Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    The figures are nothing conjectural - the £95bn figure is from Tax Research UK, the £200m (I put '+' due to the questionability of duration, in which the cost could well sky-rocket) figure is from Malcolm Chalmers, a leading defence economist from the Royal United Institute. Care to cite your contradictory sources?

    No idea what you're talking about in your third paragraph, how is that relevant to what i said?
    link me to the aparent source for the £95bn.

    thats like putting, "the cost of libya conflict will cost 5p +

    i was talking about the bit where you mentioned why do budgets have to be cut (services).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So you had no sources?

    (Original post by T.I.)
    link me to the aparent source for the £95bn.
    http://www.johannhari.com/2011/01/17...-a-corporation

    (Original post by T.I.)
    thats like putting, "the cost of libya conflict will cost 5p +
    No it's not - nor was it said in exclusivity but an example of wasteful spending.

    (Original post by T.I.)
    i was talking about the bit where you mentioned why do budgets have to be cut (services).
    I edited my last reply to accomodate this, it was my misunderstanding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    So you had no sources?



    http://www.johannhari.com/2011/01/17...-a-corporation





    No it's not - nor was it said in exclusivity but an example of wasteful spending.


    I edited my last reply to accomodate this, it was my misunderstanding.
    http://www.johannhari.com/2011/01/17...-a-corporation


    That just refernces another source. i want the actual source foe the £95bn


    No it's not - nor was it said in exclusivity but an example of wasteful spending.

    There is no wastefull spending taking place
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.I.)
    http://www.johannhari.com/2011/01/17...-a-corporation


    That just refernces another source. i want the actual source foe the £95bn
    That's where i got it from, you're welcome to find it yourself though - where are your sources?!

    (Original post by T.I.)
    No it's not - nor was it said in exclusivity but an example of wasteful spending.

    There is no wastefull spending taking place
    That's a value-judgement, i'd call prolonged intervention in Libya a waste of money, i'd call trident an abject waste of money, i'd call most of the defence budget the same.

    I'm going to bed anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    after £1tn of public money having been pumped into the banks -
    It cost the taxpayer £300bn to nationalise the banks. (Not bail-out, nationalise - the Labour party's favourite pastime.)

    Britain's national debt is not expected to surpass £1tn until 2012.



    Source

    It's worth noting as well that GDP is forecast to increase by 35% over the next 5 years, from £1.5tn today, to over £2tn by 2016.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bookmark)
    It cost the taxpayer £300bn to nationalise the banks. (Not bail-out, nationalise - the Labour party's favourite pastime.)

    Britain's national debt is not expected to surpass £1tn until 2012.



    Source

    It's worth noting as well that GDP is forecast to increase by 35% over the next 5 years, from £1.5tn today, to over £2tn by 2016.
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...1&in_page_id=2
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    No, I'm quoting exactly what you have said, and I give you plenty of opportunities to clarify your stance.
    No, you're taking what i said away from the initial explanation, thus out of context.

    You obviously have an argument fetish, and think you know better than me, but are refusing to say. What is your 'stance'?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    People are self interested. Many would rather see good public services that help them today and a default and economic crash tommrow. Than hard times today and a boom in future.


    Or another recession... if this boom is gonna come in 15 years time, then I think I'll go for public services today tyvm
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Sorry, just clarify that. In order to lend out £100,000, a bank has to have £100,000 on deposit?



    Well you accept that all money comes (originally) from thin air, and this gets loaned to the Government. So the only difference would be that Government-issued money would obviously be at 0% interest to the Government.

    The "money from thin air" that is loaned to the Government at the moment hasn't caused hyperinflation, so neither would government-issued money from "thin air". Plus it would have the bonus of independent parliamentary regulation of the monetary system.



    No, I'm quoting exactly what you have said, and I give you plenty of opportunities to clarify your stance.
    One last explanation for you below:

    "where does their money come from? The answer is they make the money up out of thin air and then have the audacity to loan it to us. The interest that the government has to pay is where our income taxes go. "

    Now, on to Fractional Reserve Lending. The new money is created through the 1:10 ratio. Banks can "create" up to ten times the amount of money they have on deposit. The history of this started with goldsmiths who, after realizing that hardly anyone wanted to withdraw their gold, create paper money "receipts" for gold that did not exist. The governments eventually caught on, but felt it was best to regulate it in a ratio system rather than drive it underground. The ratio selected at this time is 1:10. So for instance, if I deposit £1 to a bank, they can create £10 in addition to what they currently have. £9 of "new" money, and the £1 of money that I deposited. The net result is that £9 has been created.

    The ambiguity of the Fractional-Reserve Lending laws has confused many into thinking that only 90% of their deposits can be loaned out. This is not the case. £9 of "new" money can be created for every £1 received on deposit, and that £1 itself can also be loaned, the net result being that banks can loan out £10 for every £1 received on deposit.

    New money is frequently created (Why do you think we have had years and years of consecutive inflation?). But you are right in that it's a very difficult subject to understand when first reading. I'll try to address your question. As I understand it, you are saying that you think no new money is ever created. I disagree. Back in 1694, when we changed to a monetary system controlled by the Bank of England, there wasn't £1 trillion in circulation. But now there is £1 trillion of Government debt. If there wasn't £1 trillion in existence back in 1694, how is it possible for the Government now have a debt of roughly £1 trillion if no new money is ever brought into existence?


    Something else you might want to consider - Why don't the Government borrow the money they need at 0% interest?
    Equally why don't the banks just create money to satisfy their lenders/depositors? Because it's controlled centrally.

    And yes, printing money causes inflation. Zimbabwae 'created money' to reduce their deficit and what happened?

    On 16 February 2006, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Dr. Gideon Gono, announced that the government had printed ZWD 21 trillion in order to buy foreign currency to pay off IMF arrears.
    In early May 2006, Zimbabwe's government began printing money again to produce about 60 trillion Zimbabwean dollars. The additional currency was required to finance the recent 300 percent increase in salaries for soldiers and policemen and 200 percent for other civil servants. The money was not budgeted for the current financial year, and the government did not say where it would come from.
    In August 2006, the Zimbabwean government issued new currency and asked citizens to turn in old notes; the new currency (issued by the central bank of Zimbabwe) had three zeroes slashed from it. Most financial analysts remained skeptical and said that the new money would not provide relief from record inflation
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Barden)
    Or another recession... if this boom is gonna come in 15 years time, then I think I'll go for public services today tyvm
    I'd say more like 5
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigDanny)
    The issue is not the extent of the cuts, it is who the cuts affect.
    This.

    As I said earlier, the MP's and council leaders who are pushing through these cuts couldn't give a damn about the public services they are cutting.
    The closing of libraries, or the removal of rural bus services does not and will not affect them.
    With them having second homes, transport allowances and huge expenses (the rules have just been relaxed at a cost of a few million to the taxpayer), they couldn't give a damn.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How could we raise NHS funding by 50% if we didn't have to pay debt interest?

    We'd have £110bn less to spend...
    Most stupid thing I've ever read on the topic of sovereign debt problems. Congratulations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    Most stupid thing I've ever read on the topic of sovereign debt problems. Congratulations.
    Can you explain?

    If we had no debt interest repayments how much more/less would the Govt have to spend?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Can you explain?

    If we had no debt interest repayments how much more/less would the Govt have to spend?
    I think it something like 110m a day (kinda inaccurate), or £43bn overall.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    I think it something like 110m a day (kinda inaccurate), or £43bn overall.
    More or less?

    If more, then since we are borrowing £140bn, where does the other £100bn come from?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Odd, George claims it is 60% by the end of the financial year and will peak at 71%.

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_speech.htm
    the ons has been around for almost a hundred years built on the basis of being non-political and during the 2010 election criticised both Brown and Cameron for dodgy stats so I know who I trust
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    More or less?

    If more, then since we are borrowing £140bn, where does the other £100bn come from?
    What the **** are you talking about?

    Government borrowing is about £800bn, as in debt. Deficit is about £140bn. Do you even know the difference between the two?

    there is about £43bn of the £800bn which is in the form of interest payments on the debt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    What the **** are you talking about?

    Government borrowing is about £800bn, as in debt. Deficit is about £140bn. Do you even know the difference between the two?

    there is about £43bn of the £800bn which is in the form of interest payments on the debt.
    The deficit is £140bn/annum, which is a part of public spending.

    Interest on the total debt is £43bn/annum.

    If you had no debt, by definition you couldn't have a deficit as if you did then youd be in debt.

    So pray tell me how we'd had £43bn more to spend if we had no debt, rather than approx £100bn less (deficit - interest)?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The deficit is £140bn/annum, which is a part of public spending.

    Interest on the total debt is £43bn/annum.

    If you had no debt, by definition you couldn't have a deficit as if you did then youd be in debt.

    So pray tell me how we'd had £43bn more to spend if we had no debt, rather than approx £100bn less (deficit - interest)?
    What the **** are you talking about? You don't get this at all.

    Wrong. If you had a deficit of £140bn, debt is at a minimum of £140bn. The deficit is part of the debt.

    That scenario is bull****, even another labour government couldn't **** it up that much. No debt then £43bn deficit - would never happen.

    The £43bn of debt doesn't come from the £140bn deficit, it comes from the £800bn deficit, of which £140bn is the current deficit.

    tl;dr: stop talking about this as if you have a clue whats going on. Study economics or finance before you study politics. Its so much more useful.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    This.

    As I said earlier, the MP's and council leaders who are pushing through these cuts couldn't give a damn about the public services they are cutting.
    The closing of libraries, or the removal of rural bus services does not and will not affect them.
    With them having second homes, transport allowances and huge expenses (the rules have just been relaxed at a cost of a few million to the taxpayer), they couldn't give a damn.
    This I agree with. If all MP's gave themselves a 10% wage cut, as well as all the heads of the councils we'd save a lot more. However, what you could also say is wheres the incentive to work harder if the pay doesen't perhaps meet the job? Thus why taxes have to be issued so carefully.

    The banks should be taxed a hell of a lot more though. Makes me feel sick when you see that the bankers are getting huge bonuses when they caused this trouble in the first place.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.