Conservatives maintain that every working family now pays £3000 a year to fund lifestyles of those who do not work.

[moondog]

In addition, there are 3.9 million British households where nobody works-an increase of 200 000 over a decade.

Blimey.

it's truly shocking that those who are well off begrudge them anything.

hmm. problem is, whatever amount of money anyone has, they are never going to say 'no that's too much, have it back'.

i was suprised how generous the allowance was for our family. if it had been £50 less, would i have complained?
no.
if it now reduces by £50 - then i will feel hard done by. nature isn't it?

Of course, I am quite happy to claim every penny the state is willing to give. But i don't believe I couldn't cope on a little less. I certainly didn't claim to need CTc whilst earning 40k as a household, so I welcome that being trimmed....

Are there actually enough jobs for all the people in this country who are able to work? Aren't people who don't want to work doing the rest of us a favour by freeing up jobs for us?

probably not. but being conservative (mostly) they'll view the best way to solve the problem as creating the conditions necessary for business to thrive instead of employing a whole bunch more people in pen-pushing jobs within the nanny state.

notes my plan for this year involves getting job in state sector

Hope you get one, Edgar. I have a state sector job (not pen-pushing, clinical) and I'm hoping to continue to have it, but it's getting a bit scary.

This will only continue to get worse, and eventually there will be open revolt by the people who pay the majority of taxation, leading to the whole system collapsing. Sooner or later we have to get used to the idea that people on benefits should not be having children.

Some are paid even bigger sums than £3.000 in bonuses, work and create a huge big mess.

Oh those Tory comedians, how they make me laugh.

The cuts they are planning will make 500,000 unemployed, and a further 250,000 from knock on effects in the private sector.
Then there are the job losses from the VAT rise.

Furthermore, there are already 20 people who are economically inactive to every job vacancy. This is from the governments own statistics.

The deficit was under control (at no more than 3%) for the entire period of labour government. It was the banking crisis that pushed it out of control! But remind me, what size bonus are the bankers getting this year?

"The deficit was under control (at no more than 3%) for the entire period of labour government. It was the banking crisis that pushed it out of control! But remind me, what size bonus are the bankers getting this year?"

During Labours entire period in office they only managed to live within their means for four years, for every other year they spent more than they earned and added to the debt mountain. And before any Tory seizes on those appalling figures I'd like to point out that the previous Tory Government only managed to balance the books for two years.

Having to effectively live on credit cards to pay the bills is quite simply not a wise move, you're just adding to the pile of debt that at some point is going to have to be addressed and you're becoming used to a lifestyle that is beyond your means.

And that is not having an economy "under control".

Yes the banking crisis did push the budget deficit higher. But surely the prudent reaction to a loss of income (which the banking crisis caused) is to take control of your spending? But no, the Government kept on going with a lifestyle that in the good years it couldn't afford and just drove the debt higher. In fact Government spending was increased as incomes were going down. Quite insane.

Reaching a situation where 25% of Government spending is being funded by borrowing is not the fault of the banks. And blaming the banks allows the politicians who are responsible for it to dodge the blame.

We're in a mess because pretty much every Government since WW2 has spent more than it's earned and just left the growing debt to be dealt with by a future generation while they enjoyed living a life they couldn't pay for. Well it appears that that future generation is now us and the politicians have been given the opportunity to hide behind the banking crisis while they try and fix 60 years of their financial mismanagement.

Badger - while comparing government to a household budget is simple and familiar, its not quite the same thing.

But we can use this example. Instead of credit cards, a better comparison is with buying a house. While paying £200,000 or even £1 million is certainly beyond your means in any one year, taking on this debt means you are not paying rent, you have a nice house to live in, and in the future you will own it outright. You manage your finances so that you can afford to pay the interest and the loan. This is what the government did - it invested in the country, in infrastructure, education, health, etc.

The crisis was like a child getting into trouble (eg put in jail?) and you had to borrow more money than you could afford to bail him out. This child is a big risk taker, most of the time he earns quite a lot of money but also spends a lot on alcohol and fast cars. The family has cut back on treats, (less sports, holidays or trips to the cinema) but now you are really worried about the debt and are considering asking the children to sell their cars and contribute more to the family purse. In the meantime, the risk-taking child is back on his feet and back in his old ways, and is just about to buy himself a new very expensive sportscar.

Would you still ask the other children to sell their cars, or would you ask the child you bailed out to help you pay off the debt himself?

"But we can use this example. Instead of credit cards, a better comparison is with buying a house."

OK let's go with the comparison.

Looking at a families spending pattern you'll see that most of the time they spend less than they earn. Then, occasionally, you'll see a big spike in spending which outstrips the earnings as a house is bought or perhaps an expensive car.

The Government has had the other pattern.

Very occasionally there's a brief spell when they live within their means, for the vast majority of the time they're funding their spending with loans, putting it on the credit card as it were.

"You manage your finances so that you can afford to pay the interest and the loan. This is what the government did"

That is what the Government did not do. For most of the time it could not afford to pay the interest and meet it's other obligations without having to resort to taking out yet another loan to cover it.

"it invested in the country, in infrastructure, education, health, etc."

When are those investments going to pay off?

Pretty much every Government since WW2 has spent more than it's earned, adding to the debt mountain, and we haven't seen a return on that.

And right now 25% of Government spending is borrowed money. Are you seriously suggesting that that 25% is all investment? Much more likely it's being borrowed to pay the bills and just scrape by. And it should be pretty clear that using credit to pay day-to-day bills is grossly irresponsible.

"Would you still ask the other children to sell their cars, or would you ask the child you bailed out to help you pay off the debt himself?"

What has happened with the bankers is more akin to a couple retiring and having made no financial plans, having spent their life spending more than they earn, now expecting their children to support them.

One of those children, the banker, seemed to be doing especially well. So the rules were changes to let him do even better. And then when the other children seemed to be struggling the parents said, "well we don't need you, the banker will support us." And still the parents keep spending more than they receive and the debt gets higher and higher.

And then the banker blows it. He's the only child of the family that's really making any money. If he goes bankrupt then the entire family is at risk and there won't be any money coming in. The family has become reliant on one child alone.

So the child has to be bailed out and put back on their feet because the consequences of doing otherwise are just too severe to contemplate.

Of course what should have happened was that child was given some strict conditions, but that didn't happen.

The parents should also never have become so reliant on that one child that they couldn't survive without the money coming from them.

The parents should have encouraged their other children to do diverse things so that one could be allowed to fail if they messed it up.

And when the years were good the parents should have been saving money and not continually borrowing more and more and more.

If you can't keep your head above water and survive on your income in the good years what hope do you possibly have in the bad?

And as to paying off the debt well if that child turns around and says "I am not responsible for your financial mismanagement, I paid you plenty of money for years, why did you keep overspending?" then who can blame them.

If the Government had lived within it's means, if it had made provisions during the good years, if it had a diverse range of industries in the country and if it hadn't become so used to living a lifestyle funded by debt then this country would be in a far better state.

And I'm not blaming Labour for this, the previous Conservative Government was even worse when it came to balancing the books.

The debt has been allow to balloon for years with every Government thinking that some other Government in the future would sort it out.

That time appears to have finally come.

thanks for the reply but can you be more concise please? I have other things to do!

I can summarise for him. You are wrong. He is right.

Is that concise enough for you?

"Niceguy", being 'right' is not dependant on writing the longest post.

But its hilarious that youve identified badger as male. Is that because only men like the sound of their own voice so much that they would waffle on for two pages? (with no consideration for others)