Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wednesday, April 23, 09:15:10am

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

• I'm no current Labour party fan or keen on many of their policies, but I'm wondering where you think much needed revenues could be increased? (NT) -- Mr Kurkuruza, Tuesday, April 08, 04:51:08pm (92.40.169.152.threembb.co.uk/92.40.169.152)
  • For fulham or the country? (NT) -- Same old story, Tuesday, April 08, 07:31:14pm (NoHost/85.255.232.40)
    • Both. (NT) -- Mr Kurkurusa, Tuesday, April 08, 07:44:43pm (92.40.169.152.threembb.co.uk/92.40.169.152)
      • Well i'veFor Fulham - Either player sales or ticket increases. Ticket increases won't raise loads, but might counter the bulk of the increased cost. As for government, its a bit of a crazy question don't you think? There are literally thousands of economic levers you can pull to raise revenues or reduce costs. But the government have chosen a fundamentally flawed one that will lose most of the benefit because companies have been shutting down, reducing workforces and freeing hiring (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 09, 09:24:19am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
        • I think the forecast is for a 4% rise in companies shutting down compared to a previous quarter. (NT) -- Mr Kurkuruza, Wednesday, April 09, 10:24:21am (217-155-46-35.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk/217.155.46.35)
          • So straight away, you wipe you're wiping off the existing revenues from those 4%. You then have companies that are cutting headcount (mine is a huge UK employer and has a 15% reduction for example). Then those with hiring freezes. Then those with international offices who relocate roles to other countries. As I say, its a fundamentally flawed policy. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 09, 11:04:25am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
            • Okay that's good to get your first hand perspective. As you say it suggests a flawed policy. I suppose my concern is, that if money has to be saved or generated, then who takes the hit: Low income people, middle income people, high income people, businesses or shareholders? (NT) -- Mr Kurkuruza, Wednesday, April 09, 12:59:36pm (217-155-46-35.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk/217.155.46.35)
              • I think in this case its probably everyone and thats the problem. Businesses and shareholders don't get 'hit' - they cut costs accordingly to offset the hit. Low income people are cheapest to get rid of to make the savings so they go, etc. But, for instance, we;re sending as much money to ukraine as this was 'meant' to raise. Its not just saving/generating money from business policies/taxation that affects the budget. There are (as per previous post) thousands of levers they could look at. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Wednesday, April 09, 01:41:46pm (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
                • Are you an economist or accountant? (NT) -- Mr Kurkuruza, Wednesday, April 09, 04:27:34pm (217-155-46-35.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk/217.155.46.35)
                  • I’m a qualified management accountant with a degree in business economics. (NT) -- Same old story, Wednesday, April 09, 06:26:30pm (NoHost/148.252.146.158)
                    • I was heading in that direction in a former career but gave up on the AAT course because I couldn't apply it to the Management Accounts job I worked within the Post Office. I was working at a much lower level than you by the sounds of it. (NT) -- Mr Kurkuruza, Wednesday, April 09, 06:48:06pm (217-155-46-35.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk/217.155.46.35)
                      • Funnily enough accounting hasnt been my actual job for a few years now, i’m in a very industry specific commercial strategy role, but for obvious reasons the accounts background helps with elements of it. (NT) -- Same old story, Wednesday, April 09, 07:22:28pm (NoHost/148.252.146.158)
                • Not sure those figures are quite right T. Labour NI increase (which I don't like) estimated to raise c £25 billion; whereas the Commons Library says total Ukraine commitment since 2022 is £12.8 billion. Support for Ukraine seemingly popular too. You're right about alternative levers - though some don't raise that much to the extent required; but due to election sloganeering they have been politically put out of reach - "Labour's tax bombshell" etc etc. I’m totally non-party-political BTW. (NT) -- Barry@ENF, Thursday, April 10, 11:08:30pm (cpc95104-newt39-2-0-cust313.19-3.cable.virginm.net/77.101.245.58)
                  • My understanding is that the £25b forecast is an annual figure for the end of the forecast rather than from year 1. As for Ukraine, this is off the governments own page. If you read all the way down, its way more. You're at £12bn already spent, just from the top two categories, before you get into stuff committed, and stuff sitting in other categories. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet (NT) -- Same Old Story, Friday, April 11, 10:23:14am (NoHost/81.79.75.149)
                  • In terms of the different levers - yes, i try to keep away from the hyperbole. But equally, there is no limit to the number of levers you can pull. When you have hundreds of levers, you don't need to make all the savings/revenue from one of them. Like you, i'm pretty party ambivalent (or politically homeless) at the moment, but as someone with a background in economics, i find myself disagreeing with the current lot on more or less every policy. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Friday, April 11, 10:26:35am (NoHost/81.79.75.149)
                    • Really making comparison between c3year actual @ 12.8 &projected NI pa @ 25. Understand little “pots” of help, but less easy to tie down/turn off for that matter. More widely & football comparison, very rare a government whose electorate were crying out for competence and a drive for growth, when presented with the widest of open goals managed to keep missing. I must be genuinely non-aligned as the socials send me right wing and left wing stuff. (NT) -- Barry@ENF, Friday, April 11, 04:09:27pm (NoHost/85.255.236.54)
                      • Also, I think the markets would have accepted greater spending as long as it was investing for growth and ring-fenced. I know not everyone would agree with that point. (NT) -- Barry@ENF, Friday, April 11, 04:15:17pm (NoHost/85.255.236.54)