We don't quite owe as much as we thought

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

Radio 4 is the BBC right?

unbiased? i don't really know but a couple of days ago you were saying something completely different about the BBC:eek:

Despite the BBC's prevailing bias, More Or Less sets out to investigate mathematical and statistical fiddles, from both sides. You should try listening to it. You might learn something. Or not.

Thrugelmir

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

I like the way they can't be sure about how much they have borrowed at any point in time. Why does it have to be revised?

The amount borrowed depends on actual taxation receipts received for VAT, PAYE , Corporation tax etc. The Treasury has to err on the side of caution and ensure it has sufficent cash to pay public sectors for eg.

If borrowing was to be higher than forecast. Then it would suggest major problems in the economy with corporations, public sector bodies and individuals unable to pay their due taxes on time.

So forecasting short term is best done cautiously. Tapping the market for £6 billion at a few days notice would cause disruption in the markets.

harryhound

You devious person, that 90K figure includes the £30,000 per household, [STRIKE]borrowed[/STRIKE] stolen from our children, by not funding public sector pensions.
The people who did it will be dead by the time the sh*t h*ts th* f*n.

Brilliant programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/default.stm

It also explains how "Arrow's Impossibility Theorem" means that the only satisfactory way of running a country with proportional representation is a dictatorship, because we all need a dear leader to love :rotfl:.

i8change

From the OPs link

Britain's public sector debt mountain remains very high, at nearly £900bn, and is on an upwards trajectory. The slight downwards revision is like the melting of some ice on the summit.
Hugh Pym Chief economics correspondent, BBC News

Pretty sobering when you think a million seconds is around eleven and a half days, whereas a billion seconds is nearly thirty two years.

wigglebeena

hallmark wrote: »

Pretty good news if you ask me. Despite what every uninformed Question Time audience member loves to say, amounts like £6 Billion aren't "a tiny drop in the ocean" they're a lot of money. That revised figure is £7.34Bn less than before & that's MORE than then entire £6Bn of cuts the Tories are doing in year one.

It's a tiny drop in the ocean when the figures are revised up, and a lot of money when they're revised down. Or vice versa depending on who's in power and who you're asking. But never 'a drop in the ocean' under both sets of circumstances, according to the same person.

jonewer

chopperharris wrote: »

Why oh why do the people vote in toffs thinking that they are just like the common man

They dont. That why they vote for them. The common man is a national disgrace. A semi literate benefit cheat, a football hooligan, and a violent alcoholic.

Screw the common man. He is scum. I dont want him in government. Give me the Etonians any day.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Emy1501 wrote: »

Isn't that the same 6b which according to many on here and Labour kept banging on about would tip us back into recession?

No. The deficit is mainly because tax receipts fell during the recession - spending at the same rate with less money coming in = a large amount of cash to borrow to make up the shortfall.

The amount borrowed has come in less than forecast because tax receipts have been increasing as we have grown out of the slump. This is a good sign, its prof that the economy is doing better.

The £6bn of cuts is cuts off spending. Spending means jobs, jobs mean disposable income spent on things sold by businesses, which means more jobs. Basically yank money out of "non-jobs" and you put those people on the dole (there being no private sector jobs for them to go into). They have no money so stop spending it on things made and sold by other companies. That makes other people lose their jobs. Repeat ad nauseum.

Cutting spending/jobs is fine if the economy can provide alternate employment. If it can't then you remove that money from the economy and make the situation worse. Would be alarming to anyone other than a government determined to make the situation much worse and then blame Labour for the mess created after Labour left office.

michaels

I challenge this every time you state it and you still haven't come up with any supporting evidence so I will chuck in the following graph:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/22/uk-deficit-government-borrowing

Showing that the increase in spending has been more than twice the fall in tax receipts. While searching for this I found another chart suggesting the structural deficit was an unbelievable 8% of GDP - say it ain't so.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

No. The deficit is mainly because tax receipts fell during the recession - spending at the same rate with less money coming in = a large amount of cash to borrow to make up the shortfall.

darich

It's funny listening to all the posters claiming the whol massive debt ius Labour's fault. I suppose it is since they were the ones in power making the decisions but regardless of who was in power, similar decisions would have been made leading to a situation similar to the one we're currently in.

It wasn't Labour's fault that the whole world went into a slump.
A quick search on the internet turned up the following:
From the following countries ( picked these before I knew the results and haven't omitted any that I found) the Uk's debt is the lowest -
Spain, Germany, USA, France, Italy and China.
As far as unemployment is concerned, the UK is second lowest from the following - Spain, Germany, France, USA and China. Only Italy has a lower unemployment rate.

While not trying to claim Labour are the be all and end all of politics, I think any party in power would have done similar and when compared to other countries, perhaps Labour haven't done as badly as many think.

As Rochdale Pioneers explained - cutting 6bn loses jobs, increases unemployment reduces cashflow, reduces savings and increases borrowing.
None of which are good for the economy

Emy1501

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

No. The deficit is mainly because tax receipts fell during the recession - spending at the same rate with less money coming in = a large amount of cash to borrow to make up the shortfall.

The amount borrowed has come in less than forecast because tax receipts have been increasing as we have grown out of the slump. This is a good sign, its prof that the economy is doing better.

The £6bn of cuts is cuts off spending. Spending means jobs, jobs mean disposable income spent on things sold by businesses, which means more jobs. Basically yank money out of "non-jobs" and you put those people on the dole (there being no private sector jobs for them to go into). They have no money so stop spending it on things made and sold by other companies. That makes other people lose their jobs. Repeat ad nauseum.

Cutting spending/jobs is fine if the economy can provide alternate employment. If it can't then you remove that money from the economy and make the situation worse. Would be alarming to anyone other than a government determined to make the situation much worse and then blame Labour for the mess created after Labour left office.

6 months ago people were saying cutting 6b from the economy would tip us back into recession. Now people are starting to realise that 6b in reality is nothing at all and in fact the Tories are going to have to go a lot further now.