Deficit Reduction?
Discussion
Reading PH would give the impression that the Blue ties are reducing the deficit, however they seem to like spending just as much as the Red ties.
"The April figures for public borrowing were a new high for April. The government borrowed an extra £10 billion. They explained that this was more than April 2010 because in that month the government received the one off £3.5 billion tax on the banks. This has been replaced by a regular tax which does not come in in one lump.
What the detailed numbers show is that the main reason for the extra borrowing in April was extra spending. Public spending rose by £2.6 billion or 5% compared to the same month a year ago. Revenues were £42.9 billion in April 2011, compared to £43.2 billion in April 2010. In other words £3.2 billion of the £3.5 billion one off bank tax was replaced by other tax increases imposed since. Extra public spending is a far bigger cause of higher borrowing than revenue decline in these figures."
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/05/26/how-is...
"The April figures for public borrowing were a new high for April. The government borrowed an extra £10 billion. They explained that this was more than April 2010 because in that month the government received the one off £3.5 billion tax on the banks. This has been replaced by a regular tax which does not come in in one lump.
What the detailed numbers show is that the main reason for the extra borrowing in April was extra spending. Public spending rose by £2.6 billion or 5% compared to the same month a year ago. Revenues were £42.9 billion in April 2011, compared to £43.2 billion in April 2010. In other words £3.2 billion of the £3.5 billion one off bank tax was replaced by other tax increases imposed since. Extra public spending is a far bigger cause of higher borrowing than revenue decline in these figures."
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/05/26/how-is...
The blue ties are doing as much as a coalition govt will allow them to and although it's not as much as some of us would like, it's far more than the red ties would be doing. Of course none of this is of interest to you, because you want to play a different game entirely that's never going to happen.
Caulkhead said:
The blue ties are doing as much as a coalition govt will allow them to and although it's not as much as some of us would like, it's far more than the red ties would be doing. Of course none of this is of interest to you, because you want to play a different game entirely that's never going to happen.
Rubbish!Cameron is a socialist.
This has sod all to do with "coalition".
Has Nick Clegg demanded that we borrow money to finance an ever increasing Foreign Aid budget? No, he hasn't.
Don
--
don4l said:
Caulkhead said:
The blue ties are doing as much as a coalition govt will allow them to and although it's not as much as some of us would like, it's far more than the red ties would be doing. Of course none of this is of interest to you, because you want to play a different game entirely that's never going to happen.
Rubbish!Cameron is a socialist.
This has sod all to do with "coalition".
Has Nick Clegg demanded that we borrow money to finance an ever increasing Foreign Aid budget? No, he hasn't.
Don
--
they still have to borrow, you can't cut £200 billion from a £700 billion budget just like that, it has to be gradual.
And anyway, even by 2015 we'll still have a humungous budget deficit, all the coalition can do (and is doing) is get rid of the structural deficit, ie the shortfall between income and expenditure...
Labour's nice little war chest to leave with the country for 20 years.
And anyway, even by 2015 we'll still have a humungous budget deficit, all the coalition can do (and is doing) is get rid of the structural deficit, ie the shortfall between income and expenditure...
Labour's nice little war chest to leave with the country for 20 years.
F93 said:
they still have to borrow, you can't cut £200 billion from a £700 billion budget just like that, it has to be gradual.
Huge cuts could be made by simply saying "if we are currently paying for X then that payment will be frozen. If any new X comes along then it will flat rate only / single payment only / we won't pay it"For X start with benefits. It's the biggest single section of the budget by far and by cutting this way no one currently making a claim would be worse off. A system based on flat rates or single payments would be a lot simpler than our current obsession with means testing thus cutting a huge additional cost of paperwork while making it easier to claim.
If that last sentence strikes you as odd just consider that many people are far better off on benefits purely because of means testing, everyone trying to get back on their own feet is penalised by means testing and surely we should never have a system "for the needy" that puts so many barriers in the way of the needy claiming anything at all. Not long ago I helped an elderly relative fill in 80 (eighty) pages of forms just to get a bit of money for a home help to pop round twice a week, she could barely complete the first page. In the end we called social services to help and they sent someone round. The first thing he did was open his lap top! Anyone who thinks that means testing and making it harder to claim is the way forwards needs their head testing.
Compulsory 9 to 5 job club or workfare would provide help or experience respectively for those willing to try and mysteriously reduce the total number of claimants overnight.
After benefits do the same for all the other big cheque expenditures.
The current cuts seem to be a highly bureaucratic muddle of little bits here and little bits there with certain vested interests deliberately making the effects felt harder than they need to be.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff