So what do we want?

All I can assume is, that when I asked questions or suggested you could explain something, you are unable to answer.

At least other posters can give a civilised answer.

Who said I ever thought that MaizieD?
Only you
Your posts are very rude and entirely untruthful.

dj

It is futile to ask jalima, or anyone who believes in the 'national economy is the same as a household economy' myth, to read Richard Murphy; they just dismiss him as just another theorist and a leftwing one, at that.

Jalima. It seems to me that your mind is totally closed to even beginning to think about how money is 'created'. Going on about 'economists not agreeing among themselves' is irrelevant to the question. What economists don't agree about is how to control money to avoid hyperinflation or stagnation once it is in circulation; not how it gets there.

I'm trying to find out if anyone at all here has thought at all about how 'money' is created. How the supply of 'money' has increased exponentially as populations have increased and how individuals' 'share' has also increased.

Everyone arguing against the Labour manifesto has said that we cannot afford it because it would, in effect, bankrupt the country. This argument is based on the idea that there is only a fixed amount of money in circulation. But this cannot be true if, as populations increase the supply of money increases too. if it were true the share of money available to each individual would get smaller as there would be more people around to share it.

Do you 'get' the logic of that?

The link doesn't work

Thanks djen

Do you think there could be 40 economists who disagree though?

Many people would be surprised to learn that even among bankers, economists, and policymakers, there is no common understanding of how new money is created.

Jalima, read www.taxresearch.org.uk to find out where money comes from.
40 economists agree with him, which is a good start.

I echo GG2's question, Jalima. Who is asking them to pay more income tax?
I echo what other posters have said - that they would be happy to pay more tax - which would mean everyone who is a tax payer.

The architect of the austerity programme in this country was not an economist Jalima it was someone with a degree in Modern History and a huge ego that wanted his view of politics whatever the cost to others.

The consensus seemed to be that we all need to pay more tax and, if pensioners are to pay more tax I presume that would mean someone on a wage of around £18,000 would be paying more tax too - unless some pensioners are very wealthy with an income way beyond that kind of level.
I cannot say I would pay more tax as I pay none myself so perhaps I am not in a position to comment.

I have a feeling this will be another unanswered question Maizie.

citing economists, who, it seems, nobody believes anyway
the trouble is they can't agree amongst themselves so it is difficult to know who to believe.
As in the instance I mentioned on R4 where we listened to an economist who sounded reasonable then listened to another who sounded just as reasonable except that the first economist kept shouting 'that's rubbish' over the top of the second economist and not allowing him to speak.

So where does that leave someone who is trying to find out about how the economy works and where money comes from?

why people on a low wage but in the income tax bracket should be asked to pay more income tax

I echo GG2's question, Jalima. Who is asking them to pay more income tax?

Is there any reason why any children of labourers on minimum wage shouldn't have free music lessons? In the long, the children would benefit.

None whatsoever but that would mean a system of means testing.

It seems to me it's the cost of housing that has made a big difference.

Anya, a decent house for everyone to live in missing from your list.

So how do you say that what someone is saying is untrue Annie and that they are doing it deliberately because they are obsessed with blackening the name of one particular politician?

The LP manifesto specifically said taxes would not be raised for those earning under £80,000. We have just had a very public election during which this was discussed on here.

You make up an issue with the taxing of those on minimum wage and go on and on about who is and who isn't on minimum wage, none of which is relevant but designed to make out that this is a truth. It is not. It doesn't matter how many people you have a go at because they are not agreeing with you about a person working on minimum wage - it just isn't relevant except to allow you to construct an issue which is not real.

Exactly, Welshwife. So how and when did it get like that?

It is wrong Welshwife that people are forced to go cap in hand

But that is what I was talking about - it is not right that people doing a good weeks work have to rely on benefits to pay their bills!! It never was the case - one wage would keep a family in maybe just a very modest way but they did not need to go to the Council offices and fill in obtrusive forms and reveal all their financial details.

What matters is it is true and there are many who earn the same, you question me not express your usual concern for the low paid ? Self explanatory

And you wrote it down, just in case it came up on Gransnet?

I don't know if they have benefits Welshwife, couldn't ask them that , was kind to show me his pay slip

Rent - 125 per week
Council tax 150
That has taken most of it!

Gross pay. £300

Tax. £15.80

NIC. £16.16

Pension. £1.50

Net pay. £265.54

ACAS telephone no, 0300 123 1100