Uk In Surplus For January

[cheezemonkhai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17109999

So it's not working then right?

Total public debt has moved below £1Tn and it looks like the cuts might well be bringing things in the right direction.

So remind me Mr Balls (or Lol) how spending more is going to sort out the fundamental mess we're in?

Edited 22 February, 2012 by cheezemonkhai

[gadgetman]

So I'm confused why borrowing is still going up?

['daiking']

So I'm confused why borrowing is still going up?

Because this is just one month.

Not unlike the the fuss over inflation.

[jrw]

Also this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

Ed Balls - 'He said that such a cut should be funded by borrowing, not more spending cuts.'

Great thinking - Borrow your way out of debt......They will be on the phone to Ocean Finance soon to consolidate if we let labour have their way!

[cheezemonkhai]

Because this is just one month.

Not unlike the the fuss over inflation.

Exactly!

Every year we borrow 100bn plus of extra money, that we just don't have and can't afford.

This just shows that in January we made a surplus, that's higher than the last 4 years. So the total debt pot is jsut under 1Tn.

Give it until the end of the financial year and we'll be back up there.

That's the things with the cuts, we are just borrowing less each year, rather than actually cutting. This is why there is no choice but to actually get rid of structural overspending, such as large amounts of none essential public spending, contracts and even jobs.

The it's not working cruft that keeps getting spouted everywhere, however still takes a blow here, because if we, as a country, can go from borrowing 120bn every year, to making a £5bn-10bn surplus every month, then we'd be in a massively better position and actually start paying off all that debt.

The reason I posted was as a point on all the look we've cut something you evil people posts that come up.

As for the above link where Mr Balls says lets cut taxes and fund by borrowing...

Is he seriously saying we should help all those poor home owners who've overstretched themselves and all those people who decided to live beyond their own means, by borrowing and effectively taxing future generations, which would hit the poorest most?

Doesn't sound like a very 'fair' policy to me. More an attempt to buy votes by saying the right thing.

Edited 22 February, 2012 by cheezemonkhai

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Also this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

Ed Balls - 'He said that such a cut should be funded by borrowing, not more spending cuts.'

Great thinking - Borrow your way out of debt......They will be on the phone to Ocean Finance soon to consolidate if we let labour have their way!

brilliant! "hello quick quid, yeah this is mr balls"

['daiking']

Also this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

Ed Balls - 'He said that such a cut should be funded by borrowing, not more spending cuts.'

Great thinking - Borrow your way out of debt......They will be on the phone to Ocean Finance soon to consolidate if we let labour have their way!

Where "****" Ed seems to think he has the moral high ground is that he knows that if you put money in the pockets of the welfare dependent poor, they'll spend it. Where as typical conservative plans to allow the rich to keep their money results in them hoarding it rather than spending which is seen, economically, as not fair.

What **** Ed fails to spot is that i) we don't have the money to give, ii) anyone can spend money they don't have for growth but is it really beneficial? iii) the poor will spend the money on foreign stuff exacerbating the problems we have.

On top of that he is a thoroughly unlikable person.

The UK economy is like a functioning alcoholic. The only difference between the coalition and labour at the moment is whether it should wait till lunch for it's first drink of the day or whether it can get away with can of lager with breakfast.

[jrw]

Where "****" Ed seems to think he has the moral high ground is that he knows that if you put money in the pockets of the welfare dependent poor, they'll spend it. Where as typical conservative plans to allow the rich to keep their money results in them hoarding it rather than spending which is seen, economically, as not fair.

What **** Ed fails to spot is that i) we don't have the money to give, ii) anyone can spend money they don't have for growth but is it really beneficial? iii) the poor will spend the money on foreign stuff exacerbating the problems we have.

On top of that he is a thoroughly unlikable person.

The UK economy is like a functioning alcoholic. The only difference between the coalition and labour at the moment is whether it should wait till lunch for it's first drink of the day or whether it can get away with can of lager with breakfast.

Sorry you got the first line wrong, it should read:

Where "****" Ed seems to think he has the moral high ground is that he knows that if you put money in the pockets of the welfare dependent poor, they'll vote Labour.

I mean how dare the current government even mention capping benefits at £26k a year.......I don't even earn that working full time.....

[Babs]

I know! Absolutely mental that people can get £26,000 of benefits (which is roughly a "salary" of £35,000!) without lifting a finger!

['daiking']

Sorry you got the first line wrong, it should read:

Where "****" Ed seems to think he has the moral high ground is that he knows that if you put money in the pockets of the welfare dependent poor, they'll vote Labour.

I mean how dare the current government even mention capping benefits at £26k a year.......I don't even earn that working full time.....

I don't know that it does, voting levels amongst this group is still comparatively low. The client state created by public sector employment is another matter.

[cheezemonkhai]

I know! Absolutely mental that people can get £26,000 of benefits (which is roughly a "salary" of £35,000!) without lifting a finger!

Now remind me, isn't £35k (plus tax free allowance) currently the limit for higher rate tax payments.

So what they're saying is that benefits claimers should continue to be allowed the same as a higher rate tax payer, without any tax.

If they take home more than higher rate tax band (post tax) in benefits, does this mean we can stop them getting child benefits?

[Babs]

It's £35k, including the allowance, so you're not taxed on your allowance, then 20% on allowance to £35k, 40% over £35k, etc

['daiking']

Now remind me, isn't £35k (plus tax free allowance) currently the limit for higher rate tax payments.

So what they're saying is that benefits claimers should continue to be allowed the same as a higher rate tax payer, without any tax.

If they take home more than higher rate tax band (post tax) in benefits, does this mean we can stop them getting child benefits?

1st sentence, yes cos you say (+ pers. all.)

2nd sentence not really true

3rd no that won't be happening. There's a story on the Beeb at the moment, after an epic fail last time about a benefits family, there's another one. It ok, this time the guy works and claims. No suggestion of anyone losing child benefit next year for these families. Presumably because the CB changes are per earner based not families. Hence the similar injustice that a couple earning £80k may keep it and a single earner family on £43K loses it. Marginal tax rates for those people, I'm one, defy belief.

[Babs]

Like most other things it should be based on household income, not individuals. How is it so hard to see?

Alternatively, if you can't afford kids, don't have them...

[cheezemonkhai]

1st sentence, yes cos you say (+ pers. all.)

2nd sentence not really true

3rd no that won't be happening. There's a story on the Beeb at the moment, after an epic fail last time about a benefits family, there's another one. It ok, this time the guy works and claims. No suggestion of anyone losing child benefit next year for these families. Presumably because the CB changes are per earner based not families. Hence the similar injustice that a couple earning £80k may keep it and a single earner family on £43K loses it. Marginal tax rates for those people, I'm one, defy belief.

And there are people out there who say it's not broken?

That's totally bonkers. Benefits should never pay out (long term) more than you'd get on minimum wage.

IMHO it should be significantly less.

I can't have kids yet (Lucky world) because I can't afford them.

I can't afford them, partly because I 'm paying for everybody elses through taxation.

The current system seems to me, to be directing us to produce lots of kids who know the way forward is to do nothing, then stick your hand out for money, rather than working your own way out of a problem. This doesn't bode well for the country.

Edited 22 February, 2012 by cheezemonkhai

['daiking']

Alternatively, if you can't afford kids, don't have them...

That's not the point. In this particular case there is a perverse incentive not to earn more and even to avoid paying tax.

The consequences? Personally, the money Is saved on behalf of my children somewhat proving I don't need it. However, after it is withdrawn, I will continue to save the equivalent amount thereby removing the spending of that money in the wider economy. Not my problem.

In a wider context, the sort of social contract you might believe in is non-existent. Everyone is on the take, the rich and the poor. It is not possible to sit out this game so you better learn the new rules. Hence the grinding suffocation of the economy. The numbers will go up, some of you will do alright but life as most people know it will not be getting better any time soon.

It's the seasonal effect of tax receipts, creating January's surplus, principally because taxes are bloody high. Plenty of room to squeeze the pips further.

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Alternatively, if you can't afford kids, don't have them...

YES YES YES YES YES!! My and my mrs want children, but not until we are stable financially, which will be after I have paid for everyone else's by the looks of things. :think:

[rum4mo]

matt1chelski, I remember giving that answer to friends of my parents over 30 years ago, their response was that you'll never be able to safely afford to have a family - so just get on with it and make some sacrifices. I must confess that eventually that is what we did, but, at least for me, that decision was a bit scary in case it all went wrong job wise.

[gadgetman]

matt1chelski, I remember giving that answer to friends of my parents over 30 years ago, their response was that you'll never be able to safely afford to have a family - so just get on with it and make some sacrifices. I must confess that eventually that is what we did, but, at least for me, that decision was a bit scary in case it all went wrong job wise.

+1You'll be amazed how your priorities change and you find the extra cash.

[cheezemonkhai]

+1You'll be amazed how your priorities change and you find the extra cash.

So in that case if the benefits are cut for those households to the not insubstantial sum of £26k post tax, then they'll reprioritise and find the extra cash for their kids?

Maybe cut back on sky, mobiles, booze and the like.

Perhaps cook food from raw ingredients so it's cheaper per potion and healthier rather than eating pre-made meals or jars etc?

[Babs]

So in that case if the benefits are cut for those households to the not insubstantial sum of £26k post tax, then they'll reprioritise and find the extra cash for their kids?

Maybe cut back on sky, mobiles, booze and the like.

Perhaps cook food from raw ingredients so it's cheaper per potion and healthier rather than eating pre-made meals or jars etc?

:rofl:

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

30 Years ago we did not have so many young people with no discipline, no work ethic, no respect and no condoms. Take my brother, worked for a few months after leaving school with no grades. Apart from that he has sat on his arse and claimed JSA for doing sweet FA. As long as he arrives with a bit of paper saying he has done a few things to look for work each week/fortnight he gets his money. While being "out of work" he has created 2 children with 2 very stupid girls which we are all now paying for too, he isnt alone either, the amount of people locally who are seemingly making a "career" out of having kids and sponging is sickening.

I probably could afford a child now, but I want to be in a position where we still have a pot to ****, a nice home to bring him/her up in when its arrives, not constantly struggling for money.

[cheezemonkhai]

Asside from the usual diversion that these threads tend to take (I'm as guilty as any), it'll be interesting to see just how bad it really is when the February figures come out.

[Soot1e]

What about us Grandads, we are supporting our Grandkids in one way or another and 30 years ago I couldn't afford children but I still had them. It seems that the working section of the population of the UK is paying for everything---well it's true and thats not going to change whichever political party is in charge, things never change.

PS. I think I've had too much wine tonight.

[gadgetman]

Asside from the usual diversion that these threads tend to take (I'm as guilty as any), it'll be interesting to see just how bad it really is when the February figures come out.

2nd week of March isnt it?