|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 8:31:49 GMT
This UK deficit.
osborne announces another 3bn worth of cuts brought forward,
less public services, less sociiety things, less cohesive things that make life tick over stripping Down to the very basics of life with the individual just looking after themselves
and just say we clear the national debt by doing this.
so we get to this day where there's Fck all left of society as we know it ; no libraries, bins getting done monthly, etc etc but we've paid the national debt off.
so what, why am bothered if we have a bit of debt, just roll it over, like everyone else does, no ones ever gonna call it in.
The normal man in the street doesn't give a toss. About the national debt, but bears the brunt of Dickensian cuts
maybe I've missed the point and someone can enlighten me?
|
|
pacirv
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by pacirv on Jun 6, 2015 8:41:44 GMT
Truth is I don't think anyone knows the answer to this.
|
|
|
Post by kellsblue on Jun 6, 2015 9:14:12 GMT
Shhhh. Don't question the status quo. Be silent and fall in line.
|
|
|
Post by cufcmike on Jun 6, 2015 9:46:19 GMT
Or just clamp down on tax avoidance and you don't need anywhere near as many cuts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 9:57:50 GMT
so what, why am bothered if we have a bit of debt, just roll it over, like everyone else does, no ones ever gonna call it in. The normal man in the street doesn't give a toss. About the national debt, but bears the brunt of Dickensian cuts maybe I've missed the point and someone can enlighten me? Im not gonna argue about the right and wrongs of Osbournes approach. Before anyone starts having a go, im purely looking at the facts. We will pay £1 billion a week in interest payments this year. Interest payments cost us £108 billion in 2014. That money goes straight to the uber rich super elites who own/run the worlds big banks. The only thing we spend more on is Social Security and the NHS. We could be spending that money on public services if we didnt have such a huge debt. We spent more on paying interest to rich bankers than education last year. There a difference between 'a bit' and 15% of everything we spend. Its all a big smoke screen though. The debt has gone up massively in the past 5 years.
|
|
khg
Youth Team Player
Posts: 449
|
Post by khg on Jun 6, 2015 9:58:29 GMT
The rich get richer and the poor get the blame,Will never change..
|
|
|
Post by cufcmike on Jun 6, 2015 10:00:04 GMT
so what, why am bothered if we have a bit of debt, just roll it over, like everyone else does, no ones ever gonna call it in. The normal man in the street doesn't give a toss. About the national debt, but bears the brunt of Dickensian cuts maybe I've missed the point and someone can enlighten me? Im not gonna argue about the right and wrongs of Osbournes approach. Before anyone starts having a go, im purely looking at the facts. We will pay £1 billion a week in interest payments this year. Interest payments cost us £108 billion in 2014. That money goes straight to the uber rich super elites who own/run the worlds big banks. The only thing we spend more on is Social Security and the NHS. We could be spending that money on public services if we didnt have such a huge debt. We spent more on paying interest to rich bankers than education last year. There a difference between 'a bit' and 15% of everything we spend. Its all a big smoke screen though. The debt has gone up massively in the past 5 years. The tories borrowed more in the past 5 years than Labour did in their entire reign. But the main stream media won't tell you that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 10:00:46 GMT
Im not gonna argue about the right and wrongs of Osbournes approach. Before anyone starts having a go, im purely looking at the facts. We will pay £1 billion a week in interest payments this year. Interest payments cost us £108 billion in 2014. That money goes straight to the uber rich super elites who own/run the worlds big banks. The only thing we spend more on is Social Security and the NHS. We could be spending that money on public services if we didnt have such a huge debt. We spent more on paying interest to rich bankers than education last year. There a difference between 'a bit' and 15% of everything we spend. Its all a big smoke screen though. The debt has gone up massively in the past 5 years. The tories borrowed more in the past 5 years than Labour did in their entire reign. But the main stream media won't tell you that. Thats what i pointed out. Also ive got the figures slightly wrong. It was £108 billion in 2013. 2014 it was £84 billion.
|
|
|
Post by bluealf on Jun 6, 2015 10:15:47 GMT
But what would the borrowing be now if Labour had remained in charge ?
Twice as much as what the Tories have borrowed, 3 x, 4 x ?
We could always sell our stockpile of gold to cover some costs, no wait that was sold when gold was at its lowest price for decades, well done Gordon, now if I could be arsed there is an old punk song that should be linked here.
|
|
|
Post by gateswasgod on Jun 6, 2015 10:46:00 GMT
There a difference between 'a bit' and 15% of everything we spend.
Remembering of course that 15% of your earnings also go to the banks
Remembering that the only time real currency appears in the 'borrow and repay' deal is when we repay.
Remembering that the only time real currency appears in your mortgage is the money you pay your 'Provider'.
Remembering that your savings are used, via Fractional Reserve banking, to create wealth for the banks.
Remembering that LIBOR is used to facilitate Fractional Reserve banking.
|
|
jelly
Ball Boy
Posts: 190
|
Post by jelly on Jun 6, 2015 11:12:11 GMT
The deficit was huge (and rising) when the Tories took office - the figure for 2009/10 was about £154 billion. So if there had been no "austerity" and we had just maintained it at that level for the next 5 years the UK's debt would have risen by c. £770bn. As it was, it rose by c.£525bn over the past 5 year period.
So, yes it is factually correct to say that the coalition government borrowed far more than Labour did but it is also extremely misleading.
The debt interest that the country pays is nowhere near £150bn a year (or £84bn), but actually around £45-50bn a year. This will go up as the debt rises, even more so as and when interest rates start to rise and government borrowing costs increase. I think the figures you (blues86) are for the deficit, not the interest payments. But as stated, all that interest effectively goes out of our available income before it can be spent on things that most people think are more important, like education, Health etc.
Of course, you could keep borrowing as much as you like and hoping that nobody ever calls it in, which is pretty much what they are doing in Greece. The tories have decided that the country should live within its means and only spend what it earns. There are, of course, many other courses of action that seek to balance these issues out so I'm not suggesting it is a black and white issue.
At the recent election, the country overwhelmingly voted for parties that supported the need to get the deficit down and start paying our way (except in Scotland where about half the people supported a party that opposes this strategy).
So take a view on which line you think is best, though given there was a general election quite recently I don't quite get why people are surprised that cuts that were expected are now taking place.
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 13:44:56 GMT
Thanks for all the replies, it's a genuine question, not political point scoring.
The supplementary question is
How wifi it benefit me or my individual if the debt is paid off?
I assume the answer on reading the above is that the country doesn't have to pay interest to the banks ( part of which I own) and by not paying this interest they will have more money to reinvest in public services, which are the ones that they have just cut to balance the debt problem
This is the biggest con of our lifetime, and when we look back on it we should all question how they got away with this and sold us down the river,
|
|
|
Post by thesilentone on Jun 6, 2015 13:59:45 GMT
The problem with the cuts to public funding is the political jigsaw. Con run Country v Labour run Councils. We lose services before efficiency starts to happen. The Police, NHS, certain Councils, Defence etc etc could save billions of pounds by operating effectively. Look to the recent example of the helicopters sent to Nepal to assist in the disaster at a cost to our Tax payers of millions. When they got there the Nepalese refused to use them as they caused further damage !! Erm, maybe it would have worth a quick call to check first.
Currently the CEO's and Mangers at the top of the public funded institutions are as bad as the fat cats in the banking sector, paying themselves way over the odd's at our expense. (Awarded by the remuneration committee which is made up of themselves) Austerity has been a way bigger problem for the likes of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland we should think ourselves lucky !! Those who are working hard, should be better off, the Government owes nothing to anybody, other than those who really need help.
|
|
|
Post by bluemune on Jun 6, 2015 14:28:00 GMT
I'm no economist, but I think the debt will never be fully repaid - certainly not within the lifetime of anyone alive today anyway. Having said that, many people argue that a manageable amount of national debt can be a good thing. Under the current economic system debt ensures that the money supply is maintained and the system keeps moving. It is the deficit that is the problem, we can't keep spending more than we earn. If there was ever a sniff that we as a country could not meet our repayments then the country's credit rating would be damaged and the IMF and the world economies would lose faith in UK and investment would suffer. To counter risk higher returns and interest rates would have to be offered. Traditionally this would result in imflation, though these days with mounting personal and government debt god only knows the outcome. I think the main problem with cutting the deficit is how you go about it. Cutting too deep and too quickly can imtroduce many problems for the future - you still have to invest in your own people, infrastructure and society otherwise there is no benefit - numbers on a bit of paper might go down and balance sheets might add up, but in real terms the country gets poorer. Therefore it could be argued that even running up a deficit mightn't be too bad if we had something of value to show for it, but I never saw new hospitals, schools or roads being built during the Labour years - just bank bailouts (though this may only be true in my area). Like I said, I know nothing about economics (and I suspect nobody really does ?) so I could have completely misunderstood the situation. Perhaps we should just go back to the days when we dealt in real tangible assets and services instead of placing so much faith in imaginary numbers and bits of dirty paper.
|
|
|
Post by thecryingcumbrian on Jun 6, 2015 14:33:02 GMT
Look to the recent example of the helicopters sent to Nepal to assist in the disaster at a cost to our Tax payers of millions. When they got there the Nepalese refused to use them as they caused further damage !! Erm, maybe it would have worth a quick call to check first. Cynically I think it is all about showing goodwill rather than actually helping. It's the same with international aid, its more about politics and creating alliances than providing aid to the people who actually need it.
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 15:03:39 GMT
No one is able to answer the simple question of how we as a collectively society will benefit from paying this whole debt off.
|
|
|
Post by gateswasgod on Jun 6, 2015 15:20:13 GMT
No one is able to answer the simple question of how we as a collectively society will benefit from paying this whole debt off. We can only pay back with real currency, and as all currency is loaned to us by the Bank of England at 15%, its mathematically impossible to repay the debt. But paying it back is not the point. If we were debt free the Bank/Super rich wouldn't have control of the country, so the debt CANNOT and will NEVER be paid off. Does no-one question how we could borrow more money than has ever been printed ? and if that much has never existed, how did someone get hold of it and how could we possibly borrow it ?
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 15:40:27 GMT
Is This the biggest con job ever?
Manipulating and bamboozling the masses with their slight of hand.
Keeping us in our place, and tugging our forelocks whilst the super rich cream it all in from their secluded and hidden pots of gold
And we let them get away it it
I'm starting a revolution, who's in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 15:41:25 GMT
The deficit was huge (and rising) when the Tories took office - the figure for 2009/10 was about £154 billion. So if there had been no "austerity" and we had just maintained it at that level for the next 5 years the UK's debt would have risen by c. £770bn. As it was, it rose by c.£525bn over the past 5 year period. So, yes it is factually correct to say that the coalition government borrowed far more than Labour did but it is also extremely misleading. The debt interest that the country pays is nowhere near £150bn a year (or £84bn), but actually around £45-50bn a year. This will go up as the debt rises, even more so as and when interest rates start to rise and government borrowing costs increase. I think the figures you (blues86) are for the deficit, not the interest payments. But as stated, all that interest effectively goes out of our available income before it can be spent on things that most people think are more important, like education, Health etc. Of course, you could keep borrowing as much as you like and hoping that nobody ever calls it in, which is pretty much what they are doing in Greece. The tories have decided that the country should live within its means and only spend what it earns. There are, of course, many other courses of action that seek to balance these issues out so I'm not suggesting it is a black and white issue. At the recent election, the country overwhelmingly voted for parties that supported the need to get the deficit down and start paying our way (except in Scotland where about half the people supported a party that opposes this strategy). So take a view on which line you think is best, though given there was a general election quite recently I don't quite get why people are surprised that cuts that were expected are now taking place. Yes, you are right, i have confused the two. The debt interest is £52 billion a year. But the i think the gist of my point still stands. Its a massive figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 15:53:20 GMT
Is This the biggest con job ever? Manipulating and bamboozling the masses with their slight of hand. Keeping us in our place, and tugging our forelocks whilst the super rich cream it all in from their secluded and hidden pots of gold And we let them get away it it I'm starting a revolution, who's in? Yes - when you look into the global financial system, you start to realise what a massive con job it really is. Nobody ever asks who lends us all this money? I mean - who has £100 billion to loan out? And not just to us - to every country? Nobody does. They just invent the money and charge us interest for doing so. Look at the federal reserve system. As far as i understand it this is what happens. When the US government wants to borrow money it issues bonds. They transfer these bonds (effectively IOU's) to the federal reserve in return for paper money. Money which the fed has just invented, it doesn't exist in a vault or anything. It can do that. So they end up with a load of government bonds and they pay for them with money its basically plucked outta nowhere. Those bonds have interest attached as well, so even more money for the fed. And the Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by other banking institutions. Those institutions are owned by a very small number of super elite and extremely shadowy shareholders. The question then becomes - why doesn't the US government, and every other government, just produce there own money, without the need for the private middleman? Because these elite banks/financiers etc. run the show im afraid. If you've got a licence to invent money, you're not giving that up in a hurry. JFK tried to stop it and look what happened to him. The whole thing stinks. Global finance is essentially a giant con ponzi scheme. Fractional reserve banking, as mentioned above, is another huge con. Money is just a number on a screen that only the ordinary pleb has to work for. These powerful elites just press a few buttons on a computer.
|
|
|
Post by schillingLatchcortina on Jun 6, 2015 15:56:17 GMT
No one is able to answer the simple question of how we as a collectively society will benefit from paying this whole debt off. We can only pay back with real currency, and as all currency is loaned to us by the Bank of England at 15%, its mathematically impossible to repay the debt. But paying it back is not the point. If we were debt free the Bank/Super rich wouldn't have control of the country, so the debt CANNOT and will NEVER be paid off. Does no-one question how we could borrow more money than has ever been printed ? and if that much has never existed, how did someone get hold of it and how could we possibly borrow it ? A very good and (hopefully eye opening) post. People need to realise that most money is nothing. Under the gold standard you could, in theory, demand the value of gold owed to you as the holder of a banknote. However, nowadays 90% of money (correct me if I'm wrong please) is just created on a computer on the assumption someone somewhere will pay it back. Whereas banks used to control your gold, they now control your life. I agree with you that banks and the upper echelons have too much control. I mean how come everyone who creates real wealth is indebted to those entrusted look after it?
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 16:07:47 GMT
Can I invent some of this money and pay it to HSBC in settlement of my mortgage ?
Thanks for the insights, fascinating stuff. I think, though not sure, that I'm a bit more educated , if not accepting of the situation.
I will **** myself laughing when this pack of cards comes tumbling down ( even in the knowledge that it will me that ends up paying the elites debts)
It's the same with the bank, they privatised the profits and nationalised the debts.
It f....g stinks.
Revolution, debenhams 3pm next Saturday
|
|
|
Post by schillingLatchcortina on Jun 6, 2015 16:17:23 GMT
Is This the biggest con job ever? Manipulating and bamboozling the masses with their slight of hand. Keeping us in our place, and tugging our forelocks whilst the super rich cream it all in from their secluded and hidden pots of gold And we let them get away it it I'm starting a revolution, who's in? Yes - when you look into the global financial system, you start to realise what a massive con job it really is. Nobody ever asks who lends us all this money? I mean - who has £100 billion to loan out? And not just to us - to every country? Nobody does. They just invent the money and charge us interest for doing so. Look at the federal reserve system. As far as i understand it this is what happens. When the US government wants to borrow money it issues bonds. They transfer these bonds (effectively IOU's) to the federal reserve in return for paper money. Money which the fed has just invented, it doesn't exist in a vault or anything. It can do that. So they end up with a load of government bonds and they pay for them with money its basically plucked outta nowhere. Those bonds have interest attached as well, so even more money for the fed. And the Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by other banking institutions. Those institutions are owned by a very small number of super elite and extremely shadowy shareholders. The question then becomes - why doesn't the US government, and every other government, just produce there own money, without the need for the private middleman? Because these elite banks/financiers etc. run the show im afraid. If you've got a licence to invent money, you're not giving that up in a hurry. JFK tried to stop it and look what happened to him. The whole thing stinks. Global finance is essentially a giant con ponzi scheme. Fractional reserve banking, as mentioned above, is another huge con. Money is just a number on a screen that only the ordinary pleb has to work for. These powerful elites just press a few buttons on a computer. Another good post. Perhaps cumbrians should run the economy. One query I would make is that I don't believe government issued bonds are converted directly into cash. Instead I think they converted into theoretical money and debt; which by law must be repaid in real cash. A subtle, but highly profitable difference (to banks)
|
|
|
Post by schillingLatchcortina on Jun 6, 2015 16:25:26 GMT
Can I invent some of this money and pay it to HSBC in settlement of my mortgage ? Thanks for the insights, fascinating stuff. I think, though not sure, that I'm a bit more educated , if not accepting of the situation. I will **** myself laughing when this pack of cards comes tumbling down ( even in the knowledge that it will me that ends up paying the elites debts) It's the same with the bank, they privatised the profits and nationalised the debts. It f....g stinks. Revolution, debenhams 3pm next Saturday Lol In all probability your house was financed by this invented money. You are expected to earn real money to pay it back (plus extortionate interest). To the contrary, it would probably be the banks and financiers that would suffer if this whole house of cards fell. The rest of us create and deal in real assets. Unfortunately we are too caught up in the system to fight back.
|
|
|
Post by gateswasgod on Jun 6, 2015 16:28:59 GMT
Can I invent some of this money and pay it to HSBC in settlement of my mortgage ?
You already have, your signature gave them the authorisation to create the finance that paid for your house..... infortunately, that turned into an IOU to the Banks that YOU have to pay with real hard cash.
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 16:30:36 GMT
My head hurts.
|
|
khg
Youth Team Player
Posts: 449
|
Post by khg on Jun 6, 2015 16:32:30 GMT
Maybe they should try and get their ppi back
|
|
|
Post by gateswasgod on Jun 6, 2015 16:33:42 GMT
I know I am, I'm sure I am, I'm H-A-PPI !
|
|
|
Post by schillingLatchcortina on Jun 6, 2015 16:38:22 GMT
As does everyone else's That's why nothing will change. That's why no one will fight against it
|
|
|
Post by useless on Jun 6, 2015 16:43:07 GMT
Fight the power Next Saturday 3pm debenhams
Anti paying back the debt, anti offshore accounts, anti conning the public you've just begged to vote for you, anti Nixon rally
March to the market hall
Sit in at the 68 bus stop to belle vue
|
|