Because the ONS is offsetting the debts against a small holding of Gilts.

You can’t make an asset by writing an IOU to yourself.

On the mortgage you are not broke. You have a contract with the lender, and the lender cannot call the loan, making you bankrupt, so long as you meet the cashflow payments.

To be bankrupt, there are two conditions.

1. Assets < liabilities, and no foreseeable chance of a recovery
2. Inability to meet cashflow requirements.

Invariably, its the second that sends people and organisations to the wall. However, you can meet 1, but fail 2, and hence you still go to the wall.

So which assets does it own? Now look at the bankruptcy tests.

Nuclear submarines. Assets yes. Can you sell them to generate money to pay pensions? To whom if the answer is yes. They are liabilities, spending. Same with hospitals. To whom are you going to sell. What then for the NHS? Rent them back. Just spending at the end.

BT's pension funds are reported on a mark to market basis. They can't make the numbers up, and they have to report them. Assets are known on a daily basis, and valued daily. Liabilities are bit more woolly, but again there are standard accounting practices to report them. So just as a slight matter of accuracy, the debts aren't being reduced, they are going up. It's that they are increasing assets by paying more in. However, the difference is still negative. Assets are less than liabilities, and the state has guaranteed that for no premiums.

NI from 16? Well 18 now. Makes the deal even worse. Contribute for more than 40 years and you would have got an even bigger return in the last few years, but less to spend it over so an even bigger income.

e.g For anyone who says that the FTSE is risky needs to compare the FTSE with NI going into that with what the state gives for its NI. You would be horrified.

At the end of the day, the government gives lip service and says, yes we will use GAAP. Then for the big debts says, no we won't. There's less than 50% chance of paying the pensions so we won't put it on the books.

So you and I are being defrauded. You might be able to cope. I might be able to cope. But look at the news today about the lack of savings. Most people are going to be absolutely screwed. That's immoral and evil

So why the ONS figures quote 4.7?

And correction you are 80% down on the loan, as you still can not repay all the money on the mortgage straight away so therefor you are broke.

The state owns assetts so it is not double counting, which is different to what you are saying as who owns the asset then if the goverment does not, you saying that our nuclear submarines are owned by BAE?

How do you know BT’e expected losses ar enot on the books and add to that all pension funds public and private are in defualt due to the financial markets and have admitted they will be solvent in several years. Add to that BT is topping up its pension so its debt is reducing.

Add to that National insurence is deducted from 16 not 25 etc.

No, They are correct.

The debt figure in the ONS report is 5,010 bn. However its two years out of date. You need to increase that at 2.5%, for the triple lock, and that ignores any growth due to new contributions.

The assets are just IOUs from the state to the state. So you mustn’t double count. The asset reported is just part of the borrowing debt.

“Now BT pension fund is self covering” Nope. The BT pension fund should be fully funded. It isn’t. It has a large black hole that’s insured by the state. The expected loss should be on the books.

“Your logic is heavily flawed as if I am wrong then no one would have a house as they are technically bankrupt ”

Not at all. If I put 20% down on a house, I’ve two entries in the balance sheet.

1. The asset of the house.

2. The liability of the loan.

On day one, I’m up 20%, because of the deposit.

So 7,000 bn of debts for the government. Where are the money generating assets, and what does it cost to keep them generating money?

“assumption we all retire tommorrow and claim it,”. That’s your assumption, not mine.

The approach I’ve used is to take the present value, its what the ONS have done. The actual payouts will be far higher, but paid out over time. However, the pensions debt look like a 5,300 bn borrowing.

The way the ONS have valued the liabilities if you read around their website is as follows.

FIrst you get the accrued rights from the DWP. Age, number of years entitlement, and sex of the people who have paid NI.

Then get their life expectancy. Unlike your assumption of they must never die and all be paid for every (the full value claim), you add up the estimate of the number surviving to claim, by the percentage they have already paid for.

So just as an example for one year. Consider this.

Lets say we have 10,000 40 years old males, who each have earned 15 years out of 30 for a state pension.

ignoring the triple lock, but not inflation

Lets say, 9,500 survive until 65, their retirement age. We therefore expect to pay out,

15 / 30 x 10,000 * .95 for their 65 th year.

If 9,400 survive until 66, then that is another

15 / 30 * 10,000 * .94

….

We do this and add up. That’s what we have to pay out, assuming no triple lock. It’s all in terms of today’s value of money. For the triple lock, its the max of wage inflation, inflation and 2.5%. A derivative . So in practice the 2,500 should be increased at 0.5% (2.5% – Inflation target). That’s the lower bound. The ONS assume a lower growth, wrongly in my opinion.

For existing pensioners, you do the same. Except their life expectancy will be lower.

End result, 5,300 bn minimum.

All standard actuarial maths, and standard accounting practice. All ignored by the government.

Very simple reason. They won’t pay, because they cant’. It’s theft on a massive scale.

So your figures are wrong as its 4.7 not 5.3?

How can nuclear decommisioning be a liability you just said it has already been paid for :s.

Now BT pension fund is self covering, so we know that we do not have to pay for that one (can write that one off).

Your logic is heavily flawed as if I am wrong then no one would have a house as they are technically bankrupt are they not as the house is more then their salary as you are say9ng goverment debt is more then GDP so as I said it liek a mortgage can be repayed it will take a long term plan like any mortgage.

Add to that I think you will find the unfunded obligation of the state pension etc is based on the assumption we all retire tommorrow and claim it, would be like saying all insurence companies are broke which by your logic they are as if everyone claimed tomorrow for the full value they could not cover it.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf

Bottom of page 4, for starters. Currently that over 5,300 bn.

Another 1,100 bn for borrowing – check out at the http://www.dmo.gov.uk/ (debt management office – just the borrowing bit)

PFI on top.

Guarantees, you can ignore the banks unless you have evidence they are trading whilst insolvent.

However, Nuclear decommissioning was paid for up front, that’s also a liability.

Then you have the Post Office pension fund. Guarantees for BT pension fund etc.we know how much of it we can put against say investments, payments

I agree. Now what investments does the government have for its debts?

What assets can be sold to pay the debts?

What assets generate income in excess of the cost, so that the profits can be used to pay the debt?

so logically it can be repaid although it will take a long term plan of say 30 years.

A logical falacy. No doubt all bankrupts built up their debt over time, so there is no need to allow them to go bankrupt because they can repay their debt over time. Hmmm, quite easy to spot the flaw there.

No, what you need to do is add up all the debts and present value them. Then you can work out if your income and necessary spending means you can pay the debts off.

No, they are not. There are examples of cuts not being sufficient to block recovery. But not “austerity”, which by design keeps being ratcheted up every time growth threatens.

Ranjit; That article is paywalled.

Keep claiming that your pork-barrel spending and the cost of slashing cost-saving measures is magically Keynesian. Keep trying to call for ending pensions, the NHS and schooling, as an initial step!

Yes, thanks for admitting that you’ve been a criminal for a very long time.

No, your ponzi scam is yours, nobody else’s.
Keep on claiming your fraud’s bigger than Maddoff’s!