Where has the money gone?

M0nica

MaizieD I have read your post again and it doesn't change my opinion.

I am in complete agreement with cc

How can you have an opinion of something that you don't appear to understand?

I have explained time and time again that MMT is not in any way a theory of how an economy should be run. It doesn't prescribe any thing at all. Its proponents may suggest ways in which this knowledge can this can be used, but other people are free to use it in whatever way they want.

It is a description of how governments with a sovereign currency are funded It says that taxation doesn't fund spending but, to the contrary, government spending precedes taxation. Goodness knows, I've linked you to the research paper often enough. I'm perfectly happy for you to give me an evidence based critique of that.

What I am not happy about is being told I'm wrong, misguided, naive etc etc. when my critics clearly don't understand the fundamental element of MMT.

Where has thc money gone?

It's obvious

Into the coffers of Tory Party donors and Tory supporting criminals like Michelle Mone/

MaizieD I do understand the principles of MMt. I have critiqued it on numerous previous threads. Further up this thread I refered to examples of its use in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and post WW1 Germany, and the effects of its use, with caution, in Quantative Easing in this country.

None of these examples have been outstanding successes. hence my comments about clinging to ideas and ignoring signs that they are not all they are made ut to be.

... to their mates/families and to themselves in shares etc.

CORRUPT - and we need shot of them URGENTLY!

They are deliberately dwindling the coffers, so that whoever does get in will have a massive fight on their hands, and the Tories will obviously use it against them in the hope that they may get back in. This will take decades to sort, not just 4 years ...

Witzend

I can’t remember the details, but recently I read a piece about what the writer evidently thought is a hugely bloated civil service* with masses of CSs on £100k plus salaries, and presumably pensions to match.

*Especially when compared to its efficiency, was the tone of the piece. It was in the Times or the Sunday Times, can’t remember though.

So that’d be at least one drop in the squillion quid ocean.

From my perspective and experience the piece you read was very much ill informed. Not least every damm government in the last 25 years not only talks about but does reduce the cost of government ie makes civil servants redundant. Hence there are not enough civil servants in the immigration service, department of works and pensions, hmrc, and on and on. The civil service salary has not been competitive to the private sector for decades. The pension used to be attractive but that has diminished and university talent does not see it as a good job as once it was. Fact check articles you read because the media is circumspect on the accuracy side of information.
If masses of civil servants receive £100k plus salaries I never met any during my time working in department of Education, mod (navy) and DWP and I was an assistant director. Incidentally myself and my team regularly worked over our paid 37 hpw doing more like 50hpw.

Sure the odd £billion has been hived off by corruption of one sort or another but does not account for the £10s of billions we are adding to the deficit every year. It’s the ever increasing social protection spending, NHS, benefits, tax credits and all the rest we take for granted.

We have to find a way of increasing the income from taxation if we want to maintain the welfare state we have, we cannot keep borrowing/creating money because it is not producing the growth needed

The BoE can arrange as much money as it needs to and banks can lend as much new money as borrowers can afford but MMT hasn’t been working for the UK for at least 20 yrs.

M0nica

MaizieD I do understand the principles of MMt. I have critiqued it on numerous previous threads. Further up this thread I refered to examples of its use in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and post WW1 Germany, and the effects of its use, with caution, in Quantative Easing in this country.

None of these examples have been outstanding successes. hence my comments about clinging to ideas and ignoring signs that they are not all they are made ut to be.

Why do you take absolutely no notice at all of what I write, MOnica?

MMT IS A DESCRIPTION OF HOW A COUNTRY WITH A SOVEREIGN CURRENCY IS FUNDED

IT IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE, IT IS DESCRIPTIVE.

The fact that you refuse to address what I say, refuse to provide any meaningful critique of a key research paper and continually trot out Zimbabwe etc. as if they are killer blows when in fact they were very specific and context dependent examples of misuse of a power which all countries with a sovereign currency exercise all the time with no ill effect is deeply frustrating.

You aren't refuting anything, just tilting at a straw man of your own making.

We have to find a way of increasing the income from taxation if we want to maintain the welfare state we have, we cannot keep borrowing/creating money because it is not producing the growth needed^

It's not producing growth because it is not being directed where it could stimulate growth.

Far, far more than 'the odd billion' has been hived off by corruption; or directed to the wealthy who don't spend any more in the domestic economy or invest in new businesses but use the money to create more wealth for themselves by speculating in the financial markets.

MaizieD

We have to find a way of increasing the income from taxation if we want to maintain the welfare state we have, we cannot keep borrowing/creating money because it is not producing the growth needed^

It's not producing growth because it is not being directed where it could stimulate growth.

Far, far more than 'the odd billion' has been hived off by corruption; or directed to the wealthy who don't spend any more in the domestic economy or invest in new businesses but use the money to create more wealth for themselves by speculating in the financial markets.

The wealthy do not pay enough tax, because they are legally using the tax regulations we have, that’s not corruption. The way inherited wealth can be passed to families really does need an overhaul.

I’m still reading with interest, but no time to post sensible comments🙂

Just to say I do agree with maizie that it is a description of government use of fiat currencies.

What I’m trying to understand is those economists who promulgate this - where do they stand in relation to the mainstream theories? I would guess that it developed from Keynesianism, but I am happy to be corrected in this.

I’m off now for the day.

Katie59

MaizieD

We have to find a way of increasing the income from taxation if we want to maintain the welfare state we have, we cannot keep borrowing/creating money because it is not producing the growth needed^

It's not producing growth because it is not being directed where it could stimulate growth.

Far, far more than 'the odd billion' has been hived off by corruption; or directed to the wealthy who don't spend any more in the domestic economy or invest in new businesses but use the money to create more wealth for themselves by speculating in the financial markets.

The wealthy do not pay enough tax, because they are legally using the tax regulations we have, that’s not corruption. The way inherited wealth can be passed to families really does need an overhaul.

Well, one of the things we could ask is 'do we actually need the wealthy' if all they are going to do is remove money from the economy and use it for purposes which are producing more money solely for themselves?

Arguments for not taxing them more equably when compared to the rest of the population, such as 'capital flight', seem a trifle nonsensical if their capital is not making a contribution to the domestic economy, and therefore to the general 'good' of the society which provides services which they rely on as much as anyone else does.

Taxing money leaving the UK domestic economy might be possible, but to raise enough to make a difference an increase of taxation across the board including income tax would probably be needed. It would catch the high earners, the low earners could be protected by raising the threshold

Katie59

MaizieD

We have to find a way of increasing the income from taxation if we want to maintain the welfare state we have, we cannot keep borrowing/creating money because it is not producing the growth needed^

It's not producing growth because it is not being directed where it could stimulate growth.

Far, far more than 'the odd billion' has been hived off by corruption; or directed to the wealthy who don't spend any more in the domestic economy or invest in new businesses but use the money to create more wealth for themselves by speculating in the financial markets.

The wealthy do not pay enough tax, because they are legally using the tax regulations we have, that’s not corruption. The way inherited wealth can be passed to families really does need an overhaul.

I would go further and say the whole tax system needs simplifying so there are no "legal" ways to avoid it. That should mean tax rates could be reduced and/or tax bands broadened.

biglouis

*Not to say the money was always spent wisely, competently or effectively but the money had to be raised from somewhere*

Does this include the dosh that the criminal fraudsters in whitehall passed under the table to their mates for duff merchandise?

Oh yes ... and the subsequent £millions of storing it (or handing over to someone to dump in the New Forest); the barges, funnily enough run by someone's mate at inflated prices ...

Am a bit lacking on the economic knowledge front but I can see that there is absolutely NOTHING to show for it all!

PS - the Government didn't put money into developing the vaccine - they were beginning to be produced in 2018, before Covid was heard of, and the Covid Test Kits were the same ... in the meantime chaps who were in the know, like our own esteemed Wishy Washy Rishi, made a very good guess that there was going to be a need for a Covid vaccine and threw £500m of his own money into Moderna .... and then refused to say how much he would stand to gain when the stock market value stood at £39BILLION. One can only wonder how he knew??

Interestingly there are some fans on a different thread who admire Christine Hamilton. Her husband Neil was accused of taking cash for questions back in the 1994. He sued the Guardian for libel but settled on the day of the trial. The Guardian published an headline brandishing Hamilton a Liar and a Cheat.

A cash for questions enquiry in 1997 found that he had taken bribes. He lost a libel case and subsequently lost his seat to Martin Bell.

The couple were widely photographed brandishing money in brown paper envelopes.

Typical corrupt Tories.

Listened last night to a programme on R4 about life in Zimbabwe, where life is even more corrupt under the current leader than it was under Mugabe.

Most Zimbabweians in the UK are legal immigrants here, coming to work in the care sector. They talked to one woman - who in Zimbabwe had been a university lecturer until she ceased to be paid, and left her 9 year old daughter in Zimbabwe to come to the UK, she was so desperate for money to feed and clothe them..

This lady said how shocked she was the first month to see the amount of money that went out of her salary in tax, but added, 'Then I looked around and saw all the things the tax was providing and paying for and I was happy' , because in Zimbabwe schools, hospitals, roads everything is collapsing for lack of funding, which goes into the private accounts of government members.

It was a salutary reminder, that however we may complain about the way money is moving round between business people and senior government in the UK, compared with many countries, all but a very small part of our taxation goes into providing public services.

It does not mean that we shouldn't complain or be complaiscent about corruption in this country, but we should also be aware that in many countries in the world, people would be over the moon to have as little corruption as we do actually have.

^t was a salutary reminder, that however we may complain about the way money is moving round between business people and senior government in the UK, compared with many countries, all but a very small part of our taxation goes into providing public services.

Well, that tells us where you think the taxation goes, but from the appalling state of our public services it is clear that nothing more than that has been spent on them. It looks suspiciously like the balance of all that 'created' money we call 'the national debt' has been doled out as corruptly as any money in Zimbabwe... We just seem to be more tolerant of our home grown corruption than of that of other countries.

I tried a little exercise this morning based on the premise that governments have to raise money via taxation before they spend.

Clearly the spending and taxing cycle is continuous but this exercise needs a clear start, so I've started with a government with only 100 to spend (100 whats is irrelevant) This government's sole revenue sources are taxation and money earned by exporting. no 'borrowing' because I'm keeping it simple.
25 of government spend every year is saved by citizens or spent on foreign imports or holidays, the rest returns to the government via taxation of one sort of another.
I've added 10 to revenue every year to account for export sales.

So, starting from 100 at the beginning of year 1, deduct from it the 25 that doesn't return to the government and add the 10 export revenue to the balance. At the end of Y1 the government has 100 - 25 = 75 plus the 10 for export revenue =85.

so, in Y2 the government has 85 to spend. For simplicity, the figures for savings and foreign purchases remain unchanged, as does the export revenue figure.

Remember that there is no other significant source of revenue because it is taxation that funds spending in this model

Now work it through for subsequent years...

Life in Zimbabwe can be very good if you are a supporter of the government, if you support the opposition life is tough in many ways, education, jobs and healthcare is just not available to you. Corruption is pervasive, you pay in cash or kind to get most things done, the one sector that does well is farming, food production is marginal so prices are high

South Africa is every bit as bad, other neighboring countries vary, any initiative to reduce corruption is just window dressing. The problem is China, while China supports these regimes regardless or their human rights to corruption nothing will change. Any anti corruption laws are just window dressing and mostly used to pursue political opponents.

There is very little corruption in the UK, probably a lot less than years gone by, when there was far less transparency than now. Discrimination in particular was much worse 40 yrs ago so we are making progress.

Katie59 For over 90% of the population of Zimbabwe, life is poverty, 'free' government schools where your children will not be taught unless you bribe every teacher, state hospitals that cannot even ger adequate supplies of paracetamol, universties that do not pay their staff forcing them to come to the UK to work as carers. All every parent wants is for their children to go to another country.

Whether government supporters or not, the wealthy elite in Zimbabwe is a very small proportion of the total population and, as I said 90% + live in poverty.

There is very little corruption in the UK, probably a lot less than years gone by, when there was far less transparency than now. Discrimination in particular was much worse 40 yrs ago so we are making progress.

You''re joking. Where did all those covid £billions go?

What does discrimination have to do with corruption

Although corruption is not endemic in the UK, there are significant problems which need to be addressed. Transparency International UK (TI-UK)’s recent Corruption in the UK report highlighted corruption vulnerabilities in some of Britain’s key sectors and institutions. Recent scandals such as phone hacking corruption in cricket, and controversy over political party funding have further highlighted the existence of the problem and the urgent need to address it.

www.transparency.org.uk/corruption-and-uk

Corruption erodes the rule of law and public trust in important institutions. It deters investment and impedes businesses’ progress. And it condemns ordinary people to poverty. So we are developing a new anti-corruption strategy.

www.conservatives.com/news/2023/a-new-anti-corruption-strategy

Yes, really - the Conservative Party wants to tackle corruption!!!!

“You''re joking. Where did all those covid £billions go?”

No Maisie, that was just bad decision making in an emergency situation, someone said “ we can supply PPE” so they got the job. There were many decisions made during Covid that resulted in waste the usual checks were not made but it wasn’t corruption.

That’s the price we pay for past mistakes, there should have been PPE available for emergency use, to save money it hadn't been done.