Turn on thread page Beta

Why are so many people against cuts when... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Welcome to the forum.

    Like we need another generalizing tool :facepalm2:
    Hello Captain America!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because people realise that it is an ideological attack on the public sector. The cuts are a con, if the debt was that much of a problem then we wouldn't be attacking other countries.

    Let's face facts, the government are only there to do favours for their friends in the banking and oil industries, they couldn't give a s**t about the people whose lives are being ruined by their cuts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You can't make cuts affect the rich. And massive tax hikes will cripple the economy
    Why can't you make cuts that affect the rich?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quady)
    Why can't you make cuts that affect the rich?
    What cuts can you make that will affect the rich? How many rich people use public services as much as the poor?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Why can't you make cuts that affect the rich?
    Because in theory the rich aren't as dependable as the poor on public services.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDL445)
    The interest we pay on our debt is twice as big as Law and order budget.

    The NHS budget could be increased by 50% if we didnt have to pay interest on our debt

    At its peak in labour we had to borrow more money just to pay off the interest
    we pay a huge amount of that interest back to ourselves.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And is all the money/debt created this way owed at interest?
    No, since when did cheques attract interest?
    which credit cards have no interest free period? mine have 56 days interest free and since one gives me payback I make money on my spending. The majority of credit card account holders do not pay interest as they settle within the interest free period each month.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Make the state pension reduce by 20p for every pound of income over the tax allowance.

    Turn off street lights in low crime areas.

    There are loads of ways to make it progressive.
    firstly, the point was not addressed to you, it had a different purpose in mind. turn off street lights in low crime areas, my word are you joking? firstly, that would only be piecemeal but even worse the amount of health hazards that would bring. secondly, it would also cause crime zones to shift as criminals from high crime areas would take advantage of that. thirdly, that simply isn't politically viable; government will not be able to justify it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Gaga's Bottom)
    Because in theory the rich aren't as dependable as the poor on public services.
    That doesn't mean the cuts can't be progressive does it? If after the cuts the rich are even further less dependent on public services than the poor it'd be progressive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    That doesn't mean the cuts can't be progressive does it? If after the cuts the rich are even further less dependent on public services than the poor it'd be progressive.


    Que?

    Heard of the Postcode Lottery?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Make the state pension reduce by 20p for every pound of income over the tax allowance.

    Turn off street lights in low crime areas.

    There are loads of ways to make it progressive.
    Turn off street lights in low crime areas
    =
    Newly formed high crime areas.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    firstly, the point was not addressed to you, it had a different purpose in mind. turn off street lights in low crime areas, my word are you joking? firstly, that would only be piecemeal but even worse the amount of health hazards that would bring. secondly, it would also cause crime zones to shift as criminals from high crime areas would take advantage of that. thirdly, that simply isn't politically viable; government will not be able to justify it.
    Sorry I didn't realise a generic statement shouldn't be replied to by anyone on an open forum.

    So you can't make progressive cuts because you dont like the outcome? People don't like the outcome of the proposed cuts, doesn't mean either can't be done, just that people don't like cuts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Turn off street lights in low crime areas
    =
    Newly formed high crime areas.
    Probably. Who said it wouldn't? Coupled with cutting police rounds in affluent areas and this would be seen even more so.

    But they are but progressive cuts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    But you are not creating that money. The money you spend already exists in circulation, otherwise you could not spend it (Even you can't suggest you can spend money that does not exist).

    In order for money to come into the money supply, it comes in through the bond system, and all bonds have interest attached. It therefore becomes impossible to pay off the debt, as there will alway be more debt than money. Why? Because, for every £100 of new money put into circulation, the total "National Debt" will be an extra £100, plus whatever the interest is. How do you pay the interest on this money when the interest itself is never created, and the only way to bring more money into existence is to go further into debt?

    You don't like the reality that the Government borrows it's own money (Pounds Sterling) from bankers, and these bankers have the arrogance to charge interest. The simple solution is for Government to create and loan itself the money it needs at 0% interest, instead of letting the Bank of England create it out of thin air and loan it at interest. This would eliminate the the self-contradictory idea of "national debts", and end the bankers stranglehold on the country.

    Government borrowing must be permanently outlawed
    Banks must not lend out money they do not have

    Put those rules in place, and you will have a much more democratic system than we have today.
    How does paying by credit card or cheque spend 'money in circulation'? In either case I'm not paying with money I or anyone else has. I create the money as I make the transaction.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sorry I didn't realise a generic statement shouldn't be replied to by anyone on an open forum.

    So you can't make progressive cuts because you dont like the outcome? People don't like the outcome of the proposed cuts, doesn't mean either can't be done, just that people don't like cuts.
    i was trying to see whether that person had any ideas on the matter. yes the cut that you proposed was ridiculous, it simply was not practically or politically viable. of course it is the outcome of the cuts that matters which is why certain things are being cut over others.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Yes you are. You are essentially "borrowing" that money from your bank, and you have a legal obligation to pay it back to the bank, plus interest if you wait too long.


    I think if you're going to descend into nonsensical claims that you have a magic credit card that can create unlimited amounts of "new" money, I'm not going to bother with you.
    So M4 is nonsense then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    **** off emo
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    i was trying to see whether that person had any ideas on the matter. yes the cut that you proposed was ridiculous, it simply was not practically or politically viable. of course it is the outcome of the cuts that matters which is why certain things are being cut over others.
    Ok to take a real example then, higher education funding cuts, progressive or regressive?

    Moving state pension indentation from rpi to CPI, progressive or regressive?

    Freezing public sector pay over 21k, progressive or regressive?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    .But you are not creating that money. The money you spend already exists in circulation, otherwise you could not spend it (Even you can't suggest you can spend money that does not exist).
    No Quady isn't creating money when he spends on his credit card, his bank is. When he buys a pair of shoes on his credit card, his bank pays the bank of the shoe shop, in practice this will just be that the two bank's balances of reserves with the Bank of England will be altered. Meanwhile his bank creates an asset to itself in Quady's credit card balance, which is a liability to Quady, ie he has to pay it back with interest. Assuming he doesn't pay it off straight away and accrues interest, then Quady has paid his bank more than the value of the shoes, more than his bank has paid the shoe shop's bank. So thats where the extra money is created.

    Except at that point it's not really money that's been created, it's extra capital for Quady's bank that has been created. If the bank has a reserve ratio of 0.1, meaning it holds 10% of its total liabilities in reserve, then every £ extra that Quady pays in interest means the bank has capacity to lend an extra £9 out. That's when it becomes creating money.

    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    In order for money to come into the money supply, it comes in through the bond system, and all bonds have interest attached. It therefore becomes impossible to pay off the debt, as there will alway be more debt than money. Why? Because, for every £100 of new money put into circulation, the total "National Debt" will be an extra £100, plus whatever the interest is. How do you pay the interest on this money when the interest itself is never created, and the only way to bring more money into existence is to go further into debt?
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Money isn't only created by the Bank of England it's created by the Banks. When the Bank of England 'creates' money it does so by increasing the monetary base, ie it increases the balances of the banks who have their reserves held at the Bank of England. It will buy illiquid assets from the banks, and store them, and as a way of paying for them it increases the balances of those banks. That then only comes into the money supply in general, when the banks lend it out. That's how a central bank expansionary open market operation can be negated when banks have concerns over lending. If banks decide to increase their reserve ratios (ie hold more reserves for every £ they lend) then the central bank can end up increasing their balances, but they don't actually do any more lending to the public or businesses, so they just end up increasing their own balances (or paying it out in bonuses). I'm not sure where you have got this business that money is only created through the bond system.

    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    The simple solution is for Government to create and loan itself the money it needs at 0% interest, instead of letting the Bank of England create it out of thin air and loan it at interest. This would eliminate the the self-contradictory idea of "national debts", and end the bankers stranglehold on the country.
    This 'simple solution' is monetizing debt. The government satisfies its borrowing requirements by printing its own money at 0% interest, its effectively seignorage, a tax on the amount of real money balances in the economy. Very effective and cheap way of raising revenue in the short run, but if you use that as a tool to pay for a fiscal deficit then prices catch up with the extra money now in the economy, and real money balances fall, inflation kicks in then you have to print money faster to get the same value. Meanwhile the higher inflation is the less people want to hold money, so the faster the stock of real money balances falls, so you have to increase money growth at an even faster rate, which is why you will always get hyperinflation from this form of borrowing.

    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Government borrowing must be permanently outlawed
    Banks must not lend out money they do not have

    Put those rules in place, and you will have a much more democratic system than we have today.
    You will have an economy that won't move. There would never be any major investment programme undertaken because there wouldn't be enough availability of loanable funds. There would never be any kind of government infrastructure programme either....the railways break down, tough, if the government can't borrow to invest in infrastructure, you will just have to find another way to get around.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Ok to take a real example then, higher education funding cuts, progressive or regressive?

    Moving state pension indentation from rpi to CPI, progressive or regressive?

    Freezing public sector pay over 21k, progressive or regressive?
    i thought you wanted to give your own policy recommendations, whatever happened to those?
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.