What would you like to see in the budget.

It depends which economics course(s) you choose. Both my children did economics A level and did economics as part of their degree. Some of the courses were about classic economic theory, but most was about real economics in the contemporary world.

I'm not sure what you mean about paying for a debt which has been around since the Napoleonic War.

All governments have debt. They're a way of using private money for public good. Asset holders are keen to lend governments money because they know they'll get their money back and they'll earn interest. Government debt is just other people's savings.

JaneJudge

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

It is interesting. I believe that there is a vested interest in keeping the population from understanding things like media and economics. The further to the right a government gets, the keener they become on cutting funding to courses that encourage people to think critically about the way they operate.

It is very difficult to argue for or against something without the building blocks in place that allow us to counter confident assertions that may or may not align with our own political views. We need to be able to think beyond that to the implications of theories, and if we can't do that we risk being cowed or manipulated by those who can do so, whether they are on social media, Question Time or political hustings.

I would like to see social issues made a core subject in schools, covering politics, economics, sociology and media studies, and when the subjects are studied to exam level they should be given equal status with the STEM ones that are equally necessary to society but which don't encourage criticism of the way we are governed.

I can't see how giving money (however it's done) and then counting tax on spending as contributions makes sense.

That is why I wondered if the idea of people in receipt of benefits being actual 'contributors' bothered you, Dd. It cuts across the 'scroungers' narrative, doesn't it? I'm not saying that you think that benefit claimants are scroungers. What I'm saying is this idea that people on benefits don't contribute rather encourages other people to think that claimants are getting something for nothing. Which is, as we surely know, divisive and unfair.

What I am trying to say is that any economic activity contributes to tax revenue and that, as taxation doesn't fund state spending, there is no virtuous hierarchy of taxpayers which starts with 'contributors' and finishes with 'non contributors'. It bothers me because it leads to athe divisive narrative of the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving'.

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.

How else can I say that if you'd accept the fact that the country's budget isn't like a household budget and that taxation doesn't fund spending, you would see things differently?

I'm sorry, but I have tried so hard over the past few years to explain it. I have quoted from academic papers and articles, I've posted links, I've cited economists, the Bank of England and anything else I thought might be useful. I've tried to explain in my own words... No -one will discuss it with me or read my sources. Or even tell me, with evidence, why they reject what I'm saying.

P.S The book growstuff recommends is probably much more useful than an A level Economics course...

varian

Proper windfall tax on the energy producers, tax the international companies like Amazon on the basis of the revenues raised in the UK, cancel the tax loophole of "non dom status", increase the top rate of income tax to 50%, raise tax thresholds for low and middle income earners.

Pursue furlough fraud and crooked covid contracts, Invest in insulating homes, building more social housing, training more doctors and nurses, repairing school buildings and making the most of renewable energy resources.

Exactly this. Plus more stringent planning to force housebuilders to install solar panels and possible batteries too, as part of their planning permission. Not necessarily a budget item I agree, but would go someway towards cutting the cost of living by reducing energy costs. More money invested in training our own medical staff so that we don't have to import from poorer countries who need their skills too.

Urmstongran

Have one less child, pay more tax, travel less, have less meat, stay at home, and protect the NHS" - is that the message?

Gawd it’s depressing.
I can’t bring myself to listen on Thursday.

Mind you, Hunt irritates he hell out of me so that doesn’t help.

I agree, and we need to remind ourselves that Hunt was in charge of the NHS for years and is responsible for much of what we are facing today. He was also in charge when Operation Cygnet ( to evaluate our position in the event of a pandemic) was run, and then shelved and put into the 'too hard' bin. The ensuing crisis with PPE and corrupt contract awards during covid19 are strongly linked to this, although nobody, least of all Hunt, mentions this.

It is very difficult to argue for or against something without the building blocks in place that allow us to counter confident assertions that may or may not align with our own political views.

You're right, Dd. But when someone is trying hard to place all the evidence that has informed their 'views' right under people's noses and it is rejected out of hand or just ignored, it is very frustrating.

I realise that not everyone on a SM forum has the intellectual curiosity to follow things up, but one kind of thinks that one or two might be interested enough to dive in...

MaizieD

^Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.^

What, exactly, would be the point of taxing benefits, swampy1961?

Daft I know!
But if even those on benefits paid a degree of tax then they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.
If your benefits exceed the tax allowance for a single person or whatever then why shouldn't you pay tax? Everyone else does!!
The original question asks what would we like to see in the budget - I would also like all kids of school age to have free meals at school regardless of age or circumstances but we can dream on but it won't happen!!

Is there some kind of 'Economics for Dummies' course? I did a few terms of economics A level, but our teacher left and could not be replaced. The housekeeping comparison in economics comes, I think, from the days of Thatcher.

Found one on Youtube. May have a look, although I am up to the eyes with other study commitments at present.

swampy1961

MaizieD

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.

What, exactly, would be the point of taxing benefits, swampy1961?

Daft I know!
But if even those on benefits paid a degree of tax then they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.
If your benefits exceed the tax allowance for a single person or whatever then why shouldn't you pay tax? Everyone else does!!
The original question asks what would we like to see in the budget - I would also like all kids of school age to have free meals at school regardless of age or circumstances but we can dream on but it won't happen!!

But but but people receiving benefits do pay tax!!

Sorry, but your argument falls at the first hurdle.

growstuff

swampy1961

MaizieD

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.

What, exactly, would be the point of taxing benefits, swampy1961?

Daft I know!
But if even those on benefits paid a degree of tax then they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.
If your benefits exceed the tax allowance for a single person or whatever then why shouldn't you pay tax? Everyone else does!!
The original question asks what would we like to see in the budget - I would also like all kids of school age to have free meals at school regardless of age or circumstances but we can dream on but it won't happen!!

But but but people receiving benefits do pay tax!!

Sorry, but your argument falls at the first hurdle.

I'm pretty sure that swampy1961 thinks that there's only one tax and that's income tax.

^ they would actually have a sense of what many working people experience when they see their payslip every payday.^

Also doesn't seem to realise that some people who receive benefits are actually in work. Or that it's possible that they may have been employed at a time before they had to claim benefits.

What I said, in response to a comment from growstuff about benefit claimants paying tax was:
I can't see how giving money (however it's done) and then counting tax on spending as contributions makes sense.

I have looked for any ambiguity in that, and am struggling. If there is a collective 'pot' (which I know you dispute) then benefits claimants, along with others who don't pay tax, are not contributing to that, and spending/recirculating the money they have is not the same as paying money in. That says nothing about whether I see claimants as 'scroungers' (I don't), or that I am 'rather encouraging' others to do or think anything. I see what I said as a statement of fact, or at least as a statement of how I see the economy working, and I did acknowledge that I could be wrong in that.

I understand that it must be frustrating to keep making a point and finding that others don't engage; but that comes back to what I was saying. There is an underlying current in your posts that anyone who doesn't agree must either not understand what you are saying or have rather unpleasant political views. I do understand what you are saying. It is just that I remain to be convinced that your perspective is the only one, or that it is necessarily right. If I gain a better understanding of the subject in the round (which I would prefer to do by seeing all perspectives discussed) then I will be in a better position to decide what I think, which is what I am trying to get across. Who knows, I may end up being in complete agreement .

PS Yes, a lot of benefits claimants are in work, and you are right that that is often forgotten; but most of those who both work and claim are likely to be paying income tax, surely?

For those who want to see the NHS restructured. It is of course the Tories have have done the most tinkering since thwy have been in power for longer than the LP since the inception of the NHS.

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/health-and-social-care-explained/nhs-reform-timeline

swampy1961

Tax should be paid by everyone including those who claim benefits.
Set the pension age to 65 and free up more jobs for those who are unemployed.
Stop Foreign Aid until we can actually afford it - can't see the point in giving our money away when we are facing austerity measures.

Some benefits are taxable, the largest expenditure being on the state pension which is taxable, depending upon the level of one's other income. Also Bereavement allowance, widowed parent's allowance, JSA, carers allowance, ESA and incapacity benefit.

As with the State pension, taxation depends upon the level of other income.

The state retirement age is increasing because we are living longer.

Many people over the age of 65 continue to work, maybe because the state pension is insufficient and maybe because they want to work.

At the moment the UK is in need of workers - the unemployment rate at 33.5% is the lowest since 1974.

Not everyone who is unemployed is in receipt of benefits. The 16-24 age group is large but they many of them are in education or chosing not to work. Increasing numbers of older people are also chosing not to work.

ronib

Farzanah

Thinking that we should reduce foreign aid shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why we pay foreign aid. There is an argument that more wealthy countries, such as ours, should pay more in foreign aid to reduce the need for refugees to flee their own country seeking a better/safer life here.

We are not wealthy

The UK is or was the 6th? richest country in the world.

GrannyGravy13

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

If everyone hid their savings under the mattress the UK would be in a far worse state - no money available for investment for starters.

Doodledog

"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? "

Brought in by Thatcher, the idea of running a country's economy is like running a household is nonsense. Thousands of people have a mortgage with which they purchased an asset. Over the years they pay interest on their loan and gradually repay the capital until they own the house lock, stock and barrel.

Countries have to provide infrastructure, schools, hospitals, defence, police etc etc. As individuals we contribute towards those things but we are not required to make decisions about how and when.

ronib

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.

That's a fallacy. The debt following the Napoleonic wars was repaid. The next major debt was for the first world war - repaid and the subsequent one was for WW2 - since repaid.

According to the website Immigrant invest, the UK is definitely not the 6th
wealthiest country in the world. In fact it doesn’t get a mention. GDP per head of population is the yardstick.

Doodledog

PS Yes, a lot of benefits claimants are in work, and you are right that that is often forgotten; but most of those who both work and claim are likely to be paying income tax, surely?

Yes, if their combined income is above the personal allowance

ronib

According to the website Immigrant invest, the UK is definitely not the 6th
wealthiest country in the world. In fact it doesn’t get a mention. GDP per head of population is the yardstick.

Have a look at this:

www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/list-of-richest-countries-in-the-world-1637214709-1

You can find these figures quoted elsewhere.

It’s the concept of debt being carried forward into the future which started with the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and obviously not the amount of debt incurred 400 years ago … of course that particular debt has gone. It’s only fairly recently that the debt from the 2nd World War has been repaid. Clearly the costs of the pandemic will be paid for in the years to come.

Maizie

Please don't give up because each time you post I'm sure that you get through to another person.

I don't understand why people don't check their "facts" on the internet. It's easy enough to find supporting documents from reliable sources but then maybe they don't want to be contradicted.

ronib

It’s the concept of debt being carried forward into the future which started with the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and obviously not the amount of debt incurred 400 years ago … of course that particular debt has gone. It’s only fairly recently that the debt from the 2nd World War has been repaid. Clearly the costs of the pandemic will be paid for in the years to come.

The debt has built up and been repaid ever since it's existence. It enabled John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough to be paid sufficiently to aid the building of Blenheim Palace.