We are currently paying benefits to half the third world and Eastern Europe which is quite quite insane especially since half of them wasnt to blow us up !
I think you'll find that the insane part was the claim that we're paying benefits to half the third world and Eastern Europe. You do realise that would be impossible, right?
In 2010, the UK government announced cuts totalling £83 billion which would be implemented by 2015. Overall, these cuts form 14% of all public spending. By 2015, annual spending in real terms on local government will be cut by £16 billion, university spending will be cut by £6.4 billion, criminal justice spending will be cut by £5.9 billion, and spending on benefits and tax credits will be cut by £22 billion.
The VAT increase raises about £13.5 billion a year
The 50% income tax was expected to raise £6.7 billion a year.
The Coalition has also had the Bank of England give the UK government the interest payments paid on the UK government gilts bought by the BoE using QE. That was a winfall of £35 billion to the treaasury, and the BoE is forgiving the UK government future interest payments making £375bn of the UK's national debt interest free.
On the 45/50 p tax, I think the figures are understated. Osborne said in one of his budgets or autumn statetements that 16 Billion had been paid early in order to avoid the 50p rate of tax. Now once that rate had kicked in, where did all those extra billions go in the years after that?
On the QE interest point, why don't other coutries do the same then, esp 3rd world countries?
That is not the case. There was no shortage of council houses until the 2000s because house prices were low enough that social homes were less necessary. The shortage of social homes is because of house price inflation, it didn't cause it.
There WAS long waiting lists in the 90's for council houses and even before then too from what I could make out. The waiting list in my area was always 5 years at least for most people from the late 80's onwards and its now on a lot more with 8 thousand people on the waiting list.
Of course it could. You might not like the look of what's left of public services, schools, the NHS, railways, roads etc afterwards should the nuclear option be considered but it's not impossible to do - simply too bitter a pill to swallow, that and the small matter of it being complete and utter political suicide for whoever cashed that reality cheque.
We are currently paying benefits to half the third world and Eastern Europe which is quite quite insane especially since half of them wasnt to blow us up !
You think 8-11 Billion a year is going to make those countries live fine do ya? The UK Government is spending around 750 Billion a year now and the total GDP figures are well over a Trillion and during the boom times were over 2 Trillion I believe. I think in proportion we are richer than the USA.
You think 8-11 Billion a year is going to make those countries live fine do ya? The UK Government is spending around 750 Billion a year now and the total GDP figures are well over a Trillion and during the boom times were over 2 Trillion I believe. I think in proportion we are richer than the USA.
On the QE interest point, why don't other coutries do the same then, esp 3rd world countries?
They some times do create vast amounts of money out of thin air that is why they some times end up with out of control inflation and everyone using the US dollar or other more stable currency rather than the local currency. The UK was only able to create a vast amount of money out of thin air without causing inflation because the UK was suffering a massive drop in money supply due to the credit crunch. QE was not too pay down the national debt it was to increase money supply in the economy, ending up bying £375bn of our debt and so owing it to ourselves and paying no interest on it was just a side effect. We could have arguably used far more QE as the OECD and others at one point were encouraging us to do so, but instead we choose to not take the easy route to encourage economic growth and buy our own debt so also reducing our national debt and deficit and so the amount of austerity needed, but the hard route of more austerity this hard route is best for those we owe money to and the rich as it best protects the value of the money.
They some times do create vast amounts of money out of thin air that is why they some times end up with out of control inflation and everyone using the US dollar or other more stable currency rather than the local currency. The UK was only able to create a vast amount of money out of thin air without causing inflation because the UK was suffering a massive drop in money supply due to the credit crunch. QE was not too pay down the national debt it was to increase money supply in the economy, ending up bying £375bn of our debt and so owing it to ourselves and paying no interest on it was just a side effect. We could have arguably used far more QE as the OECD and others at one point were encouraging us to do so, but instead we choose to not take the easy route to encourage economic growth and buy our own debt so also reducing our national debt and deficit and so the amount of austerity needed, but the hard route of more austerity this hard route is best for those we owe money to and the rich as it best protects the value of the money.
I've always thought that printing money and or QE would only result in an inflation problem if a country has too much money and is doing alright already but if a country is poor or is going through hardship then why on earth don't they print money and or QE? How would it cause inflation if they are poor or going through money shortages?
And that link doesn't take into account the cost of living so maybe their living costs are lower and if it sn't, it has a puny population so probably benefits because of that.
And that link doesn't take into account the cost of living so maybe their living costs are lower and if it sn't, it has a puny population so probably benefits because of that.
Here's a list that does take the cost of living into account.
I've always thought that printing money and or QE would only result in an inflation problem if a country has too much money and is doing alright already but if a country is poor or is going through hardship then why on earth don't they print money and or QE? How would it cause inflation if they are poor or going through money shortages?
The problem is QE money takes time to work its way into the economy so the inflationary effect is not immediate, it also tends to create assets bubbles and the economic growth caused by increased money supply to banks which tends to work its way into the economy by the banks lending more maybe transient as the spenders have to pay the banks back. QE is a gamble unless you are looking at deflation due to a massive drop in money supply so need to fill the void.
The thing that gets me is national debt and deficit is people talk about it as if the government has a limited supply of money and only borrows because it has to. When the issuing and buying of UK government gilts is used by the government to alter the amount of money supply in the economy, as is the setting of base rates. While ultimately as far as the government borrowing money of other people we use fiat currency and the UK government via the BoE can create the money out of thin air. In theory we could pay the national debt with the stroke of a pen at the cost of inflation. It is money supply control and inflation deflation that our the limiting factors.
The problem is QE money takes time to work its way into the economy so the inflationary effect is not immediate, it also tends to create assets bubbles and the economic growth caused by increased money supply to banks which tends to work its way into the economy by the banks lending more maybe transient as the spenders have to pay the banks back. QE is a gamble unless you are looking at deflation due to a massive drop in money supply so need to fill the void.
The thing that gets me is national debt and deficit is people talk about it as if the government has a limited supply of money and only borrows because it has to. When the issuing and buying of UK government gilts is used by the government to alter the amount of money supply in the economy, as is the setting of base rates. While ultimately as far as the government borrowing money of other people we use fiat currency and the UK government via the BoE can create the money out of thin air. In theory we could pay the national debt with the stroke of a pen at the cost of inflation. It is money supply control and inflation deflation that our the limiting factors.
Which could mean the real intention by Governments is to keep everyone under control. Make it look to easy and they fear people will just expect money printing all the time and will work less and less.
So what did you mean then if you were not talking about privatising the NHS/Education in order to get rid of the annual deficit?
It's not a rocket science. It's simple logic. If they reduced the budgets we'd end up with fewer and worse services than we currently have.
Fewer hospitals, longer waiting times, bigger class sizes, fewer educational options, less equipment... that kind of thing, hence why it would be political suicide to take that option.
From the purely fiscal angle you were saying was impossible to achieve, I'm simply saying of course it could be achieved. We just wouldn't like the outcome.
Your morbid fear of the dreaded "P word wasn't a part of that
It's not a rocket science. It's simple logic. If they reduced the budgets we'd end up with fewer and worse services than we currently have.
Fewer hospitals, longer waiting times, bigger class sizes, fewer educational options, less equipment... that kind of thing, hence why it would be political suicide to take that option.
From the purely fiscal angle you were saying was impossible to achieve, I'm simply saying of course it could be achieved. We just wouldn't like the outcome.
Your morbid fear of the dreaded "P word wasn't a part of that
I'm talking about what is realisticly possible and the above isn't.
So if Fiat Chrysler Automobile NA (FCA) - world hq in London and paying UK tax on its worldwide profits, decided that taxes and red tape were too much and moved to Amsterdam, then what? Ban the sale of Fiat cars in the UK? That would start an interesting trade war, lose the tax take and lose a lot of car related jobs.
First, they are probably paying living wages already and more but if any company leaves because they don't want to pay the living wage then there will be others who will want to fill the gap and it will do so too, more business for them here.
The only way to cure the deficit is through wage growth and keeping a lid of the cost of living. We are of course doing the complete opposite with wage suppression and doing things like maintaining rises in property values. This is increasing people's need to be supported by the state and making our deficit difficult to defeat. The deficit, in today's climate, cannot be tackled.
The problem is QE money takes time to work its way into the economy so the inflationary effect is not immediate, it also tends to create assets bubbles and the economic growth caused by increased money supply to banks which tends to work its way into the economy by the banks lending more maybe transient as the spenders have to pay the banks back. QE is a gamble unless you are looking at deflation due to a massive drop in money supply so need to fill the void.
The thing that gets me is national debt and deficit is people talk about it as if the government has a limited supply of money and only borrows because it has to. When the issuing and buying of UK government gilts is used by the government to alter the amount of money supply in the economy, as is the setting of base rates. While ultimately as far as the government borrowing money of other people we use fiat currency and the UK government via the BoE can create the money out of thin air. In theory we could pay the national debt with the stroke of a pen at the cost of inflation. It is money supply control and inflation deflation that our the limiting factors.
We are currently looking at slipping into deflation. We are below our target rate of 2%.
We are currently looking at slipping into deflation. We are below our target rate of 2%.
The target is 2% +/-1%. If inflation goes below 1% or over 3% then we are out of the target range, and the BoE has to write an open letter to the government explaining why.
QE also tends to cause assets bubbles and the BoE is already getting concened about rising house prices.
Things like QE and having base rates below inflation used to be unthinkable if they become the new norm we will have truly entered a new world. Long-term we need an economy that runs on investment and the creation of value productivity wealth, not just the creation of money out of thin air or the borrowing of money on super low interest rates. The problem as far as money supply in the economy is not so much government debt and deficit as debt within the economy particularly consumer debt. We need long term consumer spending based on earned disposable income not a debt bubble or asset bubble.
Comments
Trust you to translate that into meaning scrapping the NHS and state education.
I think you'll find that the insane part was the claim that we're paying benefits to half the third world and Eastern Europe. You do realise that would be impossible, right?
On the 45/50 p tax, I think the figures are understated. Osborne said in one of his budgets or autumn statetements that 16 Billion had been paid early in order to avoid the 50p rate of tax. Now once that rate had kicked in, where did all those extra billions go in the years after that?
On the QE interest point, why don't other coutries do the same then, esp 3rd world countries?
There WAS long waiting lists in the 90's for council houses and even before then too from what I could make out. The waiting list in my area was always 5 years at least for most people from the late 80's onwards and its now on a lot more with 8 thousand people on the waiting list.
So what did you mean then if you were not talking about privatising the NHS/Education in order to get rid of the annual deficit?
You think 8-11 Billion a year is going to make those countries live fine do ya? The UK Government is spending around 750 Billion a year now and the total GDP figures are well over a Trillion and during the boom times were over 2 Trillion I believe. I think in proportion we are richer than the USA.
Per capita, we are poorer than New Zealand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies
What point are you trying to make New Zealand is not a third world nation or an eastern European nation.
I've always thought that printing money and or QE would only result in an inflation problem if a country has too much money and is doing alright already but if a country is poor or is going through hardship then why on earth don't they print money and or QE? How would it cause inflation if they are poor or going through money shortages?
And that link doesn't take into account the cost of living so maybe their living costs are lower and if it sn't, it has a puny population so probably benefits because of that.
Here's a list that does take the cost of living into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies
We are 28th.
The thing that gets me is national debt and deficit is people talk about it as if the government has a limited supply of money and only borrows because it has to. When the issuing and buying of UK government gilts is used by the government to alter the amount of money supply in the economy, as is the setting of base rates. While ultimately as far as the government borrowing money of other people we use fiat currency and the UK government via the BoE can create the money out of thin air. In theory we could pay the national debt with the stroke of a pen at the cost of inflation. It is money supply control and inflation deflation that our the limiting factors.
Which could mean the real intention by Governments is to keep everyone under control. Make it look to easy and they fear people will just expect money printing all the time and will work less and less.
It's not a rocket science. It's simple logic. If they reduced the budgets we'd end up with fewer and worse services than we currently have.
Fewer hospitals, longer waiting times, bigger class sizes, fewer educational options, less equipment... that kind of thing, hence why it would be political suicide to take that option.
From the purely fiscal angle you were saying was impossible to achieve, I'm simply saying of course it could be achieved. We just wouldn't like the outcome.
Your morbid fear of the dreaded "P word wasn't a part of that
I'm talking about what is realisticly possible and the above isn't.
First, they are probably paying living wages already and more but if any company leaves because they don't want to pay the living wage then there will be others who will want to fill the gap and it will do so too, more business for them here.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/12/imf-world-bank-washington-financial-storm-clouds
This article does not make good reading.
We are currently looking at slipping into deflation. We are below our target rate of 2%.
QE also tends to cause assets bubbles and the BoE is already getting concened about rising house prices.
Things like QE and having base rates below inflation used to be unthinkable if they become the new norm we will have truly entered a new world. Long-term we need an economy that runs on investment and the creation of value productivity wealth, not just the creation of money out of thin air or the borrowing of money on super low interest rates. The problem as far as money supply in the economy is not so much government debt and deficit as debt within the economy particularly consumer debt. We need long term consumer spending based on earned disposable income not a debt bubble or asset bubble.
ideally the rich should pay off the debt but unfortunately it will be the working poor.