Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The UK has borrowed too much money, has a massive debt - £105 billion goes on paying our debt interest

331 replies

cakeorwine · 24/03/2025 08:14

A good visual guide from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2025/mar/24/visual-analysis-how-the-markets-boxed-in-rachel-reeves

But basically, the UK has had to rely on borrowing money as it spends more than it brings in.

It has borrowed money at low interest rates - but these rates have increased.

£105 billion on servicing debt interest. When you are borrowing a lot of money, even a small change in the interest level will massively increase the actual amount of money we need to pay on interest

Some context from the OBR on the budget

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/

Income: £1149 billlion
Spending: £1276 billion
Of which £104 billion is on interest payments
Deficit: £127 billion

We need either more income, less spending and reduced interest payments.

The UK has borrowed too much money, has a massive debt  - £105 billion goes on paying our debt interest
The UK has borrowed too much money, has a massive debt  - £105 billion goes on paying our debt interest
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
BurntBroccoli · 25/03/2025 13:47

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 09:16

I know exactly how they work, having worked for local authorities for over a decade. They’re not subsidised, the accounts are completely separate from the general account.

The cost of rent on a council house is probably what all rents should be in reality if a profit motive is not involved.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 25/03/2025 13:37

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 10:49

The latter doesn’t meet the definition of a subsidy.

A subsidy is a government intervention (direct or indirect) that attempts to reduce the cost of something surely, so to the extent that policy determines that property is let at below ‘market’ rent the Government has chosen to subsidise rent costs to a section of society. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s the the right thing to do.

BurntBroccoli · 25/03/2025 13:14

caringcarer · 24/03/2025 20:10

Older people are not all slow to recognise younger people have a hard time. All my friends, every single one have helped their DC get onto the property ladder with gifting deposits, helping to either look after DGC or helping with nursery fees and both I and DH both gift my DC £2k each every year as well as paying for holiday and buying DGC shoes and passports. We also send money every month to my niece at uni because my sister can't afford to give her much. Stop trying to make it sound like all older people are selfish and mean with their money.

That’s all very well for those who can afford to support their children and grandchildren - what happens to those children who receive no support?
They end up in a trap of massively high rent, high food costs and absolutely no chance of saving for a deposit. In addition wages in the UK are being suppressed, we are way behind other OECD countries (and can’t even relocate to Europe easily anymore).

These children will become very disillusioned adults and parties like Reform will swoop in promising them sunlit uplands.

In effect a new class of poor who can’t even work their way out of it.

JobhuntingDespair · 25/03/2025 12:12

@JamSandwich27

I am fully aware that there are some people who genuinely can’t work and I don’t mean them. However, if I can work when I have epilepsy and can sometimes have up to 10 seizures a week, why can’t others? I work full time from home and there’s loads of WFH jobs.

Please if you have time check out my thread re. how disabled MNers manage to work!
I'm intrigued what sort of work you do/how you managed to get into work that is entirely WFH and presumably flexible enough to allow for seizures/recovery time.

Where should people be looking for all these WFH jobs?

To want to understand how disabled MNers manage to be employed? | Mumsnet

With the proposed benefit cuts, I'm interested in the reasons why those who ^could^ work struggle to find suitable employment, so would like to know h...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5298489-to-want-to-understand-how-disabled-mners-manage-to-be-employed?page=1

Badbadbunny · 25/03/2025 12:09

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 10:49

The latter doesn’t meet the definition of a subsidy.

It's certainly a subsidy in the hands of the recipient who gets a home to live in at below market rent. What else could it be?? For them, it's a very real discount, aka subsidy!

BurntBroccoli · 25/03/2025 12:05

BoredZelda · 24/03/2025 13:45

We need to stop focussing on the national debt as a bad thing. It is used to beat up governments when it is part of a much bigger picture.

I like Pratchetts boot theory of economics to explain it;

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

Think of the NHS, Education etc as a pair of boots. The reason it is costing us so much is because it is inefficient, outdated, run down. Schools and hospitals are costing us too much to run because they are worn out. People are doing a bad job because they are worn out. We don’t replace things or improve things, we have spent decades just patching things up. A local council will spend more money over the years, patching and re-surfacing roads than they would just properly fixing things so they will last longer. They do this because of a lack of capital.

The extra money you spend plastering over the cracks, is way more than the interest you spend on borrowing money to fix things properly. Borrowing to invest in the nation properly will save us money in the future. But we never get to that because if a government does that, they are hammered for it. So, we just keep seeing borrowing going up and up with no plan of how we are going fix the problems.

If the government doesn’t borrow money, they will have to raise taxes or cut services. What do you want the government to do?

Great analogy!
Fully agree that investing in infrastructure is key to solving a lot of our current issues.

Everything is so short term-ist in the UK which is leading to our downfall.

EasternStandard · 25/03/2025 11:28

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 11:10

It's neither good nor bad in of itself.

It's funding items paid for historically which should be generating higher revenues. Things like roads and hospitals that have been built already. Would you rather they hadn't been built?

It can be bad in itself, hence warnings to France and Italy on high debt.

We should try to lower debt here rather than the opposite. Not only due to high debt servicing which eats into other budgets but IMF warned we were at risk if another high impact event occurred. We’d be without a buffer to deal with it.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 25/03/2025 11:23

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 11:19

Someone pays less because someone else pays more.

That isn’t true in the case of social housing. Someone pays the actual cost, someone else pays the commercial rate.

And because that someone pays less the council needs to increase the Council Tax for those who pay it, of course, so they are, again, paying for someone else’s council services. I won’t call is subsidy, because it seems that’s difficult for some to understand.

But this is something you don’t want to see.

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 11:19

Someone pays less because someone else pays more.

That isn’t true in the case of social housing. Someone pays the actual cost, someone else pays the commercial rate.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 25/03/2025 11:13

Cumberlandsausagedog · 25/03/2025 10:43

I’ll explain to both of you. Council owns a council house. It has a choice. It could put them on at market rent on the open market at e.g. £1,000 a month, or let to social housing tenants at an amount that covers the cost of providing that property of say £500. One if you is saying that there is no subsidy as £500 covers the cost, and one of you is saying that the council could get £1,000 do there is in effect a subsidy.

I think you can both be right depending on what you mean by subsidy.

Sorry, been at work.

This is more or less what I wrote at 8:49 this morning.

Someone pays less because someone else pays more. if we’re splitting hair then it might not be called a subsidy, the spirit of the meaning is the same.

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 11:10

EasternStandard · 25/03/2025 10:58

Why is it being so high good? Wouldn’t you rather that amount of tax paid to cover it go to other things?

Edited

It's neither good nor bad in of itself.

It's funding items paid for historically which should be generating higher revenues. Things like roads and hospitals that have been built already. Would you rather they hadn't been built?

GasPanic · 25/03/2025 11:03

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 10:38

Every country has done this and debt is the main way money is created. "interest" is simply a requirement to protect against inflation.

We essentially make decision s that future tax revenues will be used to fund things that will be edit the country and increase those tax revenues. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Like there's nothing wrong with a mortgage, or getting a car on a PCP so you can commute and get a better job.

The problem is that it is not at all clear that the borrowing will result in increased future productivity.

It really depends on what the money is spent on.

There are essentially two extreme positions. One end where we borrow nothing, and infrastructure products that would enable us to increase productivity in the future remain unfunded and this therefore limits future growth. The other where we borrow huge amounts, significant amounts of money is funneled into unproductive areas and miss allocated, we do not grow the economy to keep up with the borrowing and we eventually trash the currency.

Determining exactly where we are now is the hard bit, but the markets generally give us an idea by telling us how much it is going to cost us to borrow. The higher the risk of currency collapse, the more they will charge to lend us money.

EasternStandard · 25/03/2025 10:58

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 10:54

So?

Why is it being so high good? Wouldn’t you rather that amount of tax paid to cover it go to other things?

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 10:54

EasternStandard · 25/03/2025 10:53

Except debt servicing is onerous and very high. It’s more than the defence budget rn

So?

EasternStandard · 25/03/2025 10:53

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 10:38

Every country has done this and debt is the main way money is created. "interest" is simply a requirement to protect against inflation.

We essentially make decision s that future tax revenues will be used to fund things that will be edit the country and increase those tax revenues. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Like there's nothing wrong with a mortgage, or getting a car on a PCP so you can commute and get a better job.

Except debt servicing is onerous and very high. It’s more than the defence budget rn

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 10:49

The latter doesn’t meet the definition of a subsidy.

Cumberlandsausagedog · 25/03/2025 10:43

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 10:24

I could ask you the same question. And my posts are fact, not opinion. As so often here, facts are really inconvenient, aren’t they?

I’ll explain to both of you. Council owns a council house. It has a choice. It could put them on at market rent on the open market at e.g. £1,000 a month, or let to social housing tenants at an amount that covers the cost of providing that property of say £500. One if you is saying that there is no subsidy as £500 covers the cost, and one of you is saying that the council could get £1,000 do there is in effect a subsidy.

I think you can both be right depending on what you mean by subsidy.

Nodddy · 25/03/2025 10:38

Every country has done this and debt is the main way money is created. "interest" is simply a requirement to protect against inflation.

We essentially make decision s that future tax revenues will be used to fund things that will be edit the country and increase those tax revenues. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Like there's nothing wrong with a mortgage, or getting a car on a PCP so you can commute and get a better job.

BurntBroccoli · 25/03/2025 10:37

Badbadbunny · 24/03/2025 13:26

Get people working. Part timers to work more hours, unemployed and disabled to work (if they can), discourage early retirement, etc.

Where are all these jobs coming from? How does a disabled person get to work with no decent public transport and there is an enforced work from office only policy?

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 10:24

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 25/03/2025 09:27

Do you offer struggle with reading comprehension or is it only when you don’t like what’s been explained to you?

I could ask you the same question. And my posts are fact, not opinion. As so often here, facts are really inconvenient, aren’t they?

BurntBroccoli · 25/03/2025 10:21

Cumberlandsausagedog · 25/03/2025 08:57

Currently the government pays housing benefit which gets paid to landlords. Surely building council housing and therefore being able to cut housing benefit is a better idea?

Yes it is a much better idea and why we need to invest in bricks and mortar for housing, care and eduction (especially early years). Otherwise tax payers money just filters off into private corporations and offshore bank accounts.

Thelnebriati · 25/03/2025 09:53

You haven't explained anything; market rents have nothing to do with social housing rents. Market rents are for profit. Social housing rents are what housing in an area actually costs.

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 25/03/2025 09:27

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 09:25

OK. You keep lying to yourself. Your local council’s housing accounts are public documents. You can check for yourself.

Do you offer struggle with reading comprehension or is it only when you don’t like what’s been explained to you?

BIossomtoes · 25/03/2025 09:25

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 25/03/2025 09:23

You keep telling yourself that.

OK. You keep lying to yourself. Your local council’s housing accounts are public documents. You can check for yourself.

JamSandwich27 · 25/03/2025 09:23

Lazy arsed people need to get back to work and stop complaining that ‘they’ don’t give them enough. ‘They’ are the taxpayer and are all the other people who work day in, day out whilst the lazy ones sit on their arses watching Loose Women.

I am fully aware that there are some people who genuinely can’t work and I don’t mean them. However, if I can work when I have epilepsy and can sometimes have up to 10 seizures a week, why can’t others? I work full time from home and there’s loads of WFH jobs. I’m sick of funding other people’s lifestyle choices. I think that if you point blank refuse to take any job going then you should be made to do some sort of community service eg scrubbing graffiti off the walls or sweeping the streets. Guaranteed that once these people realised that they were working 37 hours a week for £70 in JSA they’d be taking any job going.

Swipe left for the next trending thread