Gordon Dadds Share Discussion Threads

[scripophilist] 07/2/2003 20:52

Sorry samples123 but you are talking complete rubbish and there is no defence for the increases in taxation since the current administration took power. I guess you are not old enough to remember the last time these guys were in power!! If you are then I am surprised by your rampant optimism in the face of obvious evidence. I am not particulary interested in political dicussion, but I am interested in the policies of any government in power. It is clear that the current administration has been not been beneficial to investors and business either short or long term. But economic reality always dawns later rather than sooner.

---------------

Tax Freedom Day falls on 12 June.

This means that for 164 days of the year, every penny earned by the average UK resident was taken to support government expenditures.

This year's Tax Freedom Day is 2 days later than Tax Freedom Day last year, and 10 days later than Tax Freedom Day in 1997.

The increased burden is due to the fact that Chancellor Gordon Brown's predictions in the Spring 2002 Budget were over-optimistic. Economic growth has turned out to be only two-thirds of what he expected. He therefore had to resort to an 'eye-popping' rise in public borrowing to meet his spending plans.

The result is that the date in the year when someone on average earnings stop working for the Inland Revenue and starts working for themselves has moved two days later than forecast in the Spring 2002 Budget, from 10 June to 12 June, as a result of the Chancellor's missed targets.

Next year, the burden will be even higher, moving four days later than Mr Brown predicted in the Spring, from 11 June to as late as 15 June.

The 12 June date for Tax Freedom Day is as late as it has ever been since the depths of the recession in 1981. And things are going to get worse.

Even on Gordon Brown's figures, the burden for 2003 will be heavier than this year. But once again his predictions look over-optimistic, and if so, Tax Freedom Day will move even later than 15 June.

This will make it by far the highest tax burden that the British public have ever faced. And British workers already spend more time working to pay taxes than they do to feed, clothe, and house their families.

[pmeas] 07/2/2003 17:07

GDP up 0.4 todays news and i should imagine inward investment is responsable for some of that the trend is up year on year following the trend up but of the top end,but im listening Jl202 and will have a closer inspection later.

And yourself JL

[jl202] 07/2/2003 17:01

pmeas, the FTSE has already dislocated from the DOW - negatively.

samples123, you've got to make the books balance. You should look at the rate of change of the PSBR. If the current rate is not addressed immediately the PSBR will rapidly turn into a monster. A significant proportion of that reversal in the rate of change from steady surplus to increasing deficit is the chancellor's policies.

Comparisons with a period 20 years ago are rapidly becoming less relevant,,

Have a good weekend!

jl.

[samples123] 06/2/2003 19:13

1990

John Major's only budget in March - he decided not to raise the earnings threshold and so increased the tax burden by £430m. = STEALTH TAX

1991

Norman Lamont's first Budget - increase in VAT to 17.5% = STEALTH TAX

As a result of recession (mainly) the PSBR was on its way up. £10.5bn for 1991/2.

1992

Election year - PSBR rising rapidly as recession continues and fuelled by pre-election spending increases - £38bn for 1992.

Combined effect of the recession raised unemployment to 2.87m - more than 50% of them out of work for more than 6 months, and a third for more than a year. Businesses collapsed at a rate of about 1,200 per week!!!

1993

PSBR - £50bn - Spending increases of £30.7bn and tax falls of £20.2bn to blame. Much of it recession, but by no means all.

Two Budgets in 1993 - one in March - Norman Lamont, the second in December - Kenneth Clarke. Norman put VAT on fuel and power at 8% initially in April 1994, and 17.5% from April '95. Tax increases were staggered -

1993/4 £6.7bn
1994/5 £10.3bn

All designed to reassure markets, but not make the recovery falter. Outlook for PSBR looked even worse in December 1993, so Kenneth topped even these tax increases making them the largest ever peacetime tax increases - equivalent to 7p on income tax. Much of increase was by reducing tax allowances (STEALTH TAX) and reducing the rate of 'mortgage tax relief' (STEALTH TAX).

1994

1994 World Competitiveness League report showed the UK in 14th position (an improvement from 19th the previous year).

PSBR falling slowly, but still around £40bn -nearly 7% of GDP. Budget consolidated the 1993 changes, but a backbench rebellion prevented the increase in VAT on fuel being increased right up to 17½%.

[pmeas] 06/2/2003 19:13

and the earlier will come

[jl202] 06/2/2003 17:29

"pmeas - 07 Feb'02 - 23:57
Footise to dislocate its self from Dow jones and the pound get stronger.
Comments if any"

pmeas - you're right about the latter part,,

[jonc] 06/2/2003 17:21

boom boom.



Regards


B Brush.

[scripophilist] 06/2/2003 17:21

I'm thinking of cashing everything in and getting a sun tan for the next few years while the western world sorts its life out.

Would be useful to know if we will get inflation or deflation ahead so I can plan my income from my captial.

[pmeas] 06/2/2003 17:13

Lighten up boys youll spoil the boom.

[biffer] 06/2/2003 17:10

Trouble is, the great unwashed masses don't realise the slight of hand and erosion to their income that's being perpetrated by this bunch of incompetents.

Coupled with a totally ineffective opposition it's a very depressing scenario.

[jonc] 06/2/2003 16:19

Amen to that Scrip.

JC

[scripophilist] 06/2/2003 16:04

Unbiased detail on the tax burden.

Sack the lot of them!!!

[ashtongray] 06/2/2003 15:40

If the headlines regarding this years public sector pay rises are accurate, he's certainly not going to spend it all on the workers tho?

[pmeas] 05/2/2003 22:34

and if japan are buying you want to be buying

[pmeas] 05/2/2003 22:23

PMeas,interest day tomorrow

[pmeas] 05/2/2003 11:46

and hes going spend it all on the construction sector.Oh and me grannie,

[boyse] 05/2/2003 11:29

There are 35,273 ounces in a metric Ton so $100 x 35,273 = $ 3,527,300 per ton

x 350 ton = $ 1,234,555,000 billion

it was 300/400 ton of gold so went for the Mean give or take .

easy come easy go . No more boom or bust Mr Brown .

[boyse] 05/2/2003 10:58

THE Bank of England achieved a higher than expected price of $268 an ounce yesterday in the latest of a series of auctions aimed at reducing the nation's holdings of gold from 715 to 300 tonnes.

The auction attracted healthy demand, allowing the Bank to achieve a price 90 cents higher than that recorded at the London gold fix. The auction was 4.8 times oversubscribed, the third highest level of oversubscription in the 10 auctions so far. Analysts believe the success of the auction was due to "short" covering by market traders who have sold the metal heavily in recent months, pushing the price to a 16-month "low" of $265.90 earlier this month.

Despite yesterday's recovery, the gold price remains well below the price of about $290 at which it was trading just ahead of the sale announcement by chancellor Gordon Brown in May 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold price rockets to new six-year high

LONDON -- The price of gold roared up to new six-year highs here yesterday as fears that a Gulf war may be only a matter of weeks away prompted a fresh wave of safe-haven buying against a backdrop of further falls in the value of the US dollar.

The rally in gold prices lifted other precious metals, too, with platinum prices surging to their highest level in 23 years, analysts said.

On the London Bullion Market, gold was fixed at $374,85/oz, up from $369,50 late on Monday, with spot prices subsequently rallying to a high of $386,5 -- the highest level since November 1996.

[franceys] 04/2/2003 10:15

JonC
No, he quite plainly does not understand elementary economics, despite the persistent spin from Labour-luvvies how clever Gordon is.

Thick as several short planks in fact. Being thick though is not as negative as having no experience of business and no economics qualifications better than the average alley cat. Brown has no qualificatons and absolutely no business experience whatsoever, and it has plainly showed for a long time for those with objective eyes to see.
Patience Wheatcroft, senior Business Editor of The Times, says Brown is "living on a different planet". She is no fan whatsoever of this fraudster.

[maxk] 04/2/2003 06:30

From todays Times:
Analysis



February 04, 2003

Business Editor's Commentary by Patience Wheatcroft

Its the economy, Gordon



AT FIRST glance, it would seem that Tony Blair gave President Bush a lesson in new Labour accounting during their weekend summit in Washington. Worried about economic growth this year, George? Having trouble making your sums add up? Well, just do what Gordon does - admit that it's not looking too good right now, but assume that, by this time next year, all will be fine and dandy.

There was certainly a touch of new Labour-style wishful thinking in yesterday's US federal budget. After protesting for months that the recovery was on course, the White House had to eat some humble pie and admit that all was not turning out as planned. According to the latest White House estimates, the US economy is set to grow by 2.9 per cent this year, down from the 3.7 per cent originally forecast. But miraculously, growth next year is forecast to bounce back to 3.6 per cent - similar to the 3 to 3.5 per cent figure predicted by an optimistic Mr Brown for the UK.

The headlines from yesterday's US budget may have smacked of new Labour over-optimism. But the meat of the White House statement suggested that, unlike their counterparts in Downing Street, politicians in the US do not have their heads buried completely in the sand. If nothing else, there appears to be a genuine realisation in the White House that corporate America is in a truly bad way. Whatever the flaws in his economic strategy, President Bush has rightly recognised that America can only enjoy a sustained and strong recovery if both US business and the US stock market return to health.

If only the same were true of politicians this side of the Atlantic, where the refusal of Messrs Blair and Brown to appreciate the depth of Britain's economic problems is little short of staggering. The top-line message from Mr Brown's Pre-Budget Report in November, and in virtually every government economic statement since, has been one of complacency. And, unlike in America, when one digs below the surface of UK political pronouncements there is nothing to suggest any genuine concern about how difficult the situation for British business has become.

Yesterday's speech by the Chancellor to the Social Market Foundation was a case in point. The political aficionados may have welcomed Mr Brown's eloquent exposition of his "Third Way" philosophy, but any businessmen listening would have come away with the belief that the Chancellor lived in a different world. Mr Brown dismissed the stock market's woes in a few paragraphs, and reassured his audience that his economic strategy would help to ensure that the UK came out fighting. Try telling that to the millions of taxpayers who will be hit with higher National Insurance contributions in April, or the thousands of businesses struggling under the burden of new regulations - as Digby Jones, the CBI Director-General, has rightly highlighted.

Labour has chosen to channel the overwhelming majority of its tax revenues into public spending. And although it is right to give more money to our schools and hospitals, it is wrong to forget that a vibrant economy needs low and competitive levels of tax. There is a balance between higher government spending and lower tax - and the danger is that, in these uncertain times, the Government has pushed the pendulum too much one way. A little less public spending, and a reversal of the planned increase in National Insurance contributions, would do much to boost the country's wealth - and so benefit the economy as a whole.

One of the big differences between the US Republicans and the UK Labour Party is that President Bush understands how easy it is to lose an election by neglecting the economy. It is a lesson that new Labour may yet come to learn the hard way in the years ahead.


--------------------------------------------

Also from that article:

THE ratings agencies may take comfort from the letter that the Department for Transport has written on the subject of the Strategic Rail Authority. Those who are worried about the Government's accounts will be anything but comfortable with this blatant attempt to attach a government guarantee to the borrowings of the SRA without accepting that any liability has been created. So overstretched is the fiction involved that the Transport Minister may soon spot fairies at the bottom of his garden.






lol