What would you like to see in the budget.

Let me think about how to explain. There are volumes written on bureaucracy, Max Weber is excellent. Maybe I can return to this.

An overhaul of RF finance.

JaneJudge

No, I had no idea I think I must have missed all the basic economics classes at school unless they just didn't teach it

I doubt if it's taught in schools.

ronib

Let me think about how to explain. There are volumes written on bureaucracy, Max Weber is excellent. Maybe I can return to this.

You mean the Max Weber who died over 100 years ago?

growstuff

Are you aware that almost all people, including those receiving benefits, pay a percentage of Council Tax? The amount depends on the level set by the local authority.

I doubt if there is anybody in the country who doesn't pay some form of tax, whether it's VAT, road tax or whatever. Moreover, the vast majority of people pay income tax and National Insurance contributions at some point in their life.

This needs repeating, I think.

Most posters seem to be blind to the fact that there are more taxes than income tax. Perhaps if they could take on board the fact, that even those in receipt of benefits do pay tax, they might allow them to have 'agency' instead of being looked upon as non contributors...

From Max Weber essays in sociology by H H Gerry & C Wright Mills publisher RKP. Essential reading.
Karl Marx, Keynes also died a long time ago. Ideas live on.

growstuff

Did you know that banknotes, coins and premium bonds are included in the figure for the national debt?

I'm a bit puzzled by bank notes and coinage being included; though I suppose that, currency being technically 'debt' and the BoE technically promises to redeem your notes and coins (bank IOUs) with something (it used to be silver or gold, but isn't any more) they have to be recorded as debt.

Premium bonds and savings accounts (as I have mentioned before) are of course part of government 'borrowing', just as much as Treasury bonds are.

How many people realise that their modest premium bond holding, or their NSI account are all part of that dreadful debt which everyone is being stirred up about...

ronib

From Max Weber essays in sociology by H H Gerry & C Wright Mills publisher RKP. Essential reading.
Karl Marx, Keynes also died a long time ago. Ideas live on.

And?

Not quite understanding what this has to do with your cryptic comment about public service...

I have no beef with benefits claimants and I'm not 'blind' to anything, but I can't see how giving money (however it's done) and then counting tax on spending as contributions makes sense. It's like when your kids buy you a birthday present with their pocket money.

I never know how much of these conversations is about perspectives and how much is about 'the way it works', as everyone is always so sure that they are right, and often by implication that anyone who looks at things differently doesn't understand the obvious. One of these days I am going to do an Economics A level, as I find it difficult to know what I think without a decent grounding in the basics, which I am the first to admit I don't have.

MaizieD

growstuff

Did you know that banknotes, coins and premium bonds are included in the figure for the national debt?

I'm a bit puzzled by bank notes and coinage being included; though I suppose that, currency being technically 'debt' and the BoE technically promises to redeem your notes and coins (bank IOUs) with something (it used to be silver or gold, but isn't any more) they have to be recorded as debt.

Premium bonds and savings accounts (as I have mentioned before) are of course part of government 'borrowing', just as much as Treasury bonds are.

How many people realise that their modest premium bond holding, or their NSI account are all part of that dreadful debt which everyone is being stirred up about...

Blimey I never knew that my premium bonds or savings accounts were included in the national debt

I am far from stupid it had just never occurred to me.

Might cash them all in and stuff my mattress, it will save buying a new one 🤣🤣🤣

I didn’t study economics at school might be time to hit the library…

Technically yes I have confused deficit and debt. Was it the Labour government who took us down this path of borrowing up ? 3 trillion debt feels very uncomfortable and is only likely to rise?

I am concerned for what will probably become the squeezed middle those with mortgages, young growing families the last thing they need is to pay more tax along with increased mortgage repayments.

We are in a position where we can help our AC/GC if needed millions are not.

I fear that we shall be seeing repossessions and personal bankruptcies which will just increase the need for benefits and social housing.

I have no beef with benefits claimants and I'm not 'blind' to anything, but I can't see how giving money (however it's done) and then counting tax on spending as contributions makes sense. It's like when your kids buy you a birthday present with their pocket money.

If you weren't stuck in 'taxation funds spending' mode you might be able to see it more clearly.

One of taxation's prime functions is to withdraw money from the economy to prevent an inflationary surplus.

There is no hypothecation of taxation that says 'your income tax goes to pay benefit claimants', VAT pays for the police and National Insurance pays for the NHS... All that tax receipts do is reduce the government's 'overdraft' with the Bank of England, the 'overdraft' is caused by the BoE's legal obligation to pay the state's bills...

Benefit money is subject to all kinds of taxation as it works its way round the economy, as growstuff pointed out. And it helps to keep businesses afloat. That was actually one of the rationales for paying benefits, that it helped to keep the economy moving...

Does the idea that people on benefits might actually be contributing to the economy bother you?

ronib

Technically yes I have confused deficit and debt. Was it the Labour government who took us down this path of borrowing up ? 3 trillion debt feels very uncomfortable and is only likely to rise?

I think you need to take those economics classes alongside other posters.

Did you know that the country has been running a 'debt' for at least 400 years, with extremely rare periods of surplus.

The state has has been 'borrowing' all that time. That's what government bonds are. They are the state 'borrowing' from investors/savers who want a guaranteed income and to be sure of getting what they paid for the bond back when ever they want the money.

Labour didn't actually 'borrow' from anyone in order to save the economy from complete collapse (without their prompt action in the GFC most of the country would have been left with completely empty bank accounts). The Bank of England bought fictitious bonds from the government, which put the money into the commercial banks' reserve accounts; ensuring that they could pay any demands on them (remember the 'run' on Northern Rock, which didn't have enough reserves to pay all its customers?).

So no. The Labour government didn't take us down the path of anything... the 'debt' was already there. What is more, any 'debt' incurred through Quantitative Easing is a fiction. The BoE belongs to the state, the state can't owe itself money.

I don't understand economics at all
I can't understand why my savings interest has got much higher, but mortgage payments for home buyers has shot up.
It just seems like transferring money to the better off .
(I'm sure this sounds really stupid. I definitely need to learn more)

ronib

Technically yes I have confused deficit and debt. Was it the Labour government who took us down this path of borrowing up ? 3 trillion debt feels very uncomfortable and is only likely to rise?

It's more than a technicality. Deficit and debt are very different.

nadateturbe

I don't understand economics at all
I can't understand why my savings interest has got much higher, but mortgage payments for home buyers has shot up.
It just seems like transferring money to the better off .
(I'm sure this sounds really stupid. I definitely need to learn more)

It is transferring money to the better off!

If you weren't stuck in 'taxation funds spending' mode you might be able to see it more clearly.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that people present their arguments as fact and others' as wilful stupidity. It really puts me off commenting.

Does the idea that people on benefits might actually be contributing to the economy bother you?
No, not at all. What have I said that gives you that idea? You are projecting ideas onto me that I don't hold, and it's tiresome.

Of course benefits spent on goods will benefit the sellers' businesses and so on, but as I said (in fact what was the very point of my post) is that I don't have a basic grounding in Economics, and am seriously considering taking a course to learn more about it.

There are things that I don't understand, such as why all parties collude in presenting budgets using the household model if it is a lie. I can understand one lot using it as an analogy (erroneously or otherwise) as it is easy for people to grasp, but why don't the other side just rubbish it and explain the reality equally simple terms if there is such a thing as reality?

I am not saying you are wrong, Maisie. Just that you have not explained your point of view in a way that convinces me that you are right. As I've said, though, I was never taught the basics, so don't know how much is perspective and how much is 'fact'. I suspect the former, particularly if Weber is being brought into the argument, but if I do a course in it I will find out. I found an online A level course that I am considering following after Christmas.

Whether I am right or wrong about Economics does not give you the right to assign beliefs about benefits claimants to me, however, so please stop it.

You could try Ha-Joon Chang's "Economics: The User's Guide".

He's got some introductory videos on YouTube too.

Thank you. I'm away just now, but will check it out when I get home next week.

I caught the end of a R4 programme that sounded good. It was on last weekend while I was in the car, so I should be able to track it down on Sounds. I think it was part of a series, so that might be worth a listen too.

I haven't decided for definite whether to commit to a course, but I do prefer a structured way of doing things, with someone telling me whether I've got it right or not. I am far more likely to stick with something that has deadlines and assignments than if I dabble with YouTube.

Thanks growstuff.

Unfortunately I was made to take a first year undergraduate module in economics back in 1971. I begged to switch to English which was allowed. To me economic theory then seemed based on fictitious economic models which failed to engage me.

On reflection, I don’t understand why my children and grandchildren are being made to pay for a debt which has been around since the Napoleonic war and which continues to grow. As an aside, I think Putin is deliberately putting pressure on weakened Western economies to undermine them through the war in Ukraine.

growstuff

You could try Ha-Joon Chang's "Economics: The User's Guide".

Thank you. I will do this! isn't it interesting though how many of us don't fully understand and I say that in a non derogatory way