Who DO (Trump and Vance) think they are?

M0nica is so right. There is an often quoted phrase about how close any of us are to a financial crisis. I hear many such stories at the foodbank.
In the UK there is, hopefully, enough of a safety net, both official and charitable, to make this a temporary situation only for most people.

The other point is, that in this country, unlike many economically less developed country poverty is not necessarily a lifetime problem. People move in and out of poverty, exacerbated by the very high level of relationship breakdown in this country that can plunge a woman with children from relative comfort to poverty overnight.

MaizieD

There is widespread destitution. More than 14 million people living in poverty in the UK. probably in the region of 20% of the population. 1 person in 5. If that isn’t widespread destitution I don’t know what is…

Don’t be ridiculous Maisie, nobody is starving, or without clothes or shelter in the UK, they have an income below an arbitrary line that even fooled the UNHCR until they realized what it really meant. There is support for everyone who needs help, Destitution is what it happening in Gaza or Sudan or can you think of a more severe definition

There is a widespread belief that Putin knows a great deal more about Trump than Trump knows about Putin, which gives Putin the uppr hand.

President Trump will regret this, especially when President Putin demands Alaska be returned to Russia. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867, all properly paid, signed for and documented. President Putin won't let a little trifle like legality bother him though. President Trump is being played like a bad symphony. Making the Kremlin great again. He is either very naive, or does not know as much as he thinks he does about President Putin.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-musk-feet-video/
sometimes you need to make a stiff drink and go to bed and
sometimes AI is good

There is widespread destitution. More than 14 million people living in poverty in the UK. probably in the region of 20% of the population. 1 person in 5. If that isn’t widespread destitution I don’t know what is…

David49

Those that don’t claim benefit obviously don’t need it or there would be widespread destitution, means testing is easy to, income and wealth is already known in most cases.

Why do you want to enrich those that are already rich.

Good Lord, David, don’t I make it clear that the last thing I want to do is enrich the already rich?

There’s more than one way to kill a cat, so the saying goes. Means testing is not cost effective, what you ‘save’ in restricting benefits has to be set against the cost of administering the schemes. By the time you’ve done that, progressive taxation to recoup the money from those who don’t need it starts to look like a good option.

David49

Those that don’t claim benefit obviously don’t need it or there would be widespread destitution, means testing is easy to, income and wealth is already known in most cases.

Why do you want to enrich those that are already rich.

You would be surprised how many people there are who do not know what benefits they may be entitled to and do live in quiet desperate poverty because they are not claiming them.
Others think they do not qualify for a wide variety of reasons.

It is only when you work with elderly people and meet so many who did not know that they could claim, or, often, quite simply cannot cope with the forms required and do not know where to seek help that you realise how many people live in this quiet desperate poverty.

Those that don’t claim benefit obviously don’t need it or there would be widespread destitution, means testing is easy to, income and wealth is already known in most cases.

Why do you want to enrich those that are already rich.

oh dear😠. ‘..a huge sum of unclaimed benefit…’

You seem to suggest that it’s OK to borrow to increase social spending, even giving money to those that can well afford to maintain themselves.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that, David. I would certainly defend the principle of ‘universal’ benefits, such as the WFA, on the grounds that it is cheaper and less complex than means testing, and that it ensures that the money reaches those who really need it. The fact that means testing is inefficient in that respect is clear from the fact that the government has a huge some of unclaimed benefit money in hand.

My preferred solution would be to tax the money back from those who don’t need it, ideally by way of progressive taxation.

“I think we’re actually singing from the same songbook here, David, though yiur posts don’t always make sense to me🤔”

Likewise, the main difference is that while I accept it’s OK to increase money supply (borrow) to grow the economy, all businesses borrow to expand the business. You seem to suggest that it’s OK to borrow to increase social spending, even giving money to those that can well afford to maintain themselves.

We have to help those that cannot support themselves, but we don’t have to give services and tax breaks to those that don’t need them.

David49

“Have you any understanding at all of the role of public spending in the domestic economy, David? Or of the multiplier effect of public spending? Or of the growth of the private sector resulting from public sector investment?”

I’m well aware of the way public spending stimulates growth, the proble, is that successive government have failed to spend on growth.
The call from voters is to spend more on public services, there is a lot of talk about stimulating growth but little actually spent.

Social giveaways is exactly my point some need them, the wealthy don’t need them, they don’t need WFA, they don’t need ISAs, or state pensions, or free prescriptions. It’s money that could be spent on improving the economy, I agree with Keynes, but the UK cannot hope to improve the economy while its wasting so much money enriching the well off hoping for trickle down. It doesn't, it gets squirreled away, then gifted or inherited with very little taxation.

I think we’re actually singing from the same songbook here, David, though yiur posts don’t always make sense to me🤔

fancythat

I dont always agree with AI either, but I agree with every word of that particular piece.

You might agree with it, but it’s still nonsense. 😆

Study Japan…

Napoleon was right when he called us 'a nation of shop keepers'.

We will sell anything to anybody, providing we can see the money going into our bank accounts, we seem to be completely unconcerned abut what happens to the goods after we have sold them. - until, of course, we begin to suffer from how those goods are used. I live in Thames Water territory, with all that involves.

M0nica

Trickle down economics do not work www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics

Moreover, privatization is a great short term way to save money, longer term it is very expensive, even more so if it’s run by a foreign company, which may are, they are taking money out of our economy just like any import. Renewable energy, we are paying foreigners to provide solar and wind technology, nuclear energy is run by France.

I could go on about online tech and retail, hardly anything UK owned and taxed, we are light years behind.

Trickle down economics do not work www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics

“Have you any understanding at all of the role of public spending in the domestic economy, David? Or of the multiplier effect of public spending? Or of the growth of the private sector resulting from public sector investment?”

I’m well aware of the way public spending stimulates growth, the proble, is that successive government have failed to spend on growth.
The call from voters is to spend more on public services, there is a lot of talk about stimulating growth but little actually spent.

Social giveaways is exactly my point some need them, the wealthy don’t need them, they don’t need WFA, they don’t need ISAs, or state pensions, or free prescriptions. It’s money that could be spent on improving the economy, I agree with Keynes, but the UK cannot hope to improve the economy while its wasting so much money enriching the well off hoping for trickle down. It doesn't, it gets squirreled away, then gifted or inherited with very little taxation.

I dont always agree with AI either, but I agree with every word of that particular piece.

fancythat

From AI

When a country's national debt becomes too high, it can lead to several negative consequences including: reduced government spending on essential services like healthcare and education, increased interest rates for borrowing, decreased investor confidence, slower economic growth, potential credit rating downgrades, and in extreme cases, a debt crisis where the country struggles to meet its debt obligations, potentially impacting its currency value and overall financial stability.

Sorry, that's just AI created rubbish.

I've no idea which economic theory you are proposing

Just an old economist called Lord Keynes.

but borrowing/creating more for social giveaways is not going to improve the UK

Have you any understanding at all of the role of public spending in the domestic economy, David? Or of the multiplier effect of public spending? Or of the growth of the private sector resulting from public sector investment?

I have no idea what 'social giveaways' has to do with this. Apart from the fact that the wealthy benefit far more from state 'giveaways' via the tax system and public sector spending than does any benefit claimant...

From AI

When a country's national debt becomes too high, it can lead to several negative consequences including: reduced government spending on essential services like healthcare and education, increased interest rates for borrowing, decreased investor confidence, slower economic growth, potential credit rating downgrades, and in extreme cases, a debt crisis where the country struggles to meet its debt obligations, potentially impacting its currency value and overall financial stability.

Worrying about 'the national debt' is pointless. We've lived with one for 300+ years....

It obviously depends at what level it is at.

All borrowing is an investment service, the interest rate reflects the risk, Reeves isn’t the smartest chancellor but at least she realizes that we have to live within our means, either we have to pay for public services from working harder or taxation.

I've no idea which economic theory you are proposing but borrowing/creating more for social giveaways is not going to improve the UK