So what do we want?

Well, Anya,
While people refuse to address the question of how money is 'created' we're not going to get any further with 'how to pay for such a programme'. We're just going to get the same old mantras trotted out about freebies and unaffordable and plunging the nation into debt etc. And we'll end up going round in circles yet again.

By 'created' I don't mean earned. I mean where does it originate; how does it get into the economy. How can the scenario I gave be explained. We really need to understand this (as a nation, not just us on Gnet) before we can move our economic thinking forward.

Thank you Norah for getting the thread back on line and addressing the central issue which is how to pay.

We seem to have those who think it's unaffordable, for various reasons. But it really isn't.

Norah has 'cut to the chase' and stated it exactly in her last sentence.

"to"

Yeah yeah! Of course you do. Anything o disagree with me..eh?

@GG

Perhaps everyone's having a think about it...

OP: So....do we want an effective and efficient free NHS? YES

Do we want good schools and free education? YES

Do we want well trained and sufficient police numbers? YES

Do we want good quality Social Care? YES

I think what we really want is a workable programme to pay for the things we want.

If employed they could earn £70 a day, I know gardening businesses which employ throughout the year

Somebody earning £10 an hour doing jobs such a mowing lawns almost certainly doesn't earn £70 a day, because he/she has to travel between jobs, probably doesn't work every hour of every day throughout the year and has expenses, such as maintaining tools and vehicle.

I think you could be waiting for an answer Maizie.

Paying what is judged as very little tax is not very little when one is in low wages

So academics are not worth a moment's consideration, then Jalima?

So where do you think all the money has come from?

How come there is more money in circulation than there was 100 years ago? Despite the fact that the population has grown by 50% in that time and individuals have more 'money' than they had 100 years ago. (and it hasn't been redistributed from the 'rich' to the 'poor', because wealthy individuals also have more money than they had 100 years ago.

I am trying to deal with this idea that there is only a finite amount of money to go round. If that were true we would every single one of us have very, very little now. Instead we have very much more. How?

So the question is - should a childless labourer be expected to help fund free school dinners, free musical instruments etc for the children of someone who is earning far more than him/her?

That is not only poor economics it's poor maths. At the very lowest end of income people will be paying very little tax for greater benefits. As you rise up the scale of income it will even out and further up still the rich will (or should) be paying more than they receive. I think if you get hung up on the only benefits we receive from the tax funded state being school dinners and musical instruments you are misleading yourself.

It also presents a complete lack of a sense of society - which of course, may be how you feel and you are completely entitled to hold that opinion, but I would I would argue strongly against it if you did put that argument forward.

The people I attend focus groups with range from wealthy business people, farmers, politicians (labour mainly),land lords, the self employed and every other thing in between

Sorry, that's just lots of people with lots of opinions. I don't see any academic economists, the experts, in that list.

They sound to me like a lot of people like a lot of people with a lot of practical experience on how business etc works (perhaps apart from the politicians!) rather than academics who know a lot in theory but have no practical experience themselves.

Let's face it - the economists with their theories have not got a lot right over the years have they.

anniebach I was answering Gracesgran re pay for a labourer as GG said that a labourer would not be paying tax, but, as they would in all probablility be earning more than £11,500 pa in fact they would be.

So the question is - should a childless labourer be expected to help fund free school dinners, free musical instruments etc for the children of someone who is earning far more than him/her?

That does not mean I am saying that taxpayers without children should not help to fund education for all including the wealthy who choose not to pay to educate their children privately for whatever reason, but are free school dinners, free musical instruments etc a step too far?

as you said
but we are going to feed the children of affluent families and scrap tuition fees for the children of very wealthy families, and employ music teachers for every school in the country
so the labourer on £18,500 or so would have to pay more tax to fund this too on top of essential services.

(in other words - I am agreeing with you!)

Obviously neither she (GG), nor either of you have attended any of the forums I attend so you wouldn't have a clue how biased or non-biased the discussions are that we have.

But the discussions you have in whatever fora, while they may touch on the 'economy', are not discussions among economists who have studied 'money' and 'economies' in a far different way. They have no bias because the 'behaviour' of money in an economy and the effects of manipulating the money supply are politically neutral. All they are saying is that 'when a happens, b is the result.

Let's start from a completely different angle.

Where does money come from?

100 years ago the population of the UK was far smaller than it is today:
The 1921 Census showed Great Britain had a population of 42,767,530 in 1921. In 2011 the UK population was 63.26 million. An increase of 20 million.

In 1925 Hansard reported the average wage for a working 'man' was between 14 - 50 shillings per week

So, at the higher end about £130 p.a.

In 2016 the average wage was £27,000 p.a.

Bearing in mind that the population has increased by 20 million over that time, so more people will be earning

where has all that extra money come from?

Jalima , I know the tax codes , I do the pay roll for labourers, apprentices, tradesmen, sub contractors

Absolutely GGMK2

The lowest tax bracket Jalima which Corbyn's manifesto was protecting so they would not be paying additional taxes.

I am happy to share answers made to me MazieD and mostlyharmless

Dozens of UK economists - including a former Bank of England adviser - have indicated they are publicly backing the policies of Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn. In a significant boost to Mr Corbyn'scampaign, more than 40 economists have reportedly added their signatures to a letter in the Observer dismissing claims the Islington North MP is "extreme".

Instead, they argue that Mr Corbyn's opposition to austerity is "actually mainstream economics".

Corbyn Wins Backing From Over 40 Economists

Although we needed an austerity policy directly after the global crash after two or three years it became an Osbourne vanity project. Ben Chu in the 'i' notes today that suddenly, after seven years of telling us it is good for the nation the Tories have fallen silent.

He also adds that it became clear within a year of the 2010 'emergency budget' in which GO forced through huge cuts in capital budgets and enormous squeezes on Whitehall budgets and welfare spending that this path with the economy was doing harm not good.

GO would not use the capital spending stimulus that was permitted under his own rules - even when the IMF urged him to do so - because he would lose face.

I have watched him in interviews since where he has talked as if the austerity experiment has failed but it was not something to worry about. I found his attitude contemptuous (but that bit is just my opinion)

Generally speaking, someone doing relatively unskilled jobs for others charges about £10 per hour or £70-£80 per day (we are not in the London area).
I am not talking about a builder's labourer, rather the person who may mow lawns, lay paving slabs, domestic cleaning etc which would work out more than I quoted above.

Anniebach labourers on low wages will not pay tax on their wages, so will not be funding others

The personal allowance is, I think, £11,500 and the average wage for a labourer in the UK is apparently between £17,500 and £18,800 per annum
£8 - £9 per hour based on a 40 hour week.

This would bring them into the tax bracket.

No they're all valid views. But the government has to look at the whole economy from a macroeconomic viewpoint which means investing in jobs, welfare, health, education and infrastructure to boost the national economy. So Corbyn's thinking is in line with the internationally accepted economic theory.

It might seem to go against common sense views of budgets in households and businesses but it is accepted that it works. For example after WWII and the depression more money injected into the economy lifted the UK, USA, Germany etc out of the doldrums into the prosperous 1950s and 60s.

See the videos explaining economics and where the money comes from in this thread.

So our assembly member who is married to a farmer, lives on the farm shouldn't have been appointed education minister because she only knows about and is only interested in farming ?

I think you will find that the list I gave was for GGm2 and in answer to her point below: MazieD and mostlyharmless

So you will listen to those you believe will already be biased to the point of view you hold but not anything that may offer you information about other views Gillybob

Obviously neither she (GG), nor either of you have attended any of the forums I attend so you wouldn't have a clue how biased or non-biased the discussions are that we have. I can assure you that we very rarely all agree on anything, but we do all listen to each others point of view and often agree to disagree (something that many find almost impossible on GN). I am in business myself and it is within the best interest of my employees and business as a whole, that I attend and listen to what other business people and those with influence in the region have to say about a very wide range of subjects.

Farmers, landlords, business people see things in terms of their own business. Macroeconomics is the study of the economy at a national, (or regional or global,) level. Business people (including George Osborne whose family own businesses ) see the smaller picture of profit and loss in their own business.
The national economy uses GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as an important measure. Individual farmers or companies don't usually look at the bigger picture except as how it might affect them.