I think government policy is exactly to enshackle the young generation.

I think it's the banks who have already done that with their free-for-all on credit cards. The personal debt mountain has been created by total de-regulation of lending in the name of free markets and freedom of individuals.

>>the need to control government spending and protect young people from having to foot so much of the bill has become "a defining modern political issue"<<

errr.. for example, Britain's spending on the Iraq war is currently running at £ 80 million a month.

I would like to know just how that '50%' figure was arrived at.

Is it in 'tax' - and is it in indirect or direct tax. I doubt that it can be the latter.

Or is it in debt repayment? - in which case - tough!...

Compare this to the fact that we all pay close to that percentage in various forms of 'tax'.

Sounds like drums being beaten in the battle over fees for higher education...

I dont think anyone hates the individual.

The main reason why people are in so much debt is because the banks have given out way too much money. I dont know the stats but I'd imagine the biggest preportion of people in debt are from the Ibiza generation. Borrowing for 3 instead of one holiday a year.

David Vance -

Well said. Proposerous, independent individuals are dangerous to a government. They think for themselves, are naturally sceptical of government action and don't present problems for which politicians present themselves as the essential answer.

No, much better to abolish education and produce millions of unthinking, uninquiring and illiterate drones who can look to government all their lives for sustenance.

Pete Moore,

I see an Orwellian aspect to it, I see Labour wanting to create a drone army of welfare parasites and heavily in debt young people. Then who will oppose them?

Well said. Proposerous, independent individuals are dangerous to a government.

no. prosperous individuals are a danger to the banks and the entire banking system. if the banks are unable to generate debt through loans they are unable to generate more cash. thus prosperous individuals who do not take loans threaten the entire system. so the only argument is whether governments are enabling the scam and thus working in the interests of banks or not.

i would urge all to watch "money as debt" on google video.

btw well said peter & noel.

I see Labour wanting to create a drone army of welfare parasites and heavily in debt young people.

David

It is the banks who are creating debt. Think Northern Rock and its ludicrous lending policies, or the deluge of credit card offers which drop through letter boxes every day.

And the drone army of welfare parasites are the least likely to vote in an election, so it doesn't seem to be a viable political strategy for a party to expand them in order to keep itself in power.

Peter,

"The personal debt mountain has been created by total de-regulation of lending in the name of free markets and freedom of individuals."

Just what was this 'deregulation' that you are saying is the cause of so much woe?

We had deregulation of the Stock Market which enhanced overall cash flow, but nothing that pertained to borrowing per se.

The controls, such as they were, in days gone by, were more ones of commonsense on the part of the individual, and good business practice on the part of the banks.

If anything the greed and need of the large financial institutions to forever 'grow their business' has had the effect of lowering standards, rather than any 'dergulation. The perfect example is Northern Rock, the directors when questioned did not see any wrongdoing in making loans of 125% on a security, and their feelings were quite hurt when the Commons committee suggested they were the architects of their own disaster.

However, the banks are usurers, - in biblical terms, one of the most heinous of professions. What we have now, are more akin to loan sharks than the more traditional idea of trusty guardians of prudent financial management.

As had been said elewhere, 'a good bank customer is one who is permanently in debt', - it is interest payments that drive bank's profits.

It is the lowering of ethics, in a profession which is vital to modern commercial enterprise, that is to blame, coupled with a public that is generally poorly educated, or just too lazy to care to 'mind their own business'. That this laissez faire attitude has also been encouraged by a government, to whom it has been a blessing in diguise, hasn't helped either...

Its the banks creating debt. You are more shackled by the banks than you will ever be by government. Your entire lives are tied up in banks. The majority on welfare wont even go vote so the idea that government is creating a voter base makes no sense.

Ernest

It is precisely because the banks have no ethics that they need their wings clipped. They are bottom-feeders who pretend to compete with each other and offer the same lousy service to their victims customers in return for outrageous charges and rates of interest.

In the past this didn't matter so much because you could use the Post Office bank as an alternative, but now it's part of the same greed-driven system.

Peter,

There is always that modern mantra to live by: "Just say no!"

spot on ernest.

but it could be argued that deregulation (or lack of enforcement) is partly responsible. ratio abuse allows banks to lend way beyond their means.

banks rule the world and they will eventually own all real money/value in circulation. its a no win situation for almost everybody and it has to change. a society based almost soley on growth and profit will either fail through violent revolution (through rejection) or reduce pretty much everyone to slavery.

We could do what every crook does, - use cash...

Peter -

In the past this didn't matter so much because you could use the Post Office bank as an alternative, but now it's part of the same greed-driven system.

In the past our culture was much more conservative and modest. Debt was a dirty word and people felt shame at being in debt.

But the Left thought it knew better. It demonised traditional values as 'out of date' and 'old fashioned'. The Left propogated the view that if it felt good then go for it, man.

Certainly, easy credit enables people to get into great debt quickly, but we really could have done without the cultural revolution which removed the stigma of debt, demonised modest, polite attitudes and behaviour and heralded the cheap, valueless society we have today.

Is it stil true that if you declare bankruptcy, or are made bankrupt, your creditors cannot take your house or the tools of your trade - or has this small humanitarian safeguard been removed by our caring socialist masters?

Ernest Young -

I'm afraid that small humanitarian safeguard has been done away with. Whether you are married or even have children is irrelevent, your home is up for grabs.