A-Z of why these cuts are mad
Posted on | June 23, 2010 | 3 Comments
Posted originally on Twitter, then on Bright Green Scotland by Adam Ramsay
I just tweeted an A-Z of why I oppose public spending cuts. Here it is.
a) the biggest waste in our economy is unemployment not spending
b) we’ve lower debt:GDP than most EU/G8 nations
c) the money is owed to us
d) the payoff on public services’s > our loan interest
e) Italy’s credit rating is far below ours but they only pay slightly more interest
f) where else will bond markets lend?
g) how can we have export led growth as the EU collapses
h) why is growth meant to be led by the banks?
i) raising the personal allowance gives more to the rich than the poor
j) VAT is the most regressive tax
k) what happened to green investment?
l) WTF is this I hear about first children only?
m) scrapping child trust funds while promising cuts to inheritance tax is fair?
n) cutting jobs hits the poor first (are you listening @guardian?)
o) we still remember you cut uni places – crushing a generation’s hopes
p) universities have the biggest jobs multiplier of anything, so cutting their funding is the thing most likely to cause a double dip
q) Tories have always opposed proper funding for public services
r) the long term economic costs of the human strife of austerity are huge
r) the deficit has already naturally dropped by more than Osborne said he wanted it to this year, & will half by 2015
s) taxes on the top take fewer jobs away
t) it took decades to build the public services he wants to ruin
u) the economists against this tend to be those who predicted this mess
v) what’s the point of a triple A rating if you can’t borrow in a 100 year recession?
w) our loans are very long term
x) we have big assets
y) the richest 1000 people have seen their wealth increase by 30% in a year – half the value of the deficit
z) Osborne is trying to save the economy by destroying the economy. That’s as crazy as it sounds. That is all
Comments
3 Responses to “A-Z of why these cuts are mad”
Leave a Reply
Watch our film or make a random cut, like George!
June 23rd, 2010 @ 2:11 PM
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
June 23rd, 2010 @ 7:34 PM
Ok I’ll have a go at the opposite.
a) Only true if the spending is under control and that’s a matter of opinion.
b) True and we have a higher deficit:GDP than most, so the debt:GDP is growing and fast.
c) WTF?
d) Sorry, don’t understand.
e) Because they’re in the Euro (for now) and effectively being subsidised by Germany. If the rates were a true reflection you could borrow in Germany at 3% and lend to Italians at 5% – easy money. The Euro makes Italians pay less and Germans more. Doesn’t apply here.
f) They could sit on their hands.
g) Dunno, but that’s not an argument for spend, spend, spend.
h) Dunno – is it?
i) No it doesn’t as they have held down the 40% threshold. So poor get the benefit, rich pay more tax. Try any of the online budget calculators to check.
j) True, but it is also quoted by the OECD as the one likely to have the least negative effect on growth.
k) Dunno.
l) A cut.
m) Inheritance tax cuts shelved aren’t they ?
n) opinion.
o) Uni places are still at a massive all-time high. Double that of a relatively few years ago.
q) Who’s to say what’s “proper” – you ?
r) That’s the deficit, not the debt. A halved deficit still means a growing debt – see point b)
s) Probably true, and consequently they’re going up.
t) I don’t think he wants to ruin them, just make them affordable. But I guess it’s down to opinion.
u) That’s a joke right? no economists come out of this with much credit. All macro economics theories are in tatters, they’re all still arguing. It’ s back to the drawing board for all schools. The Keynesians who are big on deficit spending have used more “yes, buts..” to explain away it’s failure in Japan and why $700bn hasn’t worked for the Americans (unemployment is at the level predicted without the stimulus).
v) We are – and big time.
w) true. So, let’s just kick the can down the road then ?
x) What are they and who are we going to sell them to ?
y) Are you saying the richest 1000 in this country have increased their wealth by £80bn ? If it’s true we should get a pretty good tax take no matter how good their accountants. Unless of course they offset their losses from the year before :-). I know my pittance of a pension fund went down 35% then came up 35% in the last two years – net 0%
z) and deficit spending will save it ? It didn’t save Japan, it sure as hell didn’t help Greece either and $700bn doesn’t look to have been an unqualified success in the US either.
July 1st, 2010 @ 1:58 PM
Hi, thanks for this – sorry I don’t have time right now to respond to all your points – will try to come back later – but, to explain the things you ask about:
c) read Paul Segal here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/17/fiscal-deficit-threat
d) read Stiglitz here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/deficit-fetishism-government-spending
Also, you say some things are opinon – yes, of course they are all opinion: everything is opinon.