Austerity explained

[oldblue]

Just somewhere for posters to explain in depth their views on why it's extreme to suggest we don't need to cut spending on the more vulnerable in society. No anti corbyn stuff but an explanation as to why you understand austerity to be the centre ground and a necessity.
Here's a recent report that throws some doubt on it but what do you all think?

"Our paper shows that insurance can be expensive in terms of the higher taxation needed to run a budget surplus. And more importantly for countries that have ample fiscal space, the cost of insurance is likely to be much larger than the benefit. It is much better in these circumstances to simply live with the debt, allowing the debt ratio to be reduced organically through higher growth."

 

[COYBL25]

First @tim gabbott

 

[oldblue]

First @tim gabbott

This is proving insightful

 

[peteblue]

 

[magicjuan]

Those who get, get more. Those who don't, don't. They pay for it.

It is a direction of intent on the destination of money. Explained. There isn't even a trickle down carrot. Anyone arguing that isn't the case is either a beneficiary or doesn't understand the system at all.

 

[bring the ghost on]

"Does the struggling salesman turn up on a bicycle? No, he turns up in a new car. Perception, yeah?" - David Brent.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Anyone who posts in this thread tomorrow while the match is on is looking at a two day ban.
Obviously mods and admins are exempt.

The above applies in here too btw


To answer your question @oldblue.

You need to be an economist to work out the long term effect of austerity as opposed to spending the money "saved" through austerity but, if an austerity policy is to be applied then the most vulnerable in society should be protected from those austerity measures as much as possible.

The converse should apply too, by which I mean that there needs to be some tax raised from the better off in society to limit the need for austerity in the first place. But those tax rises need to be made in such a way that they don't squeeze the better off too much or they risk limiting the amount of tax you can raise.

In short, as always in life, you need to find a middle way.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

It's not Economics, it's nasty greedy Tory ideology.

Tory Class War pure and simple.

 

[oldblue]

The above applies in here too btw


To answer your question @oldblue.

You need to be an economist to work out the long term effect of austerity as opposed to spending the money "saved" through austerity but, if an austerity policy is to be applied then the most vulnerable in society should be protected from those austerity measures as much as possible.

The converse should apply too, by which I mean that there needs to be some tax raised from the better off in society to limit the need for austerity in the first place. But those tax rises need to be made in such a way that they don't squeeze the better off too much or they risk limiting the amount of tax you can raise.

In short, as always in life, you need to find a middle way.

But has cutting merely to achieve a deficit ever provided growth or indeed reduced debt in the long term. Any economist who suggests balancing the books over a man made fiscal period is for me just denying the basics of what an economy is. It could in over simplified terms stop you spending on something that means over an extensive period of time you save dramatically.
The need to cut something inefficient that provides no real benefit to society is I would say the point when we need to ensure we protect people.

 

[tommye]

there you go.

 

[PITA]

The above applies in here too btw


To answer your question @oldblue.

You need to be an economist to work out the long term effect of austerity as opposed to spending the money "saved" through austerity but, if an austerity policy is to be applied then the most vulnerable in society should be protected from those austerity measures as much as possible.

The converse should apply too, by which I mean that there needs to be some tax raised from the better off in society to limit the need for austerity in the first place. But those tax rises need to be made in such a way that they don't squeeze the better off too much or they risk limiting the amount of tax you can raise.

In short, as always in life, you need to find a middle way.

Sadly they would only be hypothesising.

 

[oldblue]

It's not Economics, it's nasty greedy Tory ideology.

Tory Class War pure and simple.

Without a peep from any Tories then as an impartial observer I'm going to have to assume this to be fact

 

[Woolly Blue]

But has cutting merely to achieve a deficit ever provided growth or indeed reduced debt in the long term. Any economist who suggests balancing the books over a man made fiscal period is for me just denying the basics of what an economy is. It could in over simplified terms stop you spending on something that means over an extensive period of time you save dramatically.
The need to cut something inefficient that provides no real benefit to society is I would say the point when we need to ensure we protect people.

You typed quite a few words there mate but didn't really say anything.
There's defo a future for you in politics

 

[dandydan]

It's not Economics, it's nasty greedy Tory ideology.

Tory Class War pure and simple.

Is it still the 80's where you live? Can you put a scorecast on the 86 cup final for me?

 

[JammyP]

"Austerity" is just the excuse and the brand name for an ideological belief that the state should be small, and that it is better for all in society to choose for themselves what to spend their money on.

it seems to me to be dishonest and uncaring claptrap.

peace and love ☺