Where is all this money going to come from?

tomstickland

Generali wrote: »

As at 31st December 2007, the national debt was £618,800,000,000 which equates to about £10,500 for every man woman and child in the country or about £20,500 for every person currently working in the UK.

Last year the national debt rose by ~£40,000,000,000. This year (excluding

Is there a handy graph on a website somewhere?

Californication

fiodyl wrote: »

Is it an extra £100m on top of what there is already a budget for?

Also at the moment they only pay on he first £100k but if you are already on it and have a £175k mortgage will they start paying the extra after april?- or is it just new claims after april?

Yes, this appears to be unfunded, so it's a new spend by the govt. I have no idea about the details of the scheme regarding April or 100/175k.

Also, see Generali's post above regarding whether 100M is remotely likely or whether the cost could be much higher...

--C

Running_Horse

Nice of the government to nationalise the slightly dodgy payments protection industry.

Generali

tomstickland wrote: »

Is there a handy graph on a website somewhere?

I have no idea about the accuracy of the source of this but it seems reasonable*



*That is reasonable meaning probably accurate as opposed to this sort of thing being reasonable behaviour.

Generali

fiodyl wrote: »

Is it an extra £100m on top of what there is already a budget for?

Also at the moment they only pay on he first £100k but if you are already on it and have a £175k mortgage will they start paying the extra after april?- or is it just new claims after april?

It is meant to mean that an extra £100,000,000 will be spent.

There is no way that this will cost £100,000,000. For 6 months of mortgage interest payments on £100k mortgages @ 6%, that will cover about 33,000 people.

I don't know the details. I suspect they can't be announced until the relevant legislation has been passed by Parliament assuming it gets through.

Sir_Humphrey

The government had to strengthen the mortgage protection scheme. It is still less generous than it was prior to the early 1990s.

The basic role of government is to provide security. The alternative would be families being moved into poor rented accomodation or B&Bs. That I would expect to be more expensive for the taxpayer.

The other alternative would be to do nothing (i.e no protection or emergency accomodation), and allow shanty towns to start appearing in British cities.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The government had to strengthen the mortgage protection scheme. It is still less generous than it was prior to the early 1990s.

The basic role of government is to provide security. The alternative would be families being moved into poor rented accomodation or B&Bs. That I would expect to be more expensive for the taxpayer.

The other alternative would be to do nothing (i.e no protection or emergency accomodation), and allow shanty towns to start appearing in British cities.

Sir Humphrey, I agree with a lot of what you say above but I can't help but feel the best mortgage protection scheme would have been tighter rules on lending and mortgage equity withdrawal, a more stable private rntals system and not encouraging FTBs to get over their heads in debt as the new scheme seems to encourage.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

Sir Humphrey, I agree with a lot of what you say above but I can't help but feel the best mortgage protection scheme would have been tighter rules on lending and mortgage equity withdrawal, a more stable private rntals system and not encouraging FTBs to get over their heads in debt as the new scheme seems to encourage.

I am only talking about the part of scheme that provides payments if made unemployed. This is already the system for renters.

I completely agree with what you are saying. What you suggest would be the government actually strategically, rather than reacting to events. Strategic government action is effective, reacting to events much less so.

Part of the problem of course is the adherence the political parties have to market forces, which does not allow for strategic policies, which are a form of planning.

ad9898_3

fiodyl wrote: »

So far today I have read the government will be spending

• £300 million on loans for FTBs
• £600 million on a stamp duty break
• £200 million for councils to buy repossesions
• £400 million on new council housing
• £100 million on ISMI payments

Where is the money for all this spending going to come from? Did Gordon Brown win the Euromillions Lottery?

This is where the money will come from -

Mr Brown

---

Alistar I need another billion
Mr Darling

---

Gordon I dont have it.
Mr Brown

---

Well you had better find it from somewhere or I'm history
Mr Darling

---

<under his breath> Thank f**k for that.
Mr Brown

---

What was that Darling ?
Mr Darling

---

Nothing, I'll see if there is anything else I can fleece the taxpayer for
Mr Brown

---

Good, get straight to it....... now I must get "on with doing the job"........<looks in the mirror>, christ I'm looking old.

Generali

If you bail people out this time, they'll take bigger (and stupider) risks in the future in the assumption that the Government will catch them if they fall.

We're building up some terrible problems in this country by not exposing people to risk. The only way to learn about risk is to be left with the consequences of your actions.

I let my small kids jump off things. People say, "Watch out (s)he'll fall."

I reply, "If they hurt themselves they'll learn not to do it again".

Most people look horrified presumably as they think a life without risk is possible if you try hard enough. It seems to be the prevailing attitude in the UK and IMO it breeds mediocrity and failure in the end.