Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Need To Cut Deficit Supported, Suggests Poll

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11181833

Many people are in favour of taking steps to reduce the government deficit but they are less clear on where spending should be cut, a poll commissioned by the BBC suggests.

Six out of 10 of the 500 people asked if they were in favour of reducing the deficit said they were, in the poll by Globescan for BBC World Service.

But there was significant opposition to cuts in some areas of public spending.

Some 82% of 1,000 people surveyed were against education and healthcare cuts.

And 66% opposed cuts in military spending.

The telephone survey of 1,000 UK adults was conducted for the BBC between 28 June and 5 July 2010 by the international polling firm Globescan, together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Some questions were asked to a half-sample.

Focus

The poll asked about taking steps "in current economic conditions" to reduce the government's deficit and debt.

The findings showed 60% said they were in favour, 33% were against, and the rest did not know - broadly in line with other recent polls.

When it comes to public spending, the government has already said it will not reduce NHS funding.

It has indicated education and defence will not be immune from spending cuts but will see smaller reductions than other departments.

I wonder how this poll will look if repeated in 6 months time?

You also wonder how many actually interpreted the question of reducing as reducing the debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tut tut! Everyone is in favor of cuts that affect other people. That's why foreign aid is such an easy target!

If you think planning NIMBYism is bad, wait until the serious lobbying over the proposed cuts begins......

There'll be no turkeys voting for Christmas in any of the Quangos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? To create a feel -good schadenfreude factor? Or are there good economic reasons for replacing spending on salaries with spending on benefits?

The cost of their salaries will be far less than the cost of the their benefits. This level of public spending is completely unsustainable and the sooner it is addressed the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? To create a feel -good schadenfreude factor? Or are there good economic reasons for replacing spending on salaries with spending on benefits?

Benefits cost less.

But you don't necessarily need to make people redundant, you can instead not replace leavers or you can cut pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of their salaries will be far less than the cost of the their benefits.

In many cases I suspect the difference is marginal, and where it isn't there will be a knock-on effect on reduced spending in the private sector. This is bad for a country where the service sector accounts for roughly 70% of GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? To create a feel -good schadenfreude factor? Or are there good economic reasons for replacing spending on salaries with spending on benefits?

Employing someone in the public sector is vastly more expensive than keeping a person on welfare. This is particularly true when the role in question adds marginal value to the economy (Diversity Officer/Media Studies Lecturer).

The country is hemorrhaging money and the losses must be stemmed as an immediate first step. Then, and only then, can we look at trying to grow our way out of trouble. We are up to our eyeballs in hock, and we need to stop borrowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of their salaries will be far less than the cost of the their benefits. This level of public spending is completely unsustainable and the sooner it is addressed the better.

The cost of employing someone in the private sector is usually approx 1.12 times their salary. This is because of National Insurance etc. In the public sector, the cost is closer to 1.25 times salary because of pension liabilities etc (very approx figure, age and length of service dependent). So unless the person can claim a raft of benefits, letting them go may well be cheaper. There is also the saving of cutting/reducing whatever service that they were supposed to be providing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many cases I suspect the difference is marginal, and where it isn't there will be a knock-on effect on reduced spending in the private sector. This is bad for a country where the service sector accounts for roughly 70% of GDP.

Why does making a public sector unemployed stop money being spent in the private sector? After labour's profilgacy there should be layers of middle management that can be stripped out with the only effect being that someone else needs to work a bit harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need to stop borrowing? What are the consequences of continuing to borrow?

1. We borrow so much that people stop lending to us, or they charge a premium to lend to us. Google Greece.

2. We borrow so much that a significant % of they annual tax take is spent servicing the interest on the debt. Ireland cut spending by 10% of tax take the last 2 consecutive years, and it only equated with 1 years interest payments on the debt (€6bn). Do we want to get that badly stuck?

Edited by John The Pessimist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does making a public sector unemployed stop money being spent in the private sector? After labour's profilgacy there should be layers of middle management that can be stripped out with the only effect being that someone else needs to work a bit harder.

Eh? Are the newly unemployed going to buy a house, change their car, book an exotic holiday? Public sector redundancy payments aren't particularly generous, are they?

As for 'working a bit harder' , how will that result in the necessary increase in spending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Are the newly unemployed going to buy a house, change their car, book an exotic holiday? Public sector redundancy payments aren't particularly generous, are they?

As for 'working a bit harder' , how will that result in the necessary increase in spending?

We don't need a 'necessary increase in spending' ie increased wealth consumption, what this country needs is an increase in wealth creation.

Underlying everything we need an increase in producitivity which is helped by people working harder, more efficiently and more effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if more of the money the government spends goes to servicing the debt there will be less money to spend on things that affect 'the man in the street'.

If that's how it works, it seems a pity we have allowed ourselves to get stuck down this blind alley in the first place.

Why didn't you warn us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Are the newly unemployed going to buy a house, change their car, book an exotic holiday? Public sector redundancy payments aren't particularly generous, are they?

As for 'working a bit harder' , how will that result in the necessary increase in spending?

So, taking money out of the private sector to give to the public sector to spend in the private sector inreases spending? It's like saying someone going round breaking windows will help the economy. I think you've been listening to Gordon and Ed for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need a 'necessary increase in spending' ie increased wealth consumption, what this country needs is an increase in wealth creation.

Underlying everything we need an increase in producitivity which is helped by people working harder, more efficiently and more effectively.

I can see why my boss would like this argument. What's in it for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the 4 out of 10 who aren't in favour?

Probably the same people who were still voting for Brown/Labour after 12 yrs of Labour nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.