[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And, to add, you've been whingeing at length on here about the consequences of cranking up housebuilding.
Politics contains difficult choices. I support the government for its ambitious target on this (despite multiple issues related to it). Maybe you can be clear as to whether you do support and provide a rationale for your position on this.

I see that @n1 gull has joined spence and potty by responding to good points, well made, as if they are the stupidest thing they ever read. Hilario

You don't debate with them. You just sit back while they post nonsense and then admire one another, while mocking the rest of us. Because they have access to secret truths that the rest of us are too stupid to understand. Apparently.

 

[BenGarfield]

That makes no sense. The richest 1% pay 30% of the total tax revenue and the 6 richest paid £3billion between them. I think we might miss their tax just a teeny weeny bit if they all buggered off

Tax doesnt pay for government expenditure at national level - so no we wouldnt miss them. The UK government being the monpoly producer of its own sovereign fiat currency, creates new money whenever it spends. Tax merely destroys the money returned to the treasury. The point of tax is to make citizens need the currency, help reduce inflation alongside other fiscal measures, and for societal reasons such as reducing inequality (i.e. tax the rich as i have suggested), or promoting desirible behaviours, e.g. tax on tobacco, alcohol etc. So the debate on here about how you pay for government expenditure is ridiculous

 

[rogersix]

The idea that 'the rich are too rich' is profoundly sinister. In the 1920s in the Soviet Union [then including Ukraine] millions of peasants were murdered on the grounds that they were 'too rich'. Who decides who 'the rich' are ? Who decides who is 'too rich' ? Will hammering them with taxes make everyone else richer ? Or will it reduce everyone to the same dismal standard ?
There's a debate to be had about tax and the taxing of wealth in particular in the UK - but if it's nothing more than hatred for people fuelled by a desire for political retribution then you've lost the argument before you've begun.

It's about the redistribution of wealth in an attempt to create an equality of opportunity

 

[rogersix]

You miss the point, as per the norm.

Could you explain your point, it's not opaque, as per the norm

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Tax doesnt pay for government expenditure at national level - so no we wouldnt miss them. The UK government being the monpoly producer of its own sovereign fiat currency, creates new money whenever it spends. Tax merely destroys the money returned to the treasury. The point of tax is to make citizens need the currency, help reduce inflation alongside other fiscal measures, and for societal reasons such as reducing inequality (i.e. tax the rich as i have suggested), or promoting desirible behaviours, e.g. tax on tobacco, alcohol etc. So the debate on here about how you pay for government expenditure is ridiculous

Noted

 

[rogersix]

Nonsense.

There will be tangible ways to guage the level of success, it won't be down to pure opinion.

How will you gauge it?

 

[abc]

Tax doesnt pay for government expenditure at national level - so no we wouldnt miss them. The UK government being the monpoly producer of its own sovereign fiat currency, creates new money whenever it spends. Tax merely destroys the money returned to the treasury. The point of tax is to make citizens need the currency, help reduce inflation alongside other fiscal measures, and for societal reasons such as reducing inequality (i.e. tax the rich as i have suggested), or promoting desirible behaviours, e.g. tax on tobacco, alcohol etc. So the debate on here about how you pay for government expenditure is ridiculous

Bizarre but I will bite. Where does gov expenditure on the nhs, defence, roads, benefits etc come from if not tax?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Tax doesnt pay for government expenditure at national level - so no we wouldnt miss them. The UK government being the monpoly producer of its own sovereign fiat currency, creates new money whenever it spends. Tax merely destroys the money returned to the treasury. The point of tax is to make citizens need the currency, help reduce inflation alongside other fiscal measures, and for societal reasons such as reducing inequality (i.e. tax the rich as i have suggested), or promoting desirible behaviours, e.g. tax on tobacco, alcohol etc. So the debate on here about how you pay for government expenditure is ridiculous

You have repeatedly said "just print more money".
Then when people say 'you just said "just print more money"' you say you didn't say that.
When Germany printed new money in the 1930s I seem to recall it didn't go all that well.

I admit I don't understand your arguments and they could of course be correct.
But if so, why is it only you and the people who occasionally cite seem in on the secret?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Bizarre but I will bite. Where does gov expenditure on the nhs, defence, roads, benefits etc come from if not tax?

You're going to regret that

 

[beorhthelm]

You have repeatedly said "just print more money".
Then when people say 'you just said "just print more money"' you say you didn't say that.
When Germany printed new money in the 1930s I seem to recall it didn't go all that well.

I admit I don't understand your arguments and they could of course be correct.
But if so, why is it only you and the people who occasionally cite seem in on the secret?

it's fringe theory of a few left wingers on how they'd like money to work, because it means they dont have to run a balanced budget, can just spend as much as they like on anything. infinite money with no downsides, marvellous. no Weimar-like side effects because they'll control the economy to ensure that doesn't happen, taxing to remove money. which begs the question if they're taxing so much to counter inflation, why bother?

 

[BenGarfield]

it's fringe theory of a few left wingers on how they'd like money to work, because it means they dont have to run a balanced budget, can just spend as much as they like on anything. infinite money with no downsides, marvellous. no Weimar-like side effects because they'll control the economy to ensure that doesn't happen, taxing to remove money. which begs the question if they're taxing so much to counter inflation, why bother?

.MMT describes exactly how monetary operations work in a fiat currency system. How do you think it works? I’m sure the Originators of MMT would love to know the errors of their ways. I know some of them and will forward on your advice

 

[TomandJerry]

"Care homes will be prevented from recruiting staff from abroad as part of an overhaul of rules to drive down net migration, Yvette Cooper has said"

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Britain hasn't actually had a balanced budget since 1970/71. There is no correlation between a country's debt and it's economic performance- after all the USA is still the biggest and most powerful economy. It is also the world's biggest debtor.

 

[WATFORD zero]

"Care homes will be prevented from recruiting staff from abroad as part of an overhaul of rules to drive down net migration, Yvette Cooper has said"

For the umpteenth time you have typed something in quotes indicating that you think it's a quote but give absolutely no clues as to the source of it

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I follow Richard J Murphy's videos on YT - he's a very interesting man, a tax expert seemingly motivated by compassion and a desire for informed debate. However I think his position contains contradictions. If all the government had to do to cover it's expenditure is create new money - rather than borrow it at interest rates often determined by the market. Why don't they do it ? Actually no government in the world does it - unless we're talking about basket cases like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. I find it somewhat similar to Reform's argument about illegal migrants - just tow them back to France and dump them there. If it's that easy why haven't governments done that ? I think there are valid reasons why governments don't by pass the money lenders and simply print the stuff. The markets would perceive printing money to be higly inflationary - almost certainly they would pile out of government bonds forcing the pound down and forcing the government to print yet more money. An inflationary spiral and political instability would undoubtedly follow.
Giving central banks independence and responsibility for controlling inflation has actually kept inflation lower than when politicians have the same responsibility. Giving it back to politicians would be a dangerous and retrograde move.
MMT has the view that the government prints money via it's borrowing with the BoE and uses the taxes it collects to repay it's overdraft and take out of the economy the tranch of demand it has put in. But if you are not controlling demand via interest rate increases you are going to have huge increases in taxation to controll demand and control your ever burgeoning overdraft at the BoE. You'll have to have budgets a lot more frequently than once a yeart too !

 

[Bodian]

How will you gauge it?

I asked the same question - and got this response.

No idea, I might start with the energy price decrease promise and the 1.5m new homes every year.

Watch this space I guess.

 

[Bodian]

For the umpteenth time you have typed something in quotes indicating that you think it's a quote but give absolutely no clues as to the source of it

And I'm trying to get better at quoting sources

When you read an online article your want to quote from, go to the top bar - highlight the address like this.
View attachment 201302
Then go to your post, and click CTRL-V together - and it inserts the hyperlink.

It's quite easy.

It's more force of habit - it's not something I've ever really done, which is no excuse.

It's almost as if no-one has explained how easy it is to do......

 

[Titanic]

For the umpteenth time you have typed something in quotes indicating that you think it's a quote but give absolutely no clues as to the source of it

Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg live: Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Chris Philp and Yungblud on the show

Yvette Cooper says 50,000 fewer visas for lower-skilled workers will be issued next year, as shadow secretary Chris Philp says this figure is "too little".

www.bbc.co.uk

Care workers

• Cooper said "we do think it is time to end that care worker recruitment from abroad"
• "Effectively they came to jobs that weren't actually here or that were not of a proper standard," she added
• Home Office records show 27,000 visas were issued to health and social care workers coming to the UK in the 12 months to December 2024
• Philp said those without work in the UK should be trained in professions such as caring, and that the UK can't keep importing "cheap labour"

 

[TomandJerry]

For the umpteenth time you have typed something in quotes indicating that you think it's a quote but give absolutely no clues as to the source of it

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...below-graduate-level-under-new-migration-plan

 

[pocketseagull]

I see that Labour are continuing their approach of being the caretaker government for Reform.