Osborne's "we Are Borrowing Less" Turns Out To Be Untrue

[Gromit]

New figures reveal public borrow rose last year. This was despite a windfall from Switzland and £billions of Quantatitive Easing coming into the Chancellors coffers.

// Changes to accounting methods also meant the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revised down UK borrowing by £0.1bn to £118.8bn for the year to April 2013, and £2.4bn in the previous year to £118.5bn, meaning underlying public borrowing rose in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Chancellor George Osborne had previously said that annual borrowing was coming down, although the data are volatile and subject to further revisions.

The figures also showed that Britain's total net public debt, excluding bank bail-outs, is at a record high of £1.19 trillion, or 75.2pc of GDP. //

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10134093/UK-public-finances-boosted-by-Swiss-tax-windfall-but-blow-for-Osborne-as-revision-shows-borrowing-rose-last-year.html

they were election on their promise to repay the deficit. How badly have they failed?

[emmie]

if we are employing so called cheap labour, much of their money maybe going back to their home countries, so how do we benefit. Especially if some in construction, farming are off the cards.

[emmie]

you once talked of increasing minimum wage, and i said some need to get a lesson in how to run a business and economics. Hire four people, pay them 10 quid an hour minimum wage, increase the minimum wage to 11 quid per hour, this is hypothetical, the likelihood is that one will lose their job as the owner cannot afford pay the 11 quid an hour with four staff but can with only three. so someone loses their job, it's not as they say hard to work out,

[Old_Geezer]

It they could not afford to pay 4 lots of £11 when society says that is the least one should expect for labour, then they don't have the business case for their enterprise, and should go into something else where the figures do work. Employees ought not have to expect to be underpaid in order to gain employment, and the State ought not be expected to top up where an employer wishes to underpay. Would be a different issue if they were all partners willing to scrape by without State handouts in the hope of jam tomorrow.

[emmie]

small businesses like hairdressers may employ say 4 people, that is 4 wages, tax, insurance, and more besides, so it's not without merit to suggest that they may well struggle if they keep on raising the minimum wage to a level where it's not minimum any more. Several might be stylists, two may be down the level, say juniors, so you can't pay people what you haven't got. Big business can cope, because they have bigger profits, small businesses may not.

[emmie]

it;s not underpaying staff, it's being realistic, if you work for Primark you are one of thousands, and will be paid whatever the rate for that work, the company will be paying the staff wages, tax, insurance, vat etc, so do you expect small businesses to compete, of course not. But it is small businesses who are suffering, and they consequently either get rid of someone they can't afford to keep on, or go out of business. Even large companies like HMV have not been immune.

[Old_Geezer]

In the American south during their civil war I'm sure the plantation owners were just being realistic when they pointed out they couldn't pay the slaves any more than what they already did. A small business who expands too fast by paying less than a reasonable minimum is doing wrong.

[Gromit]

Thank you for that OG.

[jno]

the slave owners were right; the southern economy was wiped out for decades after the war. Indeed, it's still much the poorest region in the US. Slave labour was what kept them competitive.

That's not an argument for underpaying people, but you do need to have some sort of Plan B.

[Jeza]

I will confess to not reading all that has been written BUT we pay tax when we earn it, tax when we save it, tax and when we spend it. The company's we spend or earn or or save it with also pay tax on it. WHY do we need to borrow. Then there's the council tax as well. Need I go on. Road Tax for instance.

[jno]

because the big companies don't pay any of this tax? So little people must?

[Jeza]

Then why are the BIG company's not targeted?

[jno]

well now, that's the $64 question, if not the $64 million question. Why indeed?

[emmie]

try running a business and see how it works in the real world.