Benefits and the deficit: what would you cut?

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

so my point is wrong then or did you deliberately avoid agreeing with it?

do you really think that any government that comes in will look to make all of these massive cuts and raise taxes so high that you're hoping/wishing for to deliberately hurt the public and private sector so that the economy goes back into recession.

please don't fall for the tin foil hat line.

The tin foil hat line is that debts have to be repaid as opposed to going on forever?

I was pointing out that you shouldn't be impressed by how low the unemployment figures are, because once the inevitable fiscal retrenchment comes you'll see a figure that better reflects the state the economy is in.

The government doesn't have a choice whether to make massive public sector cuts and tax increases or not. The current plan is to repay the deficit by 2018 by cutting 23% of most departmental budgets by 2018 and increase taxes. Regardless of the electoral lies from both parties, cuts will start soon. The new tax hikes take effect from April 2010 and 2011. I'm sure there are more planned.

If the government's economic growth forecasts are too optimistic (which they always are), or our creditors refuse to lend use more money in the meantime a la Greece, then it means even bigger cuts.

The tin foil hat brigade are people who think the economy has 'recovered' when the real pain hasn't even started yet.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

The tin foil hat line is that debts have to be repaid as opposed to going on forever?

I was pointing out that you shouldn't be impressed by how low the unemployment figures are, because once the inevitable fiscal retrenchment comes you'll see a figure that better reflects the state the economy is in.

The government doesn't have a choice whether to make massive public sector cuts and tax increases or not. The current plan is to repay the deficit by 2018 by cutting 23% of most departmental budgets by 2018 and increase taxes. Regardless of the electoral lies from both parties, cuts will start soon. The new tax hikes take effect from April 2010 and 2011. I'm sure there are more planned.

If the government's economic growth forecasts are too optimistic (which they always are), or our creditors refuse to lend use more money in the meantime a la Greece, then it means even bigger cuts.

The tin foil hat brigade are people who think the economy has 'recovered' when the real pain hasn't even started yet.

so what you're saying is that we should be grateful to the current incumbents for not allowing unemployment to have hit 3.5 million plus by the end of 2009 like everyone predicted.

btw - which world economy do you think is perfect and has no issues?

Harry_Powell

Scrap any of the benefits that give financial incentive to increase the already huge population (i.e. child benefit, WTC, CTC). It's save a fortune.

Then change any policy that relies on an ever increasing population, such as the state pension and other such benefits.

Each worker is carrying a proportion of non-workers on their back. Instead of increasing the population to distribute this burden more evenly, reduce the burden!!

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

so what you're saying is that we should be grateful to the current incumbents for not allowing unemployment to have hit 3.5 million plus by the end of 2009 like everyone predicted.

btw - which world economy do you think is perfect and has no issues?

I wouldn't be that grateful because it's a temporary solution, not a sustainable one. It just puts off the inevitable and gambles that our economy will recover a bit in the meantime to make paying the debt off slightly easier.

There aren't many developed countries in good shape but our North Sea neighbour Norway is an exception. Minimal government debt, budget surplus instead of deficit, great public services. They've saved a lot of their money from their North Sea oil for their pensioners to retire on instead of wasting on whatever rubbish Britain has over the last few decades, leaving a £2 trillion deficit.

Mr_Mumble

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Unemployment rose under Thatcher and so did incapacity

Under 500k at the end of 1978 to about 1.8 million at the end of 1996 - yes, incapacity has increased during labour's time in office, but the real explosion happened under tory rule.

These numbers are easily manipulated and miss the elephant in the room: the economic inactivity rate. 19.5% of adults were economically inactive when Thatcher left power in November 1990 (it had been under 20% since mid 1988) but now it is 21.3% (never been under 20% since New Labour came to power).In raw numbers 15.93m were economically inactive in 1990 compared with 18.09m in 2009. This is quite staggering considering the increase in households with two earners. (ONS codes for these stats: YBTL & MGSI).

chucky wrote: »

pre-recession we had 1.6 million unemployed and we have now under 2.5 million - that's around 900,000 people that have been made unemployed due to the worst recession since the war.

Ugh, far more people have been made unemployed, many have been pushed onto training courses to reduce the unemployment figures. As today's ONS labour market statistics release states:

This increase in inactivity was largely driven by the number of students not in the labour market which has increased by 62,000 on the quarter to reach 2.26 million, the highest since comparable records began in 1993.

You've also got the 700,000 extra employees who are underemployed (better than being unemployed - and all thanks to more flexible labour laws brought in by Mrs T!).

compare it to the 1980s or 1990s - it's laughable sometimes to see the types of people that point it out

It's laughable that people still fall for Labour spin and statistics.

chucky

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Ugh, far more people have been made unemployed, many have been pushed onto training courses to reduce the unemployment figures. As today's ONS labour market statistics release states:

You've also got the 700,000 extra employees who are underemployed (better than being unemployed - and all thanks to more flexible labour laws brought in by Mrs T!).

It's laughable that people still fall for Labour spin and statistics.

you make the decision of people being under-employed sound like a bad thing?

should the decision have been to make them unemployed so we could see the "real" figures so that the frothers could really get excited :eek:

Mr.Brown_4

It will be an interesting, not to say, scary few months. Private companies may have been able to keep going for the last year or so, but if the recovery still isn't happening, and it isn't for a lot, then they may have to start trimming those budgets. Meanwhile the public sector looks to be a 'popular' area for real cuts to start happening, again as budgets inevitably tighten. Rises in taxation will make those cuts deeper.

I am scared again, scared of being trimmed or cut or downsized, a feeling I didn't have for most of last year. Like many I probably, mistakenly, thought this was all over and the recovery would save us. 0.1% growth just isn't going to be enough unfortunately.

I will be very very happy if this feeling is unfounded, bear or not.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

If the government's economic growth forecasts are too optimistic (which they always are), or our creditors refuse to lend use more money in the meantime a la Greece, then it means even bigger cuts.

The tin foil hat brigade are people who think the economy has 'recovered' when the real pain hasn't even started yet.

The treasury forecasts have been pretty accurate over the past few years if you ignore 2009 where all the forecasters were well out.

StevieJ

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

These numbers are easily manipulated and miss the elephant in the room: the economic inactivity rate. 19.5% of adults were economically inactive when Thatcher left power in November 1990 (it had been under 20% since mid 1988) but now it is 21.3% (never been under 20% since New Labour came to power).In raw numbers 15.93m were economically inactive in 1990 compared with 18.09m in 2009. This is quite staggering considering the increase in households with two earners. (ONS codes for these stats: YBTL & MGSI).

.

Nothing to do with that ageing population that we are told about all the time

MrsE_2

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Unemployment rose under Thatcher and so did incapacity


Under 500k at the end of 1978 to about 1.8 million at the end of 1996 - yes, incapacity has increased during labour's time in office, but the real explosion happened under tory rule.

Its an odd one that............

Medical procedures have improved, health care has come on in leaps & bounds, we have the best "free" healthcare system in Europe.....

And the most sick?????
And growing in relation to improvements in medical science:think::think::think: