rlFill yer bootsrl

rlDefinitely a budget for growthrl

The company I work for closed an entire manufacturing facility on the site where I work around the turn of the century resulting in hundreds of voluntary/regular redundancies and loads of (lucrative) early retirements. They are currently re investing around 35 million pounds in the facility that remained. At our plant in Scotland the workforce was trimmed by several hundred between around 2000 to 2007. They are currently investing 55 million over 5 years in new infrastructure which will create jobs and critically safeguard those already there.

Without the trimming of staff and subsequent increase in competitiveness it is likely that the company would have completely ceased operations in the UK. Whilst difficult for some (not all) of those involved in the original cut backs it is a fact of life that business must remain competitive in order to survive. This is life in the private sector. It will be the private sector creating wealth, and jobs, that leads the country out of recession so any news of this type, regardless of what may or may not have happened before, is good for the country. Some people need to look at things from an apolitical perspective on here just once in a while.

I think you will find that the GSK development will only create 300 permanent jobs as per GSK info to employees. The figure of 1000 relates to the resource required for the construction will neither be permanent nor even new employment.

Just as well given that it was the private sector that got us in this mess to start with.

I think there'll probably be some contribution from the public sector as well. Contrary to current propaganda the public sector does have a role to play in the functioning of the economy.

Keep up - it was Gordon Brown and Noo Labour. How quickly people forget

Oh I think you're right, however, the private sector will [ilead[/i us out of recession as I said in my post.

Government policy is never apolitical and it has a direct baring on how or if money is invested in the UK economy.

It is very political of the government to suggest the kind of investment you mention would be happening at a sufficient level to offset the rising level of unemployment we see. I think the answer to that politically motivated suggestion is simply "no, it's not".

If you look at the unemployment figures you can see two sets of stats. The number of jobs lost and the number of jobs created. If you look what you will see is that while many permanent jobs (many in established industries) are lost the kind of jobs created are often part time and in sectors that at little to no value to the economy (i.e. they are not involved in any kind of activity that adds value such as manufacturing).

I for one am rather sick of hearing that Tesco's or Morrison's are opening X number of new stores and so will employ a few thousand people because while no doubt those getting the jobs want them, these jobs are just not the same as an employer like BAE taking on large numbers of people.

The idea the private sector will step in to take up the slack as the public sector is cut back is simply not working. The idea it would was nothing more than a politically inspired theory and the actual observed practice says it is not working.

A big factor why it isn't working is that private industry is sitting on a vast pile of cash it is simply not investing in the UK economy. I read somewhere yesterday it amounts to £750bn!

This makes it all the more crazy to cut corporation tax (something that has seemingly gone unnoticed in the budget) because all this will do is give private industry even more cash to sit on. So instead of being available to the government to invest directly in the UK economy the government chooses to give it to private industry who MIGHT invest it in the UK economy. Given private industry is NOT investing the money they already have, a cut in corporation tax at this time seems as bonkers to me as giving the rich a tax break by scrapping the 50p tax rate.

The governments decision to do this is again a political one. Or if you prefer idealogical.

My own view is that given the economy is in the state it is in the idea the private sector will come to the rescue is a forlorn hope. Therefore it is stupid of the government to take money out of the tax system and give it to companies when they have no idea other than a right wing theory that this will stimulate growth especially when current observed practices suggest that is just not happening.

Given current Government policy that's pretty much a dead cert.

It's also always worth blowing the trumpet for the public sector given how much bad press it gets generally. People easily forget that when the economy is functioning healthily the private and public sectors are pretty closely intertwined and interdependent.

Could you explain how, if a pensioner finds things difficult financially, they can find another pension provider paying a better rate or move to another part of the country that pasy a better pension? Maybe they could watch more daytime TV and qualify for overtime on their state pension eh?

It is not irrational at all. The reason pensioners got a higher personal allowance is because few of them are on much more than the £10,500 in the first place. My late fathers pension was £4000 a year from his company pension and a state pension on top. Not even £10,500. There will be plenty more who retire soon who will face paying tax on an income LESS that £10,500. That is grossly unfair and why pensioners got a higher tax allowance. To take all of those with a very small income out of paying tax on it.

As to their costs being lower you conveniently forget the cost of heating and electricity which when the house is occupied most of the day is a huge burden.

Any super rich pensioners on £100K or more don't get the personal allowance anyway.

Comparing a pensioners income to that of a younger person is bonkers as well. Younger people in employment have not contributed anything like as much tax and Ni as a pensioner and it is only right those of us in employment do as today's pensioners did which is make those contributions.

In any case why anyone begrudges people who have worked all their lives the extra tax relief they were getting above the working population is beyond me. It amounts to a 20% of the difference between the two allowances which is a grand total of £479 next year for new pensioners.

The fact anyone thinks it unfair or irrational is yet another triumph of selfish Tory propaganda.



But they didn't. They are definitely saving money by altering the way the tax allowances work for pensioners and it is not the freezing of the allowances that is the big issue but the abolition of them for new pensioners before the personal allowance reaches £10K. To save £3.3bn and hand back 5p in the pound to millionaires at the same time deserves all the flak it is getting.

I liked the comment of one of QT's panelists, 'I doubt giving the rich 5% off their tax will stop them from avoiding tax'

Gideon must think we are stupid and I reckon it will be the end of the Lib Dems, especially after Cables constant back tracking on his comments from before the election. Watch Cable, Clegg and the ginger to$$er Alexander defect to the Tory party at the next election.