highly redistributive system which means butter for all is thinly spread

              • 2trueblue

                To describe a group of people as ‘coffin dodgers’ is a disgusting term and brings no merit to anyone, especially someone who thinks he is making a positive contribution to society.

                • Troika21

                  Whoosh! Hear that? I think the sarcasm has gone over your head. I’m not advocating the Logan’s Run option.

                  Pensioners stop working in their 60’s but thanks to modern medicine stay alive until their 90’s. The retired think they’re not on benefits, and because of this think nothing of claiming £110 per week for 20 to 30 years.

                  There’s not a lot that can be done. Future generations are going to have to pay though – for today’s pensioners welfare and for their own, I think.

                • 2trueblue

                  Ah, You think I missed your ‘clever’ remarks.
                  People who have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and NI, reach the statuary retiring age and collect their pension are by your definition ‘coffin dodgers’. Then when they are unfortunate to come seeking advice they are unfortunate enough to encounter you. Fantastic.

  • Russell

    Never mind a freeze on public sector spending, don’t freeze public sector pay, it requires cutting, and by a significant amount especially on all those living life on the hog on £100K plus at taxpayers expense. 20% cut for them, and tapered down to 0% (a freeze) for those on average salary of £25,000 and less.

    • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

      For Christ’s sake did cutting public pay help Greece?
      Growth
      Strategy for growth

      • Colonel Mustard

        Pish and nonsense from the arrogant socialist who wishes to rob me of my national identity and culture so that he can boast of his politics.

        • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

          Again you misunderstand
          We wish you to grow in stature within the community of Nations as we wish the economy to grow

          • Colonel Mustard

            I prefer to do my own growing. I don’t need a bunch of “we know what is good for you” socialists determining my stature.

            • Andy

              That’s you marked down for the Concentration Camps then.

              • http://www.facebook.com/vrai.telemachus.5 Vrai Telemachus

                We are tolerant of the odd lapse

                • Vrai Telemachus

                  But it is true, there will be a need for rigourous action against the rwactionary forces in due course.

                • awkwardcustomer

                  How many will you need to kill this time?

                • Andy

                  Well you haven’t built them yet, but add his name to the list.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Britain has a viable private sector, Greece does not. Massive real cuts in the wholly unproductive and wasteful public sector and the subsequent transfer of those resources to the private sector will produce the growth you claim to crave.

    • http://twitter.com/DHewson The BBC Sucks BBC’s

      No one in the public sector should be earning more than the PM, personally I think the PMs salary should be £165,000 a year, too many civil servants & town hall bosses get more than this.

  • toco10

    Effective and truly effective tax avoidance measures would help.It simply cannot be right that BBC news hacks funnel remuneration through limited companies which enables them to avoid National Insurance,take dividends rather than salaries,claim expenses the rest of us can only dream about,employ friends and family etc.Sure the BBC’s news hacks are not the only ones to reap massive rewards in this way but the hypocrisy of these arrogant people is quite frankly obscene.Go on George my boy get these hypocrites and give the rest of us mere mortals a couple of tax breaks.

    • HookesLaw

      Correct – the BBC complained about the deficit with one hand and contributed yo it with the other.
      Perhaps I should use the words face instead of hand.

      • Andy

        Yes well you are talking about the Labour Broadcasting Corporation. But I am sure that these schmes stretch Tax Law beyond breaking point.

    • Andy

      It is high time the Revenue challenged these BBC news hacks arrangements in the Courts. They patently fore fill the ‘master/servant test’, so I fail to understand why they are not on PAYE and the BBC isn’t paying NI.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004981542519 Tom Tom

        Chair a few conferences, do some after-dinner speaking, and write a few newspaper articles and you are self-employed

        • Andy

          Those bits are self employment. However if you are on the telly virtually every bloody night at 10.30pm I call that employment. Quite why the Revenue can’t see that one God alone knows.

    • Vrai Telemachus

      There is no intention on the part of progressive politicians of providing tax breaks. If you think that is what any will do then you have failed to understand what is happening. You may be promised tax breaks, you may think you have received a tax break, but what is given with one hand will always be taken by several others, since the intention is always, and by all progressive politicians (who are now the only ones with power) to increase the scope and scale of the state.

  • HookesLaw

    Discretionary state spending IS being cut and spending on the NHS frozen and the NHS itself undergoing a 20 billion efficiency savings drive. As we currently see some discretionary spending (welfare) is being cut and and hundreds of thousands of state jobs are being cut.

    Our problem would be less acute if corporations and people paid their taxes.
    I note you still care not to expose the Ritz for not having paid any tax for 17 years.

    • Makroon

      Good one !
      But after 2.5 years, it is painfully obvious that this government doesn’t have the cohesion, energy nor know-how, to go after the tax dodgers, not even in the Patten sinecure.

      • HookesLaw

        The govt is in fact spending a lot of money to find and expose the tax dodgers.

        Despite the usual claims to the opposite the govt did in fact publish a plan for growth within the its first 6 months. There is no ‘instant’ response to the massive overhang of debt or the massive Eurozone shambles. A whole range of measures are needed to rebalance the economy. The govt wisely want to reform the planning system but what happens everybody complains and then wonders why we have low growth.

        it may make a load of thick nutjobs happy to see money taken away from pensioners and poor families and watch them freeze and starve and tune in to the BBC every night to see the govt traduced. But if taking away that money only to give it away to someone else actually adds consumption to the economy then they truly must also believe in perpetual motion machines.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here