to think that seeing our national debt might

[rottentomatoes]

stop people moaning about the government spending cuts? Aibu to think that if this timebomb was put on every computer screen as a screen saver people might be less likely to moan about the cuts being made in government spending.

Our Debt

Where it goes

Ah, Talkin, you know your onions then!

T'is true, the numbers men are the ones who should be in charge of the budget. Back in the day, I remember the big Public sell-off being promoted in some circles with the reason that politicians are the worst people to run big companies. Maybe economists should do the running and leave politicians to sell their ideas to the masses...

sadly many "economists" are theorists whose models bear bugger all relation to reality.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but getting rid of "professional politicians" has to be a start.

Like has been said, the last times we had massive debt was due to war and we invested in infrastructure after those wars. This time we have social security, pensions and NHS to fund which is not going to generate wealth in the future. In fact its only creating a further burden.

I get the distinct feeling from this thread that some people are in denial about the root cause of the problems we have just now. So if you would kindly watch the first segment of this video, we can start to have a proper discussion.

rt.com/shows/keiser-report/keiser-report-rpisode-430-626/

Leithlurker
Please synthesise your hypothesis into as few words as possible. I cannot be arsed with watching videos

snoogy
look at the chart I linked - the UK's debt is at historically low levels, even for peace time.
and the NHS is most certainly an investment in the future - excessive pensions may not be and excessive benefits are a Tory myth.

You dont watch videos I do not look at your chart.

TheodoraKisses whilst I think the current spare bedroom situation is a bit daft, tackling it via a benefit reduction is utterly illogical. Doing it via housing policy would make more sense.

Without getting in to individual circumstances (disabilities etc), here's some figures for my city:

Newspaper reported recently that approximately 15,500 households each year need a one bedroom house/flat (I think this is the number on the council list waiting for a 1 bedroom)

Each year, 500 one bedroom properties become available...

Rent on a 2 bedroom council flat (many of which would be allocated to a single person under our housing policy) - £92 per week

LHA for a 1 bedroom private rent - £114.

So what's going to happen? People will either wind up paying for the "bedroom tax" whilst they wait for a very long time for an alternative social housing property. Or, they somehow manage to get a private let (if the find a LHA friendly landlord and can manage to beg/steal/borrow a deposit) and then end up claiming LHA at a HIGHER rate than they are currently receiving.

How is the NHS an investment in the future?

Less ill people = more workers

Live longer = huge pension liability.

Well being that we are now having pensions via our employers and the liklihood of a state pension being in existence when I retire (prob aged 75) is nil it'd be better having us well and working and paying tax.

Abolish single parent benefits. Problem there is tying people into abusive relationships.
Rider: It is late, I am stressed, I may have missed something!

thanks, talkin

Tumbleweeds

I absolutely agree, of course it is ideological. Where have I said otherwise? We now have less youngsters going into higher education "British teenagers are now far more likely than their peers in other countries to drop out of education at 16, with the number going to college or sixth form falling to 74 per cent compared with at least 80 per cent in all other developed nations. Unlike almost all other countries, this number has dropped since 2007, when the number of young people in further education was 76 per cent. "

This sector was, apart from actually producing a net benefit to the country, a key investment area for countries getting out of recession.

This government has failed miserably in their stated aims, of reducing the fiscal debt, of reducing the balance of payments and in reducing the welfare budget. The next government, assuming it is Labour, seem intent on keeping on much the same path but with a bit more spending on some areas of infrastructure.

I thought the main thing that economists are concerned about is the deficit rather than the debt?

I think all politicians confuse and conflate the two when it suits them, which is not great or me as I have a tenuous grip of it myself!

Could we make the state pension means tested? Same with DLA? Would help a bit, and you could have a high threshold say £30 000?

Dawndonna
I fully accept the abusive relationship problem. But they are a very small minority.

hm32
the basic state pension is a trivial amount : less than the basic personal allowance
What has changed is that pensioners no longer get a higher personal allowance - so if they have a private pension as well it is fully taxed.
Job done much more efficiently than means testing.

snoogy
but the retirement age is rising faster than life expectancy
and healthy old people are much loess of a burden on the state than ill old people - so investement in health care IS worth it.

The problem with means testing pensions (at least at the moment) is that it actually discourages saving.

Maybe once auto-enrollment is fully bedded in it would have a chance but given the opt out exists, unless you were very careful about how it was done you would get a whole bunch of people who don't understand about pensions concluding there was "no point saving" and those who are a bit more savvy balancing their saving and investments in different ways to keep them just under the income threshold.

You would end up with the only people who would be withdrawn being those on massively high incomes and the extra cost of means testing would probably invalidate those savings.

Statistically
Autoenrollment and means testing have nothing to do with each other.
Private pensions are nothing to do with the government.
The only bit they could ever means test would be the state pension and it is due to be set at around £144 a week - less than the personal allowance.

The NHS is an investment because good, appropriate, swift healthcare makes people better quickly - or allows them to return to the best life they can have given there's not always a cure - which allows them to play a full role in society, returning to work or volunteering or supporting their families and communities. Bad healthcare increases mortality, disability, and disruption, leaving people vulnerable and increasing unfitness for employment, family breakdown, poverty and a whole load of other social ills. It costs more if someone has shit care and ends up frequently being re-admitted to hospital, often via A&E which is particularly expensive.

Some Tories either don't understand this or choose to ignore it. That's why under the Thatcher and Major governments we had millions of people on waiting lists, leading to ridiculous situations where the waiting list for a certain heart procedure was so long that by the time people got to the top of the list they were either dead or mostly too ill to benefit.

Stupid cuts cost more money eventually.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that it is acceptable to have such a wealth gap in this country that there are thousands of children living in poverty and yet there are multi millionnaires, but its the most vulnerable in society that are really suffering as a result of this debt.
I am not saying that the rich should all be taxed to high heaven, but it appears that benefit cuts are a big focus and I think these should be the last to be cut, personally.
It makes me sad that if it wasn't for charity (food banks etc) there would be people in the uk actually starving.

Also I don't understand why pensioners benefits can't be means tested when everything else is? Either it's too costly, or it isn't. I'm not seeing the logic there.

erm, that wasn't what i meant talkinpeace. I can assure you I know what auto enrollment is. My point was that at the moment many people are not use to contributing to a private pensions. Once auto-enrollment is fully embedded and paying towards a pension has become the norm for more people then gradually means testing could be introduced without killing off savings rates. But at the moment it would just cause people to opt-out or not save.

Foreign Secretary Hague dismissed the £10million we are paying for Mrs T's funeral as if it were pocket money. If he's not worried about our debt than neither am I.

The funeral's only somewhere in the region of 15p per person in the country, so I think you'd be right not to worry about the cost of that.

statistically
but I do not have a personal pension.
deliberate decision.
I will actively opt out when each of my four employers auto enroll me
BECAUSE
fees on pension funds run at 3% a year while returns run at 2% a year
so even with the "tax benefit" I am burning my money on the altar of the men in red braces.

I have savings and plans, but they do NOT include "pension scheme" - UK personal pensions cost 3 times those in Germany - because their market is regulated. Nuff said.

Cat98
the wealth gap in the UK is far, far, far less than that in most of the developing world. You need to read the business pages of the broadsheets more.