McDonnell's la la land economics- Don't need no number$
Discussion
jsf said:
You can end rip off pricing by giving the regulator proper powers. There is no need to nationalise the industry and introduce the malaise that always produces whilst spunking hundreds of billions in the process. A bit of paperwork would achieve the same thing.
True, but we now agree that there are " rip off prices, yes?Not-The-Messiah said:
For a party that hates the bankers and the supper rich they seem to love giving them loads of money.
Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
The bulk of government bonds are held by pension funds and insurance conpanies on behalf of people like you and me.Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
Not-The-Messiah said:
For a party that hates the bankers and the supper rich they seem to love giving them loads of money.
Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
You are wrong. The super-rich may hold some gilts, and the banks some (normally shorter dated). However, the largest holders are UK pension and investment funds. So you and me. Then about 27% by overseas holders, and 23% by the BOE.Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
The fact is JM is an idiot. Its fine to say we will borrow more money but there also need to be people ready to lend that money. If Labour win there will be a big selloff in gilts, and the BOE will struggle to refinance never mind issue more.
sidicks said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
For a party that hates the bankers and the supper rich they seem to love giving them loads of money.
Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
The bulk of government bonds are held by pension funds and insurance conpanies on behalf of people like you and me.Our interest bill at the moment is more that the NHS wage bill. The people who profit the most from this are the banks and the supper rich who have the money to lend in the first place.
Labour can't wait to give them even more money by the looks of it.
Murph7355 said:
A deficit can be wiped out in one of three ways:
- increase revenues
- cut costs
- some combo of the above
The tax take is the highest it's ever been. Miraculous ways to get more simply do not exist. One might argue that some fiddling around with who actually pays them could be done...but then the least well off aren't paying much/anything into the system anyway. 1% of people provide 30% of income tax etc etc etc. There's a strong argument that what we need to be doing is increasing GDP...but who typically makes that happen...? (Ignoring edge cases).
So we're largely left with the second item.
Unfortunately the less well off are always going to bear a heavy hit on cost cutting as an awful lot of expenditure goes to...the less well off. Unless we find a means to ensure the "well off" don't get stuff for free. But that won't wash, apparently.
You regularly come out with the wealth gap "issue" but am not sure you've ever put a value to it...nor how this would be implemented. Nor spelt out exactly why it would make any material difference to our finances (unless that's not actually the objective. In which case why mention it on this thread
).
Vaguely off-topic, but good old Any Questions on R4 this weekend was a series of questions on the theme of "why don't the government spend more money on XXX". I was shouting at the radio "what do you want to spend less on then?"- increase revenues
- cut costs
- some combo of the above
The tax take is the highest it's ever been. Miraculous ways to get more simply do not exist. One might argue that some fiddling around with who actually pays them could be done...but then the least well off aren't paying much/anything into the system anyway. 1% of people provide 30% of income tax etc etc etc. There's a strong argument that what we need to be doing is increasing GDP...but who typically makes that happen...? (Ignoring edge cases).
So we're largely left with the second item.
Unfortunately the less well off are always going to bear a heavy hit on cost cutting as an awful lot of expenditure goes to...the less well off. Unless we find a means to ensure the "well off" don't get stuff for free. But that won't wash, apparently.
You regularly come out with the wealth gap "issue" but am not sure you've ever put a value to it...nor how this would be implemented. Nor spelt out exactly why it would make any material difference to our finances (unless that's not actually the objective. In which case why mention it on this thread
).A particular bugbear was a question about schools having to ask parents to cough up extra for stationery for their kids. So I guess instead the government could give schools more money... and then need to put up taxes on the same "hard working families" to get them to pay for it?
People who want more "investing" in education/health/etc. rarely seem to want to nominate where they would make savings. Usually just some waffle about tax avoidance.
I've often thought the best way to apportion public spending would be a fixed percentage to each department, so as the tax take rises and falls, the budget rises and falls. Impractical I know, but fair!
leef44 said:
+1
There is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
BTL - provides the landlord with an income which they spend in the economy i.e. Investment so they are working as such an buying things like food, cars, cloths, Amazon vouchers etc all of which puts money into the economy an creates Jobs and wealth - the fact something is not physically made is not important its just a service etcThere is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
jsf said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why is it madness?
Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
What profits?Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
The reason given to nationalise is to "stop rip off prices. "
That translates to no profit.
Because, once the oily unions are allowed to poke their troughs in and create a closed shop, the productivity of the companies will start to drop as the need to perform at the previous level diminishes - as people will then get promoted due to time on the job, or who's brother they are married to.
Then once final salary pensions are reintroduced to align them with the rest of the civil service, the prices will either need to go up, or taxes increased to pay for subsidies through the back door.
It might be funny in a carry on film, but not when you want consistency in your services.
Edited by Mandalore on Monday 20th November 13:54
gooner1 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But according to Labour, the mere fact of making a profit means the prices must be a rip off. They think profit is the difference between the price and what the price ought to be. They won't explain why paying interest to creditors is any better than paying profit to shareholders.
Did not the BOE economist say it was the amount of dividends beingpaid to shareholders, that was holding back investment?
gooner1 said:
jsf said:
You can end rip off pricing by giving the regulator proper powers. There is no need to nationalise the industry and introduce the malaise that always produces whilst spunking hundreds of billions in the process. A bit of paperwork would achieve the same thing.
True, but we now agree that there are " rip off prices, yes?Mandalore said:
jsf said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why is it madness?
Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
What profits?Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
The reason given to nationalise is to "stop rip off prices. "
That translates to no profit.
Because, once the oily unions are allowed to poke their troughs in and create a closed shop, the productivity of the companies will start to drop as the need to perform at the previous level diminishes - as people will then get promoted due to time on the job, or who's brother they are married to.
Then once final salary pensions are reintroduced to align them with the rest of the civil service, the prices will either need to go up, or taxes increased to pay for subsidies through the back door.
It might be funny in a carry on film, but not when you want consistency in your services.
Edited by Mandalore on Monday 20th November 13:54
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
True, but we now agree that there are " rip off prices, yes?
Only for those that can’t be bothered to shop around?!There is a role to play to end this exploitation, a regulator could achieve that if given the powers.
jsf said:
The people who end up on high tariff rates are the elderly and most vulnerable.
There is a role to play to end this exploitation, a regulator could achieve that if given the powers.
1. Not necessarilyThere is a role to play to end this exploitation, a regulator could achieve that if given the powers.
2. Isn’t there a big difference between ‘rip off pricing’ and ‘normal price’ (for those that haven’t (or don’t want to ) locked into a short-term commitment)? It’s like the bank SVR on a mortgage - you can change provider at any time, it if you want to take up a special offer with a different provider, but then you often have to commit to a minimum term etc.
JagLover said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why is it madness?
Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
To ignore many of the other issues. Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
That does rather assume that a firm in public hands will have exactly the same profits as one in the private sector. One of the reasons for privatization was the large public subsidies needed by many nationalized industries.
jsf said:
The people who end up on high tariff rates are the elderly and most vulnerable.
There is a role to play to end this exploitation, a regulator could achieve that if given the powers.
Sometimes, although there are huge amounts of help for these people. Many of them will now find themselves given rebates each year or otherwise moved to the cheapest tariff automatically.There is a role to play to end this exploitation, a regulator could achieve that if given the powers.
There are many hundreds of thousands of non-vulnerable people on them too. People who just literally can't be arsed. I used to speak to some of them in my job, I'd explain I could take them off our most expensive tariff and move them to something cheaper with no tie in, and no exit fees. It took five minutes on the phone (and by definition they were already on the phone anyway)
"Can't be arsed mate, bye".
Shouldn't complain though, it subsidised the cheaper tariffs that I, and thousands of others would sign up to for many years.
I hope they never decide to make similar announcements to end rip off car insurance, I'm quite happy having my policy subsidised each year by people who can't be arsed to shop around at renewal.
jsf said:
gooner1 said:
jsf said:
You can end rip off pricing by giving the regulator proper powers. There is no need to nationalise the industry and introduce the malaise that always produces whilst spunking hundreds of billions in the process. A bit of paperwork would achieve the same thing.
True, but we now agree that there are " rip off prices, yes?Gecko1978 said:
leef44 said:
+1
There is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
BTL - provides the landlord with an income which they spend in the economy i.e. Investment so they are working as such an buying things like food, cars, cloths, Amazon vouchers etc all of which puts money into the economy an creates Jobs and wealth - the fact something is not physically made is not important its just a service etcThere is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
The point being that the more people who become landlords and quitting their job, then the lesser it does for the economy. In the short term, a government is focused on its tax take on the transaction but that does not bode well for the longer term health of the economy.
leef44 said:
Gecko1978 said:
leef44 said:
+1
There is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
BTL - provides the landlord with an income which they spend in the economy i.e. Investment so they are working as such an buying things like food, cars, cloths, Amazon vouchers etc all of which puts money into the economy an creates Jobs and wealth - the fact something is not physically made is not important its just a service etcThere is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
The point being that the more people who become landlords and quitting their job, then the lesser it does for the economy. In the short term, a government is focused on its tax take on the transaction but that does not bode well for the longer term health of the economy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff