[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