True level of public debt is £85,610 per household

treliac

michaels wrote: »

I bet dinner parties at yours are a bundle of laughs...

It's a unique art he's cultivated and honed to perfection.

lostinrates

It would be nice if wecould pay our share now can we then opt out of any more borrowing taken on our behalf.

Afriend_2

lostinrates wrote: »

It would be nice if wecould pay our share now can we then opt out of any more borrowing taken on our behalf.

Only because you don't have your own household/home. Cheeky girl!

worldtraveller

I noticed in an article yesterday that the Taxpayers' Alliance have taken an interesting standpoint on this report. They reckon that the true figure is actually nearer £300,000 per household! _pale_

They site the fact that the report writer excludes the liabilities of the two semi-nationalised RBS & Lloyds. Adding these would increase debt by a further £2,400 billion. They do say though, that these liabilities are backed by the banks' assets, but........:think:

Secondly they say that the report doesn't include the costs for decommissioning our nuclear power stations, which are a direct public liability - around £73 billion.

Thirdly, the cost of future state pension payments, which, based on the Turner Report's projections are around £7,000 billion. They do say that, however, the current figures are only around 50% of that because the relevant discounting factor for future payments has increased (ie. the yield on government index-linked bonds has gone from around 1.5% pa to around 3% pa). So, they call it around, say, £3,000 billion.

Taking these also into account, they rekon the actual figure is nearer £7-8,000 billion, or £300,000 per household.

Whatever peoples views on the way that the Taxpayers' Alliance comes to it's figures and exactly what should, and should not be included, it is indeed mind blowing!

StevieJ

They site the fact that the report writer excludes the liabilities of the two semi-nationalised RBS & Lloyds. Adding these would increase debt by a further £2,400 billion. They do say though, that these liabilities are backed by the banks' assets, but.......

!!!!!! is that about as someone pointed out, most people have not accrued for future council tax payments or indeed food and heating etc on their personal balance sheets.

vivatifosi

StevieJ wrote: »

They site the fact that the report writer excludes the liabilities of the two semi-nationalised RBS & Lloyds. Adding these would increase debt by a further £2,400 billion. They do say though, that these liabilities are backed by the banks' assets, but.......

!!!!!! is that about as someone pointed out, most people have not accrued for future council tax payments or indeed food and heating etc on their personal balance sheets.

I thought it was a useful post Stevie. I do tend to take some Taxpayers Alliance stuff with a pinch of salt and agree with your point regarding future council tax payments. My thought though at a time when we're looking at spending obligations many years into the future (for example the cost of Trident which is the subject of current budgetary analysis) its useful to know what the other liabilities in future years will be, not because they are definitive, but if I was to do a cash flow budget for myself or my business I'd want to know what those liabilities are and think its useful to have the equivalent government information in the public domain.

lostinrates

Afriend wrote: »

Only because you don't have your own household/home. Cheeky girl!

I'm part of a household: I don't think you have to be a home owner for that do you? But, no, i was actually thinking of just DH and I, and oly whimsically at that.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

I thought it was a useful post Stevie. I do tend to take some Taxpayers Alliance stuff with a pinch of salt and agree with your point regarding future council tax payments. My thought though at a time when we're looking at spending obligations many years into the future (for example the cost of Trident which is the subject of current budgetary analysis) its useful to know what the other liabilities in future years will be, not because they are definitive, but if I was to do a cash flow budget for myself or my business I'd want to know what those liabilities are and think its useful to have the equivalent government information in the public domain.

That is fine but if you do a cash flow statement into the future you also include estmated income.

purch

And I wonder why there's so many long-faces around the dinner table!

Cos you put mirrors in all the seats.

No sane person would be sitting there !!!!

vivatifosi

StevieJ wrote: »

That is fine but if you do a cash flow statement into the future you also include estmated income.

Absolutely true. The reason I'm so wary is that I don't think we're ever told the whole truth about the financial situation. This isn't me Labour bashing, I think consistently governments have got away with telling us what they want to. When I was studying at Uni we had a finance lecture (I'm not a finance type so they tended to make me glaze over), but I sat transfixed as the lecturer explained how - using the accounts of Polly Peck - it was always clear that the company was going to be in trouble, it was a matter of finding the evidence. There, on page 56 or something of the financials was a single note stating that they were converting currency between pounds and Turkish lire.

More recently I compare "hiding in the accounts" the way it took so long for people to notice the 10p tax rate had been withdrawn. Yes it was in the accounts all along, but people didn't find it. In part we can blame lazy journalism - 24 hours of content to fill each day but not bothering to read the reports in full to see what they contain. They also failed to pick up on one single sentence in the budget announcement itself.

My point (and sorry for being so long-winded in getting to it) is that there should be more transparency of finances, especially when we are going to be taxed more and see a reduction in services to pay for the problems we face. The government, whichever part of the spectrum it is made up from, needs to win back the public trust. They need to reveal their contingent liabilities in the same way that companies now have to. Stopping spinning, not evading questions and telling the truth would be a helpful start.