UK government to make budget surpluses mandatory in times of economic growth
3 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33074500[/url]
[quote]The chancellor will announce later that he will attempt to bind future governments to maintaining a budget surplus when the economy is growing.
In his annual Mansion House speech on Wednesday, George Osborne will outline his plan to ensure governments run a surplus in "normal" times.
Mr Osborne first proposed the changes to fiscal policy in January.
...
The chancellor is also expected to announce that the Committee of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt - a group set up to repair the economic damage of the Napoleonic wars - will meet again for the first time in more than 150 years.
The commissioners - which include the chancellor and the governor and deputy governors of the Bank of England - last met in October 1860.[/quote]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MiftnyD.gif[/IMG]
but [URL="http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-george-osborne-misses-his-deficit-targets-over-and-over-again--and-why-he-might-keep-missing-them-2015-6"]he's freezing national insurance payments, income tax and VAT rates which make up 2/3rds of tax income in the uk,[/URL] while [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32493745"]GDP growth[/URL] is awful. this only means more even more spending cuts to find the money.
it's not necessary to run a surplus and it has only been done 7 times in the last 50 years. 16 years straight the budget was run at a deficit (1971 - 1987) and debt was reduced as a proportion of gdp from 58.2% to 38.6%. the IMF released a [URL="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1510.pdf"]very good paper[/URL] showing that it is not necessary to run a surplus, it is better to increase growth within the economy but.. taxes are frozen and the economy isn't growing a good enough rate to make the insurance policy of the surplus worth it, and they can't invest in the economy properly because of the commitance to siphoning money out of public services to make the deficit look better.
so for this scenario to come to fruition they are relying on the hope of [URL="http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-george-osborne-misses-his-deficit-targets-over-and-over-again--and-why-he-might-keep-missing-them-2015-6"]'uninterrupted growth, robust private sector job creation, improving productivity and wage growth, low rates and inflation, and continued buoyant private consumption'[/URL] which George isn't exactly very good at. this is a man who met none of the policies he said he would meet in 2010, and is now doubling down on austerity measures that did not work. if the above things happen they still have to cut 640,000 (!) public sector jobs, and reduce departmental (18%) and welfare (10%) spending while leaving all taxes unchanged.
oh, and this also has the added benefit (actually it's main purpose politically) of laying a trap for future governments by trying to make them stick to another governments policies. if labour tries to start spending money they would have to repeal this, which is easy because you are not supposed to dictate what future governments should be by law. to the general public this would look pretty bad, it's just improving their party line of insinuating that Labours spending caused the financial crisis so they can double down on it in the future.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;47923519][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MiftnyD.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
what the fuck
he looks so high that i want to see the world through his eyes
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47923630]what the fuck
he looks so high that i want to see the world through his eyes[/QUOTE]
He's using his new nightmare vision contact lenses, all he sees in front of him are Labour MP's.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.