David O'Day
Well-Known Member
that is not what that says is it, if you want to talk stop being so disingenuous as they are clearly talking about the 1bn green paper consultation earmarks for return to work help and schemes
that is not what that says is it, if you want to talk stop being so disingenuous as they are clearly talking about the 1bn green paper consultation earmarks for return to work help and schemesRemoving your benefits is supporting you into work
Well it is what it says, it is paragraph 1 of the case for change. If that isn't the essence of the reason for change then what is? Why is cutting benefit even part of the solution?that is not what that says is it, if you want to talk stop being so disingenuous as they are clearly talking about the 1bn green paper consultation earmarks for return to work help and schemes
Citations needed. Everything you post is just the sort of half baked drivel you hear from Tufton St airheads.The attitudes of old Labour grandees toward long term benefit claimants would be considered ‘far right’ today. This something people like Frank Field who still had that vague connection to Old Labour actually understood.
The problem I have when talking to people of the ‘left’ generally, is that this idea of public services is ‘underfunded’ is repeated ad nausem. Firstly, it’s a manipulation based ‘real terms’ and the principle that running costs need to be matched to inflation is a faulty idea. If private sector companies operated like that, we’d be in trouble - they typically don’t.
In any case, if all the issues around pensions, welfare, the NHS, schooling (and so on) could be fixed with ‘x’ more funding, the government would just do that. Especially a Labour government. The reason they can’t just magically increase the funding is a) the cost of servicing debt increases and b) it creates a death trap for taxpayers of ever ending tax to fund public services.
It isn't bullshit, it's a myth. The government does not need to borrow to spend. It chooses to sell bonds to the market, it's yet another subsidy for the already wealthy.it's a long term project designed over the life of a parliament, no one knows how things will be in 2029
balancing the books is not "bullshit", you need to be seen as knowing how you will pay for things or the debt market will finish you
still it's less than a year in and i don't and you don't know what the economy will be like in 2029
How is my disabled wife exploiting the system Dom?
Not sure the fact that there's lots more further consolation planned does much to convince me this wasn't hurriedly thrown together because the economy is in a worse state than they expected and they have self inflicted fiscal rules to stick to.There's the actual green paper if anyone actually wants to see what the plans actually are. Lot more "further consultation" than the press reports make out.
I will happily admit the country is in such a shit state it will take many years to turn things around completely. But equally when pretty much everything had gone to shit there should have been some easy wins ready to go.still it's less than a year in and i don't and you don't know what the economy will be like in 2029
"You just love to see it."You just can't write it
As any Coventry kid of a certain age will tell you , toolmakers were the best of the factory shopfloor.You just can't write it
He is a millionaire human rights lawyer turned DPP with a very generous pension protected by statute.As any Coventry kid of a certain age will tell you , toolmakers were the best of the factory shopfloor.
Starmer has no empathy , understanding of the working class past or present.
He is a complete DUD.
It's also now looking to take away my visually impaired wife's PIP. So you'll forgive my scepticism.
Citations needed. Everything you post is just the sort of half baked drivel you hear from Tufton St airheads.
Citations needed into your ridiculous statements about inflation. Public bodies have a fixed income, their way of dealing with inflation is to cut costs. Private companies deal with inflation primarily by raising prices.For what point specifically?
You don’t really have a right to call anyone an air head when your solution to any and every issue is more government and more funding. I made an observation on positions that people like yourself who just don’t see a limit to government spending. Be it welfare, the NHS, pensions or <insert public service>, your answer is predictable: ‘x’ is underfunded. You’d go further and nationalise things like utilities, which all have a cost.
The debt markets punished Liz Truss for announcing £45bn in unfunded tax cuts. The BoE supposedly intervened to avoid a pensions crisis and relatively mild interest rates increases risked a mortgage crisis. The debt markets have shown they will punish a government that does not ‘fund’ their spending commitments - be it tax cuts or government spending.
If you got your calculator out and added up all of the things you’d like the government to spend money on, it will cost a lot more than £45bn. The NHS would cost £30+ billion alone to bring it line with French and German healthcare spending.
There are rumours about the US returning to partially gold backed currency and that China has been building undeclared gold reserves and if waiting for the time to pull the plug on the US.Citations needed into your ridiculous statements about inflation. Public bodies have a fixed income, their way of dealing with inflation is to cut costs. Private companies deal with inflation primarily by raising prices.
The debt markets do not expect the government to fully fund their spending, if that happened the "debt markets" would not exist. That would clearly not be desired as markets want to buy bonds as they represent the safest possible investment.
Regardless, the government does not need to borrow the currency it issues from the market. The full funding rule has existed since the UK was on the gold standard and is clearly irrelevant today.
Instead of Kate Andrews, read this The self-financing state: an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom
There are rumours about the US returning to partially gold backed currency and that China has been building undeclared gold reserves and if waiting for the time to pull the plug on the US.
For years commentators have been predicting a financial meltdown, debt in the world is many times what could ever be repaid.
One never knows what to believe.
All that tells you is the problem is with the system, not the debt.There are rumours about the US returning to partially gold backed currency and that China has been building undeclared gold reserves and if waiting for the time to pull the plug on the US.
For years commentators have been predicting a financial meltdown, debt in the world is many times what could ever be repaid.
One never knows what to believe.
Citations needed into your ridiculous statements about inflation. Public bodies have a fixed income, their way of dealing with inflation is to cut costs. Private companies deal with inflation primarily by raising prices.
The debt markets do not expect the government to fully fund their spending, if that happened the "debt markets" would not exist. That would clearly not be desired as markets want to buy bonds as they represent the safest possible investment.
Regardless, the government does not need to borrow the currency it issues from the market. The full funding rule has existed since the UK was on the gold standard and is clearly irrelevant today.
Instead of Kate Andrews, read this The self-financing state: an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom
Private debt is a problem, public debt is a necessity
No, where does it say that. It is a simple fact that there is no operational dependency on either tax or borrowing to spend.The paper you shared, what do you think that means in practice… Do you take it to mean that in practice, a sovereign currency issuer can spend whatever it likes with no repercussions?
How far does this actually go?
No, where does it say that. It is a simple fact that there is no operational dependency on either tax or borrowing to spend.
The paper you shared, what do you think that means in practice… Do you take it to mean that in practice, a sovereign currency issuer can spend whatever it likes with no repercussions?
How far does this actually go?
The point is that it does not need to sell bonds to the bond marketFP is correct in a way, we can print however much we want, to pay for whatever we want. What is never really acknowledged is the impact of a government not demonstrating a semblance of financial control ie cost of borrowing goes up, need to print more to cover interest on government debt, currency gets debased, rich get richer (by owning tangible assets rather than cash), poor get poorer as you get less and less for your £/$. I’ve said before it’s probably the cruelest, least progressive form of underhand taxation
A lot of countries are struggling to avoid a debt spiral where they will be unable to grow sufficiently to service debt interest and maintain debt at a manageable level* ie debt and interest costs keep growing, potentially uncontrollably. I might be wrong but I’m guessing only likely solution will be more QE and currency debasement
*trumps desperately trying to get yields down as US is due to refinance something like $7trn in coming months. Think they’re annual debt costs are already $1trn per annum
The are limitations to government spending of course, but they are nothing to do with tax collection which you continuously imply.Why did you share it then?
It just seems like you’re avoiding the question that I posed to you in the first place: is there any limitations to government spending?
The impression I’m getting from you, is that your answer is no and there isn’t any limits and any external factors are essentially irrelevant e.g. the markets (be it debt, currency or pension markets etc.)
My point had nothing to do with ‘operational dependency’ because you’re quite right in saying the government doesn’t need to raise ‘x’ amount to spend ‘y’ amounts on whatever priorities. The difference is, as I understand it, is that we differ on whether or not external forces could bring a government down. The living example I’ve got is the market reaction to Truss’ ill-fated ‘mini budget’.
Good example of printing money is the Weimar Republic, which post WWI decided tp meet the cost of reparations by just printing shitloads of money. This of course kept on massively devaluing it causing massive hyper inflation.FP is correct in a way, we can print however much we want, to pay for whatever we want. What is never really acknowledged is the impact of a government not demonstrating a semblance of financial control ie cost of borrowing goes up, need to print more to cover interest on government debt, currency gets debased, rich get richer (by owning tangible assets rather than cash), poor get poorer as you get less and less for your £/$. I’ve said before it’s probably the cruelest, least progressive form of underhand taxation
A lot of countries are struggling to avoid a debt spiral where they will be unable to grow sufficiently to service debt interest and maintain debt at a manageable level* ie debt and interest costs keep growing, potentially uncontrollably. I might be wrong but I’m guessing only likely solution will be more QE and currency debasement
*trumps desperately trying to get yields down as US is due to refinance something like $7trn in coming months. Think they’re annual debt costs are already $1trn per annum
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?