Love the longer hair Rachel and the smiles!

Basically, trust no ones pre election promises, just know whoever wins they will spend the rest of their term in office blaming the previous government for their inherited problems.. That is just how it is. Fortunately whatever hardships the ordinary working person experience, especially finding a home, they can rest assured that however many illegals we have arriving everyday there is money for all, it will
all miraculously come right if they shake the money tree.
As for Rachels hair, I couldn't care about that, it's her policies and that irritating voice delivering them that grates. Pie in the sky.

The smiles are forced to make her seem human whilst delivering her disastrous policies.

The private sector is crucial for generating goods, services, and innovation but some on here are making an "exclusive" claim - that only the private sector “builds wealth.”

Wealth is co-produced by both sectors, and undervaluing the public side leads to underinvestment in the very systems that make private enterprise possible.

The trouble with looking only left or right is that you miss the train coming down the middle. The reason the middle want a mixed economy is because each one relies and thrives when they are more equal.

The arguement for most is not against wealth but against wealth inequality.

What do you actually mean by 'creating wealth', DAR?

A good definition would be helpful.

My definition I gave earlier. I view wealth creation as adding to the nation's stock of money. Do you define it differently?

I replied to "The private sector are the wealth builders". In this statement I assumed the writer meant the part of society that produces goods, services, and financial growth.

I'm sure, Maizie they will quickly make it clear if I was incorrect in my assumption.

DaisyAnneReturns

I replied to "The private sector are the wealth builders". In this statement I assumed the writer meant the part of society that produces goods, services, and financial growth.

I'm sure, Maizie they will quickly make it clear if I was incorrect in my assumption.

I'm trying to establish in what way these people are regarded as 'wealth creators'. What is it that informs the assumption that the private sector builds wealth.

Without an idea of what 'building wealth' actually means how can it be discussed?

Though I might ask you how you think the private sector 'builds wealth'.

Exports? MaizieD

We import more than we export, ronib. So the imports cancel the money addition affect of exports

Quick check from AI

In 2025, the UK's annual exports were approximately £452 billion, while imports totaled around £732 billion.

(ooh, AI can't spell 'totalled' 😱)

So, imports actually lost us wealth...

Yes MaizieD but I thought the question was how do we build wealth. So as a happy non economist, export more would seem to build wealth. The fact we don’t at the moment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try?

ronib

Yes MaizieD but I thought the question was how do we build wealth. So as a happy non economist, export more would seem to build wealth. The fact we don’t at the moment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try?

No, the question was How do the oft cited 'wealth builders' build wealth 'if', building wealth is taken to mean increasing the amount of money in the country?

People keep saying that we need wealthy people because they 'build wealth' but not explaining how these people are able to increase the money supply. I'd like to know how they think this happens.

Because I don't think they build wealth at all.

Does drilling for oil and selling it count as wealth creation?

ronib

Does drilling for oil and selling it count as wealth creation?

It depends on who it is being sold to. But, as I've already pointed out, even if it were sold abroad there is more money going out of the country than is coming in.

Would selling it in the UK create any more money for the country?

Well the UAE is a classic example? Seems to be creating extreme wealth from oil.

ronib

Well the UAE is a classic example? Seems to be creating extreme wealth from oil.

They’re selling it to other countries at high prices. Are you old enough to remember the oil crisis in the early 1970s when the oil producing countries took control of their oil production and raised prices?

They are bringing money into their country but the money has come from somewhere or someone else. That place or person is now poorer. Yes, the UAE rulers have become extremely wealthy because of their oil but, looking at this globally (because your example deals globally), have they increased the amount of money in the world? Have they actually created any extra money?

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I replied to "The private sector are the wealth builders". In this statement I assumed the writer meant the part of society that produces goods, services, and financial growth.

I'm sure, Maizie they will quickly make it clear if I was incorrect in my assumption.

I'm trying to establish in what way these people are regarded as 'wealth creators'. What is it that informs the assumption that the private sector builds wealth.

Without an idea of what 'building wealth' actually means how can it be discussed?

Though I might ask you how you think the private sector 'builds wealth'.

Yes, you might ask me Maizie. However, this is not my interest where this thread is concerned.

My interest was and is whether the government might raise income tax across the board while neutralising the effect on "workers" by reducing NI for this group. Others added to this, expanding my knowledge, for which I'm grateful. My posts are usually questions I'm asking myself, working through and hoping to understand the reasoning and results of different political thinking.

My interest was and is whether the government might raise income tax across the board while neutralising the effect on "workers" by reducing NI for this group.

Really?

That isn’t what your OP says, DAR.

As you did respond to my wealth creation question I thought you were interested in that topic and felt that a meaningful exchange would be helped by a definition of terms.

It is possible to look at more than one aspect of a subject in the course of a thread…

MaizieD

^My interest was and is whether the government might raise income tax across the board while neutralising the effect on "workers" by reducing NI for this group.^

Really?

That isn’t what your OP says, DAR.

As you did respond to my wealth creation question I thought you were interested in that topic and felt that a meaningful exchange would be helped by a definition of terms.

It is possible to look at more than one aspect of a subject in the course of a thread…

It is Maizie. However I’ve already shared what I so far want to share of my perspective on this topic. Your continuing insistance that I discuss your favoured point of view creates is not my idea of discussion. I respect that you hold your view but insisting I discuss it seems to be overstepping boundaries to me. I think the idea is that we each get to chose what we discuss.

creates

Well whatever our position, it seems highly unlikely that this current government will ever favour wealth creation. It seems dedicated to stopping it.

I think you can be in favour of both a wealthier country and in favour of greater wealth equality at the same time ronib. Some of the Nordic countries see too be pretty successful at this.

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

My interest was and is whether the government might raise income tax across the board while neutralising the effect on "workers" by reducing NI for this group.

Really?

That isn’t what your OP says, DAR.

As you did respond to my wealth creation question I thought you were interested in that topic and felt that a meaningful exchange would be helped by a definition of terms.

It is possible to look at more than one aspect of a subject in the course of a thread…

It is Maizie. However I’ve already shared what I so far want to share of my perspective on this topic. Your continuing insistance that I discuss your favoured point of view creates is not my idea of discussion. I respect that you hold your view but insisting I discuss it seems to be overstepping boundaries to me. I think the idea is that we each get to chose what we discuss.

I'm not insisting you discuss it, DAR.
As you did respond to the 'wealth building' issue I just wanted to establish that we were talking about the same thing.

If I want to explore something that is said by any poster on this thread I am at perfect liberty to do so. Starting a thread doesn't give any ownership of what or how anything is discussed.