Kicking the can

Ilya_Ilyich

So if one particular source of government expenditure exceeds one particular source of goverment income this is automatically bad?

Is debt automatically bad?

The_White_Horse

but it is not one area is it. what the govt pays out is more than it brings in. that is the reason for the deficit. yes, there are plenty of different types of taxes but benefits should never be greater than income tax. if you can't see that, you have no hope. tell me, do you vote labour per chance?

Ilya_Ilyich

Why exactly shouldn't benefits in particular outweigh income tax specifically? Is this a general rule such that that states without income tax should provide no benefits, or is this a UK-specific stance?

Again, is debt necessarily bad?

Ark_Welder

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Or is this thread only for bizarre classist rants with no rational basis?

Change the word 'thread' to 'forum' and delete the word 'classist' and you have a description of 95% of the contributions to 'Debate...'

:A

Love and kisses to all readers

The_White_Horse

as a general concept debt is bad. what is good about debt? some debts are better than others. but none are "good".

lvader

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they are borrowing more now than when they came in. all this "austerity" talk is nonsense. they have cut nothing.

Compared to Darlings figures the government has saved approximately £50 bilion so far. People where expecting a debt of 70-80% of GDP by now, it's in the low 60's.

Ilya_Ilyich

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as a general concept debt is bad. what is good about debt? some debts are better than others. but none are "good".

Why then do successful companies issue further debt? Why do consumers take mortgages?

The_White_Horse

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Why then do successful companies issue further debt? Why do consumers take mortgages?

because they have to.

if i am rich person and have £1m and instead of using my own money to buy a house I use someone elses (so i can use my own in a more productive manner) that is not "debt" in the same way as someone who has nothing, but borrows to finance the purchase. don't confuse the two concepts.

Ilya_Ilyich

Successful companies certainly do not 'have to' issue debt, they do it because they expect the returns to outpace the required repayment. If you can borrow at 5% and get a 10% return on investment then increasing their debt is the rational thing to do. If our country can borrow at say 2% and invest in society to get a return greater than this, then why shouldn't they?

ILW

Problem is that they are not getting a higher return than they are paying. If they were, there would be a surplus, not a deficit.