Comments for Nick's Blog

Comment on The energy of new ideas: British progressives need a dose of Thatcher’s dynamism by Mervyn Hyde

Mervyn Hyde — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:03:37 +0000

Academia in general hasn’t even grasped the fundamentals of what drives an economy.

China are gobbling up the worlds resources at a rate that is not sustainable, we are still dreaming about how we compete in an arena that we not present in. (size Matters)

The financial sector is a busted flush, Steve Keen makes clear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGkmgnprrIU
If we are to become anything like a viable economic entity we need to start thinking self sufficiency, that is not part of a free market capitalist agenda, socialism works just look at the Mondragon co-operative, but that has to modified and directed by a willing government, no such government exists yet in this country. That is what people need to wake up to, society does exist it just needs organising.

Comment on The energy of new ideas: British progressives need a dose of Thatcher’s dynamism by Anthony Gray

Anthony Gray — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:32:04 +0000

I recall being in a very small minority trying to get my Trades Union to accept that hers was, in the main, a very radical (rather than reactionary) approach. So I agree with much of this review – but what place monetarism? Think you missed the need for an additional caveat there surely ?

Comment on The energy of new ideas: British progressives need a dose of Thatcher’s dynamism by Mick Hills

Mick Hills — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:40:18 +0000

Science and technology will lead the way in employment in all kinds of ways. This harnessed with the advances that can be made through environmental, energy production across Britain is a massive agenda that Labour need to be seen to be at the head and in the lead of. If you like Wilsons White hot age of technology in modern terms. The Banking system has to be radically reformed and the message given out, Thatcher style, that not supporting society by paying a fair rate of taxation is anti-British, and not playing the game by the vast mass of working people who have no choice in the matter. Jobs through a new environmental industry supported by a system of worker participation in production that takes away the leading edge of capitalism being seen as the only system that works.

Comment on Bournville, Birmingham and the bedroom tax: the lessons of Victorian localism by Jeremy Hardie

Jeremy Hardie — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:38:51 +0000

Absolutely right.

One morally impoverishing effect of even good state intervention is that I can feel I am doing the right thing by paying my taxes so the poor are helped by the state, without having the values of a Quaker or indeed any values except the cold notion that poverty ought to be sorted out. Impersonality is bad for the giver as well as for the recipient.

Comment on Bubblicious: Osborne perpetuates the high house price cycle by John Woods

John Woods — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:24:02 +0000

It is very strange that he set the upper limit at £600,000 and mentioned First Time Buyers in the same breadth. What FTB can afford £600,000 and yet cannot afford more than a 5% deposit and yet have the national debt bear £120,000 of his/her risk. I don’t know any people in this position. Even considering that it takes a minimum of £50,000 a year after tax to live in London and that every 1% of a £570,000 mortgage is £5,700, I can only ask who George Osborne is seeking to please. It is certainly not people like me who bought our first house (in 1968) on twice our annual earning. I am beginning to believe he is thinking of people who want a second home in the Home Counties.

Comment on Childcare: Cui bono? by @Home Childcare

@Home Childcare — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:44:56 +0000

Wise words! Totally agree. Wished the govt would face the childcare costs problem head on & deal with it properly.

Comment on Childcare: Cui bono? by laurachildcare

laurachildcare — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:08:42 +0000

Well said, Nick!

Comment on Childcare: Cui bono? by Bradford Margolis

Bradford Margolis — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:13:15 +0000

“In fact, the rational response of childcare providers to the new system, many of whom are struggling with profitability as it is, would be to increase their prices even further and faster in response to this injection of subsidy from the state.” You like evidence until you require any to back up your assertions. And just saying it happened in Australia isn’t evidence.

“In this example, the voucher company is providing a service free of charge. That’s not very likely, is it?” So what happens at the moment – since this is exactly what happens under the current system?!

“Under the government’s new system, parents pay £80 and the state tops it up with £20. But childcare inflation is running at 6 per cent a year: in two years’ time – when the new scheme comes in – the cost will be £112.50, of which the parent pays £90, the state £22.50. Already, half the gain to parents is wiped out.” Umm, hang on – the gain is still 20% since in the absence of relief the individual would be paying £112.50 – unless you can prove that the policy would be the sole cause of the 6% inflation – which I doubt you could. There are several documented reasons why the price of childcare has gone up incl. child ratios, qualifications, rents, regulatory requirements / Ofsted obligations etc.

Comment on 10p or not 10p? by James watson

James watson — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:55:47 +0000

As far as I can observe the IFS have commented on the economic merits of the proposals. They have not commented on the political merits of the propoals. Rather cheap therefore to suggest that this ‘proves one again’ that economists don’t make good politicans.

Comment on 10p or not 10p? by Jill Rutter

Jill Rutter — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:08:18 +0000

hi Nick: my blog of yesterday with an eerily similar title,,, http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/5430/10p-or-not-10p-that-is-not-the-question/

not sure tax policy got more interesting…. I think last week’s annoucncments showed a determination yet again to play politics with tax policy in a way that does not serve anyone. the debate needs to focus on the sort of issues you raise on income v wealth taxes and the right structure for income tax.
discussion tomorrow with the IFS here on making tax policy better – its booked out, but woudl be happy to have you there.