US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.

If you increase the amount of money you print without an increase in national assets, you end up with inflation, trade deficits and all the symptoms of a collapsed state.

What 'national assets' are you thinking of? A properly funded and effective NHS? A world class system of education and training which sustains top level research and innovation, and a skilled workforce? An integrated transport system that serves both the public and industry? Renewable energy ? Water providers that don't discharge enormous amounts of raw sewage into our rivers and seas?

Or do you have something else in mind?

As for inflation, governments have created £billions in completely new money over the last decade and a half. Has it been inflationary?

In the three cases of hyperinflation cuased by 'printing money' commonly cited, Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe and Venzuela the causes have been corruption, dislocation of the 'normal' domestic economy, failure to tax, disruption of trade...

Do any of these, apart from the last because of Brexit, apply to the UK?

What is the prime cause of our current inflation? It certainly isn't an over supply of money...

Well neither of us CBA. So be it. Rather a shame though, given your constant insistence that taxation doesn’t fund expenditure. So be it. I’m none the wiser as to the purpose of taxation. I just pay up, always have, always will.

Germanshepherdsmum

Without having to read the links, please humour me as my time is limited, can you please tell me how the proposed expenditure can be funded without any increase in taxation?

Without reading the links you will not understand where I am coming from.

I don't think that I could precis an academic research paper and two long articles in a way that would satisfy you (or MOnica)

Impasse.

M0nica

But do we want an economy that grows? Surely we want an economy that stabilises and doesn't draw on more and more resources from other countries and cause climate change.

Should the answer to our local problems should not be passed on to countries poorer than us.

I don't see any reason why we can't work within sustainable growth.

ideasforus.org/sustainability-and-5-examples-of-how-it-helps-economic-growth/

Maizie we have had this argument before. If you increase the amount of money you print without an increase in national assets, you end up with inflation, trade deficits and all the symptoms of a collapsed state. including poverty for most people. well, if we are all equally poor, that is one way of solving the problem, but not one to be recommended.

Without having to read the links, please humour me as my time is limited, can you please tell me how the proposed expenditure can be funded without any increase in taxation?

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s a rather obscure reply Maizie. For bears of little brain, of which I am one when it comes to such matters, a clear explanation as to how this could be funded without increased taxation would be very helpful.

I keep telling you that taxation doesn't fund spending.

Try reading the two links I've posted in my previous post.

M0nica

Maizie you have yet to show how soaking the rich will provide all the extra money needed.

And to quote an old northern saying ^You get owt for nowt', So how can we pour more money into the NHS, Education, better and more housing, etc etc, not to mention better benefits without finding the money to do so from somewhere?

I haven't said a bl88dy word about soaking the rich.

The state, via the Bank of England, is the issuer of money. Banks issue new money for lending under licence from the BoE. The state doesn't rely on taxation to fund anything.

Try reading this:

www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_purpose/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf

And this:

www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/quarterly-bulletin-2014-q1.pdf

First two articles.

That’s a rather obscure reply Maizie. For bears of little brain, of which I am one when it comes to such matters, a clear explanation as to how this could be funded without increased taxation would be very helpful.

But do we want an economy that grows? Surely we want an economy that stabilises and doesn't draw on more and more resources from other countries and cause climate change.

Should the answer to our local problems should not be passed on to countries poorer than us.

Germanshepherdsmum

I know you always insist that taxation doesn’t fund spending Maisie. What is your suggestion?

I've made my suggestions twice already, I'm not doing it again.

Some involve state investment, but state spending comes before taxation. And state spending grows the economy.

I look forward to your answer to my question Maizie. Genuinely. I don’t know the answer.

If you think I enjoyed my work you’re sorely mistaken Jane. I was more than pleased to retire. I’m sure some people are able to do work that they enjoy. Good for them. I have never considered myself to be more special than someone else, vastly inferior to many who have talents that I don’t.

Maizie you have yet to show how soaking the rich will provide all the extra money needed.

And to quote an old northern saying ^You get owt for nowt', So how can we pour more money into the NHS, Education, better and more housing, etc etc, not to mention better benefits without finding the money to do so from somewhere?

don't we all? or do you think you are more special than the rest of us?

Some people don’t have the opportunity to do what they would enjoy, what would make them happy, they have to do what’s necessary to pay the bills.

Perhaps Katie59 would like to clarify why she disagrees with the data. I've given the data sources. Does she have better ones which tell us something different?

Or perhaps those people who are agreeing with her can supply some alternative data to support their view?

make people have better paid boring jobs instead of being happy

I know you always insist that taxation doesn’t fund spending Maisie. What is your suggestion?

Why do we need to increase taxation to reduce poverty?

Against the flow of this thread. I would be more than happy to pay more taxation in order to see less poverty. The obsession all political parties in this country seem to have with reducing taxation perplexes me.

I would like to see political parties that address the inequalities in society shows how to reduce them and what the cost of doing them will be. Yes, I know the Labour party has the ideas and policies, but is remarkably shy about telling us how they will raise the money to pay for them. I do not mean all these ideas about 'soaking the rich'. You could ring then dry and the amount you would get would in total be nominal.

I am another in agreement with Katy59. If we want to remove many of the inequalities in our society, then it is a lot of the people on GN who have got to be among those who have to pay for it - and that includes me.

Norway does, indeed , have a small population. That doesn't mean that the model it uses can't be replicated.

Katie59

MaizieD

Katie59

“I assume from your post that your are very happy to live in a society where the first proposition is true. That there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people.”

Wrong, in the UK there are a few very rich and a lot of very comfortably off that can afford to pay more, so that the poorest can have a better life.
The amount that is spent on alcohol, non essentials and luxuries is staggering and that’s just at the supermarket.

Just go on ignoring what the data tells us if that's what makes you feel comfortable.

The problem is Maisie that I disagree with your data, the UK is far from the worst country for the wages gap. Bankers are an easy target, they are a very small group which happen to be in the news at present. Caping or taxing them does not make a difference to the economy, although it may be politically popular.

To make a difference a much larger group have to pay more, that is going to be politically unpopular because those with large investments or property, which I am going to define as more than £1m are largely vote Tory for low taxes. I’m going to call that group “Middle England” those that hand their own wealth and influence to their own family, ignoring the needs of the low paid

This group has to pay more, it’s an unpopular viewpoint on Gransnet because it affects many of us, we all want someone, else to pay not us.

Katy59
I think you are correct in your comment above.

It's not my data, Katie59. Did you read the thread or the article I linked to?

This is where the data came from. Do you have alternative sources which contradict it or do you just disagree with it because you don't want it to show what it shows?

Sources: FT analysis of data from Eurostat EU-SILC survey, OECD and UK Family Resources Survey

I think that your conclusion, that everyone tut tuts over the figures but no-one wants to be in the group that pays more is a valid one; no-one thinks that they are rich..

But approaching it from the 'robbing the rich to pay the poor' is not what is needed, is it? Increasing wages and benefits to a level where the recipients can live comfortable lives isn't robbing the rich, is it?

Progressive taxation which limits the power of the rich to accumulate even more wealth isn't robbing the rich, is it? You can't rob them of what they don't have.

Investing public money in education, training, supporting
new enterprises and supporting public services isn't robbing the rich, is it?

(just please don't tell me that all this is funded by taxation. it isn't.)

MaizieD

Katie59

“I assume from your post that your are very happy to live in a society where the first proposition is true. That there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people.”

Wrong, in the UK there are a few very rich and a lot of very comfortably off that can afford to pay more, so that the poorest can have a better life.
The amount that is spent on alcohol, non essentials and luxuries is staggering and that’s just at the supermarket.

Just go on ignoring what the data tells us if that's what makes you feel comfortable.

The problem is Maisie that I disagree with your data, the UK is far from the worst country for the wages gap. Bankers are an easy target, they are a very small group which happen to be in the news at present. Caping or taxing them does not make a difference to the economy, although it may be politically popular.

To make a difference a much larger group have to pay more, that is going to be politically unpopular because those with large investments or property, which I am going to define as more than £1m are largely vote Tory for low taxes. I’m going to call that group “Middle England” those that hand their own wealth and influence to their own family, ignoring the needs of the low paid

This group has to pay more, it’s an unpopular viewpoint on Gransnet because it affects many of us, we all want someone, else to pay not us.