Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

In fact global warming is taking land rather than making it!

Hmmm. Inclined to agree, GP. Unfortunately despite all the recent evidence from the U.S, Spain and countless other harder to relate to places, there are still those amongst us, including dear old Donald, who remain in denial.

[Trickytreesreds]

So the dust has settled and my knowledge sweep is this from all the opinions.
We are taxed more (highest ever), we are borrowing more than ever. yet the projections for growth are around 1- 1,5% OVER THE NEXT 4-5 YEARS?
That doesn't exactly meet his description of excitement and growth to me|?
It is a bare minimum?

Yet again he never mentions the GDP per capita, which will keep falling whilst the population keeps surging. We are all poorer, even with or without his budget.

[Trickytreesreds]

In fact global warming is taking land rather than making it!

Thats not all true. We are clearing away rain forests faster than ever, So good news there. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm, I think?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Clearing rainforests does not make land, it repurposes existing land, unless you reference mangroves.

[Geoff Parkstone]

TTR:

We always were going to be poorer if taxes rise - apart from those at the extremes of wealth who either get a bit more or avoid the rises

GDP per capital is always likely to fall with the importation of low earning people to do the jobs that our own indigenous population chose not to. The budget won't remedy that - it's
a social/structural dilemma: and arguably irresolvable.

[ramAnag]

TTR:

We always were going to be poorer if taxes rise - apart from those at the extremes of wealth who either get a bit more or avoid the rises

GDP per capital is always likely to fall with the importation of low earning people to do the jobs that our own indigenous population chose not to. The budget won't remedy that - it's
a social/structural dilemma: and arguably irresolvable.

Point well made, GP.

Not sure it’s entirely ‘irresolvable’ though.

Isn’t the simple truth that the proverbial nettle has begun to be grasped. IF we want good schools in buildings that are fit for purpose and likewise…good hospitals, dentistry facilities, cleaner rivers and better roads etc then we have to pay for them and I can’t see how most of the required funding will come from anywhere other than taxation.

So yes, we may be superficially worse off with higher taxation…but we’ll hopefully be better off in terms of our grandchildren’s schooling, our hospital waiting lists, dentist availability, the use of AI within the NHS, and the ability to travel without encountering tyre bursting or accident causing potholes. Question then is…which route do we want to take?

That’s the theory anyway. Of course if it all comes to nothing they’ll have failed and will be voted out. If it eventually works however…then I’ll regard us as being ‘richer’.

[swaledale]

TTR:

We always were going to be poorer if taxes rise - apart from those at the extremes of wealth who either get a bit more or avoid the rises

GDP per capital is always likely to fall with the importation of low earning people to do the jobs that our own indigenous population chose not to. The budget won't remedy that - it's
a social/structural dilemma: and arguably irresolvable.

Except that is not what is happening, the bulk of the immigration since the Brexit deal was agreed has been skilled workers, with the exception of temporary agricultural workers that tend to have 6 months visas for vegetable and fruit picking etc. There are a set of salary levels, depending upon the occupation, starting around the £23K mark, but level is set at £38K, so hardly filling low paid jobs.

Your correct in that its a structural issue, basic demographics, the birth rate has been falling for decades. Other than a rise in the long term sick, which is something that can be addressed, there is no large pool of indigenous labour available to do these jobs.

[swaledale]

Point well made, GP.

Not sure it’s entirely ‘irresolvable’ though.

Isn’t the simple truth that the proverbial nettle has begun to be grasped. IF we want good schools in buildings that are fit for purpose and likewise…good hospitals, dentistry facilities, cleaner rivers and better roads etc then we have to pay for them and I can’t see how most of the required funding will come from anywhere other than taxation.

So yes, we may be superficially worse off with higher taxation…but we’ll hopefully be better off in terms of our grandchildren’s schooling, our hospital waiting lists, dentist availability, the use of AI within the NHS, and the ability to travel without encountering tyre bursting or accident causing potholes. Question then is…which route do we want to take?

That’s the theory anyway. Of course if it all comes to nothing they’ll have failed and will be voted out. If it eventually works however…then I’ll regard us as being ‘richer’.

I do think that they should have levied higher taxes on high earners, whilst until such times as we re-join the customs union and/or the single market, economic growth will continue to be low. But I guess over the next 2 or 3 years Labour will perhaps move towards this, because they surely know that this is the case.

[MadAmster]

The crux of it, IMO, is that we are prisoners of the shareholding faction. They want ever more in dividends which means they want companies to sell more and more goods and services. With birth rates falling, we actually need less goods to be made and sold, less services are needed because there's less people. The demands of the shareholders is why we keep getting high immigration levels we don't really need.

Int greed grand?

[Geoff Parkstone]

That analysis is intriguing MA - as s far as the domestic economy is concerned it's likely true: we do not need to consume more but vast marketing budgets exist to convince us that we do, in order to avoid contracting demand.

But most significant brands/quoted businesses are globalized where the consumer marketplace is still expanding although much of that demand is perhaps unable to afford the goods.

This does place Mother Capitalism in a difficult position, and one of its biggest challenges is to attain sustained growth where the richer first world demand should be tailing off and poorer third world demand continuing to rise. (Terms used loosely).

A flaw in the model? The model seems to require infinite demand - but that demand needs to be one which maintains price integrity.

Dividend demands? Well suppliers of capital are an integral stakeholder in the system and rightly deserve a return on the capital which they put at risk of loss. Of course that return should be proportionate but it cannot be denied. Don't forget here that the rapacious shareholder is significantly likely, ultimately, to be you and I via our pensions - and we all like to see those rise as you yourself noted elsethread.