That's what I've been saying since 2010
I've got to admit, you are many things and consistent is one of them
March Budget 2016
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
I've got to admit, you are many things and consistent is one of them
Cost us growth at what cost.
People keep saying this but artificial growth at a cost more than you gain isn't good growth.
Haha where have I compared it to a household budget I haven't.
I know you haven't directly, but the assertion of running a surplus because it's beneficial to the country seems (to me) to be implicitly saying as such
Why?
We pay a large amount to national debt interest which continue to rise, trying to halt that or even slowly decline that is a good idea, when growth like we've had in the past is well slim at best,.
Let alone other factors I've mentioned.
Again I'm Nott against deficit when need, when there's a slump you can use it to stabilise, when there's big infrastructure projects you can use debt to pay fir it.
In this global economic climate we should not be increasing our debt.
We also can't use the next generation will pay fir it, as it's predicted in the next several decades global population will stabilise let alone uks, so spreading debt among more people and thus more track revenue is coming to an end.
But people keep saying it's what's happened in the passed, carry on. Different times, not only that, that's worked real well and insulated us. Oh wait.
Last edited:
What is wrong with building up reserves anyway? It allows you the opportunity to invest in other countries projects for potential returns...
I'm 25 and I just don't think it is fair that I won't be burdened with the national debt, it's any children I may have in the future which will end up paying for it. That's just nasty and selfish. Truly horrifically selfish.
I'm 25 and I just don't think it is fair that I won't be burdened with the national debt, it's any children I may have in the future which will end up paying for it. That's just nasty and selfish. Truly horrifically selfish.
Last edited:
Because what I have said, a surplus is irrelevant to the health of the economy. The most efficient way of running an economy such as ours is to run a deficit (that is variable) that runs under the general rate of growth, whatever that is, because then we can just inflate the capital away.
Sure, we get spikes, as we did in the last two world wars and as seen in this latest recession, but we don't need to solve this in 5, 10, 15 years time these are generational transactions...the same way we still have debts from the 1700's that have been rolled up many times and we are paying interest on today.
Only if you ignore what's happening.
Again this premise has worked for two main reasons. Easy growth, and rapidly expanding population. Neither of those are the case now.
But keep ignoring the changing world and going by old economics which are on there way out.
Lol...like we as a Country save up money before we can lend it out to others
how do you think we do that currently while running a deficit and owing 1.5 trillionPlease correct me, but the oldest debt I believe we currently have is WW2 bonds. All the WW1 bonds were cleaned up and purchased a couple of years ago.
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,769
- Location
- Leicestershire
Overall though the budget could have been worse I guess - I dislike the disability side that IBS did. Self defeating cut.
Sugar tax is good as is the education to increase maths and stuff.
Making academies - will that improve education?
Sugar tax is good as is the education to increase maths and stuff.
Making academies - will that improve education?
The oldest bonds we had were paid back, yes, but this was - in effect* - financed by new bonds so the debt is still there.
* - I say "in effect" because there's no line item billing in the UK budget.
Supposedly it should as it means their funding comes from the private sector which should mean each academy can define it's own budget. However, what concerns me is where these academies get their syllabus. We don't want creationism being taught instead of science for example.
As recently as last year ive read reports we are still paying interest on debts from as early as the 16-1700's, which a quick Google will corroborate, and even if that changed in the last few months doesn't change what I'm saying
As Mr Jack points out, they are just rolled up into newer financial instruments
Last edited:
I've never understood the argument that the higher bands of tax discourage people from succeeding. If you don't think the extra money is worth it, I'm sure someone else will be eager for the opportunity. I certainly know that I've never turned down a pay rise. 
More seriously, virtually everyone I know who has 'succeeded' in their careers has done so because they're passionate about what they do. The money is just an added incentive on top. None of them slowed down when the 50% top band was introduced.
More seriously, virtually everyone I know who has 'succeeded' in their careers has done so because they're passionate about what they do. The money is just an added incentive on top. None of them slowed down when the 50% top band was introduced.
Thanks, seems good if you can afford to put away that much for retirement or a house Think I'll be jumping on this
I've never understood the argument that the higher bands of tax discourage people from succeeding. If you don't think the extra money is worth it, I'm sure someone else will be eager for the opportunity. I certainly know that I've never turned down a pay rise.
More seriously, virtually everyone I know who has 'succeeded' in their careers has done so because they're passionate about what they do. The money is just an added incentive on top. None of them slowed down when the 50% top band was introduced.
The effective 60% (for me - I've got two kids) tax rate between £50k to £60k has actually impacted my recent career decisions.