Things can only get better...

#1
Provisional estimates of the public finances show that in August 2009 the public sector had:
• a current budget deficit of £12.8 billion;
• net borrowing of £16.1 billion

and at the end of August 2009:
• net debt was £804.8 billion, equivalent to 57.5 per cent of gross domestic product.




Public Sector : £12.8bn current budget deficit August

The public sector showed a deficit on current budget of £12.8 billion in August 2009, compared with a surplus of £7.7 billion in August 2008.

More generally, the public sector recorded deficits between 1991/92 and 1997/98 before moving into surplus in 1998/99. Deficits have been recorded since 2002/03.

An alternative measure of the public sector fiscal position is public sector net borrowing. This additionally takes account of capital investment. In August 2009, there was net borrowing of £16.1 billion, which compares with borrowing of £9.9 billion in August 2008. The Budget forecast for 2009/10 is net borrowing of £175 billion.

Public sector net debt, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 57.5 per cent at the end of August 2009, compared with 44.0 per cent at end of August 2008. Net debt was £804.8 billion at the end of August compared with £632.8 billion a year earlier.

The most recent figures for public sector net debt excluding Financial sector intervention are for June 2009, when net debt was £658.2 billion (46.9 per cent of GDP).
Thank god Gordon's running the shop. I'd hate to think how bad it would have been if New Labour was not at the helm.
 
#2
whitecity said:
Thank god Gordon's running the shop. I'd hate to think how bad it would have been if New Labour was not at the helm.
:lol:

The figures are absolutely staggering. 2/3/4 billions absolutely fcuk all these days, these incompetant b@stards throw around trillions like they're going out of fashion. Still, everythings alright as long as Gordon and Allister have enough paper and ink to feed the printing press 8O
 
#3
When I was in green, it always puzzled me why I should have to pay tax. It's not as if I was bringing money into the economy. The same goes for any one whose wage is payed by the government/taxpayer.
ie Here's your wage of £15000 per annum, but once you've been taxed, it's only £13000.(Figures for illustrative purposes only) No one is actually paying tax, it's like Jim Bowen saying 'Lets see what you could have won'

Why not state that 'you're just a leech, sucking the lifebreath out of the UK economy, please justify why you are entitled to take sick days, go on strike,etc when the rest off the people in The UK actually have to work for a living.
How many people in here are actually in a union, unless their job is supported in someway by The Taxpayer.

That's my tuppence worth, why should any one pay tax out of their earnings, when they are being paid out of the public purse

Edited once, you can beat an egg, but you can't beat cider
 
#5
Thank god Gordon's running the shop. I'd hate to think how bad it would have been if New Labour was not at the helm.
Indeed, we might be stuck with someone who thinks that having GDP fall by 20% in a year is a 'price worth paying' :roll:
 
#6
When nearly 2% of the working population is a civil servant (their figures), and then when you add all the personel working for the councils and other public bodies throughout the country, all coming out of the public purse, there is not a lot of people in this country who are actually contributing to actually bringing money into the cofers.
 
#8
 
#9
johnboyzzz said:
When nearly 2% of the working population is a civil servant (their figures), and then when you add all the personel working for the councils and other public bodies throughout the country, all coming out of the public purse, there is not a lot of people in this country who are actually contributing to actually bringing money into the cofers.
2%....?

There aprox 29 million people working in the UK
5.8 million of those work directly for the taxpayer, yes a staggering 20%ish of working people in the UK are paid for at the expense of the taxpayer. That takes no account of the quantity of people who's earnings are subsidised through tax credits

That means a nation of 62 million people or so are funded by nett contributors of around 24 million.

The NHS alone employs 1.3 million and is the worlds 3rd largest employer.

And yet Gordon seems unable to see why we are sinking fast.
 
#10
parapauk said:
Thank god Gordon's running the shop. I'd hate to think how bad it would have been if New Labour was not at the helm.
Indeed, we might be stuck with someone who thinks that having GDP fall by 20% in a year is a 'price worth paying' :roll:
Instead, we have Glorious Gordon, Mr Prudence himself. The man who reformed the UK economy so there would be no more 'boom & bust', the man who cannot find the honesty to tell the country that were his party to win the next election, they'd have to make swinging cuts in public spending. The man who thinks the way to solve the reliance on debt created imaginary wealth, is to encourage Britons to get even further into debt.

Yep, I'm so thankful that Gordon's running the shop. It could have been Pol Pot!
 
#12
jagman said:
There aprox 29 million people working in the UK
5.8 million of those work directly for the taxpayer, yes a staggerinf 20%ish of working people in the UK are paid for at the expense of the taxpayer.

That means a nation of 62 million people or so are funded by nett contributors of around 24 million.

The NHS alone employs 1.3 million and is the worlds 3rd largest employer.

And yet Gordon seems unable to see why we are sinking fast.
Soviet Britain
Across the whole of the UK, 49% of the economy will consist of state spending, while in Wales, the figure will be 71.6% – up from 59% in 2004-5. Nowhere in mainland Britain, however, comes close to Northern Ireland, where the state is responsible for 77.6% of spending, despite the supposed resurgence of the economy after the end of the Troubles.
Good of Cyclops to create such a nice balanced economy 8O
 
#13
Apparently the govt had to borrow several billion quid this month. Er, who exactly are they borrowing this loot from? Who could possibly be thick enough to trust a pack of goons like that. And what terms are these generous bungs being organised for I wonder?????
 
#14
If I remember rightly, a previous article had the North and North East at some 55% working for the State.

Where the feck does Secretary General Brown think all the money is coming from to pay these wages? Added to that is the welfare budget and as has already been stated, the outgoing far exceeds the income which any family elders gathering around the kitchen table would know that the belt has to be tightened and spending reined in.

Cutting Child Benefit payments to all those earning £40k a year or more, limiting Child Benefit payments to the first two born babies in any family and cutting benefits to families when the Kids reach school age would not only reduce the growing dependency on the State, but it would go along way to lowering the debt of the nation. I mean, if you're reliant upon Child Benefit to raise a family then you probably shouldn't be having a large family anyway. Also, to help people to invest in their own retirement cash ISA limits should be raised to £6k so that everyone can invest in their own future without being punished for being prudent.
 
#15
heard_it_all_before said:
If I remember rightly, a previous article had the North and North East at some 55% working for the State.
Is it any wonder that those people are the ones who vote Labour through thick and thin?
 
#16
A pretty good indicator of how the British economy is doing is the number of UK plated trucks running around Europe.


Well……………


Just spent two weeks bimbling about Europe's Highways - France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Switzerland and Italy.

Total number of UK trucks I passed in 2,000 road miles?

5
 
#17
Bearing in mind defence spending is near the top of most people's preference lists for spending cuts, brace yourselves for the results of the strategic defence review. It is not going to be a pretty sight.
 
#18
heard_it_all_before said:
If I remember rightly, a previous article had the North and North East at some 55% working for the State.

Where the feck does Secretary General Brown think all the money is coming from to pay these wages? Added to that is the welfare budget and as has already been stated, the outgoing far exceeds the income which any family elders gathering around the kitchen table would know that the belt has to be tightened and spending reined in.

Cutting Child Benefit payments to all those earning £40k a year or more, limiting Child Benefit payments to the first two born babies in any family and cutting benefits to families when the Kids reach school age would not only reduce the growing dependency on the State, but it would go along way to lowering the debt of the nation. I mean, if you're reliant upon Child Benefit to raise a family then you probably shouldn't be having a large family anyway. Also, to help people to invest in their own retirement cash ISA limits should be raised to £6k so that everyone can invest in their own future without being punished for being prudent.
Not ashamed to admit my household takes the family allowance and under your proposals I would be at a net loss. However I agree, it's probably money that could be better invested elsewhere. One quetsion though, if I am not going to receive it why should I be taxed to give it to other peoples families?
 
#19
Thanks for the Economist Chart WhiteCity - fascinating.

The way I see it, this is still do-able. The question is whether successive governments keep nibbling or accept that the state is living beyond its means and either: a) follow the European model and raise taxes (accepting that there will be real pain until the cost of living (especially housing) falls to the European norm), or b) follow the US model and take a big-ticket item or three out and slaughter them. Given current indications, my money would be on expeditionary Defence, Secondary Healthcare and Secondary Welfare (i.e. people wouldn't starve, but that would be it).

Not sure if any of the parties have the stomach for the US model though, at least until the state actually goes bankrupt.....
 
#20
BPS666 said:
One quetsion though, if I am not going to receive it why should I be taxed to give it to other peoples families?
That's the benefit of a Welfare State; You either have everything and ask for nothing, or you have nothing and expect everything...!

The only loser is the man/woman in the middle that has a little, but not enough... :(

Phase two of my master plan is to reinstate the lower 10p tax rate and to raise the 40% tax threshold to £40k plus.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads