Economist public debt figures

kennyboy66_2

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Nobody said any of this, typical strawman.


.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

1. Just because other countries are in a worse position than the UK, doesn't make the UK in a good position. It just means other countries are going to go bust sooner (eg Italy and Japan).

Japan are going to go bust? Why? How? They've had multiple times GDP debt for decades and not gone bust - why is now any different? They like us print their own currency - they physically cannot run out of cash and go bust.

After WWII a lot of governments had even more debt than they had now AND an economy in ruins. And didn't go bust. The notion that Britain will follow Japan and Italy into bankruptcy is utterly laughable.

Generali wrote: »

2. The unfunded and unaccounted for liabilities (estimated at £6,000,000,000,000 I believe for pensions, healthcare banks and PFI (although the banks' liabilities shouldn't be measured in full IMO as there are assets to offset I don't have the figure without the bank liabilities included)) are too big to be paid so will be defaulted on.

How do you think the bill for pensions is going to be paid? Don't forget that those liabilities are index linked so inflation isn't going to rescue you.

They'll get paid as other things get paid - over a very long timescale. You wave large numbers around like the money is needed tomorrow - it isn't. Assuming that all goes to the worst case scenario you describe then the pensions will be paid over a long period - whats the annual maximum borrowing requirement for all this - as a percentage of GDP?

We don't need to worry about going bust, or unfunded liabilities, or every PFI contract needing payment tomorrow, or defaulting on debts because such things are wet dreams of doom-mongers rather than realistic scenarios. Name me the last major western government to go bust in peacetime.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It's touchingly naive that you think people in the UK still consider that they are "paying in" to a NI fund. People see it as a tax, simple as that.
Means tested benefits exceed NI 'entitlement' ones almost everywhere in the welfare system.

You call me naive! People on here are seriously arguing that there isn't a problem!

Nobody's prepared to address the central issue of course which is:

Where is the money going to come from?

The reason for that is that there isn't a sensible answer.

You can say (correctly) that it costs the same to fund a pension when you pay it out or by stashing away money in a fund. You can say (correctly) that Cameron isn't going to address these issues. What nobody is prepared to say is where they think the money is going to come from. Instead people post snide comments and insinuations, I think that is normally known as trolling and a popular debating technique when someone is on a hiding to nothing.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Japan are going to go bust? Why? How? They've had multiple times GDP debt for decades and not gone bust - why is now any different? They like us print their own currency - they physically cannot run out of cash and go bust.

After WWII a lot of governments had even more debt than they had now AND an economy in ruins. And didn't go bust. The notion that Britain will follow Japan and Italy into bankruptcy is utterly laughable.



They'll get paid as other things get paid - over a very long timescale. You wave large numbers around like the money is needed tomorrow - it isn't. Assuming that all goes to the worst case scenario you describe then the pensions will be paid over a long period - whats the annual maximum borrowing requirement for all this - as a percentage of GDP?

We don't need to worry about going bust, or unfunded liabilities, or every PFI contract needing payment tomorrow, or defaulting on debts because such things are wet dreams of doom-mongers rather than realistic scenarios. Name me the last major western government to go bust in peacetime.

You have no idea.

Japan has an aging population. They're going to struggle to find people to look after their old let alone pay for it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Japan has an aging population. They're going to struggle to find people to look after their old let alone pay for it.

And that means they'll go bust? What in your view should they do? Either reduce their aged population (deportation? mass execution?) or markedly increase their birth rate (a tax on single people or couples with less than 4 babies?)

I wholly agree that in the UK our welfare state can no longer support a population who lives longer thanks to expensive medical intervention - we need to pay more in to keep things going. Or perhaps we need to get rid of the old dears as you seem to suggest the Japanese will have to do....?

purch

We don't need to worry about going bust, or unfunded liabilities

Yes, sure.

Spend Spend Spend..............those nice Chinese chappies will pick up the tab :rolleyes:

Ever thought, for just one moment what will happen when they decide they don't need us anymore....when they cut us loose ???

Old_Slaphead

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Camerosborne have been desperately talking down the economy for over a year now. They must be so disappointed. No sign that to quote Cameron "the money will run out," a "catastrophic fiscal position", or that we "run the risk of not being able to meet your obligations"

Here's a thought. Given that the Tories & Liberals have committed themselves to public sector pension reform (and presumably Labour haven't...well not until after the election) and anticipating a reduction in pension benefits....what would happen if the public sector 'en masse' decided to transfer their pensions out of the public sector scheme?

Harry_Powell

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And that means they'll go bust? What in your view should they do? Either reduce their aged population (deportation? mass execution?) or markedly increase their birth rate (a tax on single people or couples with less than 4 babies?)

I wholly agree that in the UK our welfare state can no longer support a population who lives longer thanks to expensive medical intervention - we need to pay more in to keep things going. Or perhaps we need to get rid of the old dears as you seem to suggest the Japanese will have to do....?

This alone tells me it's not worth debating with you.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You have no idea.

Japan has an aging population. They're going to struggle to find people to look after their old let alone pay for it.

surely you must know the economic differences between 'find the people to look after the old' (i.e. the resource view) and 'pay for it' (the funding view).

The resources required for any level of service are the same irrespective of whether there are funded or unfunded schemes.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely you must know the economic differences between 'find the people to look after the old' (i.e. the resource view) and 'pay for it' (the funding view).

The resources required for any level of service are the same irrespective of whether there are funded or unfunded schemes.

I do and you are correct. It doesn't mean that the promises that have been made can be paid out.

If, you choose a scheme that's too expensive to afford then you can't fund it by definition, all you can do is promise it and later break the promise.

It works in much the same way as buying a car on HP that you can't afford and putting the payments on a credit card. It's going to bite you in the end.