Assista filmes, programas jornalísticos de entretenimento, culturais, documentários, canais de video clipes, programação adulta tudo ao vivo em seu computador pessoal ou notebook, em qualquer lugar do mundo em que você esteja www.tvdigitalnopc.com.br

Why don't we have the election here in May and then do what the US are going to do in Afghanistan and put in a High Representative to ignore the result and run things how we want. I suggest Dugsie.

Talking, as we so often do, about the moral failure and pathetic degradation of our political system, tonight's Dispatches of Channel 4 showed the luster that Lord Mentalone of Pantaloon and Hokey still commands in the company of Russian oligarchs and whose bfdding he is alleged to have followed when commanded by them in the high councils of the European Commission, whether they linked to large scale organised crime or not.

Perhaps the programme's makers will do us the favour of making a sequal concentrating on Mentalone's life long relationship with the current "owners" of significant holdings of intellectual property rights and the strange case of the development and mutation of the Digital Economy Bill under his tender ministrations.

"Which hung parliament would that be SG,the Conservative landslide hung parliament the Telegraph has delineated in detail?"

It's the hung parliament which will arise from the deep in-built bias against the Tories within the current structure of electoral districts, the deep unhappiness with Labour's baleful conduct of its socialism for the already rich and powerful bankers, rentiers and intellectual property rights holders, and the already well networked at the direct expense of the poor and those on middling incomes, and the fact the Fat Lad's economic policies are uber racked up premium versions of socialism for the rich at the direct cost of the poor and those on middling incomes, exemplified by Fat Lad's promise to materially reduce the impact of the inheritance/death/paying-to-the- majority-of-the-living-a bit-of-the-advantages-enjoyed-by-the-dead -during-their-lifetimes tax on his five thousand buddies who will assuredly gain from it, whilst ensuring that the cost of not levying it on millionaires will be met by school children, hospital patients, the disabled, and old age pensioners reliant on the state in the absence of an adequate occupational or private pension cushion.

The cunningly crafted proposals in sections 3 and 4 should go down well with the voters and, therefore, the politicians. If Tables 5 and 8 are to be believed, then about 85 per cent of households (those with income less than about £55,000 per annum) would, on average, pay less tax under these proposals than at present. And the outrageous situation revealed in table 4, in which the lowest-earning 10 per cent of all households are the ones who currently pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes, would be rectified.

Nevertheless I felt that, taken as a whole, the article was somewhat confusing and inconsistent. To my mind, the weakest part is Section 2 "Spending cuts and the recession", which begins with the question "how is the so-called 'hole in Britain's finances' ever to be fixed?", and ends up with the answer that, so long as the recession persists, the "only" way to plug the hole is not to cut but to spend even more.

How nice it would be if this paradoxical conclusion were true --- but is it true? The complex argument given in support is highly unconvincing, even if is, as claimed on page 14, no more than "reinventing the whole Keynesian argument". The argument begins with a somewhat baffling calculation in Table 3, purporting to show that if a public sector employee earning £25,000 per annum is sacked it costs the Government about £12,000 per annum in benefits and lost tax revenue, so that the overall cost saving for the Government amounts to only £25,000 - 12,000 = 13,000. Then a "multiplier" is invoked which in some mysterious way increases the consequential cost to the Government from £12000 to £23,000, so that the overall estimated cost saving for the Government goes down to £25,000 - 23,000 = 2,000. Then a little later on (page 14), after a little more sleight of hand, the cost saving disappears altogether, it being conjectured that "losses to the government **may** [my italics] also be bigger than we suggest" so that "spending cuts may increase government debt". Finally, when the analysis is put into reverse, to find the effect of job creation on the deficit, the uncertainty implicit in the word "may" is optimistically changed to a certainty, and it is concluded that "to increase [government] spending now means [not "may mean"] that more jobs are created, revenue flows to the government, benefit spending falls and government debt goes down with it". I am not persuaded by the combination of conjecture and wishful thinking offered in support of this assertion, and I suspect that many other readers will feel the same. It is a pity that the team of distinguished authors could not come up with a more convincing analysis.

It would seem that the authors themselves do not really believe the conclusion reached at the end of section 2 that "public spending .. is the the **only** [my italics] way to reduce government debt at this stage of the business cycle", because other perfectly reasonable ways of trying to close the gap are considered later on: section 4 of the article talks (page 21) about raising about £18.9 billion per annum through tax increases, and then section 5 says that "some expenditure cuts will need to be made" and goes on to list specific cuts which would, it is estimated, would save about £15 billion per annum.

The article does not make it clear whether the tax proposals explained in sections 3 and 4 are intended to be implemented as soon as possible, or only after the economic situation has improved (whenever that may be). I would urge that they should be implemented as soon as possible; I do not share the "Keynesian" view associated with section 2, according to which tax increases at the present time would make the recession worse. If this were so, the VAT reduction which started a year ago would have made the recession better, but there is no obvious evidence that it has had any effect at all (as I suggested might be the case, in my Compass Thinkpiece no. 51 "How to beat the recession ---- public enterprise, not fiscal stimulus"). So, let's press for the immediate implementation of the tax proposals in section 3 and 4, and consign section 2 to the dustbin.

"Which hung parliament would that be"
Lewis the one that requires last minute panic between voting for, Eton boy and the rest of (if you think new labour were bad, wait till you see us) Tory party.
Or a badly mauled new labour that will be forced to change by its supporters and smaller parties. Thus allowing the radical democratic transfer back in favour of the British people, that is so desperately required. By the way as an ex SDP member and supporter, and given New Labour's ideology. How does it feel to be a dangerous left wing radical, is that the real reason you live in Spain? Lord Mandelson will have you on his list, but don't worry we are all on it!

Labour will undoubtedly lose a lot of seats, but some number they can afford to lose until they reach a hung parliament.

The Telegraph was electioneering and a question must be asked as to how set in stone marginal opinion is right now.

One must not be careful to play the Tory game and accept a reality that is not yet proved. The Telegraph is trying to make a fact.

Yet, I have been one of those saying for a long time that Blue Labour will probably get a kicking at the next election that it properly deserves.

Which hung parliament would that be SG,the Conservative landslide hung parliament the Telegraph has delineated in detail?
The Liberals are going to diminish significantly.
Labour is going to lose blocs of seats in Kent and Medway
at the very least.
Wales and Scotland can't hurt the Tories electorally.
So talk us through the hung parliament arithmetic,
leaving aside a Lembit Opik predicted meteor strike that
Gordon Brown resolves brilliantly.

I don't normally comment on reports and articles I agree with. However...

This report is excellent and the only recommendation I have any reservations about concerns the possible implication that Compass might, in any way, shape or form, endorse the Council Tax, which, in essence, manages to be both a monument to Pythonesque silliness of a failed Tory project to soak the poor - only to soak them a little less than first intended - and an utterly abhorrent, irrational and decidedly counter-intuitive unwealth tax blissfully ignored by the NoLab Stroke the Rich No Tendency during the Supreme Cheese's "Pump Up Asset Prices, Why Should We Give A Damn As Long As The City's Happy And We Can Get Away With It?" years.

Still, if nothing else, the big plus seems to be the Compass is finally coming to terms with the times we live in, and that has to be for the greater good as we move towards a hung parliament and the utterly astonishing of MPs actually being able - and judged by their ability - to influence government in the interests of their constituents. Ah... Brave New World...

Dismal

The report did make several suggestions to reduce the burden on smaller businesses, including greater use of LLPs. The end sections - hard to reach when there's many interruptions!

Could the authors please elaborate what effect would the increase of capital gains tax to the level of personal tax (61.5% for businesses earning more than £94k p.a.

UK has approximately 4.5 million small / medium size businesses, employing approximately 13 million people , contributing £13 trillion turnover to UK economy (2005 figures).

It would perhaps be prudential to gauge the effects of tripling the tax burden to the small business community.

Good to see 'The Spirit Level' by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett referenced in the report. An excellent book on the effects of inequality on obesity, crime, trust, health.......

See also:

www.equalitytrust.org.uk

A High Pay Commission and tax reform measure's were needed long before the banking crisis as part of a strategy to address the obscene ever widening gap between the wealthiest and poorest in our society. However given the extent of the greed demonstrated by the so called 'masters of the universe' and the collusion of their acolytes in high places, who allowed them to get away with robbing the rest of us, and even now continue to allow them to do so, it is therefore unthinkable that all of the above measures should not be implemented as a matter of urgency and without further delay, but I suspect that won't happen unless the New Labour thatcherite apologists are quickly sidelined. Other than that, I am reminded of Michael Mansfield's closing comments in his interview with Aida Edemariam in the Guardian 5/9/2009 regarding the upcoming election as, and I qoute; "an opportunity for the public to say- as they did in Eastern Europe- and it doesn't have to be quite as dramatic as that- to come out en bloc and say together, we've had enough"