£120,000,000 a day in interest alone!!!

danielanthony

spadoosh wrote: »

and considering most peoples (individuals with mortgage) actual debt is more like 400 - 500% of their personal GDP we shouldnt be shouting at the gov more ourselves really

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277

The problem is that national deficit is 11.4% of GDP and growing, to use your ananlogy its like someone who earns £20,000 per year after tax spending £22,280. So each year they are spending £2,280 more than they earn, not very MSE. We need to stop spending more than we earn as a country and start paying our debts back. Yes, debt has been higher in the past but only because we had to pay for two world wars and only just stopped paying America back the money they lent us during that period.

Graham_Devon

spadoosh wrote: »

Doesnt look that bad really.

No, because a graph simply doesn't show it in context.

It's bad.

danielanthony

Hereward wrote: »

I bet a good majority of the expenditure of those households pay indirect taxes (for example, VAT and alcohol duites), so they will be paying their share too.

Isn't part of the arguement against the spending cuts that a large part of the private sector is dependent on public sector contracts. If that spending ceased that there would be a smaller private sector.

Oh dear. Where does this money come from? Those workless households paying VAT and alcohol duties are using money which they get from the government through benefits. The government pays benefits from money it gets from taxpayers. So workless households aren't contributing to the economy other than spending money off the backs of the workers.

Where does the government get the money to award contracts to the private sector? Again, from taxes on the private sector. Its one big money merry-go-round but ultimately wealth is created by the private sector in the first place which is then taxable.

spadoosh

This is the argument I have with the missus every month, does that meannext year you only have 17720 to spend? No, you will still have 20k to spend but you will owe 2280 (plus interest) I've got to assume that gov'ts don't work day to day and assume it works on a large cycle (10 years or so)

And right now I think it's better to borrow sustainably* like we were and have done instead of seeing a big number n panicking and having the largest cuts ive ever seen, take money out economy shrinks, now with the debt we have could we afford that to happen?!

Appologies for bad grammar etc on mobile!

Thrugelmir

spadoosh wrote: »

And right now I think it's better to borrow sustainably* like we were

With hindsight its now a fact that GB broke his own golden rules in 2002 and every year thereafter.

So unsure where "sustainably" is derived from in terms of Government borrowing.

Thrugelmir

spadoosh wrote: »

This is the argument I have with the missus every month, does that meannext year you only have 17720 to spend? No, you will still have 20k to spend but you will owe 2280 (plus interest)

Not plus interest, the interest is paid to someone. So overtime your disposable income will fall. If there's insufficent growth in your pay to keep up with servicing the debt.

Hereward

danielanthony wrote: »

Oh dear. Where does this money come from? Those workless households paying VAT and alcohol duties are using money which they get from the government through benefits. The government pays benefits from money it gets from taxpayers. So workless households aren't contributing to the economy other than spending money off the backs of the workers.

Where does the government get the money to award contracts to the private sector? Again, from taxes on the private sector. Its one big money merry-go-round but ultimately wealth is created by the private sector in the first place which is then taxable.

The government doesn't get all it's money from tax payers (and not all tax payers are individuals). It also gets money fromm people (and organsisations) who buy services from it.

If government spending was zero then tax payers could keep 100% of their money. Not all of this money would be spent in the economy, some of it would be saved for a rainy day, thus removing it from the economy (and thus reducing it's growth potential). Now if the government was to take a small proportion of that money and give it to the poor, they are more likey to spend this additional income and help the economy grow. The "rich" tax payer is likely tyo see a small decrease in their ability to save, whilst "poor" tax payers are likely to see an increase in their ability to buy goods and services.

ILW

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With hindsight its now a fact that GB broke his own golden rules in 2002 and every year thereafter.

So unsure where "sustainably" is derived from in terms of Government borrowing.

Think that hits it on the head.

Borrow in the downtimes and repay in the good times.

The last 10 years of boom GB managed to increase the debt and now we all have to pay for it.

danielanthony

spadoosh wrote: »

This is the argument I have with the missus every month, does that meannext year you only have 17720 to spend? No, you will still have 20k to spend but you will owe 2280 (plus interest) I've got to assume that gov'ts don't work day to day and assume it works on a large cycle (10 years or so)

And right now I think it's better to borrow sustainably* like we were and have done instead of seeing a big number n panicking and having the largest cuts ive ever seen, take money out economy shrinks, now with the debt we have could we afford that to happen?!

Appologies for bad grammar etc on mobile!

Ok so if you look at it on a 10 year cycle back in 1990 the UK net debt was 35% of GDP, in 2010 it was 52%. Things are supposed to get better not worse, the 10 year plan should be to get it back to 1990 levels at 26%.

spadoosh

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, because a graph simply doesn't show it in context.

It's bad.

In context of what? U can't just say it doesn't show it in context and not supply any info!?