.. the first casualty of politics is the truth

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/autumn-statement-4-charts-that-show-how-badly-george-osborne-has-got-it-wrong-9896391.html

as the election looms and super underground Druid wormholes are promised across the land, and the sleeping dragons stir in the vaults of finance, beware the silver tongued shape shifting X seekers

the four charts in the link are succinct and pertinent

[amateur51]

Telling indeed.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

further economic data from the graun

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/03/autumn-statement-six-graphs-you-need-to-see

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and Huff

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/01/autumn-statement-osborne-economy_n_6247912.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[amateur51]

Does OBR have any powers or responsibility to bring these divergences to Gideon's intray?

Or would they need to brief an MP?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... i suspect that the OBR will be asked many questions by the hacks this afternoon Ams! watch the numbers fly!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

how incomes fell 2008 - 2014

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chart-uk-poor-are-getting-even-poorer-2014-12

[Dave2002]

A professor on BBC news yesterday afternoon said that the measures for flood prevention were definitely only barely bringing financial support back up to the levels from which they had been cut, and also reiterated that dredging is largely a waste of time.

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" seems to be transmogrifying into "Liars, damned liars and politicians" - but it was probably always thus, at least for some of them, some of the time.

We're getting into the phase of being bribed with our own money again, which we haven't even got.

Also, it occurred to me that although it seems obvious that reducing our national deficit is a good thing, if we reduce it too far then perhaps foreigners won't want to know, as they can't invest in a country which doesn't want to borrow, just as banks seem quite keen to lend money to hapless individuals. However, I did believe the current lot when they took over that we had a problem with our deficit, which we still appear to have, so really that should be reduced further.

It's odd how "they" decide what is an acceptable level of debt to take on - a minute percentage change in debt levels or income levels (which are usually forecasts, and inaccurate anyway) - are hailed as either dreadful or great news, depending on on which side one is.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

or indeed some abstract notion as 'the size of the state' where big=bad

on metaphor and economics this excellent little piece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30208476

[amateur51]

... i suspect that the OBR will be asked many questions by the hacks this afternoon Ams! watch the numbers fly!

I bloomin' well hope so Calum

Later: P'raps we should set BBC Radio 4's More or Less onto those figures and conclusion?

[teamsaint]

oh dear, Gideon has been telling porkies to the house.
He says that those with the broadest shoulders are carrying the biggest burden on tax.

But:

the poorest 10% pay a higher proportion of income in tax than the top 10%

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research

[P. G. Tipps]

It would certainly help if we were all discussing the same thing in any debate and maybe even had dictionaries on hand as an aid to meaning and therefore mutual understanding..:winkeye:

At PMQs yesterday Balls and Osborne were arguing over whether the deficit had been 'halved'. The trouble is that they were talking about quite different things (though I'm sure both were well aware of that!). The difference lay between referring to a percentage figure of the original number and one as a percentage of currently higher GDP. So both were correct though, on this occasion, I had rather more sympathy with Balls than Osborne! The art of engaging in political debate is not in "lying" but in using separate methods of calculation, whichever suits one best!

The Guardian article here refers to the 'poorest' paying a greater percentage of their income in all taxes not just income tax. When one takes VAT etc into account that is hardly a stunning revelation. It is not rocket science to understand that if we talk solely about Income Tax then the 'richest' quite obviously pay much, much more both in real and percentage terms than do the 'poorest'.

A wholly misleading article, imv, quite deliberately confusing the percentage of Income Tax and the percentage of all taxes paid compared to income. What is undeniable is that the very rich contribute (or should) much more in real money through all taxes than the 'poorest' or anyone else in between!

[MrGongGong]

It would certainly help if we were all discussing the same thing in any debate and maybe even had dictionaries on hand as an aid to meaning and therefore mutual understanding..:winkeye:
!

HA HA HA

You are right about statistics though
The use of them is almost always disingenuous, particularly when politicians use %

If this year there was 1 fatal accident in a population of 25,000,000
and last there were 2
that would be described as a reduction of 100%

NO IT ISN'T

And the nonsense I heard on the radio yesterday from folks complaining how outrageous it is to suggest that they pay more tax on profits from property (you won't pay a mansion tax unless you pay high rate tax OR you sell your house OR die). So it's ok to treat property as capital when it suits you but not when it's suggested that you contribute more because you have more?

[teamsaint]

PGT

what matters to a person is how much tax they pay in total.

Whether it is income tax, VAT, council tax or whatever is a matter of detail , really.

The rich ENDLESSLY whinge ON and On and On and on about their tax bills the poor spoilt darlings, but in they end they pay less in percentage terms than the very poorest in society.

its a truly disgraceful situation.

and income tax /National insurance is part of the problem..

Kids earning 20k PA with student debt, (without which they wouldn't earn such princely sums) pay effective marginal rates of 40%.

So much for the much lauded incentives that the rich bang on about in their attempts to reduce tax rates.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Give me strength.

[Richard Barrett]

If this year there was 1 fatal accident in a population of 25,000,000
and last there were 2
that would be described as a reduction of 100%

To be fair, it would be described as a reduction of 50%, which it is... while an increase from 1 to 2 would be an increase of 100%.