UK 'must cut spending or raise taxes,' say experts

mbga9pgf

So, what happens when Gordy starts to hike taxes the other side of the crash, but everyone has a quillion pounds on plastic to pay off?

Want to remind us all what happens to people that cant afford their card payments and have a mortgage?

Ever heard of a charging order?

scousethife

SGE1 wrote: »

I've blathered on about this enough, but 57% isn't even that big a deal. The EU Economic and Monetary Union rules dictate that member countries should have debt levels of no more than 60% of GDP - that's where they draw the line between acceptable levels of debt, and levels of debt that are too high. So even given the worst case scenario, we're still within the boundaries of 'reasonable' debt levels, as set by the European Central Bank.

Er yeah dont you see the irony of the EU pontificating about debt when they themselves cost us billions per year to be a member

and I am still yet to see ANY benefit from being in the EU

Rochdale_Pioneers

scousethife wrote: »

and I am still yet to see ANY benefit from being in the EU

Blind are you? Even the most rabid europhobes recognise that there have been some benefits - they just think the pitfalls are bigger.

Generali

scousethife wrote: »

and I am still yet to see ANY benefit from being in the EU

Free trade. It's a massive benefit that outweighs the costs of membership.

It's much easier to negotiate free trading deals between a number of large bloks than between a couple of hundred countries.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

It's much easier to negotiate free trading deals between a number of large bloks than between a couple of hundred countries.

Except when the Germans go off and sort out there own gas deal with Russia. Quite foolish to do it as a country rather than the EU.

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

Except when the Germans go off and sort out there own gas deal with Russia. Quite foolish to do it as a country rather than the EU.

True. Possibly there's more risk reduction if there are many contracts with Russia rather than one given their capriciousness.

I doubt it though and think you're right but I don't really know enough about the gas market.

tomstickland

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Sorry, but where dod you learn to add? "Forgot to save during the boom"? According to the data you posted, debt went down during the boom. Are you disputing your own data?

It went up from 2002 to 2007 and was above the 1991 level in 2007.

1997 49.8%
2002 37.5%
2007 44.2%

tomstickland

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

where did scores of Billions that YOUR data shows the Tories added to borrowing in 1990 - 1995 go?

I assume that it was used on recovering from the recession.

Please stop getting so excited about MY data and YOUR data. It's just data I've found via google and it doesn't belong to me.

I've read the book "Squandered" by David Craig (Craig David?) and he shows plenty of examples where increased spending (50% in real terms over 10 years) has not produced a proportionate improvement in output.

Generali

tomstickland wrote: »

I assume that it was used on recovering from the recession.

Please stop getting so excited about MY data and YOUR data. It's just data I've found via google and it doesn't belong to me.

I've read the book "Squandered" by David Craig (Craig David?) and he shows plenty of examples where increased spending (50% in real terms over 10 years) has not produced a proportionate improvement in output.

IIRC, each extra GBP100 spent on the NHS produces the same amount of output currently produced by GBP1 of expenditure. Mostly that's due to increased spending on salaries - more money spent for no greater output.

Wookster

tomstickland wrote: »

I've read the book "Squandered" by David Craig (Craig David?) and he shows plenty of examples where increased spending (50% in real terms over 10 years) has not produced a proportionate improvement in output.

That is exactly Crash's attitude - throw money at it and it should sort itself out. Sheer madness.