What would you like to see in the budget.

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.

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!!

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks growstuff.

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.

He's got some introductory videos on YouTube too.

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

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.

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!

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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

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 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.