OECD says UK's austerity will need to continue for decades. They forecast we'll need to cut public spending / increase taxes by the equivalent of 8% of forecast GDP each year for the next 40 year's to get our debt down to a sustainabble level.

Was the cheap-credit induced "boom" coinciding with Labour's term of office really worth it?

Have a nice weekend.

Fond memories of the Labour boom years, where everyone maxed out on cheap credit, and no-one ever gave any real thought to paying it back...



Austerity is here to stay, for the life of this Parliament and probably the next.

The OECD's target is 50% of GDP, when was the last time we were running at that level?

Growth is the only real way out of debt and that will be difficult given Gideon's penchant for austerity and only austerity

Now I'm no mathematician, but if you cut spending or increase taxes by 8% for forty years then you are going to surely end up in a position where you are spending zero and/or taxing at 100%.

The day I start believing "economic forecasters" is the day I start buying ISA's and paying into my pension scheme again because the last time I believed them they sure as hell fooked up big style.

But a system predicated on infinite growth is doomed to failure, I'd suggest. Which is pretty much how we've ended up here in the first place.

Shhhh the Emperors clothes are fine and dandy.

I'm sorry, what are we actually talking about here? Is it government or private debt?

The OECD paper that was out last week that I presume Dally is referring to was a specific model based on a target of having government debt being 50% of GDP by 2050, this is an arbitrary target and as you can see here the ratio has fluctuated up and down over the years and most of the time has been higher than 50%.

Quite. I was a little confused by both posters that I quoted referring to cheap credit whilst apparently suggesting fiscal policy would have a direct impact upon the reduction of that debt.

So we're actually doing better than at any time after the first world war?

I can't help but notice that the peak on that graph just happens to be the year I was born.

And I've been spending ever since.

1945?



You're looking good for a 67 year old

I like to keep them confused, by the time I die they won't even know what name to put on the certificate, or if I'm actually dead yet.

You won't hear them telling you that, for most of the first half of the 19th century, when we pretty much ruled the world etc, national debt was almost always over 100% of GDP.

Yet more bollox from Osborne: [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17726084Most high-rate tax payers didn't dodge the 50% rate[/url

So, it was hardly worth collecting then eh George?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/apr/15/firms-told-to-spend-cash-to-boost-economyAnd his 2% corporation tax cut is a load of bollox too[/url

Didn't we just spend $25 BILLION on 150 F35 fighter jets from America?