If pension funds didn't own Govt debt, then a lot more of them would run out of cash. The fluctuations in share values means they are not consistent enough to fund pensions on their own.
See I knew I wasn't on block ya cheeky rascal, hiya But labours shadow chancellor was and it is what he would put in place, not you. The two homes is a dodgy wicket because you would then scoop up a lot of retired hard working people who see no interest on savings, pensions looking dodgy so buy lets as an investment for their retirement. You also seem to forget as I mentioned earlier, the real 5% which is closer to 1% like Sugar. He paid £58 million in tax one year but never used most of the facilities that tax pays for. He undoubtedly never uses public transport, nhs, local gym facilities, etc but yet every year he will pay, like so many of his type, will pay in one year in tax more than most of us will ever pay in 2 life times.. The 1%-5% is a phallacy that serves to remove fact and replaces it with the politics of anger and envy with little or no facts Labour went in the big chair and ran every credit card and bank loan and overdraft to the max, any party coming in would have faced the same mess labour left behind. I do agree partially in that the austerity should have started to ease off after around 5 years and they made a mistake extending it too long, they tried to clear up a huge mess in to short a time. Duke you say often you have no dog in the fight but you only seem to find a dog to fight when it is the tories, your own words betray you and lets be honest, even those that listen to you know your comments largely are copy and paste edited items with no links to challenge them People will do what they always do, listen , or not, and make their own mind sup your suggestion that unless they do as you say then they must be puppets is indictive of someone who belongs to the socialist worker, my way or no way, think for yourself as long as it is my way. you often trip yourself up like that. Chip and pin was first used in 2006, social media first introduced 1997 (six degree's) Facebook 2004 Biometric passports 2006 Smartphone mass growth 2000 All under labour and yet whilst you say government monitoring is a bad thing, here you are doing it on a government monitored forum just as most are. It's like sticking your finger in the fire then saying the bastards lit a fire and they should have foreseen people like you with itchy fingers
So you define annual spending of £802 Billion as "broke", do you. What about if it was £850 Billion? Or £900 Billion? At what level would it stop being "broke"? There is a strong case for arguing that it would be beneficial for UK government expenditure to be higher than it is. But that case is weakened and delegitimated by careless and inaccurate use of emotive terminology.
The issue is that as a country we consume more than we create and have to borrow the difference and, at the same time, our balance of payments deficit is about £18billion. This is, as you often point out, ok as long as that expenditure is on "investment" that generates a return and not merely funding "consumption", although even that can be OK if it stimulates "growth", but that has a nasty habit of turning round and biting us where we don't expect it. However this is a slippery slope to go down because whilst governments find it very easy to increase spending they find it every difficult to reduce it, usually accompanied by cries of "austerity" closely followed by "tory scum". Then there is the client state which needs funding, created by your mate Gordon who Jezza obviously wishes to emulate, and effectively buy a few more votes. But you know what, I think we are fighting the last war and whereas it was acceptable, by some, to blame the low skilled for losing their jobs in the face of automation and globalisation that process is expanding into AI from which no one is safe, we aint seen nothing yet. I see the EU as a protectionist block against the rest of the world and it would be great if we could erect a wall around Europe and look after our own, but we can't, we still have to deal with the rest of the world and I think we have to do it on a level playing field and compete tariff free. Brexit will undoubtedly lead to some short term pain but I am willing to gamble that in the long run we will be better off than staying in a fading EU that behaves a bit like King Canute. Anyway, as a soon to be recipient of the state pension I want to know why here in the UK it is 27% compared to 70% in the rest of Europe. So maybe I could think about voting for Jezza after all, but then he might start asking questions as to why just myself and SWMBO live on our own in a 4 bed detached with just the cat for company. Swings and roundabouts, decisions decisions.
So we are moving on from the UK government deficit, which is not very significant, to the current account ("balance of payments") position of the UK as a whole, which is very significant indeed but little discussed. Current account has deteriorated, and has become unsustainable. Brexit is certain to make it worse. Politicians of all parties avoid mentioning it.
Current account has deteriorated, and has become unsustainable. Brexit is certain to make it worse. Politicians of all parties avoid mentioning it. eh, i can think of one that regularly brings it up, as always its not just a battle of ideas its a battle to get the information out depending on who is submitting it.
The biggest puzzle here is that most agree on trade deficit being a problem. Yet politicians and Brexiteers happily pursue a hard Brexit which everybody agrees will make the situation worse in the short term. With no guarantee of an improvement in the future, or even achieving current levels.
Brexit, in fact just voting for it, we were told, was certain to unleash, famine, apocalypse and world war. Entirely unsurprisingly it did no such thing. I think we've learned to disregard Brexit "certainties".
money does not disappear into a black hole: it goes to pension funds, insurance companies, savings banks, etc and is mainly used to pay out pensions, annuities, interest on savings, and insurance claims. It circulates around the economy to everyone's benefit. If the national debt did not exist it would have to be invented. over 16million people dont have £100 in the bank. i wounder how many benefit from these things on your list yet pay for it by a reduction in state pensions and services. no taxation without representation, i also wounder with the constant calls for lower taxes if there will ever be a stage where there is just no representation, i bet many already feel now that they aren't being represented.
One party with blinkers on fin acting for one part of the U.K. doesn't mean it has all the answers for all of the U.K. or any of the answers at all, it has a part to play sure Yes, ANY change of structure has a short term restructure that will see some winners and losers in the SHORT term but as we have seen, even during the discussion phase, the wraths of hell that were promised, never materlised. We had the same claims when we left the erm that we would all die out without the mighty euro and yet here we are, still one of the greatest currencies in the world and the 5th strongest economy and the second largest contributor of overseas aid to help others lift themselves upto My biggest fear was that Katie Price would represent us AGAIN in eurovision
Would agree with this, how often have we heard, it's the same money just going around and around it's the same as above fin, same money going around and around but having increased the amount of people NOT paying tax to £23 million the shortfall is likely to come from the lower end. AS to the claim of 16 million people don't have a £100 in the bank, the only reference I can find is one from the money advisory service which does not say how it came to that figure at all Could you say what you feel this means fin?
Just an observation, but both Noobie and Duke appear to be agreeing without realising. If money, more of the money is at the top...and less at the bottom, then thats the rich getting richer. Surely? And whilst money does circulate in an economy, if too much of it is bank accounts/overseas accounts/investments etc. , then by definition, it is NOT in circulation? Maybe..
The state pension as a percentage of average earnings. The state pension in Croatia is 120% of average earnings
Duke likes to copy my ideas until he realises he's done it the puts me on ignore. although we disagree on this Thatcher largely saw our future in trickle down economics in that the more rich people you get here then when they spend their wealth "trickles down" all the way to the bottom and in turn lifting our own economy. The fact there are no live aid concerts in Africa to help out the Brits would suggest trickle down does work but it has it's limitations. It rarely works in the long run. Imagine a shagged battery and trickle down is a battery charger, a great boost when you need it but unless you source the real cause of the failure, then you end up with many many wealthy and all employing people sharp as a tack to pay the bare minimum but in the same respect they also use the bare minimum of public services also. Labour's reliance to tax the same 1 or 5%, which ever it is this week and then tax them 12 times over for the same money shows why Labours spend and get the rich to clear it up, fails because at the moment the amount who think the state should take care of them from the cradle to the grave is on the up and raising tax relief effects their input too. However Today the top 1% of income taxpayers, who earn in excess of £162,000 a year, now pay nearly a third (27%) of all income tax. In addition today's top 10% of taxpayers, who earn over £51,400, are paying nearly twice as much towards the UK's total tax take than the wealthiest decile did in the Seventies. So you can seethe impression the U.K. is rolling armpit deep in billionaires to pay for Labours spend is a phallacy. Here is the tricky part if you ask how many billionaires live in the U.K. (those who can just say feck it I'm off) then you get a figure of around 1,000 give or take a handfull. Now Ask, how many U.K. citizens are there in the U.K. who are billionaires and that number drops dramatically The fodder for the labour spending is not and has never been there. Money has always gone to money, that has never changed what has changed from my point of view, is people living well beyond their means then claiming it is everyone else's fault. Living in a £175, 000 house then taking out a pcp to have the latest range rover vogue on the drive for £600 per month. It seems many have conveniently and intentionally confused aspiration with debt and the responsibility for that must always be everyone elses. I've heard some of my own family and friends say it. Whilst they have a good living wage they seek all the finery of a louis vuiton lifestyle whilst having a council bank account and when they are asset rich and credit poor but still continue to want the latest kitchen, holiday because it's in vogue or some other daft publication, it suddenly becomes the governments fault. Money in circulation has become debt in circulation and very little of that has to do with the 1-5% none of them have ever forced me to sign, give or enable them to have my money Apologies for the length of the post.
Ring fence any system and it can be treated in isolation but once you start interacting with external systems things get much more complicated. If we just owe ourselves money we can manage it indefinitely to our own satisfaction but once we start owing our trading partners money then that does quickly become unsustainable. Some of the member states of the EU try to have their cake and eat it, which is OK as long as the rest of the EU agrees, but they don’t, and it is this that will destroy first the Euro and then the EU.
One party with blinkers on fin acting for one part of the U.K. doesn't mean it has all the answers for all of the U.K. or any of the answers at all, it has a part to play sure they represent uk constituencies and act for the whole of the uk in the uk Parliament, ie,our budgets are directly related to the budgets of ruk, the mechanism for this is called Barnet. i will argue they have done more to benefit the average uk citizen than any of the other Scottish MP or party as a whole by not attempting to secure votes in the south and east where most elections are won. they certainly didnt demand 1,5bill and thats just for starters. if you wanna de legitimize a party, maybe start there. anyhoos.
