By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Labour money forest on 23:49 - Jul 9 by Jack_Meoff
As much as I dislike both Blair and Brown, I'm still curious as to which part of GLOBAL financial crisis people struggle with.
I just got round to finally watching "Inside Job". It's a fantastic documentary about the activities leading up to the global financial crash. For people to blame it all on Labour is ignorance of the highest order.
3
Labour money forest on 12:47 - Jul 10 with 2102 views
Labour money forest on 11:28 - Jul 10 by Headmaster
I just got round to finally watching "Inside Job". It's a fantastic documentary about the activities leading up to the global financial crash. For people to blame it all on Labour is ignorance of the highest order.
Correct - far more complex than that.
Although Brown was a complete tw*t making it public that we wanted to sell our gold...
- Banks in America lending money to people who were a high level of risk..ie. they couldn't really afford to take on the level of debt and the repayment plans they were on.
- Why were banks doing this? Because the Clinton administration was urging them too, to stimulate home ownership among the poor (The politics of it, as usual, was coming from a good place...well intentioned) but unfortunately there were unforeseen consequences, because...
- That high risk debt had been packaged up in complicated debt vehicles (along with a lot of other debt....some high risk shite bets and some low risk good bets) and sold off to banks/financial institutions all around the world. Which meant that once the high risk debtors couldn't pay there was contagion bringing banks down who had nothing to do with the origins of the bad loans.
How was this situation allowed to happen? Because of the failure of financial regulators EVERYWHERE across the Western world to police these activities...mostly because the financial regulators didn't understand the industry they were supposed to be regulating, not a scooby, and were in fact incentivised to turn a blind eye (much like the recent furore concerning fire regulations and building control post Grenfell Tower.)
In this country, when the crash hit the Labour party had been in power for more than a decade. They were in charge of the regulators. Gordon Brown had in fact done his level best to cosy up to the UK banking industry and had done his fair share of deregulating, he believed in "light touch" (I believe they were his words) regulation of financial markets. This meant that the UK banking sector were up to their necks in this bad debt and had to write a lot of it off...which would have seen many of them go out of business. It was Gordon Brown that decided to step in and bail out these incompetents (again, for good reasons...he believed to not do so would hurt the rest of us and I think that on this matter he was right...but for some inexplicable reason the bail outs were arranged in such a fashion that nobody at these banks and these regulators who were RESPONSIBLE for our part in the crash were held ACCOUNTABLE.
The result of these actions was that when the Labour Party left office the UK government were spending something like 11% (in terms of our GDP) more money than tax income generated by UK citizens....this is the actual source of our spiralling debt that the Labour party so often try to pin on the Tories. The national debt was going to increase at 11% a year unless either; 1) we made cuts to what we were spending OR 2) the Private Sector grew providing increased tax receipts.
In reality the private sector, even at the best of times, was never going to make up the shortfall nevermind in an environment where banks were lending less to consumers (obviously given the circumstances) and there was no growth anywhere in the Western world's economies (again, obviously given the circumstances) our biggest markets. Therefore cuts had to be made and quickly, as we had as large a deficit as Greece (in terms of percentage of GDP) we were up against the clock...if that deficit didn't shrink the interest rates on the money the UK borrows goes up...which would mean that eventually we would be habding over billions as a nation just to service the interest and our country AND FUTURE GENERATIONS would have been trapped in a debt spiral.
There was a General Election. The Tories won it but didn't have enough for an overall majority. The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA. It was widely understood that Labour didn't actually want to be in government at that time because they knew that cuts were inevitable and the scale of them would be deeply unpopular. A coalition government was formed...it didn't have to be so, the Lib Dems could have been as utterly selfish and extremely irresponsible as the Labour Party...and we, together with the Tories, did our best to rebalance our economy and grow the private sector while making the necessary cuts.
Those irresponsible tvvats in the Labour Party castigated us and opposed every single NECESSARY cut...and today they seek to make out that austerity was a choice (because all political parties like to dish out bad news to voters everywhere, pissing people off and losing support, don't they?) and that it is the Tories fault that the national debt has grown to what it is today.
So, in conclusion... yes it is complicated and yes multi-millionaires in the city (both here and the US) have got away scott free with utter incompetence which we and our kids are paying for but let's not pretend that it had nothing to do with those on the left...both the Clinton administration and the Labour party FULLY played their part, Also, there should be no doubt that the Labour party are a bunch of lying, charlatans and...with the way they have behaved since Corbyn's mob got in charge...SCUMbags.
- Banks in America lending money to people who were a high level of risk..ie. they couldn't really afford to take on the level of debt and the repayment plans they were on.
- Why were banks doing this? Because the Clinton administration was urging them too, to stimulate home ownership among the poor (The politics of it, as usual, was coming from a good place...well intentioned) but unfortunately there were unforeseen consequences, because...
- That high risk debt had been packaged up in complicated debt vehicles (along with a lot of other debt....some high risk shite bets and some low risk good bets) and sold off to banks/financial institutions all around the world. Which meant that once the high risk debtors couldn't pay there was contagion bringing banks down who had nothing to do with the origins of the bad loans.
How was this situation allowed to happen? Because of the failure of financial regulators EVERYWHERE across the Western world to police these activities...mostly because the financial regulators didn't understand the industry they were supposed to be regulating, not a scooby, and were in fact incentivised to turn a blind eye (much like the recent furore concerning fire regulations and building control post Grenfell Tower.)
In this country, when the crash hit the Labour party had been in power for more than a decade. They were in charge of the regulators. Gordon Brown had in fact done his level best to cosy up to the UK banking industry and had done his fair share of deregulating, he believed in "light touch" (I believe they were his words) regulation of financial markets. This meant that the UK banking sector were up to their necks in this bad debt and had to write a lot of it off...which would have seen many of them go out of business. It was Gordon Brown that decided to step in and bail out these incompetents (again, for good reasons...he believed to not do so would hurt the rest of us and I think that on this matter he was right...but for some inexplicable reason the bail outs were arranged in such a fashion that nobody at these banks and these regulators who were RESPONSIBLE for our part in the crash were held ACCOUNTABLE.
The result of these actions was that when the Labour Party left office the UK government were spending something like 11% (in terms of our GDP) more money than tax income generated by UK citizens....this is the actual source of our spiralling debt that the Labour party so often try to pin on the Tories. The national debt was going to increase at 11% a year unless either; 1) we made cuts to what we were spending OR 2) the Private Sector grew providing increased tax receipts.
In reality the private sector, even at the best of times, was never going to make up the shortfall nevermind in an environment where banks were lending less to consumers (obviously given the circumstances) and there was no growth anywhere in the Western world's economies (again, obviously given the circumstances) our biggest markets. Therefore cuts had to be made and quickly, as we had as large a deficit as Greece (in terms of percentage of GDP) we were up against the clock...if that deficit didn't shrink the interest rates on the money the UK borrows goes up...which would mean that eventually we would be habding over billions as a nation just to service the interest and our country AND FUTURE GENERATIONS would have been trapped in a debt spiral.
There was a General Election. The Tories won it but didn't have enough for an overall majority. The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA. It was widely understood that Labour didn't actually want to be in government at that time because they knew that cuts were inevitable and the scale of them would be deeply unpopular. A coalition government was formed...it didn't have to be so, the Lib Dems could have been as utterly selfish and extremely irresponsible as the Labour Party...and we, together with the Tories, did our best to rebalance our economy and grow the private sector while making the necessary cuts.
Those irresponsible tvvats in the Labour Party castigated us and opposed every single NECESSARY cut...and today they seek to make out that austerity was a choice (because all political parties like to dish out bad news to voters everywhere, pissing people off and losing support, don't they?) and that it is the Tories fault that the national debt has grown to what it is today.
So, in conclusion... yes it is complicated and yes multi-millionaires in the city (both here and the US) have got away scott free with utter incompetence which we and our kids are paying for but let's not pretend that it had nothing to do with those on the left...both the Clinton administration and the Labour party FULLY played their part, Also, there should be no doubt that the Labour party are a bunch of lying, charlatans and...with the way they have behaved since Corbyn's mob got in charge...SCUMbags.
Why didn't you just say mun
It's all Corbyn's fault
Iceland dealt with it properly, we should have followed their stance on it all
- Banks in America lending money to people who were a high level of risk..ie. they couldn't really afford to take on the level of debt and the repayment plans they were on.
- Why were banks doing this? Because the Clinton administration was urging them too, to stimulate home ownership among the poor (The politics of it, as usual, was coming from a good place...well intentioned) but unfortunately there were unforeseen consequences, because...
- That high risk debt had been packaged up in complicated debt vehicles (along with a lot of other debt....some high risk shite bets and some low risk good bets) and sold off to banks/financial institutions all around the world. Which meant that once the high risk debtors couldn't pay there was contagion bringing banks down who had nothing to do with the origins of the bad loans.
How was this situation allowed to happen? Because of the failure of financial regulators EVERYWHERE across the Western world to police these activities...mostly because the financial regulators didn't understand the industry they were supposed to be regulating, not a scooby, and were in fact incentivised to turn a blind eye (much like the recent furore concerning fire regulations and building control post Grenfell Tower.)
In this country, when the crash hit the Labour party had been in power for more than a decade. They were in charge of the regulators. Gordon Brown had in fact done his level best to cosy up to the UK banking industry and had done his fair share of deregulating, he believed in "light touch" (I believe they were his words) regulation of financial markets. This meant that the UK banking sector were up to their necks in this bad debt and had to write a lot of it off...which would have seen many of them go out of business. It was Gordon Brown that decided to step in and bail out these incompetents (again, for good reasons...he believed to not do so would hurt the rest of us and I think that on this matter he was right...but for some inexplicable reason the bail outs were arranged in such a fashion that nobody at these banks and these regulators who were RESPONSIBLE for our part in the crash were held ACCOUNTABLE.
The result of these actions was that when the Labour Party left office the UK government were spending something like 11% (in terms of our GDP) more money than tax income generated by UK citizens....this is the actual source of our spiralling debt that the Labour party so often try to pin on the Tories. The national debt was going to increase at 11% a year unless either; 1) we made cuts to what we were spending OR 2) the Private Sector grew providing increased tax receipts.
In reality the private sector, even at the best of times, was never going to make up the shortfall nevermind in an environment where banks were lending less to consumers (obviously given the circumstances) and there was no growth anywhere in the Western world's economies (again, obviously given the circumstances) our biggest markets. Therefore cuts had to be made and quickly, as we had as large a deficit as Greece (in terms of percentage of GDP) we were up against the clock...if that deficit didn't shrink the interest rates on the money the UK borrows goes up...which would mean that eventually we would be habding over billions as a nation just to service the interest and our country AND FUTURE GENERATIONS would have been trapped in a debt spiral.
There was a General Election. The Tories won it but didn't have enough for an overall majority. The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA. It was widely understood that Labour didn't actually want to be in government at that time because they knew that cuts were inevitable and the scale of them would be deeply unpopular. A coalition government was formed...it didn't have to be so, the Lib Dems could have been as utterly selfish and extremely irresponsible as the Labour Party...and we, together with the Tories, did our best to rebalance our economy and grow the private sector while making the necessary cuts.
Those irresponsible tvvats in the Labour Party castigated us and opposed every single NECESSARY cut...and today they seek to make out that austerity was a choice (because all political parties like to dish out bad news to voters everywhere, pissing people off and losing support, don't they?) and that it is the Tories fault that the national debt has grown to what it is today.
So, in conclusion... yes it is complicated and yes multi-millionaires in the city (both here and the US) have got away scott free with utter incompetence which we and our kids are paying for but let's not pretend that it had nothing to do with those on the left...both the Clinton administration and the Labour party FULLY played their part, Also, there should be no doubt that the Labour party are a bunch of lying, charlatans and...with the way they have behaved since Corbyn's mob got in charge...SCUMbags.
Ha ha bitter because Labour don't want you treacherous turncoats as coalition partners? You're right about one thing - Brown was up to his neck in this debacle. However he was about as leftist as Cameron .
You're wrong about everything else as you usually are. Austerity IS a political choice you prize f*cking idiot. Even the Tories are on about abandoning it now and you are a lib dem??? Lol
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
1
Labour money forest on 23:25 - Jul 10 with 2003 views
Labour money forest on 22:55 - Jul 10 by Brynmill_Jack
Ha ha bitter because Labour don't want you treacherous turncoats as coalition partners? You're right about one thing - Brown was up to his neck in this debacle. However he was about as leftist as Cameron .
You're wrong about everything else as you usually are. Austerity IS a political choice you prize f*cking idiot. Even the Tories are on about abandoning it now and you are a lib dem??? Lol
Circumstances have changed. The deficit has now been cut by 3/4. The state is now a lot leaner. We have high employment and conditions are now ripe for investment...plus we have Brexit. The Tories have not abandoned the plan to eliminate the deficit, but they are keeping their options open to adapt to whatever may come.
Yes I'm a Lib Dem, a very frustrated one re: the subject of Europe, but my heart is still with them...I just think the majority in the party have got it wrong on the EU. If you saw Andrew Marr on Sunday you would have noted that our future leader Vince Cable also continues to commit to the elimination of the deficit.
Re: Austerity and public spending It is always about the balance and the environment. If it were true that spending more and more public money = a booming economy and surpluses everyone would be at it wouldn't they?. Don't you think every political party on the face of the planet would like to deliver a list of goodies akin to Labour's joke of a manifesto? Easy to win the votes of the masses then isn't it? The problem being that IF you win you have to come good on those promises. What Corbyn and his band of nutters are doing is playing a very dangerous game. They are whipping up a mob, encouraging them not to respect democracy, encouraging them to dehumanise the opposition, and making a shit load of promises they can't fulfil. If they win and don't deliver what then? I'll tell you what. The angry confused mob they are responsible for will look for scapegoats, it WILL STILL be everybody else's fault that they can't have what they want....and then violence. See Venezuela and every other state that has swallowed this horseshit whole.
Now f*ck off, and when you get there you can f*ck off some more, in fact keep f*cking off until you get to Venezuela...there are some cocks there that you obviously yearn to suck...and take that scruffy, docile, cowardly, sh*t for brains Jezza with you.
Circumstances have changed. The deficit has now been cut by 3/4. The state is now a lot leaner. We have high employment and conditions are now ripe for investment...plus we have Brexit. The Tories have not abandoned the plan to eliminate the deficit, but they are keeping their options open to adapt to whatever may come.
Yes I'm a Lib Dem, a very frustrated one re: the subject of Europe, but my heart is still with them...I just think the majority in the party have got it wrong on the EU. If you saw Andrew Marr on Sunday you would have noted that our future leader Vince Cable also continues to commit to the elimination of the deficit.
Re: Austerity and public spending It is always about the balance and the environment. If it were true that spending more and more public money = a booming economy and surpluses everyone would be at it wouldn't they?. Don't you think every political party on the face of the planet would like to deliver a list of goodies akin to Labour's joke of a manifesto? Easy to win the votes of the masses then isn't it? The problem being that IF you win you have to come good on those promises. What Corbyn and his band of nutters are doing is playing a very dangerous game. They are whipping up a mob, encouraging them not to respect democracy, encouraging them to dehumanise the opposition, and making a shit load of promises they can't fulfil. If they win and don't deliver what then? I'll tell you what. The angry confused mob they are responsible for will look for scapegoats, it WILL STILL be everybody else's fault that they can't have what they want....and then violence. See Venezuela and every other state that has swallowed this horseshit whole.
Now f*ck off, and when you get there you can f*ck off some more, in fact keep f*cking off until you get to Venezuela...there are some cocks there that you obviously yearn to suck...and take that scruffy, docile, cowardly, sh*t for brains Jezza with you.
Hey mods, how about banning this obscene piece of sh*t? And a lying piece of sh*t, the deficit has double even after robbing the disabled
Do you hold a season ticket at the liberty then?
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
1
Labour money forest on 00:18 - Jul 11 with 1978 views
"Ban" me I love it, you come on to this thread and dish some out my way and when you get it back you cry off. I'm better at this than you, don't pick fights you can't win.
- Banks in America lending money to people who were a high level of risk..ie. they couldn't really afford to take on the level of debt and the repayment plans they were on.
- Why were banks doing this? Because the Clinton administration was urging them too, to stimulate home ownership among the poor (The politics of it, as usual, was coming from a good place...well intentioned) but unfortunately there were unforeseen consequences, because...
- That high risk debt had been packaged up in complicated debt vehicles (along with a lot of other debt....some high risk shite bets and some low risk good bets) and sold off to banks/financial institutions all around the world. Which meant that once the high risk debtors couldn't pay there was contagion bringing banks down who had nothing to do with the origins of the bad loans.
How was this situation allowed to happen? Because of the failure of financial regulators EVERYWHERE across the Western world to police these activities...mostly because the financial regulators didn't understand the industry they were supposed to be regulating, not a scooby, and were in fact incentivised to turn a blind eye (much like the recent furore concerning fire regulations and building control post Grenfell Tower.)
In this country, when the crash hit the Labour party had been in power for more than a decade. They were in charge of the regulators. Gordon Brown had in fact done his level best to cosy up to the UK banking industry and had done his fair share of deregulating, he believed in "light touch" (I believe they were his words) regulation of financial markets. This meant that the UK banking sector were up to their necks in this bad debt and had to write a lot of it off...which would have seen many of them go out of business. It was Gordon Brown that decided to step in and bail out these incompetents (again, for good reasons...he believed to not do so would hurt the rest of us and I think that on this matter he was right...but for some inexplicable reason the bail outs were arranged in such a fashion that nobody at these banks and these regulators who were RESPONSIBLE for our part in the crash were held ACCOUNTABLE.
The result of these actions was that when the Labour Party left office the UK government were spending something like 11% (in terms of our GDP) more money than tax income generated by UK citizens....this is the actual source of our spiralling debt that the Labour party so often try to pin on the Tories. The national debt was going to increase at 11% a year unless either; 1) we made cuts to what we were spending OR 2) the Private Sector grew providing increased tax receipts.
In reality the private sector, even at the best of times, was never going to make up the shortfall nevermind in an environment where banks were lending less to consumers (obviously given the circumstances) and there was no growth anywhere in the Western world's economies (again, obviously given the circumstances) our biggest markets. Therefore cuts had to be made and quickly, as we had as large a deficit as Greece (in terms of percentage of GDP) we were up against the clock...if that deficit didn't shrink the interest rates on the money the UK borrows goes up...which would mean that eventually we would be habding over billions as a nation just to service the interest and our country AND FUTURE GENERATIONS would have been trapped in a debt spiral.
There was a General Election. The Tories won it but didn't have enough for an overall majority. The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA. It was widely understood that Labour didn't actually want to be in government at that time because they knew that cuts were inevitable and the scale of them would be deeply unpopular. A coalition government was formed...it didn't have to be so, the Lib Dems could have been as utterly selfish and extremely irresponsible as the Labour Party...and we, together with the Tories, did our best to rebalance our economy and grow the private sector while making the necessary cuts.
Those irresponsible tvvats in the Labour Party castigated us and opposed every single NECESSARY cut...and today they seek to make out that austerity was a choice (because all political parties like to dish out bad news to voters everywhere, pissing people off and losing support, don't they?) and that it is the Tories fault that the national debt has grown to what it is today.
So, in conclusion... yes it is complicated and yes multi-millionaires in the city (both here and the US) have got away scott free with utter incompetence which we and our kids are paying for but let's not pretend that it had nothing to do with those on the left...both the Clinton administration and the Labour party FULLY played their part, Also, there should be no doubt that the Labour party are a bunch of lying, charlatans and...with the way they have behaved since Corbyn's mob got in charge...SCUMbags.
"The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA."
Honestly, would anyone trust these backstabbing whoppers after the last debacle when they got into bed with Cameron and went back on everything they promised?
Labour money forest on 00:12 - Jul 11 by Brynmill_Jack
Hey mods, how about banning this obscene piece of sh*t? And a lying piece of sh*t, the deficit has double even after robbing the disabled
Do you hold a season ticket at the liberty then?
The deficit has been reduced by about 3/4, but the debt is still higher than at any time under the last Labour Govt, except when they had to borrow in 2009/10 because of the global financial crisis.
Doesn't mean they're going about it the right way of course. When the Tories took power working was worth something and most people in poverty were jobless. Now workers have been dragged into that group and make up most of the people in poverty. But hey, the employment stats look great, never mind what they are hiding.
1
Labour money forest on 23:21 - Jul 11 with 1891 views
Labour money forest on 19:24 - Jul 11 by LeonWasGod
The deficit has been reduced by about 3/4, but the debt is still higher than at any time under the last Labour Govt, except when they had to borrow in 2009/10 because of the global financial crisis.
Doesn't mean they're going about it the right way of course. When the Tories took power working was worth something and most people in poverty were jobless. Now workers have been dragged into that group and make up most of the people in poverty. But hey, the employment stats look great, never mind what they are hiding.
Give me fecking strength...
From the Guardian newspaper, 2010 (I deliberately chose the Guardian in the hope that some of this might sink in to the dense heads of those who wish to portray the rise in the national debt as the Tories' fault).
The mess in Britain's finances has three main causes. The first is that the crisis of 2007 arrived when the budget was in relatively poor shape. Tax receipts during the bubble years were weaker than the Treasury expected, which meant that even with the economy booming the deficit stood at close to £40bn.
The second factor was the depth and duration of the recession. Deficits tend to rise during downturns because tax receipts fall and spending on unemployment and other welfare payments rise. In Britain's case, the economy contracted by more than 6% over six successive quarters from early 2008 to late 2009. By the time growth resumed national output was 10% lower than it would have been had the economy continued to expand at its normal rate of around 2.5% a year. That punched a hole in the public finances.
Finally, the VAT holiday and help for the unemployed, designed to mitigate the effects of the recession, cost around £25bn, or around 1.5% of GDP, much smaller in relation to the size of the UK economy than the packages used to support growth in the United States or China.
Part of the deficit is deemed to be cyclical — it will disappear once the economy grows strongly. The other part, the £70bn structural element, is what the government wants to eliminate during the current parliament.
The bank bailouts have little impact: the Treasury does not count money used to buy bank shares because it assumes it will get it back.
Note the fecking date when the HUGE structural deficit appears (due to the massive drop in taxes received from the banking, financial services and insurance sectors...plus the associated drag that put on the rest of the sectors). Remember that even before the crash in that sector (by far and away the largest contributor to the UK treasury) the Labour party were already spending £40bn a year more than they were receiving in tax receipts. Bear in mind that that those who have governed in the 7 years since have managed to close that deficit by 3/4 without the aid of a magic wand, in the midst of a global recession, with our neighbours and largest trading partners in the EU managing to grind their economies to a halt...AND WITH THE FECKING LABOUR PARTY OPPOSING EVERY-SINGLE-F-U-C-K-I-N-G-SPENDING CUT.
In the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn used to pay the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. The balance of nearly £70bn needed to plug the huge fecking hole in our public finances...and the fecking Labour party consistently argued that we should be borrowing more.
The time to GET REAL has long gone. Unfortunately many prefer the la-la land offered by Corbyn and co.
Labour money forest on 19:24 - Jul 11 by LeonWasGod
The deficit has been reduced by about 3/4, but the debt is still higher than at any time under the last Labour Govt, except when they had to borrow in 2009/10 because of the global financial crisis.
Doesn't mean they're going about it the right way of course. When the Tories took power working was worth something and most people in poverty were jobless. Now workers have been dragged into that group and make up most of the people in poverty. But hey, the employment stats look great, never mind what they are hiding.
You do understand the difference between debt and deficit, do you? And why it is that the debt's still rising?
0
Labour money forest on 23:51 - Jul 11 with 1870 views
...and every empty headed navel gazing "celebrity" on just about every chat show sofa and panel show routinely back Corbyn's view of the world while they demonize the grown ups left to tidy up the mess.
Its the 6% interest rate on the student debt which is frightening.
Say it costs £20k a year to go to University (£9k fees, £6-7K accomodation and £5k living expenses) that equates to £60k of debt over 3 years.
6% on £60k = £3,600 interest each year.
That means you need a salary of £61k just to pay off the interest let alone the capital.
Students with debt pay 9% on earnings above £21k.
So if you earn £61k that is £40k above £21k.
£40k at 9% = £3,600
The thing is 50%of people now leaving school go to University. So if the student debt is all written off - the 50% of people not going to University effectively pay for the ones that do go - through their taxes.
Understand the counter arguments of the waste of money spent on Trident, new aircraft carriers, bailing out the banks etc
0
Labour money forest on 03:18 - Jul 12 with 1828 views
- Banks in America lending money to people who were a high level of risk..ie. they couldn't really afford to take on the level of debt and the repayment plans they were on.
- Why were banks doing this? Because the Clinton administration was urging them too, to stimulate home ownership among the poor (The politics of it, as usual, was coming from a good place...well intentioned) but unfortunately there were unforeseen consequences, because...
- That high risk debt had been packaged up in complicated debt vehicles (along with a lot of other debt....some high risk shite bets and some low risk good bets) and sold off to banks/financial institutions all around the world. Which meant that once the high risk debtors couldn't pay there was contagion bringing banks down who had nothing to do with the origins of the bad loans.
How was this situation allowed to happen? Because of the failure of financial regulators EVERYWHERE across the Western world to police these activities...mostly because the financial regulators didn't understand the industry they were supposed to be regulating, not a scooby, and were in fact incentivised to turn a blind eye (much like the recent furore concerning fire regulations and building control post Grenfell Tower.)
In this country, when the crash hit the Labour party had been in power for more than a decade. They were in charge of the regulators. Gordon Brown had in fact done his level best to cosy up to the UK banking industry and had done his fair share of deregulating, he believed in "light touch" (I believe they were his words) regulation of financial markets. This meant that the UK banking sector were up to their necks in this bad debt and had to write a lot of it off...which would have seen many of them go out of business. It was Gordon Brown that decided to step in and bail out these incompetents (again, for good reasons...he believed to not do so would hurt the rest of us and I think that on this matter he was right...but for some inexplicable reason the bail outs were arranged in such a fashion that nobody at these banks and these regulators who were RESPONSIBLE for our part in the crash were held ACCOUNTABLE.
The result of these actions was that when the Labour Party left office the UK government were spending something like 11% (in terms of our GDP) more money than tax income generated by UK citizens....this is the actual source of our spiralling debt that the Labour party so often try to pin on the Tories. The national debt was going to increase at 11% a year unless either; 1) we made cuts to what we were spending OR 2) the Private Sector grew providing increased tax receipts.
In reality the private sector, even at the best of times, was never going to make up the shortfall nevermind in an environment where banks were lending less to consumers (obviously given the circumstances) and there was no growth anywhere in the Western world's economies (again, obviously given the circumstances) our biggest markets. Therefore cuts had to be made and quickly, as we had as large a deficit as Greece (in terms of percentage of GDP) we were up against the clock...if that deficit didn't shrink the interest rates on the money the UK borrows goes up...which would mean that eventually we would be habding over billions as a nation just to service the interest and our country AND FUTURE GENERATIONS would have been trapped in a debt spiral.
There was a General Election. The Tories won it but didn't have enough for an overall majority. The Lib Dems spoke to both parties regarding a coalition but the Labour Party offered us sweet FA. It was widely understood that Labour didn't actually want to be in government at that time because they knew that cuts were inevitable and the scale of them would be deeply unpopular. A coalition government was formed...it didn't have to be so, the Lib Dems could have been as utterly selfish and extremely irresponsible as the Labour Party...and we, together with the Tories, did our best to rebalance our economy and grow the private sector while making the necessary cuts.
Those irresponsible tvvats in the Labour Party castigated us and opposed every single NECESSARY cut...and today they seek to make out that austerity was a choice (because all political parties like to dish out bad news to voters everywhere, pissing people off and losing support, don't they?) and that it is the Tories fault that the national debt has grown to what it is today.
So, in conclusion... yes it is complicated and yes multi-millionaires in the city (both here and the US) have got away scott free with utter incompetence which we and our kids are paying for but let's not pretend that it had nothing to do with those on the left...both the Clinton administration and the Labour party FULLY played their part, Also, there should be no doubt that the Labour party are a bunch of lying, charlatans and...with the way they have behaved since Corbyn's mob got in charge...SCUMbags.
I will never vote Libdem after they put Dai Cam in power as a vanity project for Nick. The fall of the party since- and Nick - has been so richly deserved. Toxic. Of course, Dai Cam then promised a Brexit ref to fight off the so called 'closet racists' of ukip. Which he then lost - and resigned, giving us the Maybot. All traced back to the Libdem traitors.
Btw 'light touch' Brown was fought over his limited bank regulations by Tories saying even that was over regulation - so the crash might have been even worse with Tories in charge rather than Gordie.
Austerity - its about choices. Found the money for DUP bung, royal refurbs, illegal wars, Brexit costs, referendum and GE costs, tax breaks for rich and big corps, heathrow expansion, cross rail, hs2, and the useless Trudent.
Libdems deserve every election hammering they get.
Beware of the Risen People
1
Labour money forest on 14:14 - Jul 12 with 1776 views
Labour money forest on 00:45 - Jul 12 by Nookiejack
Its the 6% interest rate on the student debt which is frightening.
Say it costs £20k a year to go to University (£9k fees, £6-7K accomodation and £5k living expenses) that equates to £60k of debt over 3 years.
6% on £60k = £3,600 interest each year.
That means you need a salary of £61k just to pay off the interest let alone the capital.
Students with debt pay 9% on earnings above £21k.
So if you earn £61k that is £40k above £21k.
£40k at 9% = £3,600
The thing is 50%of people now leaving school go to University. So if the student debt is all written off - the 50% of people not going to University effectively pay for the ones that do go - through their taxes.
Understand the counter arguments of the waste of money spent on Trident, new aircraft carriers, bailing out the banks etc
PMQs today;
Rupa Huq (Labour): “Can I recommend that they consult page 43 of our manifesto and commit to Labour’s policy of the abolition of tuition fees?”
Damian Green says there is a £100billion hole in Labour’s student fees policy. He says he is “astonished” Labour want to bring this up during PMQs.
Mr Green says: “Her own education spokesman has admitted the tuition fees policy has a £100bn hole, black hole in Labour's student fees policy - that's as much money nearly as we spend on the NHS in a year, that's two years' worth of disability benefits. Labour in this area were particularly incredible at the general election.
"I'm amazed they want to bring it up at PMQs...I would just warn them that misleading students and young people is a very dangerous thing to do."
Rupa Huq (Labour): “Can I recommend that they consult page 43 of our manifesto and commit to Labour’s policy of the abolition of tuition fees?”
Damian Green says there is a £100billion hole in Labour’s student fees policy. He says he is “astonished” Labour want to bring this up during PMQs.
Mr Green says: “Her own education spokesman has admitted the tuition fees policy has a £100bn hole, black hole in Labour's student fees policy - that's as much money nearly as we spend on the NHS in a year, that's two years' worth of disability benefits. Labour in this area were particularly incredible at the general election.
"I'm amazed they want to bring it up at PMQs...I would just warn them that misleading students and young people is a very dangerous thing to do."
A conservative MP disagreeing with something Labour said in PMQs? Well colour me purple and f**k me skinny!
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.
From the Guardian newspaper, 2010 (I deliberately chose the Guardian in the hope that some of this might sink in to the dense heads of those who wish to portray the rise in the national debt as the Tories' fault).
The mess in Britain's finances has three main causes. The first is that the crisis of 2007 arrived when the budget was in relatively poor shape. Tax receipts during the bubble years were weaker than the Treasury expected, which meant that even with the economy booming the deficit stood at close to £40bn.
The second factor was the depth and duration of the recession. Deficits tend to rise during downturns because tax receipts fall and spending on unemployment and other welfare payments rise. In Britain's case, the economy contracted by more than 6% over six successive quarters from early 2008 to late 2009. By the time growth resumed national output was 10% lower than it would have been had the economy continued to expand at its normal rate of around 2.5% a year. That punched a hole in the public finances.
Finally, the VAT holiday and help for the unemployed, designed to mitigate the effects of the recession, cost around £25bn, or around 1.5% of GDP, much smaller in relation to the size of the UK economy than the packages used to support growth in the United States or China.
Part of the deficit is deemed to be cyclical — it will disappear once the economy grows strongly. The other part, the £70bn structural element, is what the government wants to eliminate during the current parliament.
The bank bailouts have little impact: the Treasury does not count money used to buy bank shares because it assumes it will get it back.
Note the fecking date when the HUGE structural deficit appears (due to the massive drop in taxes received from the banking, financial services and insurance sectors...plus the associated drag that put on the rest of the sectors). Remember that even before the crash in that sector (by far and away the largest contributor to the UK treasury) the Labour party were already spending £40bn a year more than they were receiving in tax receipts. Bear in mind that that those who have governed in the 7 years since have managed to close that deficit by 3/4 without the aid of a magic wand, in the midst of a global recession, with our neighbours and largest trading partners in the EU managing to grind their economies to a halt...AND WITH THE FECKING LABOUR PARTY OPPOSING EVERY-SINGLE-F-U-C-K-I-N-G-SPENDING CUT.
In the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn used to pay the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. The balance of nearly £70bn needed to plug the huge fecking hole in our public finances...and the fecking Labour party consistently argued that we should be borrowing more.
The time to GET REAL has long gone. Unfortunately many prefer the la-la land offered by Corbyn and co.
[Post edited 11 Jul 2017 23:40]
This is the best post I have ever seen. I want to steal it and show it to anyone who bangs on about Tory austerity measures, how the financial crisis is al a cunning plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and how we can wipe out the 100bn student loan debt just like that. Absolutely superb.
Also, nobody who doesn't understand how deficits and debt actually work should be allowed anywhere near this debate! I do think they should just change "deficit" to "shortfall" and everyone would get it.
I am £50 short at the end of each month. I borrow £50 to cover that, so my debt goes up by £50. However, my shortfall will go down by £10 a month. So in half a year I will be in surplus and I can start paying off the debt. FECKING SIMPLE.
Labour money forest on 15:48 - Jul 12 by westwalesed
This is the best post I have ever seen. I want to steal it and show it to anyone who bangs on about Tory austerity measures, how the financial crisis is al a cunning plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and how we can wipe out the 100bn student loan debt just like that. Absolutely superb.
Also, nobody who doesn't understand how deficits and debt actually work should be allowed anywhere near this debate! I do think they should just change "deficit" to "shortfall" and everyone would get it.
I am £50 short at the end of each month. I borrow £50 to cover that, so my debt goes up by £50. However, my shortfall will go down by £10 a month. So in half a year I will be in surplus and I can start paying off the debt. FECKING SIMPLE.
Well you might just decide you could afford to write off £100 bn in student debt after all, if you saved £160 bn by simply cancelling Trident.
For comparison, the bankers bail out cost £500 billion.
Beware of the Risen People
0
Labour money forest on 20:23 - Jul 12 with 1691 views
Stop throwing money at the over-65s for a start - one good idea that the Tories did have was to stop increasing their pensions by at least 2 1/2% every year - spend that money on the younger generation for a start. I know people unemployed in their 60s who can't wait to get to retiring age because their money will shoot up.
And why are students being charged an interest rate on their loans of 6%?
It should be the rate of inflation at the very most (2 or 3% max), otherwise it's just profiteering.
Stop throwing money at the over-65s for a start - one good idea that the Tories did have was to stop increasing their pensions by at least 2 1/2% every year - spend that money on the younger generation for a start. I know people unemployed in their 60s who can't wait to get to retiring age because their money will shoot up.
And why are students being charged an interest rate on their loans of 6%?
It should be the rate of inflation at the very most (2 or 3% max), otherwise it's just profiteering.
[Post edited 12 Jul 2017 20:48]
You've answered the question in your penultimate paragraph in the last one mate.
[Post edited 12 Jul 2017 21:31]
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.
0
Labour money forest on 21:44 - Jul 12 with 1657 views
I'm a few years from retirement, but I find the triple lock a daft idea. I see no rationale for a guaranteed (at least) 2.5% increase in state pension. Unfortunately, I daresay there are people of my age, and some already retired, who wouldn't want to give it up.
Similarly, I'd be embarrassed to claim the winter fuel allowance and yet I've heard people who really don't need it say "why shouldn't I have it, I've paid tax and NI all my life". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who need it shouldn't get it.
0
Labour money forest on 22:18 - Jul 12 with 1648 views
Labour money forest on 15:48 - Jul 12 by westwalesed
This is the best post I have ever seen. I want to steal it and show it to anyone who bangs on about Tory austerity measures, how the financial crisis is al a cunning plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and how we can wipe out the 100bn student loan debt just like that. Absolutely superb.
Also, nobody who doesn't understand how deficits and debt actually work should be allowed anywhere near this debate! I do think they should just change "deficit" to "shortfall" and everyone would get it.
I am £50 short at the end of each month. I borrow £50 to cover that, so my debt goes up by £50. However, my shortfall will go down by £10 a month. So in half a year I will be in surplus and I can start paying off the debt. FECKING SIMPLE.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
