The Real Cost Of Britain's Debt Mountain

[pet]

£78,000 for every family... thanks to Labour

The true size of Britain’s debt mountain can be revealed today as £2trillion – nearly £80,000 a household.

Previously ‘hidden’ liabilities including the cost of public sector pensions and building projects are being published by the Treasury.

They show that future payments to retired teachers, police officers and NHS staff will cost taxpayers £1.1trillion, or £1,100billion.

The enormous figure, which is equal to 80 per cent of Britain’s output, is treble the combined national debts of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

My link

[winkie]

'@ promise to pay the bearer on demand'.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Well, i've paid back about 20K off that in lost savings interest so far.

Thank's Gordon.

[Lepista]

Well, i've paid back about 20K off that in lost savings interest so far.

Thank's Gordon.

Unlucky - you're a working household, so have to pay for your two neighobours as well. Don't suppose they told you that.

Wonder what the £80k figure is if you divide it into the number of (non-state) workers?

[bendy]

Unlucky - you're a working household, so have to pay for your two neighobours as well. Don't suppose they told you that.

Wonder what the £80k figure is if you divide it into the number of (non-state) workers?

meh, the sectors don't matter.

[Milton]

At the end of 2009-10 the real national debt stood at £7.9 trillion, over £300,000 for every single household in Britain

Ive done my bit.

Ive given away thousands in interest, [or was it stolen from me?]

And Ive been forced to waste tens upon tens of thousands in rent. [was that stolen from me too?]

When I would have tens upon tens of thousands in capital, if our corrupt government had regulated the banks in the interests of the people they were elected to represent.

I'd have to be a complete ******ing moron to work for another decade for nothing.

Lets just get some ropes and pikes and stand outside parliament.

Make a large number of examples. Blow up a few banks on Canary Wharf....that kinda thing.

They certainly deserve it.

People just do not seem to realise the severity of the problem

In 1696, Sir Issac Newton was appointed Master of the Mint and was responsible for taking in the old currency and reissuing new coins, which would be difficult to shave or to counterfeit.

He presided over the prosecution of several alleged counterfeiters including the notorious Chalenor

Chaloner had large stocks of forged blank paper and began producing his own new £100 bank-notes. Surprisingly, this did not become a felony until 1697

Sir Isaac Newton had him hung, drawn, and quartered, for attempting persistently to undermine the pound sterling. And rob the people.

Thats hung to his death. Then his body cut in half. Then his body cut in half again. It was a major undertaking for Newton to kill this fellow, and he stayed on the job year in and year out until this fellow was dead, and in pieces, …….. publicly.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Dan1

[LuckyOne]

Merge?

[opt_out]

I'm not sure how useful it is adding up public pension liabilities to infinity. You could do the same for future NHS costs or any other cost.

The pension libilities need to framed against other future costs on an annual basis. ie we need to estimate what a future balanced budget will look like: how big will the debt interest be, how much will be paid in public sector pension, etc.

[right_freds_dead]

i thought once PFI and the rest of the IOUs were added it was more like -£303,000 per household ?

[right_freds_dead]

£78,000 for every family... thanks to Labour

and its NOT thanks to new labor. its thanks to greedy property shits and their portfolios and the moronic banks that lent them money that didnt really exist. the fairest way is for the property owners to take the hit, rather than spread their greedy downfall among everybody else.

also, the conservatives developed the concept of BTL in 1996.

i HATE it when the finger points to one party.

that party didnt take out all the loans. it was the stupid public.

[R K]

It does not include future liabilities that will likely accrue.

It only includes liabilities already accrued by staff as 'promises'. It merely treats these promises as 'debt'.

What is yet to be spent is yet to be added to these totals.

It's not 'debt' though is it. It's a future gross liability.

It ignores future taxation, maturities, currency movements or even the effect of those gross liabilities being recycled back into the economy.

One might as well add up all the tax being that has been evaded and will be evaded by corporates, private equity, Barclays in Cayman island trustees etc etc to give a total for stolen assets.

They're largely meaningless numbers. One man's liability is another man's asset etc etc.

[robo1968]

It's not 'debt' though is it. It's a future gross liability.

It ignores future taxation, maturities, currency movements or even the effect of those gross liabilities being recycled back into the economy.

One might as well add up all the tax being that has been evaded and will be evaded by corporates, private equity, Barclays in Cayman island trustees etc etc to give a total for stolen assets.

They're largely meaningless numbers. One man's liability is another man's asset etc etc.

Phew.... for a minute there I thought we were massively in debt while running a huge deficit

[scottbeard]

I'm not sure how useful it is adding up public pension liabilities to infinity. You could do the same for future NHS costs or any other cost.

The pension libilities need to framed against other future costs on an annual basis. ie we need to estimate what a future balanced budget will look like: how big will the debt interest be, how much will be paid in public sector pension, etc.

It's not 'debt' though is it. It's a future gross liability.

It ignores future taxation, maturities, currency movements or even the effect of those gross liabilities being recycled back into the economy.

The fact is that even if we decided to close every school and every hospital tomorrow, we would STILL as a nation have to pay over a TRILLION pounds from future taxation to pay the pensions ALREADY PROMISED to teachers and doctors based on their service in the past.

And a promise to pay a retired doctor is really no different to a promise to pay a bondholder - either way it is money the government has not yet received in tax, but has already committed to spend.

[monks]

i HATE it when the finger points to one party.

Why? Does it make you feel partly responsible for voting for said party in the first place ?

It WAS the fault of ONE party. The only blame that can be levelled at the other two (main parties), is that they didn't raise any objections, but that hardly mitigates blame from the party THAT WERE IN POWER DURING THE WHOLE SORRY AFFAIR.

Labour preceded over this mess, spent beyond their means (what a surprise), ensured lax regulation in the financial sector, and had the cheek to claim credit for it all due to Browns "prudence".

[mikthe20]

Why? Does it make you feel partly responsible for voting for said party in the first place ?

It WAS the fault of ONE party. The only blame that can be levelled at the other two (main parties), is that they didn't raise any objections, but that hardly mitigates blame from the party THAT WERE IN POWER DURING THE WHOLE SORRY AFFAIR.

Labour preceded over this mess, spent beyond their means (what a surprise), ensured lax regulation in the financial sector, and had the cheek to claim credit for it all due to Browns "prudence".

Much as I hate and blame Labour for what they have done, which I equate to treachery, the Tories were awful in opposition and barely spoke against high house prices, increasing debt levels, ultra-low interest rates and lack of banking regulation. Those policies were popular - people felt rich as part of the ponzi scheme - and the Tories did very little as they did not want to be seen as party poopers. Only person who really warned about it with any effect was Cable.

[EvilEdna]

The Tories were promising to match labour spending plans before the debt crisis kicked off. There is no link between the political persuasion of a government and its tendency to acqrue debt. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try contrasting the financial positions of Denmark and the US.

[Quicken]

Why? Does it make you feel partly responsible for voting for said party in the first place ?

It WAS the fault of ONE party. The only blame that can be levelled at the other two (main parties), is that they didn't raise any objections, but that hardly mitigates blame from the party THAT WERE IN POWER DURING THE WHOLE SORRY AFFAIR.

Labour preceded over this mess, spent beyond their means (what a surprise), ensured lax regulation in the financial sector, and had the cheek to claim credit for it all due to Browns "prudence".

What has the coalition done differently? PFI is positively thriving in the 'austerity' regime. See e.g.:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/george-osborne-backs-pfi-projects

http://www.regen.net/Housing/article/1079567/shapps-signs-off-salford-pfi-housing-deal/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8582771/Coalition-turns-to-discredited-PFI-scheme-to-build-schools.html