Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Gordon Brown's 'costs Of Failure' Will Reach £256 Billion

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...56-billion.html

Social security payments will cost almost £200 billion in four years time, accounting for one pound in every four that the Government spends.

Combined with a debt interest bill of more than £63 billion, items Gordon Brown once called “the costs of failure†will absorb more than a third of all Government spending.

Leaked Treasury documents have revealed the Government’s own bleak forecasts for rising welfare payments and debt interest costs.

The figures, which were not revealed in this year’s Budget, show the scale of the damage that will done to the public finances by rising unemployment and the soaring national debt.

The papers show that the Treasury expects to pay out £193.4 billion on social security benefits in 2013/14. Paying interest on the Government’s outstanding debts will cost £63.4 billion.

Total Government spending in the same year will be £758.3 billion. Welfare and debt interest will be 33.8 per cent of that total.

Around 6 million people in Britain are estimated to claim some sort of employment-based benefits, and the figure is set to rise.

Official figures released on Wednesday showed that unemployment reached has 2.47 million, the highest since 1995. Most economists expect the total to peak at around 3 million early next year.

In his 2000 Budget, Mr Brown described money spent on debt and welfare as “the costs of failure†and lauded Labour’s record in reducing those payments.

He said: "Our promise was to reduce the costs of failure – the bills for unemployment and debt interest – in order to reallocate money to the key public services."

Now, Mr Brown’s own figures reveal how those costs are set to grow dramatically.

Already the largest single item in the budget, by 2013/14 spending on social security will dwarf every other item of Government expenditure.

For example in 2010/11, total spending on the NHS in England will be £107 billion.

Total spending on the Ministry of Defence will be £36.7 billion.

The welfare bill will also absorb more money than every worker in the country pays the state in income tax. In 2009/10, the Treasury is expecting to take in £140.5 billion in gross income tax receipts.

The steep rises in spending on those items will contribute to a sharp squeeze on budgets elsewhere in Whitehall. Governments have little control over how much they spend on welfare and almost no say over how much interest they pay on their debts.

Between April 2011 and March 2014, total social security spending will grow by 4.4 per cent in real terms. And debt interest payments will balloon by 112 per cent.

By contrast, the “departmental expenditure limit†– which sets out the total envelope for Whitehall departments – will fall by 9.28 per cent in real terms.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the figures show the "dire reality" of the public finances.

He said: "If even the Government, who are not known for their accurate forecasts of public spending, are expecting to see such massive social security and debt bills years down the line, then things are really bad. Such massive bills would place an unsustainable burden on taxpayers, which would hobble the economy when it should be growing out the recession."

I can only assume the Queen is a prise idiot, if she had any loyalty to her country she would remove this idiot from office forthwith and remove his head.

We are totally screwed anyone who thinks this is sustainable is totally deluded, the govt has borrowed money to pay off mortgage interest on peoples debt generating massive debt and interest charges the country cannot afford.

Brown has run a scorched earth policy because his ego can't deal with the fact he is a failure.

The man is a delusional liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...56-billion.html

I can only assume the Queen is a prise idiot, if she had any loyalty to her country she would remove this idiot from office forthwith and remove his head.

We are totally screwed anyone who thinks this is sustainable is totally deluded, the govt has borrowed money to pay off mortgage interest on peoples debt generating massive debt and interest charges the country cannot afford.

Brown has run a scorched earth policy because his ego can't deal with the fact he is a failure.

The man is a delusional liar.

It is sustainable....until after the next election, then after all those bought votes have be counted the axe will fall. And it will all be blamed on the new adminstration...public assets will have to be sold to private companies (Ref Lib Dem plans to sell the motorways.....I wonder who's boat those guys parted on this summer?) to cover the shortfall.

And we will all pay the "Price" in the long run.

...Tis "The Rothschild Way!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another misleading article where "social security payments", "welfare bill", and "benefits" are used interchangeably with no explanation of what is included. The £193.4 billion figure mentioned includes pensions and other benefits which are paid to pensioners (e.g. 40% of Housing Benefit). How many people think of the state pension as a 'benefit'? The rising "cost of failure" reported is largely due to people living longer and demographic changes -- more post-war baby boomers retiring. The sum for benefits paid to children and the unemployed is much less.

This article uses a figure of £74 billion for spending on "benefits"...

'Benefits plan to 'make work pay'' [september 2009]:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8257673.stm

The report says the proposals would cost £2.7bn a year -- on top of the £74bn already being spent on benefits.
Edited by CrashConnoisseur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder why "most economic experts" would say that unemployment will peak at around 3 million early next year.

Just based on wishful thinking surely?

I'm sure it will get to 3 million but will not stop there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...56-billion.html

I can only assume the Queen is a prise idiot, if she had any loyalty to her country she would remove this idiot from office forthwith and remove his head.

We are totally screwed anyone who thinks this is sustainable is totally deluded, the govt has borrowed money to pay off mortgage interest on peoples debt generating massive debt and interest charges the country cannot afford.

Brown has run a scorched earth policy because his ego can't deal with the fact he is a failure.

The man is a delusional liar.

i keep saying the madman will be as infamous as John Law

another idiot who convinced people to mortgage their future

still some thought they were rich for a while and then devastation was the result

we can hope Gordon suffers the same fate as John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
It is sustainable....until after the next election, then after all those bought votes have be counted the axe will fall. And it will all be blamed on the new adminstration...public assets will have to be sold to private companies (Ref Lib Dem plans to sell the motorways.....I wonder who's boat those guys parted on this summer?) to cover the shortfall.

And we will all pay the "Price" in the long run.

...Tis "The Rothschild Way!"

Indeed

The bankers have contrived 'A No way out' scenario

The country has been competely asset stripped of anything valuable. We are entirely at their mercy.

When the curtain finally falls on the postwar era, we will be living in hell. I do not use the word lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only assume the Queen is a prise idiot, if she had any loyalty to her country she would remove this idiot from office forthwith and remove his head.

Don't hold your breath. The Queen must literally bow down and ask permission before she enters the City, so she's not the one giving the orders to Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
Don't hold your breath. The Queen must literally bow down and ask permission before she enters the City, so she's not the one giving the orders to Brown.

Yep

That's quite correct

The Queen has to seek permission to enter the City of London. She is met at Temple Bar by the Mayor of the City of London.

The City of London is the Rothschild's manor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep

That's quite correct

The Queen has to seek permission to enter the City of London. She is met at Temple Bar by the Mayor of the City of London.

The City of London is the Rothschild's manor.

THE CROWN TEMPLE

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the “Crown,†which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown†and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.†From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.

All licensed Bar Attorneys in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.

The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,†as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attorneys who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.

The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London. The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.

Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attorneys Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but “legalâ€, Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our so-called “judiciary†in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.

Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church.

This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213. Charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same,

“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.â€

Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:

"We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm."

Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.

Note from Ed:

Although I agree almost totally with the above information, as my understanding goes, the Vatican fell into the hands of the Satanic banking family of Rothschild around 200 years ago. So although there are many out there who point the finger at the Vatican or the Jesuits as the real powerhouse that controls all, as stated in the info above "He who controls the gold rules the world", which means if the Rothschild hold the papal gold and control his purse strings - who indeed is the more powerful?

"Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), a City of London Rothschild-controlled international bank and the biggest bank in Europe. (The logo of UBS is three keys in the form of the Star of David or hexagram.

In reality, it is the bastardized Vatican logo, incorporating the two keys of Vatican with the Crown of the Pope removed, signifying City of London Jewry’s Masonic control of the Vatican and Vatican Bank."

0013729e4a9d0afc5d4816.jpg

City of London Corporation Coat of Arms:

london_city.jpg

Remember

Pirate flags were Red with White (later black and white? a modern invention?)

The Templars of the Crown

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the “Crown,†which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown†and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.†From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.

First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple “Church†is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution.

All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) �" in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not.

This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.

The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800’s, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people.

These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the “Crown.†Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers.

The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,†as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.

The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent “legal†- but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people.

The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s judiciary.

Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta.

This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as "Code". Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts.

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/8-12-03/d...ion.cgi.69.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another misleading article where "social security payments", "welfare bill", and "benefits" are used interchangeably with no explanation of what is included. The £193.4 billion figure mentioned includes pensions and other benefits which are paid to pensioners (e.g. 40% of Housing Benefit). How many people think of the state pension as a 'benefit'? The rising "cost of failure" reported is largely due to people living longer and demographic changes -- more post-war baby boomers retiring. The sum for benefits paid to children and the unemployed is much less.

This article uses a figure of £74 billion for spending on "benefits"...

'Benefits plan to 'make work pay'' [september 2009]:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8257673.stm

4.5 billion is spent on the unemployed( includes staff cost, jsa etc.., 25 billion spent on child benefit. pension is a massive 130 billion or there abouts, they never report the facts. when they mention benefits the public automatically thing money on the unemployed.

easy saving would be tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle6837508.ece

Public spending: the black hole is deeper than I thought

Leaked Treasury figures suggest an even tougher outlook than the late 1970s, when we had to negotiate with the IMF

It is always a good idea to pack warm clothes for the political parties’ autumn conferences, which get under way with the Liberal Democrats in breezy Bournemouth this weekend. But this year the delegates will need to pack hairshirts too, as debate will be dominated by the looming squeeze on public spending and the likelihood of further tax increases.

The scale of the challenge was underlined in dramatic fashion yesterday when the Conservatives released leaked Treasury documents. These showed the potential cuts in Whitehall spending on public services and administration implied by the relatively innocuous projections for total public spending that the Government published in the Budget. They suggest a tougher outlook than at any time since the last Labour Government was negotiating its spending plans with the IMF in the late 1970s.

The officially published Budget forecasts showed total public spending broadly flat in real terms on average over the three years of the next spending review: 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the leaked documents show that over the same period the Treasury expects debt interest payments to rise by 11.1 per cent a year, social security costs by 1.4 per cent a year and other “annually managed expenditure†(such as public sector pension payments and contributions to the EU) by 3.1 per cent a year.

If you take these increases out of the flat profile for total spending, you are left with “departmental expenditure limits†— broadly speaking, what Whitehall has to spend on public services and administration — falling by 2.9 per cent a year in real terms or 8.6 per cent in total after three years. (Our best guess until yesterday had been cuts of 2.3 per cent a year or 6.7 per cent in total: gratifyingly close, but not quite pessimistic enough.) This comes on top of a 0.8 per cent cut during the forthcoming financial year that the Budget was upfront about.

Of course, these figures are not set in stone. They may look different in the Pre-Budget Report later this year (assuming that the Treasury lets us in on the secret). The outlook for debt interest and social security costs is certainly hard to predict with confidence.

But the figures underline that the Government’s rhetoric has borne little relation to its arithmetic. The Prime Minister found a succession of increasingly unconvincing formulations over the summer to avoid admitting that the Budget figures implied cuts in spending. And even his long-awaited admission to the TUC on Tuesday that Labour would “cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets†does not quite capture the scale of the challenge. One might have hoped that the first three at least of these would have been trimmed to the bone already.

Whether to stick with the Budget projections for spending on public services is only one of a broader set of judgments about how to fill the hole that the crisis has punched in the public finances. This or a future government will have to decide how big a tightening is necessary, when it should start, how long it should take and how the pain should be spread between tax increases, cuts in the generosity of social security payments and cuts in public services.

The Government’s current view — as embodied in the Budget — is that we need to see tax increases and spending cuts eventually totalling 6.4 per cent of national income or around £90 billion per year in today’s terms. This would be sufficient to offset the increase since the 2008 Budget in the amount that the Treasury thinks it would need to borrow to bridge the gap between spending and tax revenues once the economy has fully recovered.

So we are in a worse position than the 70's, way to go Ponzi Brown!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.