We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review - Oct 20th 2010
Comments
-
I expect the proposed £500 a week benefit cap will lead to an exodus of benefit claimants from Inner London and other expensive parts of the country.
Hopefully this will lead to more affordable rents as taxpayers contribute less monies to the area. However it could lead to an increase in rents (& house prices) - the area might be seen as more desirable.0 -
Let's say it.
Many public sector jobs are non-jobs. They don't exist and never did. Make-work to buy votes. The three-men-on-one-broom madness that I remember only too well from the sixties and seventies.
Slashing them is the only thing to do."Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »Why is this simple principle so difficult for right-wing commentators to understand?
Because most right wing commentators while they understand the principle, but believe that it doesn't add up.
Can a man levitate by lifting his feet up by his bootstraps? It makes sense until you "do the maths".
Benefit of gov employment = direct tax dividends + indirect tax dividends + any multiplier effects + any structural/endogenous growth arising from it.
Cost of gov employment = salary + opportunity cost + lack of growth from squeezing out of private sector
This is pretty complicated maths, to be honest. It has different phasing, and multipliers. In the absence of understanding the empirics, the conclusion tends to be a matter of faith.
What tends to happen is that governments find the middle ground, and then "dance" around it. So right wing commentators think that the endogenous growth from investment in education for example is roughly worthwhile, up to a point, but left-wing keynesian investment "for the sake of it" - what others call non-jobs - are not financially worthwhile.
Of course, there are social outcomes as well - and while the economics of certain government employment might not make sense in simple economic terms, it might seem to make sense when the social outcomes are included as well. The trouble is that when that's all bundled together, you end up with lots of good social outcomes and an unsustainable deficit in economic terms.0 -
Hank_Rearden wrote: »Can a man levitate by lifting his feet up by his bootstraps? It makes sense until you "do the maths".
the Pelagian heresy!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
The only way to get an unbalanced balance sheet is to employ an accountant that can't add up. At which point, you sack the accountant, and employ another one who can.
Balance sheets always balance. It's why they're called balance sheets.
Yes they always balance eventually. As ours does once we borrow a hundred and odd billion. Our balance sheet is unbalanced - it only balances when you fiddle the numbers.0 -
Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »Yes they always balance eventually. As ours does once we borrow a hundred and odd billion. Our balance sheet is unbalanced - it only balances when you fiddle the numbers.
No, balance sheets always balance immediately, irrespective of how much debt you have.
I think you're confusing the annual deficit (i.e. the nation's profit and loss) - which might be said to be 'unbalanced' if expenditure exceeds income - with a balance sheet, which is a statement of affairs made up at one particular point in time.0 -
No, balance sheets always balance immediately, irrespective of how much debt you have.
I think you're confusing the annual deficit (i.e. the nation's profit and loss) - which might be said to be 'unbalanced' if expenditure exceeds income - with a balance sheet, which is a statement of affairs made up at one particular point in time.
What about for insolvent organisations?“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
-
MikeMaloney wrote: »So when the £500 per week cap on all benefits comes in families like yours who are relying on benefits will have to move somewhere cheaper?
Looks like it. Although the £500 for a 2 bed flat per week in this area is far too much anyway. Our 3 bed's less than that....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Negative equity - the balance sheet still balances. Don't even know why I'm bothering, some people don't even know what a balance sheet means on this thread yet want to argue about it to make a political point.
How can an insolvent limited company have adequate negative equity to balance the balance sheet? By definition, negative equity would be money owed by shareholders to the company. You can only have negative equity in relation to shares that have not been paid for yet* , in which case if there was sufficient equity to balance the balance sheet, the company wouldn't be insolvent.
* because the limit to liability is the shareholder capital.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards