Strikers are stealing from their own children

[xoggoth]

True enough, we should perhaps not bracket all PS together. Some jobs contribute very significantly to the economy, others do not. Recall reading an article on the then Department of Trade and Industry about 20 years ago, basically it served no purpose that justified the number in it. One might seriously question some roles of DEFRA today for example. The private sector mostly has a crude check, you make a profit or go under. In the public sector all assessment of worth is subjective and empire builders can flourish.

[doodab]

All Bran.

That's the answer.

Tough on piles. Tough on the causes of piles.

[minestrone]

When they say "hands of our pensions" I think we should take them at face value and stop any contributions.

[BrilloPad]

Easier to defend rises in pension age if you are not throwing billions at bankers.

[TheFaQQer]

The Autumn Statement made cear that the Nasty Party is back. The poorest bear 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%, with the richest 10% untouched.

£1bn cut in child tax credits
£275m cut in working tax credits

£310 to be taken from the banks

We're all in this together.

But some are more in it together than others.

[BrilloPad]

But some are more in it together than others.

True. But labour would have done very little different.

[BrilloPad]

But then what do I know.

The beauty of posting on CUK. One needs no knowledge to spout endless opinions.

[TheFaQQer]

True. But labour would have done very little different.

Borrowing is expected to be £79billion in 2014/15 after bringing in deep cuts.

Darling's borrowing for 2014/15 was expected to be £75billion.

So we're talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Too much, too deep, too quick = recession

[BlasterBates]

Yes but how do you pay?

It's all very well to say it's unfair, but health, benefits and pensions is exactly where all the money goes. You don't cut them, you go bankrupt, and then they get nothing; just like happened in Argentina.

Yes of course you can raise punitive taxes like they did in the 1960's and 1970's (98% top rate of tax) and the government still had to go with a begging bowl to the IMF.

Why? because when you charge huge amounts of tax people don't go to work anymore because there's no point, so your only option is to print money, that causes inflation, just like it did in the 1970's.

So if you raise more taxes on "the rich" the net result will probably be less in the tax take and therefore even more cuts. It's very much accepted that tax rates beyond 50% (probably less than that) are counterproductive. So perhaps people might feel less envious but in the end they'll be poorer, and if you go for inheritance you''ll just demolish family businesses. I think you'll find tax rates pretty similar across most OECD countries, and there is a reason. Sure you can tweak here and there, stick a couple of percentage points on this or that tax, but there's no magic wand that will pay off the debt.

[DimPrawn]

Why? because when you charge huge amounts of tax people don't go to work anymore because there's no point, so your only option is to print money, that causes inflation, just like it did in the 1970's.

Or (and it's even easier now than it was in the 1970's) if you are a high earner, you emigrate to any number of countries where the overall tax take is lower and the quality of life is higher and then the govt are getting 100% of **** all, and that hits the overall tax revenues very hard indeed.