Why State Finances are in a 2s8d, why the ConDems won't fix it & why it's your fault

LauraW10

Wookster wrote: »

I suppose you might want to tell that to the Greeks who simply cannot borrow on the bond market.

I was referring to the non-existent bond vigilantes who according to the coalition are threatening UK debt - which of course they are not, as yields have never been so low.

But - hey ho - don't let the truth get in the way of an oppotunity to raze the public sector;)

Generali

LauraW10 wrote: »

I was referring to the non-existent bond vigilantes who according to the coalition are threatening UK debt - which of course they are not, as yields have never been so low.

But - hey ho - don't let the truth get in the way of an oppotunity to raze the public sector;)

Why do you think the Government is looking to cut aggressively do you think?

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

I suppose you might want to tell that to the Greeks who simply cannot borrow on the bond market

comparing the UK economic issues to Greece is not only innacurate but a complete lie.

Generali

chucky wrote: »

comparing the UK economic issues to Greece is not only innacurate but a complete lie.

It does however show that 'bond vigilantes' still exist.

A bond vigilante, for those that are interested, is an investor that doesn't buy a Government bond because it's a bad investment in their opinion. Many (for example the Governments of the US in the 1970s and many European Governments today) seem to think that investors should make bad investments because to do anything else is an attack on Government or some such twaddle. Anyone that has savings or investments that doesn't buy a Government bond is a bond vigilante in effect.

ILW

Isn't a Bond vigilante something to do with Ian Fleming?

Geoffo_M

fc123 wrote: »

Means tested Child benefit I am all for.

How much would be saved by limiting child benefit to the first two children. Surely a good idea, with potential massive savings?

fc123

Geoffo_M wrote: »

How much would be saved by limiting child benefit to the first two children. Surely a good idea, with potential massive savings?

I have no idea...I leave finding facts to the google sniffer dogs on here.:D

I have hardly known anyone with more than 3....from mums at school etc. 2 seemed to be the most common number.

We did employ a saturday girl many years ago who was one of 13 (and wasn't crazy over the amount of siblings she had...but she was 17 and second eldest so had to help out a lot) and her family lived on benefits. The Dad did CIH as a musician in band.

Someone on OH side got 4 by accident. Had 2, fell for third by accident and turned out to be twins....so ended up with 4. 4 is hard work.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

From the FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/257181e6-726c-11df-9f82-00144feabdc0,s01=1.html

2 things really stood out for me in this article. The first was why the State finances are in a complete state:



At the same time, Government spending is approximately 50% of GDP.

The second is what the current Government is unlikely to do to fix the mess (and why this mess is partly your fault if you are among the vast majority of British people that think the cuts or tax rises should fall on others):

I think it was Disraeli or Gladstone who said that the public all support spending cuts in the generality but not in the particular.

A couple of things the Govt. should be doing.
1) Increasing indirect taxes - the idea that they will be able to reduce the deficit by 20% tax and 80% cuts is fanciful.

2) The NHS should not be excluded from cuts - its ridiculous, one of the 'targets' Labour had was to increase health spending to a certain %. How insane for Tories to just carry on that mentality.

3) The middle class welfare state needs to be curtailed. Not just the heating allowance examples, but the real costs such as higher education.
Almost all FTSE directors who have children will be getting a higher education for them at a fraction of the real cost.

4) I'd freeze public sector pay for 3 years as well.