UK Debt and the Cuts that have to be made!

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: paraphi

I'm all for cutting.

But not for disabilty.

These cuts are going to force these vunrable people below the poverty line.

What would be the point in them even living if all they can afford a life when they have to choose between beans on toast or heating?
And a social life is a no no.

You advocate making people unemployed. ie . living off £73 a week, yet you condemn taking £30 a week off the sick and disabled who are, at a minimum on £130+ a week depending on what they are claiming. £130 is the lowest rate BTW after 6 months, it could be as much as £250+ per week depending on what they are claiming, leaving them more than enough to get by.?

Unemployment is a fate worse than Death. Try having to pay your way on £73 a week. That's what you are suggesting happen to people.

a reply to: paraphi
Austerity is nothing at all to with living within our means, however with your second paragraph you are at least partly correct. There is a decision about how big we want the state to be but that is a political decision and nothing to with if we can afford it or not.
The 2008 recession was not in anyway caused by the government overspending. In fact the only reason it wasn't much worse was because we were running a deficit.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: paraphi
Austerity is nothing at all to with living within our means, however with your second paragraph you are at least partly correct. There is a decision about how big we want the state to be but that is a political decision and nothing to with if we can afford it or not.

This is what austerity means...

"Austerity is a state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits."

"Difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure:"

The 2008 recession was not in anyway caused by the government overspending. In fact the only reason it wasn't much worse was because we were running a deficit.

Please explain how you come to that conclusion in your second sentence.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

There is a massive difference mate. People who become unemployed can at least try to get another job. Lot's of disabled people don't have that luxury at all.

Before you put words into my mouth, I am not advocating making people unemployed with what I have just written. (shame I have to write this)

a reply to: 83Liberty
The 2008 recession was not caused by government spending but by a collapse in confidence in financial institutions (largely as a result of bad private sector landing). As private sector demand reduced the only thing preventing the economy spiralling even further down the drain was government spending.
The correct course of action (as was partially done but not insufficient amount or in the correct way) when the economy is in a down turn is to increase the deficit therefore inject funds into the economy.
Attempting to balance the budget will only further reduce aggregate demand, therefore reducing tax intake and creating a downward economic cycle of falling demand and falling tax receipts.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So basically it wasn't the deficit that stopped us from collapsing further then. It was continuing spending/investing.

Two different things.

a reply to: 83Liberty

Agreed. The cuts on disability are cruel for anyone who is genuinely disabled.

I don't care about cuts to those who are bull#ting for their money though. I know quite a few who chuckle at the pub because there's # all stopping them work, and while I personally wouldn't grass anyone up for such minor fraud compared to the fraud of the corporations, I did chuckle in the face of one guy last week who told me they'd cut his money lol.

Given the choice of a system which is abused by bull#ters, or a tight restrictive system which causes genuine people to suffer, I'd choose the system prone to abuse.
One disabled person suffering when tax money could fix it is one person too much for me.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Let me put it in a more polite way.

Those who are able bodied and on jobseekers CAN GET A JOB!

JSA is not meant to fund a long term life style it meant as a stop gap between JOBS.

Disabled people can’t get jobs. Therefore there benefits needs to fund a long term life style.

a reply to: 83Liberty
No because the deficit is a net transfer into the private sector.

Besides which as the private sector went into recession tax receipts inevitably declined. If we ran a balanced budget then government spending would have had to decline also and so deepen the recession.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dont matter where the corrupt bastards attempt to lay the blame end of the day its the poor, homeless and disabled people of our nation that will suffer at the expense of austerity.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Disabled people can’t get jobs. Therefore there benefits needs to fund a long term life style.

I am not pulling you up for this because I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but... Many disabled people work. Some of the current cuts may erode the ability of some disabled to work, if some of the stories in the media are not overly alarmist.

A general comment though. Disability covers a range of physical and mental impairment and many people with disabilities should work, rather than using their problems as a reason not to work. My brother in law has a disability, but works. Other's with the same problems can chose not to work.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Discotech

If it's anything like the US, the debt is owed to a variety of entities. Mostly in the the form of bonds.
In the US, greatest portion is domestic.
www.systemswiki.org...

I would imagine that the UK would be similar.

Yep. The majority of debt is owed to ourselves, mostly pension funds who purchase guaranteed government bonds to ensure a guaranteed return for pensioners. Now, anyone thinking about this carefully has wonder why it is so ultra important to reduce the debt asap. There is no rush especially considering the very low interest on that debt (almost zero!).

FYI, austerity over here is not about reducing debt. An old saying allows one to see what is really going on :

"Action speaks louder than words"

Ignore the words look at the consequences (actions) of austerity, and there are two :

1. Increased debt (DUH!)
2. Shrunken state.

The aim of austerity is to shrink the state and have people dependant on charities just like they did 150 years ago during the victorian days.......hmmm

Food banks in the fifth richest country in the world is an obscenity just as it is in the richest over the pond and reflects a failed economic model.

a reply to: yorkshirelad
There are different types of debt. However, the one that taxpayers need to be concerned about is government debt that is accumulated by borrowing money to pay for government spending.

In 2015 £43 billion was paid servicing debt i.e. interest payments. That's £43bn too much. This is the cost of living beyond our means.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Because even though the debt is to ourselves if we default on it then the pound will take a catatrophic hit.

It will lose confidence with investors. Not only are a good number of our jobs dependent on a strong pound but seeing as how we have to import something like 40% of our food a worthless pound would be very bad.

a reply to: paraphi

That £8 Billion the UK pays (net) each year on EU membership fees could easy cover the £1.2 Billion cuts in Personal Independence Payments, and reduce sovereign debt payments at the same time.
Plenty of solutions where there is will, but most folk aren't disabled so can let it slide.

Me, I'd cover PIP disability money in general income tax, whatever the 0.% figure it would be to my earnings, same with the NHS, even if it cost two pence in the taxable pound to fix both situations properly.
...I'll continue to legally avoid as much tax as I can though, it's a two way street with me and government, I'll follow the rules available to advantage as well, every time.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Let me put it in a more polite way.

Those who are able bodied and on jobseekers CAN GET A JOB!

JSA is not meant to fund a long term life style it meant as a stop gap between JOBS.

Disabled people can’t get jobs. Therefore there benefits needs to fund a long term life style.

Stephen Hawking seems to be doing alright and he's the most disabled person i've seen. I was at School with a girl with severe disability. She works for the DWP and has done since leaving school (35 years).

So many so called disabled sit all day on computers talking about their benefit cuts and what is wrong with them, Maybe they should get a job working at a computer all day. What's to stop someone with no legs working in a call centre. ?

just last week i saw a woman with two sticks run for a bus. Do you get what i'm saying yet.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Because even though the debt is to ourselves if we default on it then the pound will take a catatrophic hit.

It will lose confidence with investors. Not only are a good number of our jobs dependent on a strong pound but seeing as how we have to import something like 40% of our food a worthless pound would be very bad.

But if we owe it to ourselves, then why would we ever tell anyone we have defaulted. If I owed myself £1.5 Trillion, I would never repay myself, but would continuously keep borrowing from myself. Of course I would say I have re-paid myself, and no one would know any different.

a reply to: crazyewok
The UK cannot unwillingly default on its debt. The idea that the UK was or is somehow on the brink of bankruptcy was economically illiterate nonsense and politicians of whatever party that claimed this are either idiots or liars (or as seems likely both).