Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I don't think you know how Government Borrowing works. We borrow £100bn to build 500,000 homes, we then pay it back at current borrowing rates of £2bn per year, with the revenues of the homes being £2.5bn per year, we make a £500m profit from the scheme.
    You borrow £100bn and spend that £100bn, and yet you only put in £2bn of spending, so you only spent 2bn of it, ergo 10,000 homes, you've thrown the basic accounting handbook out the window and have accounts that make no sense and do not balance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    In your mind...
    It's a saving measure to anchor the other changes the DWP has made, also a Liberal position I might add. IT will make some families at least £13 per week worse off, granted with the other changes I've make it won't make too much of a difference but still, it's not a positive by any stretch of the imagination.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You borrow £100bn and spend that £100bn, and yet you only put in £2bn of spending, so you only spent 2bn of it, ergo 10,000 homes, you've thrown the basic accounting handbook out the window and have accounts that make no sense and do not balance.
    Because it will only cost £2bn a year, what part of that don't you get? I've taken into account the £100bn figure in the report, which you've undoubtedly seen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Because it will only cost £2bn a year, what part of that don't you get? I've taken into account the £100bn figure in the report, which you've undoubtedly seen.
    No, it does not cost £2bn a year, it costs £20bn a year for 5 years, with the debt being paid off at a rate of £2bn a year for about 70 years assuming that the £2bn is maintained in real terms, they are completely different things. The way you are defining "cost" means that there should NEVER be a deficit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, it does not cost £2bn a year, it costs £20bn a year for 5 years, with the debt being paid off at a rate of £2bn a year for about 70 years assuming that the £2bn is maintained in real terms, they are completely different things. The way you are defining "cost" means that there should NEVER be a deficit.
    It costs £2bn a year to pay for the scheme, the £100bn figure is what we're borrowing. The £2bn is paid for by the revenues leaving a £500m profit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It costs £2bn a year to pay for the scheme, the £100bn figure is what we're borrowing. The £2bn is paid for by the revenues leaving a £500m profit.
    Go and learn accounting, what you are ignoring, the dodgy accounting you are doing, is LITERALLY the first thing the would be taught on an accounting course...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Go and learn accounting, what you are ignoring, the dodgy accounting you are doing, is LITERALLY the first thing the would be taught on an accounting course...
    I used to be an accountant The spending for the Scheme has been accounted for completely.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I used to be an accountant The spending for the Scheme has been accounted for completely.
    Then why are you ignoring your double-entry bookkeeping?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then why are you ignoring your double-entry bookkeeping?
    Because in the budget I had written out the tax revenues for the year as well as the deficit, the Scheme costs £2bn per year, and has revenues of £2.5bn per year. In the same way that as for the Power stations I didn't put the overall cost into the spending section, I put the annual cost for the year.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Because in the budget I had written out the tax revenues for the year as well as the deficit, the Scheme costs £2bn per year, and has revenues of £2.5bn per year. In the same way that as for the Power stations I didn't put the overall cost into the spending section, I put the annual cost for the year.
    Given you claim to have been an accountant care to quickly draw out a rudimentary set of accounts to demonstrate how exactly you intend to account for it in this way? I'm not the only one here to have done/is doing accounting and we all agree you're being an absolute moron, as do members who I am not sure whether they have formally studied accounting or not, but can see the bleeding obvious
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given you claim to have been an accountant care to quickly draw out a rudimentary set of accounts to demonstrate how exactly you intend to account for it in this way? I'm not the only one here to have done/is doing accounting and we all agree you're being an absolute moron, as do members who I am not sure whether they have formally studied accounting or not, but can see the bleeding obvious
    Now you're just being rude.

    If I had not accounted for the full costs of the Housing Scheme then maybe you'd have a point, but seeing as I did, your point is moot.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Now you're just being rude.

    If I had not accounted for the full costs of the Housing Scheme then maybe you'd have a point, but seeing as I did, your point is moot.
    I would like actual refutations rather than repudiations. As I said, you claim to know what you're doing so draw out the accounts, I cannot think that in their most primitive form to give the information with sufficient accuracy would take more than maybe 5 minutes, because I really do not understand how exactly it is that you're soundly accounting for the spending. As I said, I know you're wrong, as does mobbsy91, The Financier and Nigel Farage MEP and I imagine others that have not openly stated so.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would like actual refutations rather than repudiations. As I said, you claim to know what you're doing so draw out the accounts, I cannot think that in their most primitive form to give the information with sufficient accuracy would take more than maybe 5 minutes, because I really do not understand how exactly it is that you're soundly accounting for the spending. As I said, I know you're wrong, as does mobbsy91, The Financier and Nigel Farage MEP and I imagine others that have not openly stated so.
    Total cost for project £100bn
    Annual cost for project £2bn
    Annual revenue for project £2.5bn
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Total cost for project £100bn
    Annual cost for project £2bn
    Annual revenue for project £2.5bn
    Okay, you were definitely ********ting about being an accountant, either that or we can all now see why you referred to it in the past tense.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Okay, you were definitely ********ting about being an accountant, either that or we can all now see why you referred to it in the past tense.
    I'm self employed and do my own accounts.

    If I borrow £5 from my mate, and he says "pay me back £1 a week", then my weekly expenditure regarding that loan is £1 per week. Not £5 per week. What part of that don't you get?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I'm self employed and do my own accounts.

    If I borrow £5 from my mate, and he says "pay me back £1 a week", then my weekly expenditure regarding that loan is £1 per week. Not £5 per week. What part of that don't you get?
    What part of it don't you get in that the £5 is accounted for in week 1, it was spent in week 1, you establish a debt in week 1 that is paid off over 2-6. The whole £5 goes on the accounts in week 1.

    Are you now saying that have not had any formal study or employment related to accounting? If so why don't you actually pay attention to the people who have/are.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What part of it don't you get in that the £5 is accounted for in week 1, it was spent in week 1, you establish a debt in week 1 that is paid off over 2-6. The whole £5 goes on the accounts in week 1.

    Are you now saying that have not had any formal study or employment related to accounting? If so why don't you actually pay attention to the people who have/are.
    I have had formal study in accounting, I was training as an accountant before I realised how boring it was and moved onto a culinary path before realising that being stuck in a tiny kitchen for 8+ hours was horrid and then moved on to marketing so I do my own accounts.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Jammy Duel He must be older than we first thought as it takes a minimum of 18 months to complete an ACCA award, but most people do it in four years because there are lots of exams involved.

    After reading James' responses I believe he is trying to say £2bn will be paid every year for an infinite amount of time to cover the £100bn debt, but the figure of £2bn is wrong. Government borrowing is cheap, if £100bn was borrowed, the amount paid each year can be calculated using the formula for the inter-temporal government budget constraint. In theory £500m could be paid every year for an infinite amount of time as the value of nominal debt decreases with inflation, but there is a catch; debt is not issued on an infinite basis, it is borrowed on a limited basis. When the debt comes to an end, the £100bn would have to be repaid with the £500m per year not covering it, the alternative is to refinance the debt at the new interest rate at the time the debt is due, which could see the government paying £1bn per year until it needs refinancing again. James is proposing the government takes a £100b debt but does not repay it, the government only continues refinancing the debt for a very long period of time until its value for the government of the day become small enough that it can be paid off.

    I know exactly what he's trying to say, in the exact same way that I know that he is incorrectly accounting for it.

    It's also worth noting that it appears he did not complete an ACCA award as he did go on to say that his "accounting" is merely his own, which does not require any qualifications last time I checked
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Jammy Duel He must be older than we first thought as it takes a minimum of 18 months to complete an ACCA award, but most people do it in four years because there are lots of exams involved.

    After reading James' responses I believe he is trying to say £2bn will be paid every year for an infinite amount of time to cover the £100bn debt, but the figure of £2bn is wrong. Government borrowing is cheap, if £100bn was borrowed, the amount paid each year can be calculated using the formula for the inter-temporal government budget constraint. In theory £500m could be paid every year for an infinite amount of time as the value of nominal debt decreases with inflation, but there is a catch; debt is not issued on an infinite basis, it is borrowed on a limited basis. When the debt comes to an end, the £100bn would have to be repaid with the £500m per year not covering it, the alternative is to refinance the debt at the new interest rate at the time the debt is due, which could see the government paying £1bn per year until it needs refinancing again. James is proposing the government takes a £100b debt but does not repay it, the government only continues refinancing the debt for a very long period of time until its value for the government of the day become small enough that it can be paid off.

    Current interest rates for UK Government Borrowing are 1.396%

    We can repay it at £2.002792bn per year (rounded down to £2bn) for 50 years.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I know exactly what he's trying to say, in the exact same way that I know that he is incorrectly accounting for it.

    It's also worth noting that it appears he did not complete an ACCA award as he did go on to say that his "accounting" is merely his own, which does not require any qualifications last time I checked
    I was a trainee accountant for a lighting firm, before moving on to other things.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.