National debt going up £5000 per second

wotsthat

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

What else do you muppets do in the day besides trolling on here 24/7 picking up on complete irrelevant trivia.
Again just abuse from you and no content, abuse I am 100% certain you would never do face to face.. Cowards :-) Two of your cowardly trolling buddies on here have now traced my address should you want to put that to the test, I won't worry too much though.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just invite people to PM you direct for your contact details if they want a fight about the national debt?

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

So what side of the debate do you sit?

So far you seem to be scared by a number which looks large with no context which you are unable to put into context by using simple arithmetic.

Effectively the choices are:

1. Austerity: cut spending on welfare (as that is basically where Government spending goes)
2. Increase taxes on the poor and middle classes (the rich already pay the huge balance of tax)
3. Knock three times on the money tree
4. No more NHS or pensions because the money's all been wee'd up the wall.

If I was the chancellor, I would plumb for a bit of everything (especially the money tree if it was real).

Definitely some austerity, but not so much on the extra taxes though, but maybe something.

I'm not so sure about the NHS, I wouldn't want to get rid of it, but maybe a bit of tinkering introducing some sort of 2 tier system (needs careful handling).

I do think pensions need to be hit hard though, but not the first £500k in the pension pot. £500k would be worth about £20k a year in drawdown (I don't think 4% per annum is an unreasonable assumption, but obviously there is a bit of risk). I think that the tax relief should be restricted to 20% over £500k, I don't think that the tax payer should be paying for subsidies (at 40% and above) for pensions worth over £20k per annum. I also think another look at public sector pensions is necessary, the last changes did not go far enough.

I accept that it wouldn't be popular, but there is never going to be a universally popular solution to the problem.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Effectively the choices are:

1. Austerity: cut spending on welfare (as that is basically where Government spending goes)
..

If you ain't gonna cut anything from those Health and Education numbers, that Social Protection number looks very big and tempting.

Generali

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

When I write something like that I personally am just looking at this site for a short while then shooting off to work.. Like most people we just round numbers up/down and just give a ball park figure. The actual debt is 5,170 per second. And while I was drinking my cuppa this morning I might have taken 2.5 minutes or 7 minutes, I really did not have my stopwatch handy.

What else do you muppets do in the day besides trolling on here 24/7 picking up on complete irrelevant trivia.
Again just abuse from you and no content, abuse I am 100% certain you would never do face to face.. Cowards :-) Two of your cowardly trolling buddies on here have now traced my address should you want to put that to the test, I won't worry too much though.

I'd happily buy you a beer if you came to Aus. Happily disagree with you too as the sun set over the harbour.

It's a pretty simple rule that if you multiply something by 3 then the sum of the numbers in the answer must be divisible by 3.

E.g. 3 x 9 =27

2+7=9

9 divides evenly by 3.

If you multiply an integer by 60, a number that clearly divides evenly by 3, then you should end up with an answer that works per the above. A million doesn't.

LOLZ at your repost though.

Pobby

Have to agree with ford. Not sure it is trolling but certainly a few posters on here are apparently worried about something. lots of bluster and claims of prudence and wealth. Said before, rarely come here now. Mostly pretty poor debate.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

If you ain't gonna cut anything from those Health and Education numbers, that Social Protection number looks very big and tempting.

Yup, that's where the money's spent so if you're going to spend less that's where you're going to have to cut from.

wotsthat

It's easy for politicians to spend other people's money but oh so hard to stop. The social protection spend is being used as a slush fund for bribing the electorate. When very few could vote that spend would've been zero.

I wonder what Bevan would think of the current NHS spend. Just under a quarter of national spending spent treating people who think it's free and using it wastefully.

The deficit could be sorted in an afternoon but it would be political suicide as hordes of rent seekers armed with pitchforks descend on parliament.

The national debt is never going to be repaid so I can't see any need for vexation over it but it would be nice if it wasn't increasing quite so quickly.

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

It's easy for politicians to spend other people's money but oh so hard to stop. The social protection spend is being used as a slush fund for bribing the electorate. When very few could vote that spend would've been zero.....

It certainly creates a claimant culture group of people most likely to vote for those who propose at least maintaining the flow of money. A bit like the old-fashioned Roman dole.

wotsthat wrote: »

...I wonder what Bevan would think of the current NHS spend. Just under a quarter of national spending spent treating people who think it's free and using it wastefully.....

I imagine that he would surprised. There was a widespread belief at the time that NHS spending would fall over time because it would result in a healthier population that got sick less frequently. A basic misunderstanding of health economics, but there you go.

wotsthat wrote: »

..The deficit could be sorted in an afternoon but it would be political suicide as hordes of rent seekers armed with pitchforks descend on parliament. ...

Every politician knows what needs to be done. The problem is how to get it done and get re-elected.

wotsthat wrote: »

...The national debt is never going to be repaid so I can't see any need for vexation over it but it would be nice if it wasn't increasing quite so quickly.

The national debt is always repaid. Granted it's normally repaid by simply borrowing some more money from someone else, but it is always repaid. That is why nations find it such a problem when they find that no one will lend them any more.

Cyberman60

That is precisely why we cannot afford another high spending left-wing socialist government and must stick to the Coalition plan to reduce the annual deficit so that we can then start paying down the National Debt in 2019.

Interest on National Debt is now 42 Billion pounds a year !!! Failure to get to grips with the debt will have terrible economic consequences in inflation (not least because of a weaker pound), higher interest rates, higher taxes, lost jobs etc etc.

Vote left-wing at your peril !!! :eek:

Cyberman60

antrobus wrote: »

The national debt is always repaid. Granted it's normally repaid by simply borrowing some more money from someone else, but it is always repaid. That is why nations find it such a problem when they find that no one will lend them any more.

Not true. The debt is financed by the interest on the debt being paid. The total National Debt will never be repaid. :eek: