I'm guessing that this is going to come and bite him big time.

[doodab]

But then the onus would be on who ever is in government to reduce spending once people see how much they really pay in tax. How many voters for instance know that when they buy petrol that most of the price is duty with vat added on top of the duty

With a more clued up electorate perhaps they'd be less keen on having a benefits culture

I prefer to think it would encourage a rational debate about what we value as a society and what we are willing to pay for it.

[doodab]

So do you consume things because you are forced to by advertising?

Not forced necessarily, but certainly influenced. If advertising didn't actually work then companies wouldn't spend money on it. So you have to ask yourself, how does it work? And it works by exploiting the various hard wired heuristics and subconscious processes of decision making and behaviour that the human psyche has evolved over tens of thousands of years.

[original PM]

anyone with kids knows how influenced they are by adverts - they just need to watch some rubbish about a pink fluffy talking dog (or whatever this weeks fad is) and they desperately need it -- however that is where us as parents need to step in and explain why you cannot have everything you see on tele.

It does actually open some good conversations about wants, needs and also the fact that to get something you need to earn it and it is not just given for free - some important lessons I think....

[DodgyAgent]

Not forced necessarily, but certainly influenced. If advertising didn't actually work then companies wouldn't spend money on it. So you have to ask yourself, how does it work? And it works by exploiting the various hard wired heuristics and subconscious processes of decision making and behaviour that the human psyche has evolved over tens of thousands of years.

so what is the problem then?

[Scoobos]

It does actually open some good conversations about wants, needs and also the fact that to get something you need to earn it and it is not just given for free - some important lessons I think....

That's brilliant parenting and I only wish we spent more time and money getting the numpties out there to do the same.

[Doggy Styles]

so what is the problem then?

On a slightly different slant, I believe many people do need protecting from themselves. And not just for their own sakes.

The best example is making mortgages available at huge multiples of income. This has buggered up the housing market, but perhaps more importantly it has created massive personal debt.

This affects the whole economy, not just the borrowers, because consumer spending and thus 'growth' is lower, and with several million people in large personal debt it severely limits the ability to raise base rates. The coallition is a bit hamstrung by this.

[oscarose]

I just don't think he realises who it is that votes for him. I know very few tories that are on the dole or low incomes. if he thinks he is going to overrun the Guardian reading crowd with a jump to left he's badly mistaken. All he has managed to do so far is make sure I never bother to vote again. I wonder how hard it would be to organise a walk out by every small business in the UK...

Just think if every contractor in the UK said sod it. Im not working for 2 weeks in May on mass. Im willing to bet that when the next quarters vat figures rolled in and the CT take plummeted there would be some very worried faces in the treasury. Im ****ed off with being trodden on like a criminal when I pay substantial and legal taxes for the UK government to piss up the wall.

Smell the coffee bob.

Haven't you realised that there hasn't been any difference between the tories and labour for about 20 years now. IT contractors are very well paid and the vast majority aren't small businesses employing people but 1 man bands. The idea of a 2 week 'strike' is an absolute joke. IT workers are increasing held in diminishing esteem and indeed treated like lepers in many establishments despite business becoming almost entirely dependent on them. No one in the UK will be interested in some kind of 'action'. Afterall, there will be no shortage of bobs waiting to fill the roles.

In the eyes of Joe Public, IT contractors earning £500+ day (of tax payers money) at banks probably will be held with the same regard as bankers.

Grow up and get into the real world.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

On a slightly different slant, I believe many people do need protecting from themselves. And not just for their own sakes.

The best example is making mortgages available at huge multiples of income. This has buggered up the housing market, but perhaps more importantly it has created massive personal debt.

This affects the whole economy, not just the borrowers, because consumer spending and thus 'growth' is lower, and with several million people in large personal debt it severely limits the ability to raise base rates. The coallition is a bit hamstrung by this.

Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through education

[Old Greg]

Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through education

Why not educate them by forcing them to live with the consequence? Isn't it their own responsibilty to educate themselves. Do you want the state spreading its indoctrination?

[Doggy Styles]

Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through education

We've been saying this for years, about a variety of topics, but in most cases it has only a limited effect.

Time and time again a laissez-fair approach to lending or investment has proved to be a recipe for disaster, even among 'professionals'. In fact, especially among professionals, so imagine what it is like among the great unwashed.

In the case I discussed, it is no more nanny state to return to a '3 or 4 times earnings' limit on personal lending than any other rules relating to due dilligence within banks.