Taxing the wealthy, point of discussion.

David49

It was your use of the word “subsistence”, we need to demand less of the services and benefits we get and concentrate on the essentials. The nonessential frills we have cost a great deal cut them out and we have more to spend on essentials like children’s services, and elderly care.

I believe the state should provide the essentials, and those that can afford to support themselves should not be getting free handouts or benefits. We will see how far Labour go down that road at the budget.

I think that rationing 'benefits' (whether they are tangible financial allowances such as pensions and benefits or things like bus services for children) is done to encourage people to work and produce goods and services.

Many people, if not most, wouldn't bother to go to work if it didn't improve their lifestyle. I don't blame them. If allowances take up the lifestyle of a worker to that of a non-worker, people would be much more likely to stay at home, and the country would be poorer as a result.

In a notionally 'caring' society, people don't want to see the poor starve or go without the basics, so a balance has to be struck. At the extremes, we could insist that everyone works, as in Mao's China, or cut all benefits and have a 'survival of the fittest' society, in which everyone has to pay for education, healthcare and other public services on a per-capita basis. Alternatively we can try to ensure that benefits only go to those who 'need' them, and argue about what 'need' means.

There has to be incentive for people to earn their living and produce goods and services, or there won't be enough to pay the benefits for those who can't, so it comes down to who 'deserves' what, which is always debatable. In the end, some people believe in the carrot and others the stick, but it comes down to rationing in the end.

I don't think there are many 'frills' these days, but I do think that too many people are able to take the basics without fulfilling their side of the contract, which is very loose - maybe it needs tightening?

When a state sells bonds, or provides a 'savings' vehicle, such as NS&I accounts,all it is doing is taking back some of the money that it initially created (unless, of course the bonds are purchased by non British actors, but that's a small percentage of bond income). Calling it 'debt' is a complete misnomer.

People and institutions buy bonds or save with NS&I because they want the interest on their money and know that it will always be paid. They also know that they can get their principle back any time they want it. All the government is doing is providing a savings service.

Would you regard the money held in bank deposit accounts, which are, in effect, the same thing, as the banks' 'debt'?

All the money circulating in the global financial system has originated from some government or another which has a sovereign currency and is able to create its money at will.

Money is a completely artificial construct which has to be created somewhere before it can be put to use.

Where else do you think it comes from?

David49

growstuff

Which non-essential handouts and benefits do people receive from the government?

I'm genuinely interested because I'd like some.

There are many here ls one

Birmingham spent £18m of special needs transport for special needs children last year, this may be desirable but it’s not an essential need.
Cutting it out means more can be spent on child protection hopefully preventing recurrence of cases like Sara Sharif which I would regard as first priority.

There are many many others including WFA.

The transport is essential. How else would these children get to school? Their schools may be nowhere near their homes.

If these children do not go to school and are therefore effectively off the radar, then more problems could arise.

It's wrong to bring up that tragic case as an example of how public finances should be allocated. More money is needed to protect all children and ensure all their needs are being met.

Currency is artificial but it’s the way that a seller can be assured of value from the buyer, exchange rates are established for that purpose and each state is judged on its ability to maintain that value.

Whether most bonds are held overseas or nationally is irrelevant when Truss crashed the economy no one wanted to buy sterling because confidence had been lost. Nobody wants to buy a falling currency so the state had to step in to establish value at a lower level

Money is surely created by trade, the value of the commodity plus the margin the trader(s) take which the end user pays. Any state can create money artificially but most would be a commodity grown, manufactured or mined that is sold to another state. Any surplus the producer has can be lent to others or the producer can use it to improve internal infrastructure or support the population, in some case both.
.

David49

growstuff

Which non-essential handouts and benefits do people receive from the government?

I'm genuinely interested because I'd like some.

There are many here ls one

Birmingham spent £18m of special needs transport for special needs children last year, this may be desirable but it’s not an essential need.
Cutting it out means more can be spent on child protection hopefully preventing recurrence of cases like Sara Sharif which I would regard as first priority.

There are many many others including WFA.

How is transport for children with special needs not essential, if the school which can provide for their needs is some distance away?

Birmingham is a huge area and I admit I'm not familiar with special needs provision. However, Birmingham will have thousands of children with special needs. If it's like other authorities, it's been cutting dedicated special needs provision over the last couple of decades. This means that there are only a handful of special schools remaining, some with very specialised provision. EHCPs sometimes name a specific school. This could be the only school in Birmingham which meets the needs of the child and could be miles away.

How are parents/carers supposed to get their SEND children to school, if they are unable (as many are) of using public transport?

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

Not all the local taxes levied are retained by the Council which collects it.
The Council retains only a portion of the business rates, the rest is paid to Central Government which controls these funds and then re-allocates the money to Councils across the country.

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

I understand. You don't think that providing SEND children with an education is essential. Hmm ... I suppose the same could be said about keeping old or disabled people alive. It's not essential.

Allira

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

Not all the local taxes levied are retained by the Council which collects it.
The Council retains only a portion of the business rates, the rest is paid to Central Government which controls these funds and then re-allocates the money to Councils across the country.

I think David is claiming that nobody should pay for transport for SEND children.

growstuff

Allira

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

Not all the local taxes levied are retained by the Council which collects it.
The Council retains only a portion of the business rates, the rest is paid to Central Government which controls these funds and then re-allocates the money to Councils across the country.

I think David is claiming that nobody should pay for transport for SEND children.

How odd.

We all pay for the provision of education for children whether or not we have any or ours have finished their education.

School transport is quite a subject for debate too but certainly it should be provided for SEND children, especially if their only suitable school is some distance away.

Money is surely created by trade, the value of the commodity plus the margin the trader(s) take which the end user pays.

You are confusing money creation with economic activity, David. All that is created in this instance is profit, i.e. more wealth for the seller. There is no money creation involved. Profit isn't 'money'.

What is relevant is, where did the end user get the money from to pay for this commodity?

(Kudos to you for being willing to argue the toss with me. I appreciate it 😀)

growstuff

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

I understand. You don't think that providing SEND children with an education is essential. Hmm ... I suppose the same could be said about keeping old or disabled people alive. It's not essential.

It’s not for me to decide, but if money is restricted judgements have to be made

David49

growstuff

David49

growstuff

I'm still waiting to find out about the frills I could be claiming.

If special needs is an essential then it’s up to the tax payers of that authority to provide the money, it hasn’t got that money so choices have to be made.

I understand. You don't think that providing SEND children with an education is essential. Hmm ... I suppose the same could be said about keeping old or disabled people alive. It's not essential.

It’s not for me to decide, but if money is restricted judgements have to be made

Who's going to be the first to volunteer?

"Now, Mrs A, whose life is more valuable, you as an old woman who's had a goodish life or this child with special needs? You're both costing the State money. You have, however, paid taxes over the years. Names in a hat."

I quoted a real situation Birmingham has no money and transport for SEND has been stopped. It’s not on their priority list, don’t assume I agree or disagree.

David49

I quoted a real situation Birmingham has no money and transport for SEND has been stopped. It’s not on their priority list, don’t assume I agree or disagree.

You didn't say it was a quote - quote.

You presented it as your opinion, with which some of us disagree.

David49

I quoted a real situation Birmingham has no money and transport for SEND has been stopped. It’s not on their priority list, don’t assume I agree or disagree.

OK, let's have a bit of accuracy.

Transport for SEND children in Birmingham has not been stopped. It couldn't be without a change in the law because provision of suitable education and transport up to the age of 16 is statutory (ie not a 'frill').

Birmingham will still be providing transport up to the end of Year 11.

However, transport for 16-18 year olds has never been statutory (for able or disabled pupils). Until recently, Birmingham provided transport for 16-18 year old SEND pupils for little cost. The council has now decided that parents should contribute more to the provision of transport.

School transport for SEND pupils isn't a frill - it's just a little frilly.

Do you have any other examples of unnecessary handouts and benefits?

The principle remains if money is limited choices have to be made. Birmingham has cut Arts, libraries, community centers, parks, free parking an£ around 600 jobs.

David49

The principle remains if money is limited choices have to be made. Birmingham has cut Arts, libraries, community centers, parks, free parking an£ around 600 jobs.

So they're not handouts or benefits.

Transport for SEND children in Birmingham has not been stopped.
Thanks growstuff.

Birmingham is not the only Council having financial difficulties. There are several and at least one is reputed to be spending more on its debt interest than on services.

Is this due to poor management, more demands on services or other circumstances out of their control?

It's because local government has been kept systematically short of money for the last 14 years in pursuit of the tory policy of 'shrinking the state'.
Privatisation of provision of things like Care Homes and children's Homes haven't helped where private sector providers have either charged excessive fees, which councils have to pay, or have gone bust and pulled out, leaving councils having to cover the shortfall in provision.

And, of course the shortage of social housing, which leaves councils having to use expensive provision to house the homeless in their area.

Some councils attempted to make more money by making speculative 'investments' on which they lost money.

Didn't Birmingham get hit with have to eventually settle a very large Equal pay claim for female council employees?