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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Chancellor on course to hit targets
Comments
-
Degenerate wrote: »Reducing public spending means reducing public sector jobs and/or wages. Like any such reduction, public or private, this means a reduction in tax receipts and an increase in the benefits bill.
No it doesn't. Government spends a lot of money not on peoples salaries, but on stupid expensive contracts with private companies. Its those things you can cut.
All of the people I know that were made redundant in the public sector went straight into another job, as the redundancy was all voluntary so people left when they had something to go to.Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.0 -
Degenerate wrote: »Reducing public spending means reducing public sector jobs and/or wages. Like any such reduction, public or private, this means a reduction in tax receipts and an increase in the benefits bill. This can only be offset by the private sector picking up the slack, just as Osborne apparently hoped with his austerity agenda.
Proponents of this policy never seem to explain exactly how the private sector will magically expand in a way it wouldn't have done anyway, just because the Government made cuts. In fact the opposite is likely, as a lot of public spending feeds through into the private sector via outsourcing contracts too. Public spending is a major component of GDP.
We have never been close to being a basket-case like Greece, and having control of our currency gives us options they lost when they joined the Euro.
That is where your arguments falls down, cutting jobs in the public sector (which tends to produce little or no financial return) may increase benefits, but the increase in benefits is much smaller than the savings in spending.
Public sector workers are not net taxpayers.
This is part of the reason while comparing debt to GDP is not that helpful.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Seems strange to report that a government financial plan is actually working!
Unlikely, I think.
I suspect we are heading for recapitalization II of the European banking system, which is almost bound to blow the current figures out of the water.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »If we had no national debt, all of our banks would have gone bust and we'd all be totally screwed.
That is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read here.0 -
Degenerate wrote: »Reducing public spending means reducing public sector jobs and/or wages. Like any such reduction, public or private, this means a reduction in tax receipts and an increase in the benefits bill. This can only be offset by the private sector picking up the slack, just as Osborne apparently hoped with his austerity agenda.
Proponents of this policy never seem to explain exactly how the private sector will magically expand in a way it wouldn't have done anyway, just because the Government made cuts. In fact the opposite is likely, as a lot of public spending feeds through into the private sector via outsourcing contracts too. Public spending is a major component of GDP.
it's explained by the theory that excessive government spending crowds out private investment and private jobs.
by having too strong a public sector, wages are too high and private sector borrowing rates are too high too .
so a small start up company may fail to find finance at a price it can afford and also find suitable workers as they can get a better salary working for the government0 -
Public sector workers are not net taxpayers.
Whilst they are not net taxpayers if they are removed and the public sector still has the obligation to provide the services, now provided in the private sector then we are paying twice.
In addition many public sector service jobs are not particularly well paid. In many cases they may well be topped up by tax credits and other benefits. Again a double hit.
I am not a public sector worker.
I do agree that there are many extremely well paid roles that never seem to be affected by these cuts. Where I live several councils were recently amalgamated yet many "heads of" remained on payroll post merger."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The "ablility to service debt improves" does it. How is GDP a better measure of tax revenue than tax revenue itself? 'Potential tax revenue' just means one thing, increasing taxes in the future, taking more money out of the hands of ordinary people to pay back the debt.
.
No it doesn't it is the volume of the tax take not the rates that would increase.
Unfortunately as the volume decreases they increase taxes to compensate but never reduce them when/ if/ should the volume improve.
In my working life, over 30 years, tax has never ever decreased.
Even in the Thatcher years NI was increased to counterbalance any reductions in tax.
Even the Lib Dem basic rate tax threshold has been totally subsumed, by those who pay it, in NI contribution increase."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
it's explained by the theory that excessive government spending crowds out private investment and private jobs. What about the switch to PFI initiatives, whoi built that last hospital? If they build new roads then they aren't built by government workers.
by having too strong a public sector, wages are too high and private sector borrowing rates are too high too . Whilst service jobs in the public sector may attract a premium that is only mirrored by the need to turn a profit in the private sector -the public purse may enjoy a reduction to start with but as a project matures the costa may well become more as a TCO.
so a small start up company may fail to find finance at a price it can afford and also find suitable workers as they can get a better salary working for the government
Interest rates have never been lower. Part of the reason the banks will not lend is that the prospects for new business are not good and the underlying risks are too high. As the risks increase do does the margin to reflect that.
What basis do you have for suggesting that pay is automatically better in the public sector. I don't dispute that there are some examples and there are no doubt some fantastic salaries at the top end.
I accept that working conditions may be better and less draconian in sanction for poorer performance. That isn't to say they get an easy ride.
There are many positions in Blue Chips that are equally soft."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Interest rates have never been lower. Part of the reason the banks will not lend is that the prospects for new business are not good and the underlying risks are too high. As the risks increase do does the margin to reflect that.
What basis do you have for suggesting that pay is automatically better in the public sector. I don't dispute that there are some examples and there are no doubt some fantastic salaries at the top end.
I accept that working conditions may be better and less draconian in sanction for poorer performance. That isn't to say they get an easy ride.
There are many positions in Blue Chips that are equally soft.
my dear fellow; the question was posed and I gave the standard (abbreviated) economics textbook answer
it was in the context of 'good ' times and not in the context of 'bad' times
you may know that already or you may not wish to learn or you may know everything there is to know about economics
others might be interested or maybe not
regards0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards