More cuts from failing Osborne

Originally Posted by denphone

Young people starting their working lives now will probably have to work until they are 75 according to government hints in the pension review that is going to be taking place in the next 14 months.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...nsion-age.html

Might that be because they are going to live longer?

[denphone]

The thing is there will be some who will remain in good health who will probably be capable of working up to 75 but then there are also the workers who do tough physical manual work who are going to find it very hard continuing to do physical manual work up to 75.

[Osem]

Yes it's all very well saying that people can't retire until they're 75, for example, but what jobs are these people going to do at that age and won't they simply be taking work that would otherwise have gone to younger people starting out on their careers?

[Mr K]

It's going to be a big burden for employers. Imagine all the 'reasonable adjustments' they are going to have to make for doddery 75 year olds, how productive are they going to be, will they be more of a liability than is worthwhile ?

I don't quite believe lifespans are extending as fast as the govt. is claiming. They seem to be changing this every couple of years now. How is anybody supposed to plan for retirement ? There's an element of cost cutting going on here. Another one of George's 'invisible' cuts that is going to affect the poor most.

[Mr K]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...pension-reform

George has bottled another decision on pensions for the rich. Mustn't upset the Daily Fail or Torygraph voters.

Where will his axe fall in the budget;
children again? the NHS? the disabled? Boris?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mr K

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...pension-reform

George has bottled another decision on pensions for the rich. Mustn't upset the Daily Fail or Torygraph voters.

Where will his axe fall in the budget;
children again? the NHS? the disabled? Boris?

This further erodes the fast disappearing "We are all in it together" premise. With these sort of things going on:

IDS urges Tory MPs to vote through cuts to disability benefits - despite his own watchdog warning they are unfair

it only goes to reinforce the perception that this government is far removed from the One-nation conservatism of Disraeli et al.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the economy is supposed to be doing well and you are still have to borrow to cover your spending, you are spending too much. If the borrowing was a sign of the economy being bad, then Labour screwed the economy up by around 2000. If there wasn't excessive spending back then, what would there be to cut back?

Hate to break it to you but government deficit's are a normal thing, as far back as records have been done which is a 100+ years the vast majority of years have all the rich countries running a deficit.

There is nothing wrong with deficit's (and borrowing) providing there is economical growth.

Like the same in modern day to day business, even large corporates like BT borrow money to fund investments, they even borrowed to give out payments to shareholders.

Sadly the current government have brainwashed a lot of people into thinking it is some kind of unsustainable situation to have a deficit.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

How many times has the budget been in surplus in the past 30 years?

Deficit versus growth and what the deficit is being spent on are key. Not making essential investment shifts bills onto the following generations too, and potentially at higher interest rates.

Debt to GDP ratio matters, not nominal debt.

Simply saying surplus good, deficits bad is a gross oversimplification. A fair amount of the relaxation of austerity the Chancellor has done has actually been the right kind - they went after the 'easy' and expedient savings and quickly realised this was a bad idea.

Some of it, however, the more cynically politically motivated cuts and short-termist sales of assets, is nuts.

The ongoing shifting of more activities onto local authorities while continuing to cut their budgets so that they rather than central government will take blame for example is repugnant.

---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 29-02-2016 at 23:55 ----------

Incidentally the major issue is that ridiculous requirement to be running a surplus in 'normal' times.

The Chancellor is hoist on his own petard, has robbed himself of flexibility, and has run the economy for political and ideological ends way too much.

The OBR predicted that private debt would be the substitute for public borrowing and that is, with interest, what is happening.

The economy is more dependent on services than ever before after it became politically expedient to ignore rebalancing attempts.

We have had a big asset price boom that's led to huge amounts of capital not generating any economic growth. Employment is high but productivity is still in the toilet - the jobs don't seem to have been much good.

The economy is very precarious indeed and this is nothing to do with Labour but a Chancellor whose long term economic plan is more like a long term plan to try and become the Prime Minister.

agree with all of that.

The most devious is probably the shifting of costs to councils, as most people are completely unaware of what is happening there.

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Mr K

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...pension-reform

George has bottled another decision on pensions for the rich. Mustn't upset the Daily Fail or Torygraph voters.

Where will his axe fall in the budget;
children again? the NHS? the disabled? Boris?

I assume you're a supporter of the privately educated multi millionaire Jeremy Corbyn. I assume he also has private health care?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweedle

I assume you're a supporter of the privately educated multi millionaire Jeremy Corbyn. I assume he also has private health care?

Why are you are so fixated with Mr Corbyn's personal habits? This is bordering on the weirdly obsessive .. Has he run over your cat or something?

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why are you are so fixated with Mr Corbyn's personal habits? This is bordering on the weirdly obsessive .. Has he run over your cat or something?

I don't own a cat, did IDS run over yours?

[ianch99]

Echoing the comments above that George should have maybe staying with History:

George Osborne would fail his economics GCSE – he can’t even get the basics

The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ illuminating green budget shows that by 2019/20, public expenditure outside health will fall to the lowest proportion of GDP since at least 1948. Between 2010 and 2019, spending by the Ministry of Justice will have nearly halved. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ spending will have fallen by just over 40% and the Home Office by just less.

These are breathtaking figures. They imply the emasculation of innovation, of prison, probation, court and security systems, alongside an assault on local government.

Depressing ..

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

George Osborne would fail his economics GCSE – he can’t even get the basics.

Has anybody checked George's GCSE certificates ? He probably just bought them.

Not that you need any qualifications to be Chancellor of the Exchequer - could be one of the reasons we're continually in deficit...

[techguyone]

He definitely needs a rethink, endless cutting only gets you so far.

[spanna]

"..The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ illuminating green budget shows that by 2019/20, public expenditure outside health.."

bloody tories protecting health services .. oh wait

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by spanna

"..The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ illuminating green budget shows that by 2019/20, public expenditure outside health.."

bloody tories protecting health services .. oh wait

.. but cutting other services .. no need to wait