Best thing I have heard on Newsnight yet

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

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!

What do you think plan B should be?

coastline

Well I wouldn't trust any politicians to change things looking at the two links here...
In this one theres hardly been a budget surplus in over 30 years...infact it was pretty dire under the Tories in 1992 ish with a deficit of 8% of GDP..

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47530000/gif/_47530170_uk_budget2010_466x345.gif

and here...Osborne is spending just the same...well they would really when you consider an election was looming...
maybe thats what its all about...get elected and worry about it later..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

oldvicar

ukcarper wrote: »

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

　

And if that person is an unecessary Civil Servant ? Then the govt additionally saves:

In the long term: the equivalent of maybe £7K in pension costs

In the short term: a host of employment costs, including office rental and a mountain of expensively procured paper clips.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The other commentator just picked up on this and basically suggested "yes, so far, but we know they WILL get the jitters at some point....we just don't know that point, and we shouldn't purposely keep testing it".

Actually of course we don't know that at all.

The Right panicked about debt after Lehmans, which reminded them that debt could cost them money. But now they're remembering that debt is what makes them money. Lenders need borrowers. Capital is dying for want of customers.

What we forget about the national debt is that we own most of it. Collectively, we borrow from ourselves and pay ourselves back.

Talk of borrowing from future generations is silly. We can't consume what hasn't been produced yet. Collectively, we can only borrow from each other what each other already have. The production of future generations will still be available for them to consume when they eventually get round to producing it.

It's all about balance. Just as balanced trade is the only kind that works, a balance has to be kept between borrowers and lenders so that the process works for both.

The government's job is to stablilise the economy by adopting counter-cyclic policies. There's a time in the cycle when debt reduction is right. This isn't it.

And if we're going to worry about morality and future generations, let's worry about the consumption of natural resources. But that doesn't suit the Right's agenda, because there's money to be made from raping the planet.

ukcarper

oldvicar wrote: »

And if that person is an unecessary Civil Servant ? Then the govt additionally saves:

In the long term: the equivalent of maybe £7K in pension costs

In the short term: a host of employment costs, including office rental and a mountain of expensively procured paper clips.

I didn’t post it as a factual example as how the government could save money I only posted to show things are not as simple as some people make out and the savings made are not as large as made out.

What is better to pay people to do something useful or pay them to do nothing.

oldvicar

pqrdef wrote: »

....
It's all about balance. Just as balanced trade is the only kind that works, a balance has to be kept between borrowers and lenders so ....

Someone said to me only yesterday that there is never anything on the News about the Balance of Payments (deficit). That must be going well ? Used to newsworthy every month a few years back.

oldvicar

ukcarper wrote: »

I didn’t post it as a factual example as how the government could save money I only posted to show things are not as simple as some people make out and the savings made are not as large as made out.

What is better to pay people to do something useful or pay them to do nothing.

IMHO its better to pay them to do nothing, if what they are doing isn't needed and worth payng for currently. At least for a while.

Many of those with time on their hands and motivation to work will then find something useful to do. Those that don't find a new milieu for themselves within a reasonable time can be helped with e.g. work experience programmes.

ukcarper

oldvicar wrote: »

IMHO its better to pay them to do nothing, if what they are doing isn't needed and worth payng for currently. At least for a while.

Many of those with time on their hands and motivation to work will then find something useful to do. Those that don't find a new milieu for themselves within a reasonable time can be helped with e.g. work experience programmes.

I agree that if what they are doing is of no use there is no point in paying them to do it but not all the jobs going are useless. Also I don’t think it is as easy to find useful employment as some people make out. Leaving everything to the private sector is not working and I think there is some scope for government spending and some of that spend will be recouped straight away .

StevieJ

oldvicar wrote: »

IMHO its better to pay them to do nothing, if what they are doing isn't needed and worth payng for currently. At least for a while.

That is a matter of opinion, 'idle hands' and all that, anyway this guy Williamson probably didn't agree with you in the early 19th century, see it is not only the govt that can provide what are apparently pointless jobs. Ironically these are now earning their corn as a tourist attraction

° [SIZE=-1]The Williamson Tunnels are a labyrinth of tunnels and underground caverns under the Edge Hill district of Liverpool in north-west England.[/SIZE] ° [SIZE=-1]They were built in the first few decades of the 1800s under the control of a retired tobacco merchant called Joseph Williamson.[/SIZE] ° [SIZE=-1]The purpose of their construction is not known with any certainty. Theories range from pure philanthropy, offering work to the unemployed of the district, to religous extremism, the tunnels being an underground haven from a predicted Armageddon.[/SIZE]

http://www.williamsontunnels.com/intro.htm

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

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

Firstly, I don't buy your figures; a 4 person household on £25k total income would already be entitled to financial support. If your figures were accurate then you're saying that a family on £25k income (and claiming their entitlements) would be better off unemployed.

Secondly you're only looking at the costs based on government spending over a 12 month window. If that person finds another job then government spending decreases considerably.

If you're logic/numbers worked then you'd be busy suggesting that we employ all the employed in make work jobs because that would decrease government spending (I wonder why that sounds pretty ridiculous).