Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    The average house price is £163K in the UK, currently. Even then, we don't need an average house if we're talking about being able to afford a house.
    Nope its around £210k.
    And in some places, the average figure is actually the cheapest (unless you have the time and money to put into completely dedeveloping somewhere).

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    You really think we'll be seeing 43% annual increases in oil price every year? Certainly if we are, then investment in green energy will become a lot more profitable for people, and they'll do it, the world over, and then oil demand will drop and that acts as a natural brake on oil prices, and it means that they would have less on an inflationary effect when they were to rise.
    It really wouldn't surprise me. Especially the way the middle east is going. And don't kid yourself into thinking green energy for the masses is anywhere close.
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    That is simply not true, that whoever pays their employees less makes more profit. In that case, why isn't everyone in the country paid minimum wage? Businesses need workers just as workers need jobs. It's a two-way relationship.
    An awful lot of people are paid the minium wage though. And for them, if the minimum wage is removed, then why wouldn't the employer decide to pay them less?

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Putting an artificial floor either:
    1) Causes inflation to negate the floor.
    2) Causes unemployment for those who's labour is worth less than that.

    We've seen a mix of 1 & 2, but with regards youth unemployment, we've seen much more of 2, as now the unskilled and unexperienced can't compete on price against their rivals for the job. Hence, we have much higher youth unemployment even when we saw low unemployment throughout the economy.
    Disagree. As I said, the floor just keeps a lot of people above the poverty line. If the minimum wage make such a huge difference to unemployment, then why didn't we see a huge increase in unemployment when it was introduced and how come companies claim that they cannot afford to pay for new staff when they are making huge profits?

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I think we'll see, as the consensus imagines, slow growth for the next couple of years picking up toward trend growth by the latter half of the parliament. On balance the cuts are beneficial to the economy, not a bad thing. They allow much looser monetary policy (and the B of E can ignore the short-term inflationary winds which will filter through by next January), which keeps interest rates lower, investment higher, employment higher and living standards higher. Yes, the costs of cuts are very visibile, you can see the nurses or teachers who got laid off, but the costs of not cutting are higher interest rates - which will cause just as many if not more job losses, just dispersed over the economy. So, I certainly wouldn't try to blame the cuts for any issues that we may have, they are there because we are all over-leveraged, government included, and the correction process in necessary, and would happen whether government cuts or not.
    As I said, we'll have to see. The government have already reduced their estimate of what growth will be for this year. So we'll see what happens when the cuts really do start to hit.


    (Original post by hslt)
    While this is true, they will now be paying back more than before, both in absolute amount and relative to both the normal and poor people. The rich people are paying much more, the poor people are paying less. The gap has widened.
    But the "normal" people will stay pay more than the old system. I wonder what the actual wage is where the difference is, but I have read a few people say around £30k.

    (Original post by hslt)
    The point is that the cost shouldn't be a reason to put you off. Nobody is hit badly enough by this that they should consider the student fees to be a deal breaker when deciding on going to uni or not.
    I agree with you in principle, but £50,000 worth a debt is very scary for some people.

    (Original post by hslt)
    And don't forget that not all universities are going to charge the full amount
    Keep telling yourself that.
    While not all will, certainly I'd say most will.
    That is until the government realises that this scheme will cost them more money than the current one (which it will be if the average fee is more than £7.5k)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Nope its around £210k.
    And in some places, the average figure is actually the cheapest (unless you have the time and money to put into completely dedeveloping somewhere).
    Nationwide disagrees: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm (£161K as of Feb-11).

    It really wouldn't surprise me. Especially the way the middle east is going. And don't kid yourself into thinking green energy for the masses is anywhere close.
    Trust me, if we see oil prices of $700/bl by 2016, which we would if we saw these sustain price increases, then green energy, even without economies of scale looks very very cheap. Energy companies will switch when it reduces their costs - and if oil prices rise this quickly, that will be very very soon. I really can't see oil prices rising that quickly at all though.

    An awful lot of people are paid the minium wage though. And for them, if the minimum wage is removed, then why wouldn't the employer decide to pay them less?
    Less than 2% of the workforce are paid minimum wage. They couldn't drop the wages, since why would the worker accept it - they know their labour is worth at least that much to them, and the company would have no rationale for dropping minimum wage.

    Disagree. As I said, the floor just keeps a lot of people above the poverty line. If the minimum wage make such a huge difference to unemployment, then why didn't we see a huge increase in unemployment when it was introduced and how come companies claim that they cannot afford to pay for new staff when they are making huge profits?
    Because the aim of a company isn't to employ more staff. It's to make a profit. They will only keep hiring when the next person they hire is profitable. They may be making £400bn, and the next person costs £6/hr, but only produces £5 worth of stuff each hour, then they won't hire. Profit level is entirely irrelevant, it's the margins that count.

    With that in mind, why would any business hire someone who wasn't worth minimum wage? All it does is push the least advantaged out of a chance to improve their skills and gain meaningful employment, condemning them to a life of living off welfare in order to stay above the poverty line.

    Furthermore, the minimum wage puts far more people onto the poverty line by precluding them from employment, reducing company spending on training, stopping people gaining experience, and so forth than it takes off at the very margins.

    As I said, we'll have to see. The government have already reduced their estimate of what growth will be for this year. So we'll see what happens when the cuts really do start to hit.
    As I was trying to point out, it's the de-leveraging process, not government cuts that are the threat to the economy. We don't cut, it comes through higher interest rates, we do cut, it comes through an inward shift in the IS curve. Either way, we're likely to see a short-run drop in output (relative to trend), cuts or no cuts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Nationwide disagrees: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm (£161K as of Feb-11).
    BBC disagrees.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...tml/houses.stm
    granted that was the end of last year, but I doubt they have decreased by 50k in a couple of months. Plus, the point I made still stands. In a lot of areas, the "average" price is actually the cheapest. And even at £161, you wouldn't really want a mortgage for that much on £21k a year.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Trust me, if we see oil prices of $700/bl by 2016, which we would if we saw these sustain price increases, then green energy, even without economies of scale looks very very cheap. Energy companies will switch when it reduces their costs - and if oil prices rise this quickly, that will be very very soon. I really can't see oil prices rising that quickly at all though.
    I suppose it depends on what happens in the middle east.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Less than 2% of the workforce are paid minimum wage. They couldn't drop the wages, since why would the worker accept it - they know their labour is worth at least that much to them, and the company would have no rationale for dropping minimum wage.
    Why would the worker accept it? Because any wage is better than no wage?

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Because the aim of a company isn't to employ more staff. It's to make a profit. They will only keep hiring when the next person they hire is profitable. They may be making £400bn, and the next person costs £6/hr, but only produces £5 worth of stuff each hour, then they won't hire. Profit level is entirely irrelevant, it's the margins that count
    Exactly. So why would companies making huge profits mean they would create jobs? (which is what you said).

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Furthermore, the minimum wage puts far more people onto the poverty line by precluding them from employment, reducing company spending on training, stopping people gaining experience, and so forth than it takes off at the very margins.
    I disagree. The minimum wage is probably the best thing Labour did in the time they were in power. Well, maybe devolution to the WAG would be the best. Not sure.

    Any ignoring the economics for a minute.
    What about the human cost?
    What about the severally disabled people who are being forced to work by a corrupt system (ATOS gets paid on the number of people it gets off beneifts - surely that is a conflict of interest, and the very fact a lot of decisions are being succesfuly appealed says a lot).
    What about the mentally ill who are losing their support networks due to cuts?
    What about people living in rural and semi rural areas who are losing their vital bus services?
    What about the elderly and their carers who will lose vital help?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    BBC disagrees.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...tml/houses.stm
    granted that was the end of last year, but I doubt they have decreased by 50k in a couple of months. Plus, the point I made still stands. In a lot of areas, the "average" price is actually the cheapest. And even at £161, you wouldn't really want a mortgage for that much on £21k a year.
    I'm not sure how the Beeb have complied their figures, because even the source they cite (Land Registry) have the avg down at £163K (http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/).

    And sure, but I already made the point about saving - you rent and budget for a while, save a 10% deposit, and borrow 7x your salary. Or, don't bother buying a house, just rent - keeps you more footloose, and so forth.

    The point I'm making is that £21K is about 40% up the income distribution, if not closer to the halfway mark. Homelessness is far less then 40%, so having a roof over your head at £21K is not that hard.

    I suppose it depends on what happens in the middle east.
    Even then you'll need the situation to be getting perpetually worse in the medium-term to see consistently ridiculously high increases.

    Why would the worker accept it? Because any wage is better than no wage?
    But businesses need workers must as much as workers need jobs. Try to run a factory with zero workers.


    Exactly. So why would companies making huge profits mean they would create jobs? (which is what you said).
    Actually, I argued that investment would lead to more jobs, which is plainly true. To do R&D, you must employ someone to do it. You then do it in an attempt to get ahead of the competition, and thus sell more units, so you need more people to produce more units - even if others copy, then more units will be sold across the industry - since the product is better, so you need more people to produce more units. Or, if relative price goes up, then the marginal product of labour goes up, and thus you employ more people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I'm not sure how the Beeb have complied their figures, because even the source they cite (Land Registry) have the avg down at £163K (http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/).

    And sure, but I already made the point about saving - you rent and budget for a while, save a 10% deposit, and borrow 7x your salary. Or, don't bother buying a house, just rent - keeps you more footloose, and so forth.

    The point I'm making is that £21K is about 40% up the income distribution, if not closer to the halfway mark. Homelessness is far less then 40%, so having a roof over your head at £21K is not that hard.
    Fair enough. But still. £160k is still an awful lot. Especially if you are on £21k.
    and yes you can save, but you won't be able to save that much, and it isn't really going to make a dent in the £160k.

    And yes, it is close to the average and is no where near homelessness. But it isn't exactly a brilliant wage is it. It isn't exactly that high.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Even then you'll need the situation to be getting perpetually worse in the medium-term to see consistently ridiculously high increases.
    We'll just have to see really.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    But businesses need workers must as much as workers need jobs. Try to run a factory with zero workers.
    :confused:
    Yes, and what I am saying is that employers would still have workers because having any wage (even a tiny one) is better than not having one at all. So you were saying why would workers accept lower wages. Well they would if the alternative was losing their job.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Actually, I argued that investment would lead to more jobs, which is plainly true. To do R&D, you must employ someone to do it. You then do it in an attempt to get ahead of the competition, and thus sell more units, so you need more people to produce more units - even if others copy, then more units will be sold across the industry - since the product is better, so you need more people to produce more units. Or, if relative price goes up, then the marginal product of labour goes up, and thus you employ more people.
    Now that is a better explanation.
    Although I am still sceptical. If they are already making huge "super profits" as you put it, where would be the incentive to invest in more jobs and R&D?

    And again, I'll say it, what about the human cost? What about the thousands, if not millions, of vulnerable people who are essentially being kicked when they are down by this government.

    If you do take the opinion that deep cuts are needed, then why not start from the top? Why not make sure that council cheifs wages are not outragoes (Getting paid £200k plus when you are kicking people out of their jobs and cutting front line services is disgraceful). Why not ensure that universities profits are put back into their development rather than going to the VC's?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But the "normal" people will stay pay more than the old system. I wonder what the actual wage is where the difference is, but I have read a few people say around £30k.
    That figure is about right.

    However, only 25% of graduates will be earning more than that value.
    http://www.salarytrack.co.uk/average...te-salary.html

    Therefore 75% of people are better off than before!!!

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I agree with you in principle, but £50,000 worth a debt is very scary for some people.
    Only scary if you're uninformed. And it's less than £40000 surely?! (£9000 x 3, and £4000 x 3). And poorer students still get grants, bursaries and fee waivers.


    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Keep telling yourself that.
    While not all will, certainly I'd say most will.
    That is until the government realises that this scheme will cost them more money than the current one (which it will be if the average fee is more than £7.5k)
    The government already knows it will cost them more than the current one! They said it, outright, when they released the plans.

    HOWEVER, it won't cost them all of the extra money that they save by combining these fees with reducing undergraduate university funding by 80%. Or that is how I understand it at least.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    That figure is about right.

    However, only 25% of graduates will be earning more than that value.
    http://www.salarytrack.co.uk/average...te-salary.html

    Therefore 75% of people are better off than before!!!
    Except those numbers are only for jobs that have "graduate" in the title. So essentially those are starting salaries and are in no way representative of the salaries university graduates would earn years down the line

    (Original post by hslt)
    Only scary if you're uninformed. And it's less than £40000 surely?! (£9000 x 3, and £4000 x 3). And poorer students still get grants, bursaries and fee waivers.
    Plus interest and inflation.

    And its not about being uninformed. Its about not wanting debt, and about the value of money to some people.
    For MP's who earn £65k a year, having a debt of £50k does not sound that bad.
    For someone who earns £20k a year, having a debt of £50k sounds a lot worse.
    For someone who earns £10k a year, having a debt of around £40k (adjusted to take into account of cheaper fees and grants) is a worse still.

    (Original post by hslt)
    That figure is about right.
    The government already knows it will cost them more than the current one! They said it, outright, when they released the plans.

    HOWEVER, it won't cost them all of the extra money that they save by combining these fees with reducing undergraduate university funding by 80%. Or that is how I understand it at least.
    The extra cost of the new system will only be offset by the university funding cuts it the average fees are £7.5k or less. Anymore than that, and the extra cost of the new system will be higher than the money saved by cutting funding. Its why the government are ****ting themselves and trying everthing they can to get unis not to charge £9k.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    And put yourself in the shoes of a soldier in Afghanistan being shot at by the Taleban. Someone comes along and tells you there are major defence cuts coming in because its not sustainable. When the banking sector was sustainable government finance came in to prop them up. Doesn't work with the army though. Unsustainable so cut it. Maybe they don't work long enough hours or have to pay overpriced tube?
    I never said that the army or teachers or anyone along those lines isn't suffering or working hard, etc and i apologise if it came across that way, as they are some of the most important people to society. Also, I didn't mention anything about sustainability... The defence cuts come after some very dodgy previous spending (to the best of my knowledge) and their working conditions etc were pretty shocking before this government came in. I would agree that the cuts should be aimed somewhere else, but this country is in a lot of debt and every aspect is going to suffer. I doubt it'll touch the people at the top, but in spending terms, we cannot afford to do the right thing a the moment without enraging another group of people.

    Or the government could employ people who are going to do a quality job in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable price. Or have people in charge who actually know about ground level?

    The defence secretary is a doctor... surely he would make a better health secretary?
    Offline

    13
    Tory cuts 2010 - 2015 = £80bn.

    What Labour would have cut 2010 - 2015 = £40bn.

    ... So the difference between the parties is £40bn over the course of an entire parliament.

    Interest on our debt every single year - £45bn (and rising as we continue to go into more debt).

    These cuts are necessary and yes they should be this deep. Interest rates on national debt isn't fixed, so if we refused to cut, people would have no confidence in us ever paying back the debt and our interest rates would rise, making our debt interest huge. But because we actually seem to be doing something about our deficit/debt our interest rates can stay low.

    If anything we should be cutting even deeper so we could give real tax cuts to business/individuals, to help promote growth.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Plus interest and inflation.
    Inflation can be discounted because wages correct for inflation. Interest only occurs when you're earning above the repayment threshold and even then it only affects the total amount you'll repay (since the loan will run out after 30 years) when you're earning £40.6K - else time will make the loan run out before you're paying any interest.

    And its not about being uninformed. Its about not wanting debt, and about the value of money to some people.
    For MP's who earn £65k a year, having a debt of £50k does not sound that bad.
    For someone who earns £20k a year, having a debt of £50k sounds a lot worse.
    For someone who earns £10k a year, having a debt of around £40k (adjusted to take into account of cheaper fees and grants) is a worse still.
    But it's only a debt in the same way that income tax is a 'debt'. You're only liable once your wages cross a threshold and even then it's entirely linked to your wages. Someone on £10K having a debt that they'll never have to pay back isn't bad or scary, unless of course you're uninformed - which is a large part of the problem.

    The extra cost of the new system will only be offset by the university funding cuts it the average fees are £7.5k or less. Anymore than that, and the extra cost of the new system will be higher than the money saved by cutting funding. Its why the government are ****ting themselves and trying everthing they can to get unis not to charge £9k.
    Well, no, it's just that to meet the new budget objectives within the envelope for that department, average fees of £7.5K are required - not that it's more costly than before.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Inflation can be discounted because wages correct for inflation. Interest only occurs when you're earning above the repayment threshold and even then it only affects the total amount you'll repay (since the loan will run out after 30 years) when you're earning £40.6K - else time will make the loan run out before you're paying any interest.
    Again, as it stands at the moment, wages do not "correct for inflation".
    Now, that could well change when the economy gets moving.
    But as it stands, inflation would increase the amount you owe, while your wages would not keep up.
    Even if inflation decreases it is likely that wage increases would not match it.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    But it's only a debt in the same way that income tax is a 'debt'. You're only liable once your wages cross a threshold and even then it's entirely linked to your wages. Someone on £10K having a debt that they'll never have to pay back isn't bad or scary, unless of course you're uninformed - which is a large part of the problem.
    A debt is defined as money you borrow. It does not matter how it is paid back. Thus it is a debt.
    Of course, it is the best debt you will ever have, but it is still a debt.
    And again, it is easy for MP's who earn £65k a year to say its fine. But for someone who could only dream of that wage, then it is something to worry about.

    What if your family has had severe problems with debt, I am sure you would want to avoid borrowing money at all costs.

    And the fact the SLC "sell" your repayments to private companies further push it towards being a debt rather than a tax.

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Well, no, it's just that to meet the new budget objectives within the envelope for that department, average fees of £7.5K are required - not that it's more costly than before.
    Nope. If average fees are more than £7.5k, then the entire new system will cost more, and so will defeat the whole point of it all.
    Its why the government has resorted to threaten universities with further funding cuts if they (UK universities as a collective) charge towards the upper limit.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Tory cuts 2010 - 2015 = £80bn.

    What Labour would have cut 2010 - 2015 = £40bn.

    ... So the difference between the parties is £40bn over the course of an entire parliament.

    Interest on our debt every single year - £45bn (and rising as we continue to go into more debt).

    These cuts are necessary and yes they should be this deep. Interest rates on national debt isn't fixed, so if we refused to cut, people would have no confidence in us ever paying back the debt and our interest rates would rise, making our debt interest huge. But because we actually seem to be doing something about our deficit/debt our interest rates can stay low.

    If anything we should be cutting even deeper so we could give real tax cuts to business/individuals, to help promote growth.
    £45bn is peanuts though. Interest repayments are rising from a record low - the absolute amount of interest is irrelevant.

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Plus interest and inflation.

    And its not about being uninformed. Its about not wanting debt, and about the value of money to some people.
    For MP's who earn £65k a year, having a debt of £50k does not sound that bad.
    For someone who earns £20k a year, having a debt of £50k sounds a lot worse.
    For someone who earns £10k a year, having a debt of around £40k (adjusted to take into account of cheaper fees and grants) is a worse still.
    But its not really a lot worse is it...
    the people on 20k and 10k will be completely unaffected by their 'debt'. They never see it, they never get letters about it, except after 25 years to say it no longer exists. And they don't get any money deducted from their pay check.

    You also get a full grant up to £25k.

    Statistically if you do a degree you will raise your earning potential by more than what you have to pay back.
    http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowP...are_/p!elkFpLg
    This new system protects those who don't a lot more than the old system did.

    And as I said, part of the rationale is to create a market for degrees. If you want to do a pointless dos degree then you might suffer from it financially.

    And yes, I know the previous statistics were for early salaries... but I would argue that this is the important time that income needs to be protected. The average young graduate is protected compared to the old system. Up until the age of around 28-29 the 'average' person is still better off than they used to be. If they don't get to £30000 they will continue to be better off than before. If their income doesn't rise beyond this point they are still better off than before. If their income rises to around £37-40000 over the remaining 15 years of debt (above the national average) then they end up paying very slightly more back than with the old system. But, at an individual income of £40000 I think that they can live with it. If you're income is higher than this and you have to pay back way more than with the old system, then I don't really care about your moral qualm - you can definitely afford to pay up.

    The people who come off badly compared to the old system are those that end up earning less than what they would of without their degree. And this means either they chose to do a degree that wasn't worth what it cost, they were very unlucky and fail to move from a dead end job (which is regrettable obviously), or they're doing something that they really want to do which presumably requires a degree.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    The extra cost of the new system will only be offset by the university funding cuts it the average fees are £7.5k or less. Anymore than that, and the extra cost of the new system will be higher than the money saved by cutting funding. Its why the government are ****ting themselves and trying everthing they can to get unis not to charge £9k.
    Where have you got this statistic from? And who projected it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And where do their lenders get the money from?
    Other lenders and thin air.

    Heres a reasonable explanation:
    Turns out money creation sometimes appears out of thin air. All banks lend based on a reserve ratio of their deposit: they must keep a certain % of each deposit at the bank but can lend out the rest. Of course, the whole system is dependent on a) the bank being responsible with lending, b) everyone not defaulting on their loans. If these two things happen eventually the system collapses which is what we're seeing in the current market.
    http://money.howstuffworks.com/perso...king/bank1.htm

    You could also read the above.

    You can change the word bank to 'miscellaneous lender' if you want. The system essentially works on the responsibility of all involved, and the willingness to take risks etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    But its not really a lot worse is it...
    the people on 20k and 10k will be completely unaffected by their 'debt'. They never see it, they never get letters about it, except after 25 years to say it no longer exists. And they don't get any money deducted from their pay check.
    I mean people who come from families earning that much.
    You don't seem to realise how much money £40k / 50k is for someone who has been raised with their family earning £15k or £10k. It is an absolute huge amount.

    (Original post by hslt)
    Where have you got this statistic from? And who projected it?
    The government themselves I believe.
    Although where I specifically got it from, it was something I read online towards the end of the last year, possibly on the BBC but I can't be sure.
    Will try to find it some other time when I am free.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You cant cut welfare when you are raising things like VAT. One or the other.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Tory cuts 2010 - 2015 = £80bn.

    What Labour would have cut 2010 - 2015 = £40bn.

    ... So the difference between the parties is £40bn over the course of an entire parliament.

    Interest on our debt every single year - £45bn (and rising as we continue to go into more debt).
    Have you noticed how the goalposts have moved on borrowing plans in four months:

    Nov 2010 the plans were to borrow £117bn in 2011/12, £91bn in 2012/13, £60bn in 2013/14, £35bn in 2014/15, £18bn in 2015/16.

    Now because of 'lower growth forecasts' Osborne has increased his borrowing plans to £122bn in 2011/12, £101bn in 2012/13, £70bn in 2013/14, £46bn in 2014/15, £29bn in 2015/16.

    ie he has added another £5bn onto his borrowing plans for next year, then £10bn a year onto the next two years, and £11bn onto the two after that. And that is assuming the forecasts of growth at nearly 3% for those last four years of the Parliament.

    What I have a nasty feeling is going to happen, is we won't get that level of growth, we will be stuck at the 1%-2% if we're lucky (if we're not, we'll go back into recession) and every year Osborne is going to be pushing up his borrowing above target.

    The argument for austerity sounds good when you look at forecasts in the future and say we will have reduced public services but borrowing will be much lower and we're more or less balancing the books. But if in five years time it is a case of we have reduced public services but borrowing is only a bit lower then we don't have anything to show for it.

    How the Coalition government manages the economy in the coming two years is going to decide whether this strategy pays off or not. We have bet all our chips on cutting the state and relying on the private sector to grow in its place. If that doesn't happen then borrowing will be a lot higher than we thought and the Tories will start opening themselves up to accusations of fiscal irresponsibility.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I mean people who come from families earning that much.
    You don't seem to realise how much money £40k / 50k is for someone who has been raised with their family earning £15k or £10k. It is an absolute huge amount.
    Ok. Sounds huge. But if they were to be properly informed of how it would actually affect them they would realise that they are no worse off now than they would be previously.

    It's a huge amount for pretty much anyone. But it shouldn't put people off because it shouldn't have a massive impact on them.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    The government themselves I believe.
    Although where I specifically got it from, it was something I read online towards the end of the last year, possibly on the BBC but I can't be sure.
    Will try to find it some other time when I am free.
    The figure sounds familiar, and I thought that the government were aware it could be a loss making game.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    So the money that the Government get to spend is created out of thin air? Do the Government owe interest on this money to anyone, or is it 0% interest (debt-free money)?
    Did you read the explanations? I fear not.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Are you now retracting your earlier claim that lenders can loan people money that they have created out of thin air?
    It's not physical money. It is money on a computer. It's very existence is non-existential. A transfer of a couple of billion of pounds in not accompanied by the shipping of a couple of tonnes of gold. Banks don't lend money only to the value that they have physically in their vaults.

    Clearly you find this conceptually difficult and are unwilling to read the articles i've linked you to.

    Or you're being a moron on purpose just to be annoying.

 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.