The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, welnik said:

Or, to put it plainly! from tax and/or borrowing.The only problem is, there isn't enough money from tax to go around, and any money you "borrow" has to be paid back. And how much is enough?

The purpose of tax is redistribution, and also to limit inflation by reducing the money available to the private sector to spend.  It's not to fund government spending.  Issuing bonds is a choice for government, and it could equally spend without doing so.  The point of the line we are given, and which you appear to accept, is to claim that there is simply no capacity for the government to do more.  That's untrue, but it serves a political purpose.  We could if we chose for example employ more doctors and teachers (or police), and the constraint on doing so is the supply of suitably skilled people who want to do the work, as well as things like time required to increase training capacity, accommodation and so on.  The accounting arrangements of government are not the constraint, and "there's no money" is a fiction designed to deny the political choice being made.

[welnik]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

The purpose of tax is redistribution, and also to limit inflation by reducing the money available to the private sector to spend.  It's not to fund government spending.  Issuing bonds is a choice for government, and it could equally spend without doing so.  The point of the line we are given, and which you appear to accept, is to claim that there is simply no capacity for the government to do more.  That's untrue, but it serves a political purpose.  We could if we chose for example employ more doctors and teachers (or police), and the constraint on doing so is the supply of suitably skilled people who want to do the work, as well as things like time required to increase training capacity, accommodation and so on.  The accounting arrangements of government are not the constraint, and "there's no money" is a fiction designed to deny the political choice being made.

Ok,so why are we paying tax? And what did the government spend the tax money on, if not the public sector?

 So what you are saying is that it's not political choices, but a lack of suitable candidates! 

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, welnik said:

Ok,so why are we paying tax?

You didn't read the first sentence.

4 minutes ago, welnik said:

And what did the government spend the tax money on, if not the public sector?

Government can spend tax receipts on that.  The point is that it can also spend without gathering money in.  Failing to tax would run the risk of too high inflation.

4 minutes ago, welnik said:

So what you are saying is that it's not political choices, but a lack of suitable candidates!

I am saying that it is precisely a political choice, but one which is constrained by available resources (not money); you can't recruit ten thousand doctors if there aren't that many people willing to do it.  But if you want them, and they are there to be employed, then government is not prevented from employing them because it has "run out of money".  It's not a company, nor a household.  It's government, the creator and issuer of the currency.

[welnik]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

"you can't recruit ten thousand doctors if there aren't that many people willing to do it" 

Exactly! How is that a political choice. If they are not there to recruit, how is that anything to do with the Government and I suppose the BOE should just keep printing money willy nilly as it would appear that we don't need monetary restraint according to some. 

Can you tell me what the Government did with the £792.9 billion that was brought in from taxation and how much money did they have to borrow to pay off the £1.5 trillion debt? But then I suppose we should just cancel it like all good banana republics.   

 

[peterms]

I'm assuming this is parody, now.

[welnik]

Not at all! 

Next

[peterms]

 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

 

7 months to rebook an appointment and then 2 years to put the letter on Twitter. This woman is living life in the fast lane! 

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

7 months to rebook an appointment

How long did it take you to get over your last miscarriage?

[blandy]

16 hours ago, peterms said:

The purpose of tax is redistribution, ...It's not to fund government spending. 

Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).

[welnik]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).

And funnily enough, it is used for public spending! Who would have thought that! 

[Dr_Pangloss]

17 hours ago, peterms said:

The purpose of tax is redistribution, and also to limit inflation by reducing the money available to the private sector to spend.  It's not to fund government spending.  Issuing bonds is a choice for government, and it could equally spend without doing so.  The point of the line we are given, and which you appear to accept, is to claim that there is simply no capacity for the government to do more.  That's untrue, but it serves a political purpose.  We could if we chose for example employ more doctors and teachers (or police), and the constraint on doing so is the supply of suitably skilled people who want to do the work, as well as things like time required to increase training capacity, accommodation and so on.  The accounting arrangements of government are not the constraint, and "there's no money" is a fiction designed to deny the political choice being made.

Yes and no. This is too 'MMT' bent for my liking, which is hardly an unproblematic view of macroeconomics since it tends to believe macro can be almost fully understood by accounting identities and neglects more 'behavioural dynamics'. Taxation is almost certainly a constraint and funds govt. spending up to a point, but just not fully since as we all know, governments issue bonds (borrow) and central banks can print money. 

[Seat68]

7 hours ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

7 months to rebook an appointment and then 2 years to put the letter on Twitter. This woman is living life in the fast lane! 

She addresses this. She is still trying to get over the emotional and financial implications of it. Good to see you walking a mile in someone else's shoes. 

[VILLAMARV]

Always makes me wonder what job someone has that gives them such a sense of their own superiority whenever I encounter attitudes like that. And if they lost it tomorrow would their identity go with it? Would they label themselves lazy scumbags? Fascinating I suppose.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by VILLAMARV
cold light of morning

[Davkaus]

I can't get my head around benefit sanctions for anything other than proven benefits fraud, never mind trivial bullshit like missing an appointment, or at the whim of some vindictive word removed in a job centre.

They're means tested benefits for the most vulnerable in society, and they're not eligible for them unless they earn under a certain amount, and have **** all savings...So what do they expect to happen when they cut of someone's only course of income? Some get by on charity, but not everyone can or will. Others will simply starve, as is shamefully occurring with a degree of regularity, and I can only imagine a good chunk resort to crime because they have no other option to survive.

It's absolutely **** shameful that this occurs in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. This isn't inevitable, it's not sensible economic policy, it's the scum in the tory party ignoring corporate tax evasion, but enacting a spiteful war against the poor to convince morons that they're tough on tax. It's not "the nasty party", nasty is far too childish a term for the disgraceful policies that these utter bastards have enacted. How many people are struggling to get a meal every day or going without heating in the winter, for the sake of ruthlessly hunting down a rounding error in the nation's expenditure? It's sickening.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Davkaus

[chrisp65]

Brings me back to that recent local election where 40% of voters were happy to try and relect a tory that always voted to reduce people's benefits but thought it ok to fake invoices for art to stick on his office wall.

Not all tories are horrible people, I'd imagine. But bloody hell, they do well at attracting the selfish nasty vindictive side of society.

[Dr_Pangloss]

The Tories want to scrap the welfare system, but not replace it with anything sensible such as a basic income guarantee. They simply believe that poor people are feckless and to fully blame for their plight and the only way the Tories think they should be 'incentivised' is through further destitution. 

It's a total disgrace that a total word removed Boris Johnson is PM and that other utter risible individuals such as Priti Patel , Stephen Barclay, Liz Truss, Michael Gove, Leadsom and Raab in such influential positions. Makes me sick.

[bickster]

 

[bickster]

 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).

No, they are not the same thing. 

Taxation for the purpose of redistribution is curtailing the spending power of one group in order to enhance the spending power of another group.

This is most often done by changing the rates of various taxes.  This can be achieved without any "spending" by government.  Raising VAT would be one example.  Cutting income tax rates differentially across income bands, another.

You seem to use the analogy of governments gathering money in, like a mediaeval bailiff collecting tithes, and doling it out, as though collecting cash prededes spending it, like a child with pocket money.  That's not how it works these days, or has done for many years.