Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
By Jacob
#1305999
sploo wrote:.....I guess that's part of why I favour the availability of social services; despite the fact I would probably personally benefit from low taxation.
Good. But in fact you probably wouldn't benefit from lower taxation if you took into account the societal breakdown; poverty, homelessness, desperation leading to drugs/alcoholism/violence etc, which are currently on the increase and eventually impact on all of us.
"Quality of life" doesn't appear on any balance sheets, which makes simplistic views of economics redundant. In USA the very wealthy have to think in terms of gated communities and security guards, to keep out the desperate riff-raff.
On the other hand the very wealthy can only eat one dinner at a time, so increasing wealth has diminishing value - taking 1 million from someone who has 2 would make very little difference to their quality of life. The more you have the less it's worth (the law of diminishing marginal returns) and the less you lose from high rates of tax.
By Jacob
#1306002
Gove tweet:
"I have a lot of admiration for @lucianaberger but on this occasion she’s wrong - Yellowhammer is a reasonable worst case scenario NOT our base case of what will happen... "
suggests to me that he is lying and it IS their base case of what will happen
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306007
(I wrote this in answer to a post about brexit being financed by people who stand to win buyout of chaos - now can't find the original post to quote, as so many other posts turned up after refreshing the page - people have been busy!)

There is a paranoid, conspiracy theory view of economics which says that central banks intentionally overstimulate the economy, fueling a boom. The central banks, run buy the Bank of International settlements, have a cosy arrangement with the biggest commercial banks (in some cases, such as the US federal reserve, the commercial banks are owners of the central bank), and then the agreement is made, amongst themselves, to crash the economy, allowing banks to position themselves to buy distressed assets at knockdown prices.

It is certainly fair to say that central banks are the worst at spotting impending recessions, and tend to raise interest rates until the economy breaks, "but no one could have seen it coming".

If I could create "money" out of thin air, at no cost, I would probably do something similar. Unfortunately every time I try to make my own money, I get put in prison. Hardly fair, is it?
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306008
Jacob wrote:
sploo wrote:...... but would a low tax model result in lower income earners paying more for their services than what it used to cost them in taxes. I assume yes, but it would be good to see where the boundaries are.
Ask yourself - could you afford private health care and private education? I guess 95% of the population could not.

One of the simplest models of the economy is Monopoly the board game. In fact it was originally designed as such.
Money and property move inexorably upwards; too much in too few hands and the game stops.
It has to be redistributed if you want the game to continue.
In the real economy this is done by democratic taxation, distributed directly as welfare benefits but on a vastly bigger scale in financing infrastructure which serves us all, directly or indirectly, and employs millions of workers, including private industry who get contracts and other involvements.
The alternatives are theft, revolution (which makes a high tax model preferable for the very rich, though they need regular reminders :lol: ), random distribution by lottery, etc etc.
Economics is basically very simple and easy to understand - which many want to keep very secret!
High taxation powers the economy - what goes around comes around and generates more wealth.
We are currently watching the total collapse of a low tax UK govt, low tax as naive dogma since 1979. Low tax doesn't work, they have finally twigged and they are frantically waving money about as we speak! :lol: :lol:


As analogies go, Monopoly is a perfect model for modern finance. We all know how it works: there are rules, but no one reads them, there are agreed upon, widely prevalent practices that are not in the rules (do you collect all the fines when you land on free parking? It's not in the rules), and finally, and most importantly, we all know that whoever is banker is going to win, because access to an endless supply of free money = "winning bigly", as someone once said.

Affording private education and private healthcare - 95% couldn't afford it - methinks hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect - exactly the sort of thing I would do :lol:

Bear in mind the currently squewed market makes private healthcare and education very expensive, because the government provides "free" alternatives. If there were no alternatives, the cost of healthcare would be much less than the current "value plus" model for the extra-wealthy. Don't think that all school fees would be at the same level as Eaton, just because Eaton fees are ludicrously high now. Eaton can afford to charge silly amounts because of too much money chasing a limited resource. If everyone had to pay, there would be choices and there would be more affordable options? If there weren't, the market would instantly create them. It would actually be cheaper to employ a full-time private tutor than pay Eaton fees, but then you wouldn't get to be part of the old-boy network, which is actually what the people are paying for.

Finally, most workers pay national insurance - you should be able to find some healthcare and education for a similar amount, if there was nothing else available.
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306009
Dibs-h wrote:
I'm kinda with you on the above. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other - taxes redistributed vs bunch of thieves.

It leaves the question/s of what else if taxes got abolished?

How would schools, hospitals and infrastructure funded? Do we go down the PAYG route? And if so what of those that can't genuinely pay?

Do we move down the rd of the US or Singapore?

Lack of taxes means we can't move down the Scandinavian route - not suggesting we do. Just saying no or minimal taxes, rules that out.


This comes down to what, actually, is "money", and where it comes from. Government currently uses interest rates and tax rates to manage the money supply - if they want more money velocity, they "give"you a tax cut, for example. They would reduce interest rates, except that they already have - interest rates being the value of money, the current value of money is zero. Even less than zero in eurozone :lol:

Where does government get money from? There are three sources, because government actually has no money of its own. They can take it from the population (tax), they can borrow it (take it from future generations) and the third, sneaky one, is inflation, where they steal everyone's wealth, a little bit at a time. Now, what is money? It used to have real value, in the real world - gold/silver/land. Then it because a "promise" of gold/silver/land, then, finally it became entirely fiat - a made-up, agreed-upon thing of zero intrinsic value, which is created out of thin air as required. This being the case, why does government still borrow, when it could just create it's running costs out of thin air? If Barclays bank has the right to create new money when you raise a mortgage on a houses why can't the government create new money to pay government workers, at zero cost to me, everyone else, and the government (provided they don't create inflation)? Why do they have to take money from me, which I have exchanged for hours of work - hours of my life that I will never get back? As long as the money supply doesn't increase, there won't be inflation, and all will be good. We could have elections based on what government services would be supplied, at what cost, and what inflation rate would be deemed acceptable.

Currently government extracts wealth from the people directly through taxes, which reduces their wealth directly. It also borrows money, which competes with capital for private sector investment (better to buy nice, safe bonds than stocks, for example), as well as forcing future generations to pay back the debt, although some will be inflated away. And finally, government then dilutes the money supply, creating inflation, which then over time writes off the debt - in effect defaulting on the loan, but also stealing wealth from every single person. And still people buy bonds - no helping some people. Government is a big problem, interfering in big ways, to the detriment of the majority of people.

It's a theory, anyway.
User avatar
By nabs
#1306017
Noel wrote:
I think if NI gets what's been referred to as "Special Status" it won't be 3rd Country alignment but rather full CU and SM participation, essentially not leaving the EU although many other aspects and rights of existing EU membership are not known.
Special Status would be a popular option amongst many, an English speaking (with a bit of an accent) gateway to the EU and the GB markets. But that would only work if it's a long term solution which again is something not known. As I suggested a long time ago, might be an idea to ask the people of NI.
DUP might be softening slightly on this option but whatever they told Johnson in their meeting today I would have to guess it'll be "their" version of a NI Backstop, which is likely not to have any resemblance to the NI Backstop, possibly with the involvement and supervision of the non existent NI Assembly and demanding Dublin do as they are told.


I agree with that - a backstop cludge would have all sorts of problems and would have to be superseded during negotiations with something that has the consent of the people of NI.

But let's face it, Johnson is not remotely interested in any of this - he doesn't really care about Brexit all - he just wants the adulation of the millions while he waffles on about the NHS, education etc and will thus do anything to avoid his entire premiership being dominated by Brexit.

He also knows that the EU is a trade superpower with massive influence on trade and regulation and that - if we crash out - he will have absolutely no leverage when he eventually has to back to them cap-in-hand to agree fixes to the mess caused by our leaving without an agreement. Being left in charge while that unravelled would be the final nail in the coffin of his dismal career.

I think his entire strategy is about trying to marginalise the swivel eyed loons in the Brexit Party and the ERG/DUP and to garner support from parliament on a "surprise" compromise announced shortly before an election. The fact he is f_cking it up is sadly true to form.
By Jacob
#1306022
nabs wrote:.....
I think his entire strategy is about trying to marginalise the swivel eyed loons in the Brexit Party and the ERG/DUP and to garner support from parliament on a "surprise" compromise announced shortly before an election. The fact he is f_cking it up is sadly true to form.
Agree. The surprise might even be to propose revoking Art 50. Let's face it there is no alternative. But as you say he'll probably oeuf it up !
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306025
nabs wrote:I agree with that - a backstop cludge would have all sorts of problems and would have to be superseded during negotiations with something that has the consent of the people of NI.

But let's face it, Johnson is not remotely interested in any of this - he doesn't really care about Brexit all - he just wants the adulation of the millions while he waffles on about the NHS, education etc and will thus do anything to avoid his entire premiership being dominated by Brexit.

He also knows that the EU is a trade superpower with massive influence on trade and regulation and that - if we crash out - he will have absolutely no leverage when he eventually has to back to them cap-in-hand to agree fixes to the mess caused by our leaving without an agreement. Being left in charge while that unravelled would be the final nail in the coffin of his dismal career.

I think his entire strategy is about trying to marginalise the swivel eyed loons in the Brexit Party and the ERG/DUP and to garner support from parliament on a "surprise" compromise announced shortly before an election. The fact he is f_cking it up is sadly true to form.


The list of economies, by size, goes as follows:

USA
European Union
China
Japan
Germany (already included in EU, so ignore)
India
UK (also included in EU above).

Would you say India was an irrelevant, tiny backwater economy, to be ignored? India has no negotiating powers and should be crushed underfoot by the all-powerful , mighty EU? Japan managed to get a free trade deal. Why, if the EU is only interested in destroying/ignoring other nations?

I think you might have an overinflated view of the self-sufficiency of the EU, and a very skewed view of UK and where it fits in the world. People on either side of this shiny new border will still want to do business with each other. Why would either government go out of their way to stop them? (Answer: endless political and dogma reasons, but business will still find a way).
By Jacob
#1306027
Trainee neophyte wrote:
nabs wrote:I agree with that - a backstop cludge would have all sorts of problems and would have to be superseded during negotiations with something that has the consent of the people of NI.

But let's face it, Johnson is not remotely interested in any of this - he doesn't really care about Brexit all - he just wants the adulation of the millions while he waffles on about the NHS, education etc and will thus do anything to avoid his entire premiership being dominated by Brexit.

He also knows that the EU is a trade superpower with massive influence on trade and regulation and that - if we crash out - he will have absolutely no leverage when he eventually has to back to them cap-in-hand to agree fixes to the mess caused by our leaving without an agreement. Being left in charge while that unravelled would be the final nail in the coffin of his dismal career.

I think his entire strategy is about trying to marginalise the swivel eyed loons in the Brexit Party and the ERG/DUP and to garner support from parliament on a "surprise" compromise announced shortly before an election. The fact he is f_cking it up is sadly true to form.


The list of economies, by size, goes as follows:

USA
European Union
China
Japan
Germany (already included in EU, so ignore)
India
UK (also included in EU above).

Would you say India was an irrelevant, tiny backwater economy, to be ignored? India has no negotiating powers and should be crushed underfoot by the all-powerful , mighty EU? Japan managed to get a free trade deal. Why, if the EU is only interested in destroying/ignoring other nations?

I think you might have an overinflated view of the self-sufficiency of the EU, and a very skewed view of UK and where it fits in the world.
Self sufficiency doesn't come into it; we already trade with all these countries but are better placed to work via the EU trading bloc.
It should be glaringly obvious to all that we will be worse placed from outside the EU.
NB The Japanese deal was nothing to do with "free trade".
People on either side of this shiny new border will still want to do business with each other. Why would either government go out of their way to stop them? .....
They won't want to stop them but tearing up all current trading agreements won't help at all. Brexit would involve years of rebuilding trading relationships, until we reached something like the position we are now in.
Last edited by Jacob on 12 Sep 2019, 07:50, edited 1 time in total.
By Chris152
#1306035
Jacob wrote:Brexit would involve years of rebuilding trading relationships, until we reached something like the position we are now in.

or until we simply slide down the list of economies, which is quite possible given our long-term trajectory, and the utter farce the world's observed over the last few years.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1306038
TN...you've never had to 'play' the Great Carnet Game, have you ? Otherwise you'd understand the benefits of trading as a member of the EU.
By RobinBHM
#1306049
the cost of healthcare would be much less than the current "value plus" model for the extra-wealthy


The US system proves you wrong.

You assume economies of scale in private healthcare would bring savings.....it wouldnt.

Private healthcare is driven by shareholder profit not by good service to the user.
By RobinBHM
#1306054
All I need to do now is find ways to convince you that the more regulation there is, the more cost to business there is, and therefore the less profit and growth there can be. I don't think I'm going to be able to do that, for the same reason that you will not be able to convince me that punative taxes are a good idea.


The reality is that every economy is a mixed economy, there isnt capitalism or socialism......but each country exists somewhere aroubd the middle.

What a government should strive for is a fair compromise where there is enough freedom to encourage innovation and enough regulation to keep inequality low.

There is a problem in the UK with a high level of poverty....and it needs addressing.
Austerity and neo liberal policies by the Tories are a main cause.

Have a look at gini coefficient comparisons around the world.
User avatar
By Sheffield Tony
#1306055
RobinBHM wrote:
the cost of healthcare would be much less than the current "value plus" model for the extra-wealthy


The US system proves you wrong.

You assume economies of scale in private healthcare would bring savings.....it wouldnt.

Private healthcare is driven by shareholder profit not by good service to the user.


Agree with Robin here. A private healthcare system making profit to pay shareholders, and healthcare insurance to pay for it - insurers also taking a slice of it. How is that going to be lower cost. If you think the US system is OK, here is what a friend of mine in the US had to say about a career break recently:

"Unfortunately, without a full-time job, we also don't have health coverage, since there's no NHS in the US, and private premiums to sign up with an insurance company are around $1600 per month. Beats me how anybody managed to be self-employed in this country."

He's a mathematician and computer geek, as far from unskilled as you can imagine. Normally the health insurance is part of his job package.

Edited to add: If we take that $1600 and compare to employers + employee's NI, very few people will be paying more NI than that. And NI is for more than just the NHS. And do you believe for one minute that, if PAYG healthcare happened, you'd save all the cost paid through NI ? I bet the state would just find another way of spending some or all of it.
Last edited by Sheffield Tony on 12 Sep 2019, 08:54, edited 1 time in total.