Politics Forum.org | PoFo

I will blow up my factories and dockyards rather than see them expropriated.

The decision to have a high public debt was undertaken to support the narrative of the preceding dictatorship being deeply corrupt and incompetent.

Is there no other way to raise money?

Perhaps, given that we...are somewhat bound by these figures at the moment, (I wouldn't pretend to grasp them very well beyond a general idea) can we work together to develop some type of temporary taxes on the highest income earners, say the top...5% for 5 years to help pay off the vast debt?

It stands to reason that they most benefitted from the corruption of the previous administration, and it doesn't seem terribly unfair to ask them to pay a small portion of that back so that they can continue to prosper all the more.

Note- I thinking compromise here, not what my true thoughts on this are, which would be to simply sieze this ill-gotten wealth and redistribute.

I would be partial to the idea of canceling out any debt owed to domestic lenders, then printing out enough money to cover it. The same cannot be done with external debt, as it would carry negative repercussions to our trade and diplomatic relations.

The problem is we still haven't decided how much of the debt is owed to domestic lenders. It certainly can't be all or most of it, given the size of the island and the sheer enormity of the debt owed.

As a populist left wing government we don't give a crap and with the 'bloated' army you left us given a new role to play I don't think you or your party members are long for this world. If you want to play silly beggars so can we!

Dr House, come with the numbers quick.

The government is hard to act if we only get the numbers ex post facto.

You did not get numbers ex post facto. You just need to pay attention.

The current state of the government's finances can be found here.

I wrote:Currently the entire budget is 23.5% of GDP, including interest on debt. However, rampant corruption and bureaucracy gobbles up an appalling amount of that money, with less than a third of the funds going where they're supposed to. 4% of GDP is allocated to the military, 5% to infrastructure, a paltry 2% to education, and another 4% to the general functions of government (police, firefighting, embassies, et al).

Revenue collection is in an even poorer state than budget allocation. The tax regime is offensively regressive and included among other things a $3,500 poll tax (those who couldn't pay the tax were conscripted into forced labor camps by the government), a 24% sales tax (which is chronically underreported by merchants), and various excise taxes and user fees. Taxes are levied on both imports and exports. Tax collectors frequently siphon off the revenue they're collecting, which results in total revenues being a measly 13.5% of GDP. We currently have a budget deficit equal to 10% of GDP.

Oh FUCK, I forgot to put in the amount of interest on debt in my original post. My bad.

A budget deficit of 10% would give you 2-3% GDP annual debt interest and maybe 1.5% GDP set aside paying off the principal. I can see 4.5% GDP as reasonable and no more.

Why?

10% of GDP was the previous government's yearly deficit, and that's already on the record. Our bond rating is below investment-grade, worse than Mexico's. How the hell does it make sense for us not to have a ridiculously high amount of public debt?

3% GDP debt interest payments annually would mean we are paying higher than the usual rate. Over 33 years it should have risen to 29% interest on the debt at normal rates - 0.25% GDP debt interest payment on a 10% deficit

We have higher than normal interest rates because of our abysmal credit rating, and we have higher than normal debt because of the massive borrowing that drove down our credit rating so much.

India pays 6% of interest on its debt. The only reason we pay less (5%) is because we're a high-income country.

And why is only having $200 billion to play with so bad, anyway? It should be plenty, unless we blow it off on entitlements, and I see no reason why we should do that. The NHS has its own funding.

My numbers are close to yours but on a whim you add 3%. Our credit rating would have been excellent for the first 10 years of Ryan's reign, the troubles didn't start until the mid 80's and were minor until the 90's. America was backing the regime with soft loans until 2003. I think my figures make more sense than yours - 4.5% of GDP

ps. We have an amicable agreement, 5% of GDP will be the debt servicing rate

What I got out of the last page of Posts:

Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, asshole, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, Fuck.
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz/House: Friends again.

It's probably so confusing because the dispute was carried on in two separate threads simultaneously, and by PM, so some of the agument is here and some is there, and some is elsewhere.

What I got out of the last page of Posts:

Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, asshole, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, Fuck.
Ingliz: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
House: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Ingliz/House: Friends again.

Haha. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is lost.

So... I was thinking about how we're going to be a Petro-Welfare state, and that we won't have oil forever. Perhaps we should divert 30% or so of our oil revenues into some sort of investment fund like they do in Norway? It would keep our government policies financially sustainable even after our oil runs out.

dilpill wrote:So... I was thinking about how we're going to be a Petro-Welfare state, and that we won't have oil forever. Perhaps we should divert 30% or so of our oil revenues into some sort of investment fund like they do in Norway? It would keep our government policies financially sustainable even after our oil runs out.

Better yet, divert it into infrastructure & technology so we have a sustainable income after our oil runs out.

^What he said.

The votes on the "Revenue" and the "Employment" Bills open in 40 minutes

Revenue Bill

Employment Bill

Dr House wrote:^What he said.

House at a loss for words? That is quite rare.