Rising Unemployment to cost extra £1.4 Billion-Price worth paying?

[Titanic99]

Go on, chase all the rest of businesses away to foreign shores...

 

How would reducing the Welfare (Tax) Bill force busineses away, surely they'd rather be paying less tax.

[eckerslike]

It seems the current Government has once again got its sums wrong and they’ve under-estimated the additional cost of rising Unemployment.

 

I know both parties have been out of power for a while and that potential for errors exist as a consequence of this, but could someone please get them to check and double-check their figures before they start trying to feed us nonsense we suspect isn’t true.

 

Regarding the point, High Unemployment is shocking (we always seem to get it when the Tories are in power), so why can’t we be a little bit more sensible in this by reducing the hours of those in work and consequently getting others into work, and reducing the Welfare Bill.

 

Whilst we are on this subject, can we have the age for claiming your Retirement Pension brought back down to 65 to free up jobs for people currently unemployed.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Rising-Unemployment-Will-Cost-An-Extra-14bn-According-To-The-Office-For-Budget-Responsibility/Article/201101115878715?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15878715_Rising_Unemployment_Will_Cost_An_Extra_%3F1.4bn%2C_According_To_The_Office_For_Budget_Responsibility

 

 

Once again the cost of 13 years of Labour government is clearly demonstrated. A destroyed economy, a massive £1 trillion debt, and a £150 billion shortfall in the budget.

[spooky3]

How would reducing the Welfare (Tax) Bill force busineses away, surely they'd rather be paying less tax.

 

I was referring to what you said about forcing businesses to force it's employees to take less hours and employ more people.

 

How much disruption? In an ideal world where there is pure cohesion, then yes this change may be practical, but in the real world it isn't!

[spooky3]

Once again the cost of 13 years of Labour government is clearly demonstrated. A destroyed economy, a massive £1 trillion debt, and a £150 billion shortfall in the budget.

 

Don't forget that they've sold everything not bolted down, from gold to schools... Then given the rest away to their families!

[Grandad.Malky]

Once again the cost of 13 years of Labour government is clearly demonstrated. A destroyed economy, a massive £1 trillion debt, and a £150 billion shortfall in the budget.

 

And despite all that the general public still didn’t trust the Tories to run the country on their own.

[eckerslike]

Don't forget that they've sold everything not bolted down, from gold to schools... Then given the rest away to their families!

 

That's the problem. Normally folks only have to clear up after 5 or so years of Labour squandering, not 13. Once the cupboard was bare the borrowing began until it reached £1 trillion. That's around £60K for every household.

 

.

[eckerslike]

And despite all that the general public still didn’t trust the Tories to run the country on their own.

 

Its Labour who are out of power. I'm quite happy to have a Lib/dem minister or 2 to influence a few policies.

 

Cost of unemployment (according to Titanic) £1.84 billion.

 

Cost of 13 years of Labour missrule £1,000.00 billion.

[spooky3]

Its Labour who are out of power. I'm quite happy to have a Lib/dem minister or 2 to influence a few policies.

 

Suits my sensibilities too!

 

Firm but fair!

[eckerslike]

Suits my sensibilities too!

 

Firm but fair!

 

Don't you just love the way those now out of power try to pretend there isn't a mess to clean up.

 

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent 7:00AM BST 22 Apr 2009

Comment The unprecedented borrowing programme sparked warnings that a generation of British workers face higher taxes to pay off the debt, and raised doubts about international investors' willingness to go on lending to the UK.

 

The final figures could be even higher, since Mr Darling based his borrowing plans on an assumption that the UK economy will start to grow again later this year and rebound sharply by 2011.

 

According to projections in the Budget, public sector net debt, the accumulated stock of outstanding Government borrowing, will reach £1,370 billion in 2013/14.

 

When Labour took office in 1997, debt was £350 billion.

 

In November, Mr Darling said borrowing would peak at £118 billion during this financial year, falling to £105 billion next year.

[retrogo]

It seems the current Government has once again got its sums wrong and they’ve under-estimated the additional cost of rising Unemployment.

 

I know both parties have been out of power for a while and that potential for errors exist as a consequence of this, but could someone please get them to check and double-check their figures before they start trying to feed us nonsense we suspect isn’t true.

 

Regarding the point, High Unemployment is shocking (we always seem to get it when the Tories are in power), so why can’t we be a little bit more sensible in this by reducing the hours of those in work and consequently getting others into work, and reducing the Welfare Bill.

 

Whilst we are on this subject, can we have the age for claiming your Retirement Pension brought back down to 65 to free up jobs for people currently unemployed.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Rising-Unemployment-Will-Cost-An-Extra-14bn-According-To-The-Office-For-Budget-Responsibility/Article/201101115878715?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15878715_Rising_Unemployment_Will_Cost_An_Extra_%3F1.4bn%2C_According_To_The_Office_For_Budget_Responsibility

 

Average public sector worker costs about 14k per year.

The government wants to reduce this, so paying them £66 per week is a lot cheaper.