flatpack-
The period from the oil shock of the early 70's to the end of the 70's was as much of an unsustainable boom as was the boom which led to the current predicament we find ourselves in.
No. The current predicament we find ourselves is in due to a financial crisis borne out of the deregulation of the financial sector, starting in the 1980s, but continuing well up until the crisis.
Any graphs you care to link to will show an economy in much the same condition as ours was between approx 2003 to 2008 - i.e. broadly OK, nothing to see here... And then it all falls off a cliff.
Um, yes, it's called a financial crisis. The whole house of cards came tumbling down when banks stopped lending to each other because they new they all had dodgy debts.
"I don't think you'd like the solution, which is to take more progressively. The tax burden has shifted away from corporations and on to individuals"
I've said several times elsewhere that I'd like to see the poorest pay no tax whatsoever (the easiest way to meet the Joseph Rowntree Foundations recommendation for a minimum income which I assume that we both support) through having a larger personal allowance and to have all other taxes rolled together and included in a flat rate from that point onwards. I can't think of a fairer, more progressive system than that.
I agree about the poorest, or at least anyone on the minimum wage, not paying any tax whatsoever. Don't agree about a flax tax, though. They would mean middle-class families paying the same tax as a portion of their income on their whole income as multi-millionaires.
I don't see a problem with the tax burden shifting from corporations to individuals and here's why. At the end of the day all tax, irrespective of where you levy it, will be 'paid' by an individual somewhere. Income tax, council tax, capital gains and VAT are pretty obvious examples, but even corporation tax will reduce the dividend paid to the shareholders, reduce the wages of the workers, and increase the prices to the customer or, more likely, a combination of all three.
Yes, yes, I've heard that nonsense before - "corporations don't pay tax, they just pass it on to consumers." This is patently false in any reasonably competitive and well-regulated economy. The fact that corporations have spent billions in the past decades consistently lobbying for lower taxes is pretty good evidence of this.
Even employers NI reduces the wage packet of the workers by making them more expensive to hire. This is called tax incidence. I am of the opinion, backed with plenty of prescient examples, that it is harder for an individual to hide their income than it is for a multinational corporation. I therefore believe that simplifying the system is in all of our interests.
That's nice. It also means that corporations increase their profit margins, the top brass get paid outrageous salaries, whilst everyone else pays an ever increasing share of tax - no thanks.
"Which laws would you do away with? The minimum wage? The right to form a union? anti-discrimination laws"
The minimum wage discriminates against the least skilled, the least experienced and those whose labour just isn't worth £6.08 per hour. In short, it discriminates against youth who have no record of work who, in the past, companies may have taken a punt on. Combined with worker protection regulations, it ensures that employers have little incentive to take on a school leaver whom they may subsequently have problems getting rid of. Look across Europe and it's clear that the twin policies of minimum wage and high levels of worker protection result in high unemployment amongst the young - this effect doesn't stop at 16, 18 or 21, it can affect individuals throughout their twenties.
Oh for God's sake, man. This is just a pathetic and tired argument. A reasonable minimum wage will not have any significant effect on employment. Employers have complained throughout history about the evils of anti-dumping laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-child labour laws, etc. always complaining that they would be put out of business. Yet, here we are today, with the highest GDP we've had in history and with top companies making historically unprecedented profits. It's completely nonsense.
UK employers warned that unemployment would skyrocket when the min wage was brought in. Guess what, it didn't.
"It's only been the longest recession for 50 years, thanks to Tory policies of hack and slash of public spending and attacks on the poor."
And absolutely nothing to do with policies from the years leading up to the 2010 election?
Oh yes, absolutely. Deregulation of the financial sector, by both New labour and the Tory scum allowed the financial mobsters to cause this crisis. This neo-liberal agenda of deregulation has been happening for decades.
If the Tories are hacking and slashing spending why are we still borrowing over 10% of GDP each year, just as we have been doing for each year since 2008?
Very good, you're learning! :) We're still borrowing because hack and slash doesn't work, and the economy is shrinking, people are not spending, people are being fired, and the govt. has to pay more in welfare. That's what happens when suck out all the life of the economy.
To put it another way, if one was to propose Keynesian spending (which is often held up as the counter-argument to the 'current' economic model) one would be advocating that the government should borrow heavily and spend to stimulate the economy - how would that differ from what they are actually doing?
They're not borrowing heavily. They're paying off interest payments and trying to reduce the deficit by slashing spending. What they need to do is actually spend money on infrastructure projects which will create employment and get the economy going again.
Even that Tory scum Boris Johnson said major construction projects should be enacted immediately to help the economy (as well as supply-side reforms, which are not needed).
"The two parties are both part of the problem, not the solution."
Blimey, something we agree on smile. I'm not sure I'm going to like this, but what is your alternative?
Democracy.