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

Government Borrowing Worst October Figure In Six Years

Recommended Posts

Public sector net borrowing (PSNB) rose £1.1bn in October compared with the same month a year ago to £8.2bn, official figures show.

That is the highest level of borrowing in October in six years.

The government has borrowed £54.3bn so far this year and is making slow progress on meeting the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) forecast.

These figures mean Chancellor George Osborne will need to restrict borrowing to just £15bn between now and April.

While not impossible - January usually sees a surplus thanks to an influx of self-assessment income tax receipts - it remains unlikely that the chancellor will meet the £69.5bn OBR forecast without severe cuts at next week's Autumn Statement.

The previous annual borrowing figure was £90.1bn.

The Treasury said the figures showed the job of rebalancing the economy was "not yet done". [more at link]


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34877455

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government Borrowing Worst October Figure In Six Years

and last year it was likely the worst in 5 years and the year before that it was likely the worst in 4 years and the year before that ...........................

It looks as if October records only began in 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osborne must rejoice every time he hears how austere he's being (that's not to say that he's not cutting back/being austere in some sectors of the economy).

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.5% increase in pensions and mass influx of low paid workers claiming in work benefits doesnt seem to fit with cutting the deficit.They say "not yet done",id say "not yet started".

Considering we look like facing another big leg down in the economy with deflation everywhere George might be in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the run up to the autumn statement, there have been tons of people appearing in the media to tell us how vicious austerity has been so far.

Looks like austerity isn't as vicious as everyone likes to make out. I see austerity as just tuff talk to make the markets believe in the UK, rather than any concerned effort to drop the deficit (those efforts ended around 2012!!)

Edited by reddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one of your relatives dies due to these cuts (as one of mine has) maybe some of you in your ivory towers will admit that austerity is 'tough'.

The reason it isn't working isn't because there haven't been cuts, its because he hasn't got growth. Nor will he via this route. Austerity is a discredited economic theory by the vast majority of academic economists. If you disagree - prove it.

He could easily get this economy going again and pay down the debt with growth by building enough houses and taxing big business at the same rate as small businesses have to pay - but he won't do that because he wasn't put into Government to be fair or do what every mainstream economist knows needs to be done - he was put there for one reason only. To make the 1% even richer.

Edited by sikejsudjek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt the original thrust of 'rebalancing' to move from a finance/house price/credit based economy to a somewhat more export and manufacturing based one, ie a more 'germanic' model (given they seemed to weather the credit crunch better than some)...

ie (June 2010)

What is more the forecast shows a gradual rebalancing of the economy, with business investment and exports playing a greater role and government spending and debt-fuelled consumption a smaller role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/7846849/Budget-2010-Full-text-of-George-Osbornes-statement.html

At what point did Osbourne decide to change the meaning of rebalancing to adding private debt instead of government debt (ie the 1997-2006 norm)

I'll give it to the tories, I didnt think they could keep the charade going this long...they're lucky the yanks havent moved on rates yet...when that happens (according to both Martin Armstrong and Karl Denninger it will, both citing impending pensions doom if they don't) Osbourne's going to look a right clown...any sense he'll do a brown and get a darling type to take the heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one of your relatives dies due to these cuts (as one of mine has) maybe some of you in your ivory towers will admit that austerity is 'tough'.

The reason it isn't working isn't because there haven't been cuts, its because he hasn't got growth. Nor will he via this route. Austerity is a discredited economic theory by the vast majority of academic economists. If you disagree - prove it.

He could easily get this economy going again and pay down the debt with growth by building enough houses and taxing big business at the same rate as small businesses have to pay - but he won't do that because he wasn't put into Government to be fair or do what every mainstream economist knows needs to be done - he was put there for one reason only. To make the 1% even richer.

By that logic anyone who is unlucky enough to die in a head on collision could blame transport policy for not turning a single carriageway road into a dual carriageway, or anyone raped by a foreigner could blame immigration policy.You could literally make a case for any death or injury being 'governments fault. NHS spending up from £33bn in 1997 to £115bn today. Even with an ageing population and somewhat bigger population, its hard to accept 'cuts' are the reason any individual might die. Not sure why you mention austerity. This isnt Greece. The money supply hasnt contracted outside of a very short period in late 2008.

I accept there are exceptions, what exact cuts do you think are related to the death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one of your relatives dies due to these cuts (as one of mine has) maybe some of you in your ivory towers will admit that austerity is 'tough'.

The reason it isn't working isn't because there haven't been cuts, its because he hasn't got growth. Nor will he via this route. Austerity is a discredited economic theory by the vast majority of academic economists. If you disagree - prove it.

He could easily get this economy going again and pay down the debt with growth by building enough houses and taxing big business at the same rate as small businesses have to pay - but he won't do that because he wasn't put into Government to be fair or do what every mainstream economist knows needs to be done - he was put there for one reason only. To make the 1% even richer.

Claims like this do nothing but discredit Osborne's critics. I don't agree (very strongly don't agree) with some of his policies, but the UK has had growth and inequality has decreased. There's plenty to criticize, but claiming that there's a lack of growth and that it's just going to the 1 percent makes for a pretty groundless basis for your argument.

(I would provide the data, but you can find it for yourself in 15 seconds on google, and I'm prioritizing sleep right now over pointless debates on the internet. -_- And sorry for your relative.)

Edited by richc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the austerity. Got to keep the BBC Question Time audiience happy. If the bankers can get away with it, sure as hell we are worth raping the Exchequer too.

A balanced budget by 2020 :lol:. F88k you unborn, we are worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic anyone who is unlucky enough to die in a head on collision could blame transport policy for not turning a single carriageway road into a dual carriageway, or anyone raped by a foreigner could blame immigration policy.You could literally make a case for any death or injury being 'governments fault. NHS spending up from £33bn in 1997 to £115bn today. Even with an ageing population and somewhat bigger population, its hard to accept 'cuts' are the reason any individual might die. Not sure why you mention austerity. This isnt Greece. The money supply hasnt contracted outside of a very short period in late 2008.

I accept there are exceptions, what exact cuts do you think are related to the death?

http://calumslist.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one of your relatives dies due to these cuts (as one of mine has) maybe some of you in your ivory towers will admit that austerity is 'tough'.

The reason it isn't working isn't because there haven't been cuts, its because he hasn't got growth. Nor will he via this route. Austerity is a discredited economic theory by the vast majority of academic economists. If you disagree - prove it.

He could easily get this economy going again and pay down the debt with growth by building enough houses and taxing big business at the same rate as small businesses have to pay - but he won't do that because he wasn't put into Government to be fair or do what every mainstream economist knows needs to be done - he was put there for one reason only. To make the 1% even richer.

By that logic anyone who is unlucky enough to die in a head on collision could blame transport policy for not turning a single carriageway road into a dual carriageway, or anyone raped by a foreigner could blame immigration policy.You could literally make a case for any death or injury being 'governments fault. NHS spending up from £33bn in 1997 to £115bn today. Even with an ageing population and somewhat bigger population, its hard to accept 'cuts' are the reason any individual might die. Not sure why you mention austerity. This isnt Greece. The money supply hasnt contracted outside of a very short period in late 2008.

I accept there are exceptions, what exact cuts do you think are related to the death?

Here here. It reminds me of the woman on question time who blamed benefit sanctions for the death of her brother. He was diabetic, he couldn't pay the electric bill, the electric was cut off and his insulin went bad. Apparently the autopsy found half an orange in his stomach, or something like that. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-clapson-benefit-sanctions-death-government-policies

What this overlooks is the fact that the guys sister has a responsibility to look out for her family that trumps the level of responsibility that either the government or the rest of society has. We are overthrowing millenia of evolution in favour of making some government beaurocracy responsible for each others welfare. The 'welfare state' are those people who exchange cards with each other at Christmas and sit around the dinner table together, you know, family.

There was another case in the news where the suicide of a middle aged woman was blamed on her having to move out because of the 'bedroom tax'. It's the welfare dependency that is the primary cause of death, the unavaliability of insulin is the ultimate cause, in the same way that whilst jumping of a skyscrapper is not immediately fatal, (hitting the ground is), any thinking person will agree that it was the jump in the first place that is primarily responsible for the death.

I remember when Blair won in 97, my Dad warning me about what was in store with a labour government. We are a working class family. Both my parents and all my siblings worked. We did well, we lived in a six bed semi, we had a boat and a family holiday once a year. Then it all started to go horribly wrong. A young women in our immediate family disappeared for a while. Turns out she was busy knocking out three kids with a drunk, unemployed layabout. All on benefits of course. She initially cut of all contact with us, only to make a reappearence several years, later when the guy died. She was then put up in a council house with her three kids. Didn't work. Avoided contact with the outside world. She then became addicted to some computer game. Worried neighbours called the police, who broke in and put the kids into care. The story was featured in the newpapers and went kinda 'viral' I guess you could say. It was presented as a story about the dangers of game addiction. The story was reposted on gamer forums and commented on as an example of the danger of excessive computer gaming. No one really knew it was socialism, welfarism, the welfare state, Gordon Brown, Karl Marx, Tony Blair, Owen Jones and their ilk that was ultimately responsible for what happened to her. There is somewhat of a happy ending. When the kids where taken away, she complained briefly about no longer being able to afford taxis, but once she was over this trauma, she ....... drum roll please ............. got a job! BUT!!!!! kudos to those who know whats coming ............ she only works 16 hours a week, and is very careful not to let her hours go over the threshold.

Since then I have seen another immediate family member go the same route. Three kids, different fathers. She once worked, but after getting a small cosmetic burn she sued her employeer for a few thousand and has since quit work. Knocked out the three kids, these are being housed, fed and educated at the state's expense. Free house. I avoid all contact with her, but I have overhead her complaining to my mother about how the kids will be x and y years old, and they will have to share a room! Oh the inhumanity! She has no possiblity of ever being able to support her kids without state support. She has never worked anything more advanced than a casual job. She has no career history. She treats the fathers like disposable sperm doners. I now live abroad, but recently bumped into her in the local supermarket. I looked at her, turned away and just walked on. She was called out to me a couple of times thinking that I hadn't seen her. She doesn't understand how much contempt I have for her chosen lifestyle, and the government policies that have made it all possible.

There are yet more going down the same route. Yet another young female member of my immediate family is now pregnent with her first. Doesn't have a job, isn't married to the father. That's okay, the state will finance everything.

I no longer live in the UK. I visit from time to time. Socialism has broken and destroyed my family. Fortunately I have the intelligence to recognise this force for what it is. I like to think of the dangers of socialism as a bit like Pythagoras theorem. Most people are unable to understand the Pythagoras theorem. There is a slice of the population at the top of the intelligence pile that know what it is and how to use it. There is an even smaller subset of these people that have the intelligence to show why it is true. Socialism is the same. Most people don't understand what dangers they are getting themselves into. There is a slice of the population (including me) who can see the dangers and take steps to avoid being ensnared in it's tentacles, most people however are toast. They don't recognise it as a trap.

I've recently read a book called 'Why Nations Fail' by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. In it, the authors makes the incredible claim that governments don't always want their nations to grow economicaly, or their citizenry to enjoy a higher standard of living. I didn't understand this at first, but the reasoning is that governments primarily look out for thier own interests. Economic growth is allowed only up a point that it benefits them. Labour governments encourage the emergence of a huge client state, that is dependent on the government for it's survival. (I point of view I have encountered numerous times on this forum). The current conservative government (I excluded the Thatcher administration from this characterisation) encourage landlordism and rent seeking behaviour in the economy. They encourage economic growth in the sense that it allows their interests to better extract wealth from the masses. Again, this is a view that I have frequently encountered on this forum. It looks like this forum has got at least this much figured out. Note that from this point of view, both governments will be in favour of mass immigration and further integration with the European Union.

Real asuterity would be massive cuts across all departments with the exception of defense. Yes, there will be a lot of losers initially, but if you want to make an omlette you got to break some eggs. In the long run we will all be better off. Set a 0% corporate tax rate. Disband local councils and scrap the council tax. Rubbish collection can be done by the private sector. The fire brigade can be funded by the house insurance companies. There should be no tax on fuel. If there is no money at the end of month just default. Not to the bond holders who have financed this whole mess, but to the benefits claimers. Just say, sorry, can't pay you this week, but we'll try next week. If you don't like it, get a job in one of the new industries springing up in our new tax haven country.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my little rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt agree more.The welfare system is a disaster.However it seems a government elected to deal with it before we reach tipping point fell at the first small hurdle of cutting tax credits by around 6-8%.

They hoped inflation would help sort things with a four year freeze,but we are in a deflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free shit army has grown to such a size now that only collapse and some sort of reset can fix things. If any government tries to take things away there will be uproar from the masses.

If I felt that the current state of affairs were in any way going to last long enough to get to retirement I would probably join them. It makes me feel physically sick to go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay student loan, pay extortionate amounts of tax, and pay extortionate rent to be financially worse off than a unemployed single mother with 3 kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that the benefits system is over generous, I don't think the approach to cut benefits is fair,

What is really needed is a massive reduction in living costs,

That would upset a different set of people, those who own houses and those who lend money.

Cutting benefits and credits are just a cack handed way of cutting rents. We shouldn't be hoisting unnecessary hardship on people while others are raking it in.

If you want a more productive society, make it cheap to live reduce wages and then jobs will be created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt agree more.The welfare system is a disaster.However it seems a government elected to deal with it before we reach tipping point fell at the first small hurdle of cutting tax credits by around 6-8%.

They hoped inflation would help sort things with a four year freeze,but we are in a deflation.

Im normal times it would -- 5% a year for 5 years (one term of parliament) and you'd have a real reduction of ~30%

Not normal times. Not normal benefit spend now.

To be honest, these were 'nice' reductions. They would have skimmed some of the higher payouts.

The nasty options is that there is a hard benefit cap of 25k brought in - TCs included.

Followed by changes to housing benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that the current UK shows - large scale immigration plus a stupidly generous in-work benefit system ruins a country's finances.

Seriously, if we had 3m+ 'hard working' immigrants the UK tax revenues would be gushing cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free shit army has grown to such a size now that only collapse and some sort of reset can fix things. If any government tries to take things away there will be uproar from the masses.

If I felt that the current state of affairs were in any way going to last long enough to get to retirement I would probably join them. It makes me feel physically sick to go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay student loan, pay extortionate amounts of tax, and pay extortionate rent to be financially worse off than a unemployed single mother with 3 kids.

Just another day in the socialist dystopia brother.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   92 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.