More Breaking news Help2Buy II starting now...

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

Probably the same people who said austerity would never create growth.

What austerity?

Look at what we are discussing here. Hardly something which can be described as austeric.

We haven't cut back, the books are worse and spending (borrowing) has increased, not reduced.

As far as I can see, the only real austerity we have had is in wages, especially of those in the public sector.

Over £140bn will have been pumped into the housing market by the end of this government term, whether directly or indirectly. And that's NOT including any QE which found its way into the market. This is ONLY looking at funding for lending and help to buy.

Now it seems were even at a stage of guaranteeing money we have already put in via funding for lending. So in some cases we have become the lender and the guarantor to the middle man lending out taxpayer money. And that's austerity?

tinkerbell28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What austerity?

Look at what we are discussing here. Hardly something which can be described as austeric.

We haven't cut back, the books are worse and spending (borrowing) has increased, not reduced.

As far as I can see, the only real austerity we have had is in wages, especially of those in the public sector.

Over £140bn will have been pumped into the housing market by the end of this government term, whether directly or indirectly. And that's NOT including any QE which found its way into the market. This is ONLY looking at funding for lending and help to buy.

Now it seems were even at a stage of guaranteeing money we have already put in via funding for lending. So in some cases we have become the lender and the guarantor to the middle man lending out taxpayer money. And that's austerity?

Yes we have cut back. The problem is people don't differentiate between debt and deficit.

The last govt were borrowing more than they were getting as income. So there we have the deficit.

The deficit has to be reduced first, before we can work on the borrowing.

So borrowing would always increase under whatever govt until the black hole that is overspending is reduced until they are on a positive balance sheet.

Graham_Devon

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Yes we have cut back. The problem is people don't differentiate between debt and deficit.

The last govt were borrowing more than they were getting as income. So there we have the deficit.

The deficit has to be reduced first, before we can work on the borrowing.

So borrowing would always increase under whatever govt until the black hole that is overspending is reduced until they are on a positive balance sheet.

No we haven't cut back.

Debt and defecit are just a way of describing different types of borrowing.

Borrowing is borrowing, whichever umbrella you put it under. It has to be paid back. Clever accounting doesn't avoid this. If it did, we'd forever be on spending spree's stating "it's ok, it's not counted as debt".

I understand the terms, but on a basic level, debt is debt. And we have more of it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stated on the radio this morning "the fact that David Cameron cannot see that his solution will make every single one of the problems he talks of worse is truly astonishing and somewhat worrying - worse still is that he places Ed Balls in a position of economic authority".

Who says what about Help to Buy is now a side issue.

One subtle change you may have noticed. Last week Help To Buy was all George Osborne's idea; today it's David Cameron's solution. Clearly it's been focused grouped to death and he now feels comfortable that it's a vote winner.

It's going to be a long old election campaign.

michaels

Ed & Ed say the average family is £1500 worse off per year since the coaliton came to power. The deficit (Ie govt borrowing per year) has fallen by about 60bn in the same time (very roughly down from 180bn to 120bn) which works out...at about £2000 per family.*

In other words the govt is borrowing 2000 and handing out 2k less per family and thus according to Labour we are worse off......

(*correlation does not imply causation)

tinkerbell28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No we haven't cut back.

Debt and defecit are just a way of describing different types of borrowing.

Borrowing is borrowing, whichever umbrella you put it under. It has to be paid back. Clever accounting doesn't avoid this. If it did, we'd forever be on spending spree's stating "it's ok, it's not counted as debt".

I understand the terms, but on a basic level, debt is debt. And we have more of it.

No they aren't. The last govt spent far more than they ever got in income. So there was a huge deficit.

Which the current govt have to reduce. They could do it all in one. By cutting ALL benefits to zero, taxing peoples wages to the hilt. Stop paying anyone in the public sector. There you go no more deficit. So no more borrowing. We could then start paying off the debt.

But society would collapse. So they have to reduce it, until it's gone borrowing will increase. It is basic economics.

Yes it is borrowing, but they have to reduce the shortfall of outgoing vs incomings before they can stop borrowing and pay the debt off. The deficit was so big, they can't just do it overnight.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......I understand the terms, but on a basic level, debt is debt. And we have more of it.

...er.... right.

Now how many houses is it that you want the government to build?.......

ILW

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Yes we have cut back. The problem is people don't differentiate between debt and deficit.

The last govt were borrowing more than they were getting as income. So there we have the deficit.

The deficit has to be reduced first, before we can work on the borrowing.

So borrowing would always increase under whatever govt until the black hole that is overspending is reduced until they are on a positive balance sheet.

We have not really cut back at all, just slowed down the rate we are getting further into debt.

Until the deficit is zero. we are increasing the debt all the time.

ILW

I would be tempted to bung £50 billion quid into housing (which can show a pretty good return) than spend it on a railway line so a few people can get to Birmingham 15 minutes quicker.

tinkerbell28

ILW wrote: »

We have not really cut back at all, just slowed down the rate we are getting further into debt.

Until the deficit is zero. we are increasing the debt all the time.

Which was my whole point.