How would YOU decrease the national debt?

we basically have to pay of 1 trillion pounds.

the only way i can think of is build up quality british busineses in the next 10-15 years.

for example: germany has got adidas, mercedes, bmw.....etc


i mean we recently just sold cadbury to an american company which was a big symbol of britian.

we have no famous british companies left because they are being bought out. instead the government is just raising taxes which is not fair.

we have to stop selling our businesses to foreign companys
 
trouble is those business will leave due to wages. what we need is high tech research and manufacturing back. Nuclear, green energy and teh such. It needs to be an incentive by government then exported when we are world leaders. will also help bring are nation import of energy down.
 
coltpython3 said:
the only way i can think of is build up quality british busineses in the next 10-15 years.

for example: germany has got adidas, mercedes, bmw.....etc

i mean we recently just sold cadbury to an american company which was a big symbol of britian.

we have no famous british companies left because they are being bought out. instead the government is just raising taxes which is not fair.

we have to stop selling our businesses to foreign companys
Click to expand...

Cadbury was more owned by foreign investors than British when it was sold.

UK companies are bought out for many reasons, one of which is that they are successful.

Selling a successful UK business is a means of raising money. The other way of raising money from abroad would be to have successful companies selling their goods and services in countries other than the UK.
 
I think we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and the position we want to hold in the world. Are our nuclear deterrent, aircraft carriers, nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, joint strike fighters etc etc really necessary? Or are they a hang-over from the days when we had an empire and therefore the requirement to project power abroad. Could we scale back to an armed force the size of our Scandanavnian allies - still very professional and those countries are under no threat at all, but half the price.

I also think we need to focus on growing our way out of the mess, as well as cutting public spending. I found a good quote somewhere (might even have been on here):

"In the most old-fashioned sense, there's only a few ways to create wealth: digging things up, making things or transforming things. Repackaging things and shuffling paper are no substitute and there is no period in economic history where house prices, rather than industry, were the engine of the economy. Yet this is apparently what we have learned to crave as normal."

I think this sums up a lot of our problems. Even today a significant number of our engineering graduates want to become investment bankers. This is not going to solve the problem.
 
Last edited:
SlyReaper said:
Pimp myself out to rich ladies. I'm sure I get get a pound or two after a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Fixed for you ;)

coltpython3 said:
we basically have to pay of 1 trillion pounds.

the only way i can think of is build up quality british busineses in the next 10-15 years.

for example: germany has got adidas, mercedes, bmw.....etc


i mean we recently just sold cadbury to an american company which was a big symbol of britian.

we have no famous british companies left because they are being bought out. instead the government is just raising taxes which is not fair.

we have to stop selling our businesses to foreign companys
Click to expand...

Maybe get the bankers to pay it back?
 
Last edited:
bloodline76 said:
Maybe get the bankers to pay it back?
Click to expand...

Naah - some would go bust which would mean they'd stop lending to businesses which means THEY'D go bust which means depression.

A lot of this 'bankers are scum' talk seems to be, reading between the lines, based on jealousy because these people make a shed-load of money. I see exactly the same talk about footballers, popstars, or in fact just about everyone very very successful and in the public eye..

As I said, I think a lot of it is kinda' jealousy in disguise ..
 
I don't think it's jealousy, I think it's absolute horror at the sheer ineptitude and inability of segments of the banking industry to act in a professional and positive way.
 
britboy4321 said:
Naah - some would go bust which would mean they'd stop lending to businesses which means THEY'D go bust which means depression.

A lot of this 'bankers are scum' talk seems to be, reading between the lines, based on jealousy because these people make a shed-load of money. I see exactly the same talk about footballers, popstars, or in fact just about everyone very very successful and in the public eye..

As I said, I think a lot of it is kinda' jealousy in disguise ..
Click to expand...

How is it jealousy? They get paid super big bonuses for making stupid deals that go wrong and we have to pay the debts back whilst they keep their money?

If you think these people are successful then you are deluded my friend. :rolleyes:
 
Forde said:
I'm no environmentalist, but I would start with taxing the Hell out of those stupid 4x4s (the ones driven by posh ****s) and high-performance cars that do sod all MPG. Apart from the extra wear & tear on our already pot-holed roads they are using up the finite amount of petrol quicker.

I would also put heavy taxes on second homes in places that have very limited housing (Cornwall etc). Bloody Location Location Location always seems to feature some Londonite looking for a second home on the coast...

I'm sure my ideas are riddled with problems but it would make me feel better!



Where would you start?
Click to expand...

The second idea would just put off buyers as you're increasing the price, its classic "Labour" taxing the supposedly rich to help the poor. Except in that case it will stop people buying, which means instead of getting 5% stamp duty on a £500k holiday home, you get 10% of nothing when people decide they can't afford it. You also hurt builders as less people can afford to build homes, move, etc, etc.

raising taxes usually hurts the economy by reducing spending because people can't afford to spend.

This is the fundamental flaw of Labour for a decade, tax the rich more, you don't get more money, you get rich people leaving the UK, businesses leaving the uk, jobs leaving the UK. Raising taxes on richer people, just makes other places far far more appealing to live in.

So again rather than get 10% extra over 150k off rich people, you'll get 10 companies that have gone from 3% profit, to 7% losses, and will move their 5k jobs to China, which will lose the UK billions in tax a year.

Tax CUTS encourage spending, encourage car buying, house buying, job creation, encourages rich people to stay, encourages business's to expand and create more jobs, encourages companys to open factorys here etc, etc.

So how to decrease national debt, is fairly simple encourage companies that the UK is a cheap place to do business and by doing so, create thousands of jobs.

As you do this, you can get rid of public sector jobs in the NHS and other area's we've created to hide unemployment. Rather than spending 20k of tax money on another accountant some NHS department doesn't need, that person will not be paid from tax, theres a 20k increase in tax income right there, and moving that person to a 25k private sector job means they'll be paying 6-7k in tax a year out of PRIVATE money, so the net increase in tax income from moving ONE public sector job we don't need, into a newly created private sector job, is (for someone making 20k a year either way) closer to 30k extra tax available.


So bottom line, we need jobs, private sector jobs, so we can stop creating jobs in the NHS to reduce unemployment.

Speak to any sane person working for the NHS they'll tell you they've been forced to expand departments, increase paperwork and all for no reason and they now have dozens of unfireable, useless, don't have any work for employee's in every department in a hospital across the UK. These are the guys who spend 6 hours at work on facebook doing smeg all work while being paid a silly wage which adds up to billions and billions a year in wasted tax money.
 
bloodline76 said:
How is it jealousy? They get paid super big bonuses for making stupid deals that go wrong and we have to pay the debts back whilst they keep their money?

If you think these people are successful then you are deluded my friend. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There are PLENTY of bankers who made silly amounts of money, even during the recession, you should pay bonuses to those who deserve them, as it keeps them there, paying tax on their salary and paying tax on their bonuses aswell.

A company could loss 100billion , but one guy made a profit of 10million and was due a 500k bonus. You decide not to give it to him, he gets angry and leaves, next year everything being the same, you'll have made a 100bill and 10million loss, all because you wouldn't give a guy a 500k bonus HE EARNED by working well. You saved 500k in bonus pay, but next year, lost the 9.5million more he would have earned.

Bonus's are fine, bankers who do well should be rewarded as it means they stay at that bank, meaning the profitable bankers continue to make profit, which helps offset the loss the rest of the bank is making.

Saving a couple hundred million in bonuses one year, just to be left with less competant people doing the same job and making losses next year is short sighted and increases losses, not saves money.
 
drunkenmaster said:
There are PLENTY of bankers who made silly amounts of money, even during the recession, you should pay bonuses to those who deserve them, as it keeps them there, paying tax on their salary and paying tax on their bonuses aswell.

A company could loss 100billion , but one guy made a profit of 10million and was due a 500k bonus. You decide not to give it to him, he gets angry and leaves, next year everything being the same, you'll have made a 100bill and 10million loss, all because you wouldn't give a guy a 500k bonus HE EARNED by working well. You saved 500k in bonus pay, but next year, lost the 9.5million more he would have earned.

Bonus's are fine, bankers who do well should be rewarded as it means they stay at that bank, meaning the profitable bankers continue to make profit, which helps offset the loss the rest of the bank is making.

Saving a couple hundred million in bonuses one year, just to be left with less competant people doing the same job and making losses next year is short sighted and increases losses, not saves money.
Click to expand...

I never said DONT give bonuses. My point is that bankers made bad decisions and got paid big bonuses despite them being bad. And we have to pay it back. That sounds fair doesnt it?
 
drunkenmaster said:
There are PLENTY of bankers who made silly amounts of money, even during the recession, you should pay bonuses to those who deserve them, as it keeps them there, paying tax on their salary and paying tax on their bonuses aswell.

A company could loss 100billion , but one guy made a profit of 10million and was due a 500k bonus. You decide not to give it to him, he gets angry and leaves, next year everything being the same, you'll have made a 100bill and 10million loss, all because you wouldn't give a guy a 500k bonus HE EARNED by working well. You saved 500k in bonus pay, but next year, lost the 9.5million more he would have earned.

Bonus's are fine, bankers who do well should be rewarded as it means they stay at that bank, meaning the profitable bankers continue to make profit, which helps offset the loss the rest of the bank is making.

Saving a couple hundred million in bonuses one year, just to be left with less competant people doing the same job and making losses next year is short sighted and increases losses, not saves money.
Click to expand...

Whilst I do agree with bonuses. I do not agree with single year bonuses bonuses, for me should be awarded for year in year out achievements.

For example

A trader has 3 average years of trading, and one somewhat poor year. The next year he has a very good year, this is then followed by 3 average years.

Would you consider this trader worthy of a large bonus, for this one year?
When in all honesty due to low of averages, he would probably achieve this due to working there for 8 years anyway?.

Where I would agree with bonuses, is say zero bonuses for 3 years, once the worker has proved himself/herself year in year out, then they have earned their bonus, and will be deserved year on year whilst they are doing well.
 
sanaxe1 said:
I would give ocean finance a call and have the national debt consolidated into one manageable monthly repayment.
Click to expand...

' Good morning, Ocean Finance, you're through to Denise, can I help ?

' Ah yes, this is the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, I would like to borrow one thousand billion pounds please.

* click *

Hello ? Denise ... hello ? ...... impudent oik.
 
bloodline76 said:
I never said DONT give bonuses. My point is that bankers made bad decisions and got paid big bonuses despite them being bad. And we have to pay it back. That sounds fair doesnt it?
Click to expand...

1) A banker makes a company 100 million, for 10 straight years, collecting a 2m bonus so 98m profit to the bank
2) He has a bad year, and makes no money
3) He says to the bank 'give me the 2m bonus anyway or I go work for your competitor, simple as that'

What happens next? Either ..

a) Bloodline says 'walk then -- hahaha, get out' - his business is 98m a year short of profit for the next 15 years and he soon ends up with donkey staff who arn't good enough to negotiate their bonus terms. Medium/Long term mess. Of course by now Joe 'Thick' Public has long forgot about the banking crises - they just see a bank which never recovered from it completely (the best guys all left) where there are plenty of other banks that did 100% recover. Goodbye investment.

or

b) Every other business leader in the WORLD sees how valuable the bloke is and says 'Yup take the 2m mate no probs, see you bright and early Monday my friend' and starts raking in 98m a year again.


?


Its EXACTLY THE SAME as any other business needing financial assistance from the government, then dumping all their very best staff as, funny enough, their costs are highest. It'd be mental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom