harry wrote:

There is no land surplus dopey.

Oh no this senile idiot is making thing up again. Read Who Owns Britain by
Kevin Cahill.

The reason there is a housing shortage is because of immigrants.

Such a dickhead!

Andy Champ wrote:

On 15/10/2012 18:37, harry wrote:

There is no land surplus dopey.
The reason there is a housing shortage is because of immigrants.
They are all living somewhere.

That'll be all the Polish builders will it?

Incidentally many developers have large "land banks" - they buy land,
then build on it later when the value has inflated.

It is called speculation which keep useful land from being used usefully.
Land Valuation Tax would stop all that.

SteveW wrote:
On 15/10/2012 11:03, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

the only landowners are landlords, who take delight in screwing the
most they can out of their tenants.

That is exactly what they do. They chaneg as much as the market will
allow.
If you've worked hard all your life and bought your own home
instead of renting, then you are, by definition, a scrounging,
greedy leech and you deserve all you get.

Someone 30 years ago who bought house for £100K and it is now worth
say £800K has made £700K for doing NOTHING. A freeloader. As a
landower I am a freeloader but have the intelligence to see that. I
do not tell myself lies and believe them.

If they are happy living in their house and are not intending trading
down or similar, then they have made nothing.

Not so. They may pass the house onto the kids who take the windfall gains
from doing NOTHING. They can downsize and keep the surplus cash. They can
take out a loan, payable on death or sale of property.

They may have an
expensive house, but they may have little or no spare capital or
income to pay a tax on the "gain" that they have made as they have
not actually realised that gain.

If they do not realise the gain that is their problem. But the value gain is
there for sure - which they never earned.

Even if they do realise that gain by
selling, then if they are moving to a similar priced property, they
still have no cash in hand.

But they still have £700Ks worth of value they did not earn. I can have a
£1 million under the bed. If I do not spend that that is my problem - but
it is still there.

harry wrote:

So you're prepared to starve then Dribble?

What are you on about you senile fool?

John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as
now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and its
resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work harder to make
it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land and house as lucrative
sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the free-market comes
to level the limit.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/10/2012 10:30, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import most of
its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

Have you noticed what is happening to global food prices?

Which has no bearing on the above.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as
now.

No. Read above.

Rubbish. Unless you really believe that HMG will accept a reduction in
revenue.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and its
resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work harder to
make it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land and house as
lucrative sideline.

HMG revenue would not be allowed to drop, as HMG will do whatever they
need to do to increase it beyond the old level.

To take your point about absentee landlords no longer using owning land
and house as a lucrative sudeline, what would happen to said house and
land? If there's no point in renting it out as housing, then it will be
demolished or re-purposed, so removing it from the market and increasing
market rent, as the demand for housing is fixed. (In fact, it is
constantly increasing due to various factors)

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the free-market
comes to level the limit.

Join the real world. Landlords will either pass on the increase, or sell
the land to a new owner, who will then issue new rental agreements. No
matter what, the tenants will end up paying the amount of the tax in
addition to the rent they now pay. They will be able to afford this as
they are not paying VAT or income tax in your world. In other words,
market rents will increase. The total tax burden will stay the same or
increase slightly. The tenant's other choice, especially for businesses
where location isn't important, will be to move, leaving the landlord
with tax to pay and no income, which may lead to the government taking
possession of the land in lieu of taxes.

Incidentally, Income tax was only introduced to pay for a war, with the
promise that it would be removed after the war finished, Vehicle excise
duty similarly. I note that many years after the wars in question ended,
we're still paying them. I honestly can't see our government introducing
LVT and then removing a single tax from the existing framework.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Oct 15, 6:57*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No Income
tax or Sales tax, etc. *Studies have proven that a owner/occupier man on
£40K per year when changing over to LVT would be approx £6-7K better off
each year. *Then land prices will remain steady and people could afford
bigger and better homes at highly affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as now.
The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the people
paid to assess the new tax.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up paying
the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how well
disguised this is.




I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as
now.

No. Read above.

Rubbish. Unless you really believe that HMG will accept a reduction in
revenue.

Stop guessing you fool. Studies were taken using the same level of HMG
expenditure as now and the average man was £1000s per year better off. Also
land price would spiral out of control.

HMG revenue would not be allowed to drop, as HMG will do whatever they
need to do to increase it beyond the old level.

HMGs speding on welfare would drop as the economy would rise - as occured
Denmark, etc.

Join the real world. Landlords will either pass on the increase,

LVT CANNOT be passed on. Read my other posts on this. Stop guessing.

or sell the land to a new owner, who will then issue new rental
agreements.

...and use the land to greater productive use. LVT is only tax shift - not a
political movement.

Incidentally, Income tax was only introduced to pay for a war, with the
promise that it would be removed after the war finished,

See my other posts on this.

I note that many years after the wars in question ended, we're still
paying them.

William Pitt, the Tories saw the opportunity to remove taxes from their
lands and load it onto the poor. They call it progressive taxation - it is
not pregressive and does not work.

I honestly can't see our government introducing LVT and then removing a
single tax from the existing framework.

The Tories, the party of privilideg and landowers? No. The LibDems have it
high on their target, but try to get it in, in various watered down ways -
the mansion tax for one. Churchill was a massive fan. The only war he lost
was to the British landlords.

Q: If LVT is so sensible, why don't we have it
already?

A: LVT, first proposed by the American social
economist Henry George in the 19th Century,
received wide popular support. But it was
suppressed from mainstream economics just
because it is fundamentally pro-community
(the whole community) and anti-elitist.
Mainstream economists are the priesthood of
our wealth-elitist political system, which
favours privatisation and leads to the
exhaustion of natural resources. LVT is part of
a more enlightened agenda for a just and
sustainable society.

Q: Could LVT be introduced tomorrow ?

A: Yes. But, once the principle had been
accepted, there would need to be a debate
about the form it should take and as to
transitional provisions to avoid disruption.

Q: Will LVT be yet another tax?

A: Not necessarily. It could replace an
existing tax that is considered harmful to the
economy.

Q: Where else has LVT been
implemented?

A: Denmark, Hong Kong, lots of cities in
the US - especially in Pennsylvania, cities
in Australia, including Sydney. Taiwan
catapulting an island of paddy fields and
ignorance into a world technological power
in a few decades. The Germans used it brilliantly
in Tsingtao in China - unfortunately taken from
Germany after WW1.

Q: How does LVT effect the planning
system?

A: It doesn't. Land can still be
zoned/designated as industrial/residential/
public space/agricultural as normal, and
differential tax rates set accordingly.

Q: How can we persuade the legislators
to act?

A: Popular pressure. The principle of LVT
will be opposed by big landowners and
their hangers-on who will spend millions
campaigning against it. But we live in a
democracy. And LVT benefits the majority,
including builders and house-buyers and
tenants, as well as strengthening the
community as a whole.

WHAT IS LAND VALUE TAX (LVT) ?

LVT is a tax on the site value of land.
The site value is the unimproved value of the land.
It is the part of the total value of the land not
attributable to any buildings on the land or any
work of improvement, so neither the present owner
nor any previous owner can claim to have
contributed to the site value. The site value is
created by nature or by the community, often by
publicly funded infrastructure provision.
However it is imposed, LVT is a way for the
community to receive back the value created by
public expenditure, or for the community to share
the benefit of nature's gift.

HOW DOES LVT WORK?
LVT can take many forms. It can be an annual tax,
or it can take the form of a levy payable on the sale
of the land, the zoning of land for development or
the grant of planning permission.
The tax can be made payable to a local authority, a
parish or city council, or to central government.
The tax can be used to increase the total revenue
available to the local authority or central
government to spend on public services. Or it can
enable other, less efficient, taxes to be reduced.
As a single tax, it would replace all other taxes.
LVT can be 'hypothecated', ie ring-fenced to be
spent in a certain way for the benefit of the
community.

LVT is often imposed in addition to a tax on the
buildings on land: the site value is taxed at a higher
rate than the buildings: this is known as the 'dual
rate tax.'

LVT can be charged at different rates for different
per acre site values, at higher rates for more
valuable land, as in Barbados.
Land is special because:

.. there is only so much of it
unlike manufactured goods, higher
prices don't result in more land being
produced

.. you can't move it around
a tax on land cannot be avoided

.. it's a free gift
people who profit from increased site
values haven't earned one cent of this
profit

.. it's a basic necessity of life
everyone needs somewhere to live

At the moment

· open market housing is unaffordable to the vast majority of
people, especially the young, and those who can afford to buy can
only do so by taking out massive mortgages

· meanwhile speculators and other landowners are making
unearned fortunes. If not taxed, land ownership confers superior
bargaining power and leads to concentration of wealth

Because at the moment there is a fundamental flaw in the
system: the site value of land, which is created not by the
landowner but by nature and the community, belongs to
the lucky landowner. The landowner is getting the value
that ought to belong to the community.

We need to correct the system, not just tweak it.
More regulation and bureaucracy aren't the answer:
they address the symptoms, not the cause of the
problem. They are inefficient and open to abuse.
We need a system that eliminates the basic flaw; a
system that ensures that increased site values created
by nature and the community are enjoyed by the
community.

The benefits of Land Value Tax

LVT corrects a basic flaw in the existing system.
Not surprisingly, there are many benefits:

Economic; it discourages land speculation - the
tax encourages landowners to develop or sell.
It brings more land onto the market for housing
at lower prices.

Social: the site value of land belongs in justice to
the community: LVT ensures that the economic
advantages of land-ownership are fairly shared.

Logistic: easy to assess and collect, can't be
evaded, as the location is know to the inch. It
can't be taken off-shore.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away with
as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax as the
only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as it is now,
or, if they think they can get away with it, greater. Therefore, on
average, we would all be paying at least the same amount of tax as
now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and its
resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work harder to
make it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land and house as
lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the free-market
comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply. At the moment rental
is limited because amongst other things the tenant also has to pay
council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the landlord
there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more. All landlords
would simultaneously increase rent to compensate. Similarly if the
tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat again capacity
to pay more increases and as demand in housing is always greater than
supply rents would rise.

--
hugh

And FILA x NOOKA a href="http://www.uggsaustraliaoutlet.co.uk/"font color="#00CC66" size="4" face="新宋体"2012/2013 New UGGS Australia Outlet/font/a
series backpack and a href="http://www.uggsaustraliaoutlet.co.uk/"font color="#009933" size="3" face="新宋体"Cheap UGG Boots UK/font/a
shoes release is the release activityfont color="#3333CC" size="4" face="新宋体"ugg ausralia outlet/fontof the icing on the cake, for FILA injectiona href="http://www.uggsaustraliaoutlet.co.uk/"font color="#3399FF" size="4" face="新宋体"new ugg 2013/font/a
more international fashion element. FILA x NOOKA series backpack and shoes FILA as first launched cross-border products, will use limit, limit region way sales, will certainly become city pursue tide fashion of people dream of necessary sheet is tasted.http://www.uggsaustraliaoutlet.co.uk/

hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away
with as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax
as the only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as
it is now, or, if they think they can get away with it, greater.
Therefore, on average, we would all be paying at least the same
amount of tax as now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and
its resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work
harder to make it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land
and house as lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the
free-market comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply.

You are getting. It is called the free-market.

At the moment rental is limited because amongst other things the tenant
also has to
pay council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the
landlord there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

All landlords would simultaneously increase rent to compensate.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

Similarly
if the tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat
again capacity to pay more increases and as demand in housing is
always greater than supply rents would rise.

Unused speculative land and housing would come onto the market filling the
housing gap. Relaxed planning would alsos improve the housing gap. My idea
of planning is almost none at all.

harry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of economics.
HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private and public, pails
into insignificance.

On Oct 16, 2:16*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of economics..
HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private and public, pails
into insignificance.

Not buckets then?

harry wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:16 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is
resolved) we have law to the effect that the government can't
borrow money, the national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK,
private and public, pails into insignificance.

Not buckets then?

Harry, have the Tory cuts cut back bed pans in your home? Fight for your
rights Harry and don't vote for them again.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away
with as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax
as the only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as
it is now, or, if they think they can get away with it, greater.
Therefore, on average, we would all be paying at least the same
amount of tax as now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and
its resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work
harder to make it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land
and house as lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the
free-market comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply.

You are getting. It is called the free-market.

At the moment rental is limited because amongst other things the
tenant also has to
pay council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the
landlord there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

I don't know what average council tax works out at but around here say
£150 per month on top of current average rents of about £500 per month.
All landlords would simultaneously increase rent to compensate.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

You have a pretty naive view of how competition works in practice.
Similarly
if the tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat
again capacity to pay more increases and as demand in housing is
always greater than supply rents would rise.

Unused speculative land and housing would come onto the market filling
the housing gap. Relaxed planning would alsos improve the housing gap.
My idea of planning is almost none at all.
So who would be responsible for all the flooding caused by all these
millions of acres of water absorbing fields now covered with houses and
tarmac?
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private
and public, pails into insignificance.


Yup, they borrow by the bucketful. Current public debt 1.4 trillion by
end of this parliament. Private debt over 1 trillion
--
hugh

"hugh" ] wrote in message
news
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on £40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx £6-7K better off each year. Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away
with as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax
as the only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as
it is now, or, if they think they can get away with it, greater.
Therefore, on average, we would all be paying at least the same
amount of tax as now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and
its resources - is gone. Those who own land would have to work
harder to make it pay. No absentee landlords who use owning land
and house as lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the
free-market comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply.

You are getting. It is called the free-market.

At the moment rental is limited because amongst other things the tenant
also has to
pay council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the
landlord there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

I don't know what average council tax works out at but around here say
£150 per month on top of current average rents of about £500 per month.
All landlords would simultaneously increase rent to compensate.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

You have a pretty naive view of how competition works in practice.
Similarly
if the tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat
again capacity to pay more increases and as demand in housing is
always greater than supply rents would rise.

Unused speculative land and housing would come onto the market filling the
housing gap. Relaxed planning would alsos improve the housing gap. My idea
of planning is almost none at all.

So who would be responsible for all the flooding caused by all these
millions of acres of water absorbing fields now covered with houses and
tarmac?

Boy this forum really has 'em.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of economics.
HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private and public,
pails into insignificance.


Yup, they borrow by the bucketful. Current public debt 1.4 trillion by end
of this parliament. Private debt over 1 trillion

You never understood what I wrote.

On Oct 16, 6:48*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:16 pm, "Doctor *Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is
resolved) we have law to the effect that the government can't
borrow money, the national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK,
private and public, pails into insignificance.

Not buckets then?

Harry, have the Tory cuts cut back bed pans in your home? *Fight for your
rights Harry and don't vote for them again.

PAILS into insignificance? Heh Heh!
You are one of these socialist gits that can think no further than
spending other peoples money. Go out and get some of your own.

On Oct 16, 11:14*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , Doctor *Drivel
writesharry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private
and public, pails into insignificance.

Yup, they borrow by the bucketful. Current public debt 1.4 trillion by
end of this parliament. Private debt over 1 trillion
--
hugh

Don't spoil his rant! He never lets facts get in the way.

On Oct 16, 11:14*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes







hugh wrote:
In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes
John Williamson wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

They are landowners so pay LVT on the value of the land only. No
Income tax or Sales tax, etc. *Studies have proven that a
owner/occupier man on 40K per year when changing over to LVT would
be approx 6-7K better off each year. *Then land prices will remain
steady and people could afford bigger and better homes at highly
affordable prices.

Given that any government will spend as much as they can get away
with as a proportion of GDP, if a change was made to Land Value Tax
as the only revenue, the total amount raised would be the same as
it is now, or, if they think they can get away with it, greater.
Therefore, on average, we would all be paying at least the same
amount of tax as now.

No. Read above.

The only winner would be the government and, temporarily, the
people paid to assess the new tax.

The winners will be all. HMG revenue would drop as LVT encourages
enterprise - the easy route to predator unearned income - land and
its resources - is gone. *Those who own land would have to work
harder to make it pay. *No absentee landlords who use owning land
and house as lucrative sideline.

Even people who rent their homes or business premises will end up
paying the new tax, as the land owner will pass it on,no matter how
well disguised this is.

Read my other post on this. LVT CANNOT be passed on as the
free-market comes to level the limit.

Nonsense. Rental level is set by demand and supply.

You are getting. It is called the free-market.

At the moment rental is limited because amongst other things the
tenant *also has to
pay council tax. If this went or was in effect transferred to the
landlord there is capacity on the side of the tenant to pay more.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

I don't know what average council tax works out at but around here say
150 per month on top of current average rents of about 500 per month. All landlords would simultaneously increase rent to compensate.

But not much. And the free-market would step in and level the rents.

You have a pretty naive view of how competition works in practice. Similarly
if the tenant no longer pays income tax, national insurance, Vat
again capacity to pay more increases and as demand in housing is
always greater than supply rents would rise.

Unused speculative land and housing would come onto the market filling
the housing gap. Relaxed planning would alsos improve the housing gap.
My idea of planning is almost none at all.

So who would be responsible for all the flooding caused by all these
millions of acres of water absorbing fields now covered with houses and
tarmac?
--
hugh

Don't confuse him with more facts! His brain can't take it.

On Oct 17, 2:34*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"hugh" ] wrote in message

...

In message , Doctor *Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of economics.
HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private and public,
pails into insignificance.

Yup, they borrow by the bucketful. Current public debt 1.4 trillion by end
of this parliament. Private debt over 1 trillion

You never understood what I wrote.

I don'y think YOU understand what you write.
It's debt that has got the country into trouble.
All the half wits that over extend themselves.
And stupid socialist politicians borrowing money to buy votes.

Just wait until interest rates finally do rise. (After QE causes
massive inflation)
There will be thousands can't afford their mortgages. Then the
pigeons will really come home to roost.
I expect house prices will fall then..

harry wrote:

Don't confuse him with more facts! His brain can't take it.

Harry, I am great admirer of those who think out of the box, but not those
who think out of the universe. How is the walking today?

harry wrote:
On Oct 16, 6:48 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:16 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is
resolved) we have law to the effect that the government can't
borrow money, the national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK,
private and public, pails into insignificance.

Not buckets then?

Harry, have the Tory cuts cut back bed pans in your home? Fight for
your rights Harry and don't vote for them again.

PAILS into insignificance? Heh Heh!

Harry you are such fun.

You are one of these socialist gits

Harry I am not a socialist. This you cannot understand in your current frame
of mind.

harry wrote:

I don'y think YOU understand what you write.
It's debt that has got the country into trouble.

Harry you must stop reading the Daily Mail. There was a lot of them near me
but the Council cleared them out.

What got us into trouble the inter-connected world banking collapsing.
Harry it was called the Credit Crunch. Have you heard of it? But why did it
collapse? Because money was being poured into LAND because gains were tax
free. The LAND market became bigger than the rest and toppled bring all down
because the loans were secured on LAND.

There you go Harry. You can tell them all in the home that.

Harry as you are subject to Tory propaganda, which is very sad, here are the
fact about debt. Debt is not the real issue it is sparking the economy back
to life, which the Tories can't do.

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall.
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus.
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK under
Blair
and Brown was in the 'longest period of sustained growth since the
Industrial Revolution. The borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally
neglected by the
Tories. Record hospital and school building went on. When the deficit rose
again due to the recession it rose to dangerous levels, forcing us to make
painful cuts to avoid the fate of other countries like Ireland.

From the Guardian:

"9 facts which George Osborne doesn't want us to know because they expose
the fiction that Labour spent all the money":

Fact 1:
In 2008, the first year of the UK recession, seven of the eight European
economies with a higher GDP per capita than the UK (Austria, Finland,
Holland, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) also spent more as a % of GDP.
The single exception was Ireland, which not so long ago Osborne held up as
an example to the UK, and which has since suffered economic collapse.

Fact 2:
Average annual public spending as a % of GDP was lower in the years
1998-2010 (38%) than in the years 1980-1997 (40%) whereas average annual
taxation was the same at 36% of GDP.

Fact 3:
Public spending fell from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 35% in 2000. From 2000
onwards, the Labour government began to spend money on Tory neglected
run-down schools, roads, hospitals, etc. Thus public spending increased to
39% of GDP in 2007 - and then to 45% in 2010, as the effects of the
financial crisis took hold and the government rightly followed the Keynesian
rule that spending increases should be counter-cyclical.

Fact 4:
Margaret Thatcher described Blair as "my greatest legacy" because he had
rejected what she saw as Labour's core principle of "tax and spend".
Accordingly, Gordon Brown kept to the previous Conservative government's
spending plans for the first 3 years. But they had been elected to improve
neglected public services and so were committed to increase spending. Much
of New Labour's electoral success was due to its appeal to voters who wanted
it both ways - better schools and hospitals but no tax increases. Likewise,
much of the vitriol now directed at Gordon Brown comes from those same
fools.

Fact 5:
As for the structural deficit, this was only 3.5% of GDP when Brown left the
Treasury in 2007, compared to 4% in 1997 and an annual average of 5.5% in
the years 1992-1996. According to IFS data, the UK has run a structural
deficit for all but five of the last forty years. In fact, the last 3 Labour
governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 3 of their 13
years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books
for 2 out of 17 years. Sure, austerity drones can blather on about economic
cycles, but the fact remains that New Labour's fiscal policies were little
different from those of the Thatcher and Major governments.

Fact 6:
Brown is often criticised for failing to reduce debt during an economic
upturn. Yet Labour reduced the national debt from 42% of GDP in 1997 to 35%
in 2008 - when it was lower than in 11 of the 18 years between 1979 and 1997
and lower than corporate debt (250% of GDP) and private debt (70% of GDP).
The national debt has been higher in 200 of the last 250 years than it was
in 2010, when it was 52% of GDP. In 1945 it was 237% of GDP and yet Attlee's
post-war Labour government was able to bear the costs of introducing the
welfare state and nationalising the railways, the public utilities and the
coal and steel industries. Maybe that was because in 1945 we really were
"all in it together".

Fact 7:
In 2010, the UK's national debt was the second lowest of the G7 countries
and, at less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets, was within Maastricht
Treaty limits. It is expected to peak at around 73%. Germany is already
above that level and is expected to exceed 80% in 2013. The debt levels of
Japan and Italy exceed 100% of GDP.

Fact 8:
In 2007, Cameron promised to stick to Labour's spending plans. Then came the
financial crisis, the damaging effects of which he now chooses to deny -
unlike Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who told the Treasury
select committee that public spending cuts were the fault of the financial
sector (March 1st 2011). But it isn't surprising that Cameron is reluctant
to blame the banks, since he had previously criticised Gordon Brown for
regulating them too tightly - and more than half of the Tory Party's funding
comes from the City.

Fact 9:
Budget deficits are due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax
take. Since it is clear that the problem is not the former (Facts 1-9), then
it must be the latter - which is around 36% of GDP compared to an EU average
of 40%, and is likely to be further aggravated when taxes are cut later
during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and
banks.

That Gordon Brown didn't overspend is indisputable. He did create the
longest period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Remember
his nickname "Prudence" and the praise lavished on him by the Tory press?
New Labour's obsession with market liberalisation put it somewhere in the
middle on the scale of (in)competence, but on the same scale, the present
Tory rabble lie on the far side of disastrous.

The Tory press has managed to convince the nation Brown was responsible for
the Credit Crunch as well.

To the policies of the current rabble. If, by cutting hard, you cripple
growth by a roughly concommittant amount, then the cuts achieve little
except the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - since public funds
are disproportionately spent on the poor.

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed


snip drivel by Harry

hugh wrote:

Yup, they borrow by the bucketful.

Nutball, any big borrowing was to bail out banks when the economy was
collapsing. All sane people know that.

"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 – far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ

On 17/10/2012 13:59, Man at B&Q wrote:
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 – far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ


Someone will be along to blame it on Maggie RSN.

Man at B&Q wrote:
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 - far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

Oh my God. HMG going into debt to improve the economy and social conditions
and improving the economy so much the debt is easily repayable is not a
problem. Stop reading the Daily Mail that HMG getting into debt is a bad
thing. Pre 2008 Brown DID NOT overspend. Read what I wrote!!!!!!!!

All western governments, after the CC took hold, bailed out their banks -
just like us. The Daily Mail makes it out only the UK went into debt to bail
out parasite banks.

dennis@home wrote:
On 17/10/2012 13:59, Man at B&Q wrote:
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 - far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ

Someone will be along to blame it on Maggie RSN.

Dennis, you have been told not to think as you know it comes out the wrong
way.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

I think we could solve our problems if (when this cockup is resolved)
we have law to the effect that the government can't borrow money, the
national budget must always be balanced.

Idiotic, senile nonsense by a Daily Mail reader with no idea of
economics. HMG borrowing compared the total wealth of the UK, private
and public, pails into insignificance.


Yup, they borrow by the bucketful. Current public debt 1.4 trillion
by end of this parliament. Private debt over 1 trillion

You never understood what I wrote.
Neither did you - but I understood what you meant.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
harry wrote:

I don'y think YOU understand what you write.
It's debt that has got the country into trouble.

Harry you must stop reading the Daily Mail. There was a lot of them
near me but the Council cleared them out.

What got us into trouble the inter-connected world banking collapsing.
Harry it was called the Credit Crunch. Have you heard of it? But why
did it collapse? Because money was being poured into LAND because
gains were tax free. The LAND market became bigger than the rest and
toppled bring all down because the loans were secured on LAND.

There you go Harry. You can tell them all in the home that.

Harry as you are subject to Tory propaganda, which is very sad, here
are the fact about debt. Debt is not the real issue it is sparking the
economy back to life, which the Tories can't do.

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall.
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus.
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK
under Blair
and Brown was in the 'longest period of sustained growth since the
Industrial Revolution. The borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally
neglected by the
Tories. Record hospital and school building went on. When the deficit rose
again due to the recession it rose to dangerous levels, forcing us to make
painful cuts to avoid the fate of other countries like Ireland.

From the Guardian:

Oh FFS that socialist whinging crap that lead the campaign to oust Blair
and install Brown - and then without a word of apology lead the campaign
to oust Brown.

And you slag off the Daily Mail Give us a break!

snip Guardian fiction)

--
hugh

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 €“ far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ
I don't think socialists understand structural deficit
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 €“ far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ
I don't think socialists understand structural deficit

s/structural deficit/wealth creation, money or economics/

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Oct 17, 10:53*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
harry wrote:
I don'y think YOU understand what you write.
It's debt that has got the country into trouble.

Harry you must stop reading the Daily Mail. There was a lot of them near me
but the Council cleared them out.

What got us into trouble the inter-connected world banking collapsing.
Harry it was called the Credit Crunch. Have you heard of it? *But why did it
collapse? *Because money was being poured into LAND because gains were tax
free. The LAND market became bigger than the rest and toppled bring all down
because the loans were secured on LAND.

There you go Harry. You can tell them all in the home that.

Harry as you are subject to Tory propaganda, which is very sad, here are the
fact about debt. *Debt is not the real issue it is sparking the economy back
to life, which the Tories can't do.

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall..
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus..
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK under
Blair
and Brown was in the 'longest period of sustained growth since the
Industrial Revolution. The borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally
neglected by the
Tories. Record hospital and school building went on. When the deficit rose
again due to the recession it rose to dangerous levels, forcing us to make
painful cuts to avoid the fate of other countries like Ireland.

From the Guardian:

"9 facts which George Osborne doesn't want us to know because they expose
the fiction that Labour spent all the money":

Fact 1:
In 2008, the first year of the UK recession, seven of the eight European
economies with a higher GDP per capita than the UK (Austria, Finland,
Holland, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) also spent more as a % of GDP.
The single exception was Ireland, which not so long ago Osborne held up as
an example to the UK, and which has since suffered economic collapse.

Fact 2:
Average annual public spending as a % of GDP was lower in the years
1998-2010 (38%) than in the years 1980-1997 (40%) whereas average annual
taxation was the same at 36% of GDP.

Fact 3:
Public spending fell from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 35% in 2000. From 2000
onwards, the Labour government began to spend money on Tory neglected
run-down schools, roads, hospitals, etc. Thus public spending increased to
39% of GDP in 2007 - and then to 45% in 2010, as the effects of the
financial crisis took hold and the government rightly followed the Keynesian
rule that spending increases should be counter-cyclical.

Fact 4:
Margaret Thatcher described Blair as "my greatest legacy" because he had
rejected what she saw as Labour's core principle of "tax and spend".
Accordingly, Gordon Brown kept to the previous Conservative government's
spending plans for the first 3 years. But they had been elected to improve
neglected public services and so were committed to increase spending. Much
of New Labour's electoral success was due to its appeal to voters who wanted
it both ways - better schools and hospitals but no tax increases. Likewise,
much of the vitriol now directed at Gordon Brown comes from those same
fools.

Fact 5:
As for the structural deficit, this was only 3.5% of GDP when Brown left the
Treasury in 2007, compared to 4% in 1997 and an annual average of 5.5% in
the years 1992-1996. According to IFS data, the UK has run a structural
deficit for all but five of the last forty years. In fact, the last 3 Labour
governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 3 of their 13
years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books
for 2 out of 17 years. Sure, austerity drones can blather on about economic
cycles, but the fact remains that New Labour's fiscal policies were little
different from those of the Thatcher and Major governments.

Fact 6:
Brown is often criticised for failing to reduce debt during an economic
upturn. Yet Labour reduced the national debt from 42% of GDP in 1997 to 35%
in 2008 - when it was lower than in 11 of the 18 years between 1979 and 1997
and lower than corporate debt (250% of GDP) and private debt (70% of GDP)..
The national debt has been higher in 200 of the last 250 years than it was
in 2010, when it was 52% of GDP. In 1945 it was 237% of GDP and yet Attlee's
post-war Labour government was able to bear the costs of introducing the
welfare state and nationalising the railways, the public utilities and the
coal and steel industries. Maybe that was because in 1945 we really were
"all in it together".

Fact 7:
In 2010, the UK's national debt was the second lowest of the G7 countries
and, at less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets, was within Maastricht
Treaty limits. It is expected to peak at around 73%. Germany is already
above that level and is expected to exceed 80% in 2013. The debt levels of
Japan and Italy exceed 100% of GDP.

Fact 8:
In 2007, Cameron promised to stick to Labour's spending plans. Then came the
financial crisis, the damaging effects of which he now chooses to deny -
unlike Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who told the Treasury
select committee that public spending cuts were the fault of the financial
sector (March 1st 2011). But it isn't surprising that Cameron is reluctant
to blame the banks, since he had previously criticised Gordon Brown for
regulating them too tightly - and more than half of the Tory Party's funding
comes from the City.

Fact 9:
Budget deficits are due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax
take. Since it is clear that the problem is not the former (Facts 1-9), then
it must be the latter - which is around 36% of GDP compared to an EU average
of 40%, and is likely to be further aggravated when taxes are cut later
during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and
banks.

That Gordon Brown didn't overspend is indisputable. He did create the
longest period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Remember
his nickname "Prudence" and the praise lavished on him by the Tory press?
New Labour's obsession with market liberalisation put it somewhere in the
middle on the scale of (in)competence, but on the same scale, the present
Tory rabble lie on the far side of disastrous.

The Tory press has managed to convince the nation Brown was responsible for
the Credit Crunch as well.

To the policies of the current rabble. If, by cutting hard, you cripple
growth by a roughly concommittant amount, then the cuts achieve little
except the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - since public funds
are disproportionately spent on the poor.

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed

snip drivel by Harry

Credit (as in credit crunch) is borrowing/debt.
Isn't English your first language?

Since when has the cure for debt been more debt?

On Oct 17, 6:44*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 - far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

Oh my God. *HMG going into debt to improve the economy and social conditions
and improving the economy so much the debt is easily repayable is not a
problem. Stop reading the Daily Mail that HMG getting into debt is a bad
thing. *Pre 2008 Brown DID NOT overspend. Read what I wrote!!!!!!!!

All western governments, after the CC took hold, bailed out their banks -
just like us. The Daily Mail makes it out only the UK went into debt to bail
out parasite banks.

You really ARE senile Dribble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nal_debt#2000s

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
hugh wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 ?" far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ
I don't think socialists understand structural deficit

s/structural deficit/wealth creation, money or economics/

Another brainwashed fool.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 ?" far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ

I don't think socialists understand structural deficit

It is clear you have NO IDEA of economics full stop. What you naively know
is the crap the Tory Party drive into you via its media.

Read this AGAIN and the graphs. That is if you can understand it of course.
More your lips when you read if it make it better for you.

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall.
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus.
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK under
Blair and Brown was in the 'longest period of sustained growth since the
Industrial Revolution. The borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally
neglected by the Tories. Record hospital and school building went on.
When the deficit rose again due to the recession it rose to dangerous
levels, forcing us to make painful cuts to avoid the fate of other countries
like Ireland.

From the Guardian:

"9 facts which George Osborne doesn't want us to know because they expose
the fiction that Labour spent all the money":

Fact 1:
In 2008, the first year of the UK recession, seven of the eight European
economies with a higher GDP per capita than the UK (Austria, Finland,
Holland, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) also spent more as a % of GDP.
The single exception was Ireland, which not so long ago Osborne held up as
an example to the UK, and which has since suffered economic collapse.

Fact 2:
Average annual public spending as a % of GDP was lower in the years
1998-2010 (38%) than in the years 1980-1997 (40%) whereas average annual
taxation was the same at 36% of GDP.

Fact 3:
Public spending fell from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 35% in 2000. From 2000
onwards, the Labour government began to spend money on Tory neglected
run-down schools, roads, hospitals, etc. Thus public spending increased to
39% of GDP in 2007 - and then to 45% in 2010, as the effects of the
financial crisis took hold and the government rightly followed the Keynesian
rule that spending increases should be counter-cyclical.

Fact 4:
Margaret Thatcher described Blair as "my greatest legacy" because he had
rejected what she saw as Labour's core principle of "tax and spend".
Accordingly, Gordon Brown kept to the previous Conservative government's
spending plans for the first 3 years. But they had been elected to improve
neglected public services and so were committed to increase spending. Much
of New Labour's electoral success was due to its appeal to voters who wanted
it both ways - better schools and hospitals but no tax increases. Likewise,
much of the vitriol now directed at Gordon Brown comes from those same
fools.

Fact 5:
As for the structural deficit, this was only 3.5% of GDP when Brown left the
Treasury in 2007, compared to 4% in 1997 and an annual average of 5.5% in
the years 1992-1996. According to IFS data, the UK has run a structural
deficit for all but five of the last forty years. In fact, the last 3 Labour
governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 3 of their 13
years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books
for 2 out of 17 years. Sure, austerity drones can blather on about economic
cycles, but the fact remains that New Labour's fiscal policies were little
different from those of the Thatcher and Major governments.

Fact 6:
Brown is often criticised for failing to reduce debt during an economic
upturn. Yet Labour reduced the national debt from 42% of GDP in 1997 to 35%
in 2008 - when it was lower than in 11 of the 18 years between 1979 and 1997
and lower than corporate debt (250% of GDP) and private debt (70% of GDP).
The national debt has been higher in 200 of the last 250 years than it was
in 2010, when it was 52% of GDP. In 1945 it was 237% of GDP and yet Attlee's
post-war Labour government was able to bear the costs of introducing the
welfare state and nationalising the railways, the public utilities and the
coal and steel industries. Maybe that was because in 1945 we really were
"all in it together".

Fact 7:
In 2010, the UK's national debt was the second lowest of the G7 countries
and, at less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets, was within Maastricht
Treaty limits. It is expected to peak at around 73%. Germany is already
above that level and is expected to exceed 80% in 2013. The debt levels of
Japan and Italy exceed 100% of GDP.

Fact 8:
In 2007, Cameron promised to stick to Labour's spending plans. Then came the
financial crisis, the damaging effects of which he now chooses to deny -
unlike Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who told the Treasury
select committee that public spending cuts were the fault of the financial
sector (March 1st 2011). But it isn't surprising that Cameron is reluctant
to blame the banks, since he had previously criticised Gordon Brown for
regulating them too tightly - and more than half of the Tory Party's funding
comes from the City.

Fact 9:
Budget deficits are due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax
take. Since it is clear that the problem is not the former (Facts 1-9), then
it must be the latter - which is around 36% of GDP compared to an EU average
of 40%, and is likely to be further aggravated when taxes are cut later
during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and
banks.

That Gordon Brown didn't overspend is indisputable. He did create the
longest period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Remember
his nickname "Prudence" and the praise lavished on him by the Tory press?
New Labour's obsession with market liberalisation put it somewhere in the
middle on the scale of (in)competence, but on the same scale, the present
Tory rabble lie on the far side of disastrous.

The Tory press has managed to convince the nation Brown was responsible for
the Credit Crunch as well.

To the policies of the current rabble. If, by cutting hard, you cripple
growth by a roughly concommittant amount, then the cuts achieve little
except the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - since public funds
are disproportionately spent on the poor.

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
hugh wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
"The new official analysis, based on a report from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), showed that Britain was running a so-called
structural deficit of 5.2pc in 2007 ?" far higher than the 2.5pc
initially stated by the IMF. "

MBQ
I don't think socialists understand structural deficit

s/structural deficit/wealth creation, money or economics/

Another brainwashed fool.

Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992 and far less than
Thatcher in 1983. FACT !!!!!!!

Brown spent about the same as Germany, France and Italy in bailing out their
respective banks.

Of course that was a dumb thing to do for all countries. They should have
paid off the debts of debtors - the negative equity part to equalize the
debt. That is what ancient civilizations did, who had highly stable
societies. All we did is tell banks that they are too big to fail so they
can go on being reckless and cream off the top paying themselves massive
bonuses.

Prof Michael Hudson, one the USAs leading encomists stated that the Germans
had a superior banking system set up in the time of Bismarck. It was
industry focused. USA & other western banks lend on securing property and
land with the means of production financed by the stock market. Over
securing on land and buildings caused the Credit Crunch.

In 1914 the west feared the Germans would win WW1 as they had an industrial
focused banking system. German industry would be more efficient as the
banking system was still there post-WW1. The industrially focused banking
system worked brilliantly for Hitler enabling the country to fight above its
weight. The UK suspended the stock market in WW2 and relied on a banking
system that was not equipped to deal with industry - the USA banking system
was no better. The USA largely dismantled the German system after WW2
stating it was Hitler's banking system, when it dated from Bismarck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhT1UYfqRkg

Old habits die hard and the industrial focus of the German banking system
did not fully go away. Today Germany rode the Credit Crunch much easier than
others.

I know of companies in the north of England who would use German banks for
loans as they understood industry far more. The City of London would often
turn them down not understanding industry. The Germans did understand it
very well.