Sunday 8 November 2009

Fun Online Poll Results & Bank Bail-outs

Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's poll, "Which economic variable do you think most voters care about most?". The results were as follows:

Job security, full employment - 63%
Steadily rising house prices - 17%
Reducing the overall tax burden - 15%*


I'm surprised that only 17% thought that people cared most about house prices, but let's assume that Job security is indeed people's main concern. The way I see it, government's main aim seems to be to prop up house prices, for example by bailing out the banks yet again (or "throwing good money after bad", as it's known in the trade) in the vague hope that the banks will lend this money out to home-buyers.

They say that they are doing this to get credit flowing to business, but that can't possibly be true, can it? If the government wanted to get money to business (and hence improve job security) the most effective way of doing it would be to take less off them in the first place, i.e. to cut taxes, surely? Instead of giving the banks another £40 billion, wouldn't it make more sense to give business a tax cut worth £40 billion, and preferably a tax cut that reduces the burden on employment, i.e. not increasing VAT again and reducing Employer's National Insurance?

So that's the topic for this week's Fun Online Poll. Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

* Also rans: Reducing the government deficit - 3%; Low and stable inflation - 2%; The strength of sterling - 1%; Reducing the trade deficit - 0%.

14 comments:

Ross said...

"I'm surprised that only 17% thought that people cared most about house prices"

If you had asked what swing voters in key constituencies care about most then I'd have said house prices.

Curmudgeon said...

House prices is an issue that is important for the middle-aged, middle-class chattering classes, but of little interest to most of the electorate - renters, pensioners etc.

I have paid off my mortgage, I have no intention of moving house and frankly have little idea of what my house is actually worth, nor do I care.

Robin Smith said...

This poll illustrates a natural economic law quite nicely. That people have to work, to produce the things they want, to satisfy themselves and live a good life.

Its "Work" plain and simple.

Make employment scarce or potentially scarce and you start a great fear in the people. Will I be able to feed myself and my family

And to do work you need free access to land and location. Keeping the most fertile locations for commerce, food, industry out of use or out of reach to the producers, and you will create a scarcity of employment.

Robin Smith said...

Deny access to land
Scarcity of consumption
Scarcity of production
Scarcity of employment
CRUNCH!!!

Anonymous said...

Personally I think the government's aim is to create inflation, pure and simple. They have concluded that the level of indebtedness is such thatit cannot be repaid.

bayard said...

Well I think Gordon and his rotten crew have an eye to all those nice sinecures, sorry, non-executive directorships that the banks can provide after they have been slung out on their ear at the next election. After all if Tony can do it, why can't they?

James Higham said...

Job security's the one because without it, nothing else follows.

By the way, coalition is underway. Next few days will see some things set up.

silicone breast implants said...

House prices is an issue that is important for the middle-class, middle-class families classes, but of little interest to most of the electorate - renters, pensioners etc.

Russell Brunson said...

@Robin Smith --- You said that
Deny access to land
Scarcity of consumption
Scarcity of production
Scarcity of employment
But its a hard time and these all scarcity are matter and will be for some more time.

Robin Smith said...

@Russell

So true! So lets make locations freely available to the best producer?

AntiCitizenOne said...

Probably REVENUE security is more of an issue than job security.

Another plus for a citizens dividend.

Robin Smith said...

@AC1 REVENUE security sounds interesting. Please can you define it as I may misunderstand you?

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS, remember that AC1 is a Geo-Libertarian like thee or me (we just disagree on the details).

AntiCitizenOne said...

By revenue security I just mean the citizens dividend funded from the LVT (IDPVT Improvement Discounted Property).