Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crash2006

Future Generations Will Work Longer To Pay Off Britain's Debt

Recommended Posts

George Osborne hailed the findings as evidence that flagship policies are paying off amid growing concerns that about the pressure Britain's ageing population is putting on care budgets and public services.

I love that, if they were working then there would be no need to rise the pension age, so its not working.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10960560/Future-generations-will-work-longer-to-pay-off-Britains-debt.html

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if this tw4.t will take the applause for the future housing benefit bill.

No matter which way i look at this nation i cant but help thinking its screwed.

LOL , the housing benefit bill in 20 to 30 years is going to be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Father, it really bothers me that my Son who is 3 years old, will inherit an expectation that his generation of British Citizen, will have a National Debt of Trillions of Pounds. Little prospect of a decent home, unless I can scam a way to give him mine when I die less taxes. Dire employment prospects compared to myself when I was 16 years old and an education system micromanaged by Michael Gove.

Its time we changed the way we do things isnt it, unless lets face it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland isnt going to be worth a damn,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt will never be paid off.

Only secured debt that is covered by that debt can be paid off......the rest is anyone's guess.....all depends what you have got to lose. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proportionately the debt is lower now than it was in 1945. One of the main differences between now and 1945 and now though is that back then most people realised that allowing the top 1% to cream off an ever increasing amount of national income would never lead to an economy that would provide jobs that paid enough to not only provide the taxes to pay off the debt but also to provide healthcare, pensions and schools for future generations. Of course that all changed in 1979 when turkeys started to vote for xmas.

Edited by campervanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the birth rate amongst those with any decent earnings, I suspect once their parents are dead / emigrated themselves, these "future generations" will be off very swiftly. They'll have no house to keep them here either. Let the bidding by country for these productive earners of the future begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely that favours the indebted, who, arguably, caused the problem by recklessly borrowing more than they could ever hope to repay.

Before a single reckless borrower can exist there must first be a reckless lender.

So the argument then becomes who is best placed to evaluate risk- a skyscraper full of math PhD's or the local postman.

I can still remember the days when roughly 50% of my daily post consisted of letters from financial institutions offering to lend me money.

So in my view the lenders are at least as responsible for the mess and so they should take some of the consequences.

If lending money were risk free on what basis could they justify risk premia? Lending money is supposed to entail risk of losses- it's only because we live in the age of the bailout that the idea has taken hold that no lender should take a hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All savings are debt, all money is debt - so why would you want to remove debt?

If debt is wealth then the world has never been richer than it is today. Of course much of that debt represents overlapping and mutually exclusive claims on the same real world economy.

The real problem is not really debt- nothing is more simple to eliminate than debt- the real problem is deciding whose IOU's get paid out and whose don't.

And if there's one thing the 1% agree on- it won't be their claims that get trashed- even if every hospital, every pension scheme and every welfare system has to be gutted to pay them- they will get their pound of flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone outside the country has it?

This is the only reason IMO it has any significance.

National debt only matters a) if it is owed to someone outside the country and B) it is owed in something that is not under that countries control (in our case dollars, gold etc).

Otherwise it is just an accounting mechanism.

Since I think from charts that other people have posted approx 35% of the national debt is owed to foreigners, 65% of it can be written off at a stroke (in the same way as if one of your own bank accounts is in debt and the other is in credit, what matters is the overall difference, not what is in each of them).

Of course there will be winners and losers in this process. And of course the government won't do it all at once, it will unwind it slowly over time, like QE.

National debt is a big red herring IMO. Seems to me that the people who think it is a big issue are the people who think household economics=country economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, wrong..

No such thing as a free lunch. (For the UK)

In fact even for the US, they can last a lot longer because of natural resources. But even they will deplete in the end. The US may or may have already developed technologies that other countries need and can not recreate.

The UK has house prices and bankers.

Somebody somewhere is owed the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they taaxed every household an extra £200 a month their rent would drop by £200 a month wouldn't it?

Only house owners would be worse off. So the increase in national debt helps the rentiers doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they taaxed every household an extra £200 a month their rent would drop by £200 a month wouldn't it?

Only house owners would be worse off. So the increase in national debt helps the rentiers doesn't it?

Council tax went up from about £500 per household in 1997 to around £1.5k per household in 2007.

Did rents drop by £1k per household in that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before a single reckless borrower can exist there must first be a reckless lender.

All lenders are reckless when they know the money is free to lend and they can't lose......it is down to the borrowers to control their desires.

Just because you are given six credit cards available with £6k limit, doesn't mean you have go shopping and spend it all. ;)

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:   209 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.