Best thing I have heard on Newsnight yet

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we isolate the success stories, you can build any picture you like.

Quite a few of our major business and employee's have also drowned in debt, and wouldn't still be viable without the support of the taxpayer through further debt.

Of course companies make bad or simply unfortuate decisions.
Often they go bankrupt; often from a bankrupt business a better busines grows and sometime it doesn't.

But the rediculous simplistic view that debt is 'bad' and 'evil' is inappropriate to the real world where we need new investment for our childrens sake as well as our own.

moneyinmypocket

abaxas wrote: »

So you dont plan to retire?

Wether I plan to or not isn't the point, my point is I'd bet most couldn't care less about lumbering the next gen with debt - talk is cheap actions speak volumes - nothing will change

abaxas

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Wether I plan to or not isn't the point, my point is I'd bet most couldn't care less about lumbering the next gen with debt - talk is cheap actions speak volumes - nothing will change

Exactly, the problem is if the next generation cant/wont pay it, those that saddled them with it suffer much more.

moneyinmypocket

I am all for debt forgiveness as long as my debt is cleared I am
Happy for everyone else's to be cleared too

ukcarper

If someone on £25k married with 2 kids were lose their job as thing stand at the moment the Government would lose £5500 tax a NI and have to pay out £15000 in benefits that includes council tax benefit but not LHA so with a modest LHA of £500 a month the total cost to government would be £26.5k.

So making that person redundant has cost the Government £1.5k

　

Wookster

The NIESR is parroting Ed Balls and Labour's position practically word for word.

shortchanged_2

MacMickster wrote: »

We now EXPECT our children to get into debt as an investment for their future through student loans. That debt is not seen as a bad thing as it is expected to enhance their future earnings by far more than the amount of the initial debt.

We complain that our children can't get access to debt in the form of mortgages, as again that debt is seen as a means to an end which will improve their future.

As Clapton points out, there is barely a successful business anywhere that has not relied on debt at some time to set-up/expand or to invest in better facilities/machinery etc in order to be able to compete.

Debt, in itself, is not bad - nor is further debt even though our current debts are considerable BUT any new borrowing must be for specific infrastructure projects designed to make UKplc more competetive in the future (and not to keep the neighbourhood lesbian drop-in centre open for another year).

Infrastructure projects that create significant numbers of jobs are particularly important to both cut the benefits bill and to drive growth. We are currently having to borrow more and more, as seen by the latest figures, without this borrowing producing any benefit to the country as austerity lite clearly isn't working.

Now is the time for plan B!

I agree with this MacMickster. If the government took on targeted projects with a longer term view.

Say for example they took on the construction of the second Severn crossing. (I know it's been done)

They would help create jobs (mainly private sector) but they would also get a return on their investment as the bridge now turns a healthy profit, so they could then either decide to reduce tolls or to continue to profit from the tolls instead of much of the profits going to private (part foreign) companies.

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Exactly, the problem is if the next generation cant/wont pay it, those that saddled them with it suffer much more.

Let us hope they bring in a 100% inheritance tax so that the fruits of the older generations wealth can be spread more evenly amongst the future generations who will be suffering from the debts, not just to the fortunate few

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

The NIESR is parroting Ed Balls and Labour's position practically word for word.

You are not far off

abaxas

Wookster wrote: »

The NIESR is parroting Ed Balls and Labour's position practically word for word.

Sure the word 'economics' in the title, proves they know nothing at all.