Wealth inequality is a global crisis

Crossstitchfan

Maybe we should gave a Politics thread? I’ve hardly understood a word of this, nor have I wanted to!

I can’t say that I understand a word of your comment, either

Apparently Maizie you don’t have a clue what Burnhams ideas are, maybe just more giveaways?.

MaizieD

Crossstitchfan

Maybe we should gave a Politics thread? I’ve hardly understood a word of this, nor have I wanted to!

I can’t say that I understand a word of your comment, either

Sorry, MaizieD, it’s simply that I don’t understand or like politics and think the politicians are all liars. I believe nothing, and there is so much contradiction in what they say that I get lost. To be fair, apart from making sure I have a basic idea of what’s going on, I don’t get involved with politics.
My comment about having a politics thread was that people who are interested might like that, and it would take the political comments off Gransnet.

This is the News and Politics forum, Crossstitchfan

Economics is a vital component of government and politics and affects everybody's lives.

David49

Apparently Maizie you don’t have a clue what Burnhams ideas are, maybe just more giveaways?.

Sorry, David, I've has a very busy couple of days. A quick google would have told you what you wanted to know.

It was just the usual Labour stuff, renationalisation, real investment in social housing. Progressive taxation, b*gger the bond markets...

David49

fancythat

Can someone tell me what income counts as "high" please.

Twice the median wage £75k plus ???

Where "wealth" taxes are concerned general discussion seems to be talking about the top 1%. The top 1% own the same proportion of the countries wealth as held by the least wealthy 50% of households combined. Under our current system the top 1% cannot stop owning more, getting richer, while the 50% of least wealth grow as a percentage and own less.

David49 these wealth taxes would not affect, at this point, earnings from work. These are taxes on passive incomes.

MaizieD

This is the News and Politics forum, Crossstitchfan

Economics is a vital component of government and politics and affects everybody's lives.

MaizieD, I clearly didn’t notice the title of the forum properly. Just thought it was News. Silly me.
Thank you for educating me as to how valuable Economics is. I obviously am not as clever as you!

DaisyAnneReturns

David49

fancythat

Can someone tell me what income counts as "high" please.

Twice the median wage £75k plus ???

Where "wealth" taxes are concerned general discussion seems to be talking about the top 1%. The top 1% own the same proportion of the countries wealth as held by the least wealthy 50% of households combined. Under our current system the top 1% cannot stop owning more, getting richer, while the 50% of least wealth grow as a percentage and own less.

David49 these wealth taxes would not affect, at this point, earnings from work. These are taxes on passive incomes.

Of course it does as soon as you have a pension, savings or buy a house, you have equity therefore wealth.

Where a government would want to begin charging a “wealth” tax is a political decision

Crossstitchfan

MaizieD

This is the News and Politics forum, Crossstitchfan

Economics is a vital component of government and politics and affects everybody's lives.

MaizieD, I clearly didn’t notice the title of the forum properly. Just thought it was News. Silly me.
Thank you for educating me as to how valuable Economics is. I obviously am not as clever as you!

Economics are important, the problem is that governments do not follow any of the so called economic theories, the temptation to use revenue policies to gain votes is just too great.
Both the Tories and Labour are guilty, resulting in the wealth travelling upwards, not just to the very rich but to the middle income with mortgages paid off and a big pension.

Economics are important, the problem is that governments do not follow any of the so called economic theories, the temptation to use revenue policies to gain votes is just too great.

I can assure youDavid that both Labour and tory governments have followed the neoliberal economic 'theory' proposed by Hayek and Friedman, implemented with enthusiasm by Reagan and Thatcher, and now imposed on most of the world by the US and neoliberal institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, for the past 40 plus years.

There may be a bit of tinkering at the edges but the basic principles; supremacy and efficiency of 'the market', deregulation, minimal state services, no recognition of 'society', and belief in 'trickle down' are firmly adhered to.

It's as though it's written in Holy Writ!

Of course, it is so powerful because the wealthy use the power they gain from their wealth to ensure it stays like this.

Crossstitchfan

MaizieD

This is the News and Politics forum, Crossstitchfan

Economics is a vital component of government and politics and affects everybody's lives.

MaizieD, I clearly didn’t notice the title of the forum properly. Just thought it was News. Silly me.
Thank you for educating me as to how valuable Economics is. I obviously am not as clever as you!

If you write incomprehensible sentences bemoaning the presence of 'politics' on the News & Politics forum what do you expect?

So called “neo liberalism” has resulted in the UK, the US and most other nations borrowing more and more to satisfy voters demand for more services without actually expanding the economy. For the UK Financial services was supposed to be our salvation but it hasn’t been, we have no technology industry, no renewable industry, the only ideas on this site is to increase social spending.

Taxes need to increase and so does GDP

So called “neo liberalism” has resulted in the UK, the US and most other nations borrowing more and more to satisfy voters demand for more services without actually expanding the economy^

Oh, for heaven's sake David. The UK is not a business. It doesn't have to 'earn' money to stay afloat.

Government spending is a key component in expanding the economy. It is continually creating money when it spends. It is the only body that is legally entitled to create our money. Banks can create money, too, and they do every time they make a loan, but they are under licence from the government to do it and, while the money they create gives rise to economic activity, the money is nullified when it is repaid, and the interest paid on it is money withdrawn from the economy.

It is because the government doesn't get back by taxation all the money it has spent that people have money to save and invest.
The difference between spending and the failure to recoup all government spending (money issuance) is known as the deficit. The government sells bonds to cover the deficit, but they don't have to. They just do it by convention. They could just issue straight money...

P.S If the government didn't sell bonds where would institutions, such as pension funds, put their money in order to keep it absolutely safe?

Where a government would want to begin charging a “wealth” tax is a political decision

It is. That's why I said "general discussion seems to be talking about ...".

“The difference between spending and the failure to recoup all government spending (money issuance) is known as the deficit. The government sells bonds to cover the deficit, but they don't have to. They just do it by convention. They could just issue straight money...”

Yes Maisie they can, but then the value of sterling falls and interest rates go up which is exactly what happened to Truss.

You PooPoo the conventions, ignore them at your peril, only a fool wants interest rates to rise and imports to cost more, you are way out on your economics. I back the plan that Labour has/had, not to borrow to meet day to day spending, or ( in your terms, not spend more than they are going to get back in revenue)

Reeves is going to increase taxation, I don’t believe it will be a wealth tax this time, my bet is on reducing .Pension and Saving Concessions, it’s an easy target

DaisyAnneReturns

^Where a government would want to begin charging a “wealth” tax is a political decision^

It is. That's why I said "general discussion seems to be talking about ...".

Setting up a Wealth Tax is complex, it’s not difficult to estimate the value of todays assets, property, shares, pensions etc, but doing that for everyone in the UK is a monumental task, because values on accounts are historic, only if they are sold they are taxed for CGT or IHT.

If only for idealogical reasons a wealth tax is possible, but like IHT the revenue is going to be modest, not the tens of millions the government needs to find.

David, you surely don't believe that complex ideas should be abandoned simply because they are believed to be "too difficult"?

DaisyAnneReturns

David, you surely don't believe that complex ideas should be abandoned simply because they are believed to be "too difficult"?

Seems to be the way of the world.
Else they get started in earnest, and get bogged down or abandoned part of the way through.
By which time most people dont seem to care.

Except trying to tax the wealthy.
And see how that is panning out.

DaisyAnneReturns

David, you surely don't believe that complex ideas should be abandoned simply because they are believed to be "too difficult"?

Not because they are too difficult but because there are going to have to be fair concessions for different wealth categories.
Wealth taxes in other countries have a structure depending on level and how it’s invested, eg, should investments in “earned income” wealth be taxed in the same as “unearned income wealth.

The government has plenty of options to raise more taxation without a new Wealth Tax, for that reason I say maybe in the future.

David, it would be complex but initially it is, as I understand, not intended to raise revenue (although that would be a consequence) but to begin balancing the inequality that started with Thatcher.

There are economists here spending time working out the economics to make us follow the political ideology in the USA. One that seeks to merge "Western" Christianity (a metaphor for white) and American identities. In our case stsrting with an equally distorted 'Britishness' which aids the distortion of both the Christian faith and America’s and our constitutional democracy.

Hopefully there are also others here restructuring, or returning, our democracy to one based on more centrist, less extreme views. I'm sure it can be done. It just needs the will to do it.

restructuring working on restructuring