You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I love the fact that we were all paid to stay at home (not out of taxes) and there are still stupid comments such as this.
I worked all thru it
I know many folk who got nothing or a measly 20 quid on top of starvation level benefits when their job disappeared
As ever. Furlogh money went disproportionately into the pockets of the well off
No one paid you to stay at home binners?
No wonder you are so grumpy
I’m a freelancer.
There are 3.5 million of us who never saw a penny of government money
We are schrodinger's workers. We are neither employee nor self-employed. As far as the government were/are concerned, we don’t exist, despite us always paying tax just like the 2 groups we definitely aren’t part of.
Luckily for me I managed to diversify and not end up committing suicide like many did.
Hurray for me, eh?
I’m not remotely bitter about it either. Honest! 😃
No, you’re right… that’d work
What could possibly go wrong? 😂
Are you really citing the Weimar?
Really?
Last time on this - Weimar Republic was a driven by a debt denominated in a foreign currency.
We have control of our own currency and bank. We owe money to ourselves effectively when we spend.
All government spending is new money. Even Starmer's 29bn package is still new money. It only comes from one place.
On the dollar/pound:
The £/$ has been in falling for years. And is defined by a market place. Sterling is a Fiat currency influenced by buyers and sellers not the amount of money spent by the government.
The US economy is considered strong and ours weak. It's weak for lots of reasons.
I’m a freelancer.
There are 3.5 million of us who never saw a penny of government money
Point being - the government could have supported you they chose not to.
Not that they didn't have the funds.
I'm a freelancer and have a company I got support.
But none of this means they can't do it. They're Tories.
The US economy is considered strong and ours weak. It’s weak for lots of reasons
And printing money won’t make it weaker?
Righto
Can we please get back on topic because we’ve been through this a million times?
You and the usual 4 others vocally believe in MMT. Nobody else is buying it. If you were a political party and went into an election advocating it as an economic policy, you’d be laughed out of town
And printing money won’t make it weaker?
Righto
No. It won't.
Other conditions might. Sterling is fiat it's not pegged.
Basically the private sector has drained the economy of cash and so the government has to replace that cash.
We have no growth or negative growth so there is lack of money in general circulation. It's being hoarded. Thats why we are where we are.
You've got a lot of catching up do. And there is no such thing as printing money in this context.
What have you been reading?
(Sterling is weak because we have lots of shit productivity problems. )
Do we have productivity problems because so many people are a bit crap at their jobs? Because they haven't b been effectively trained in basic skills through the education system?
You and the usual 4 others vocally believe in MMT. Nobody else is buying it. If you were a political party and went into an election advocating it as an economic policy, you’d be laughed out of town
To be honest it's a bit troubling you won't even take the time to understand how government spending is integral to these debates.
And it's not economic policy. It's an accurate description with 25 years behind of info behind it.
I won't be laughed out of town. You're wrong on that.
One thing's for sure like others you've totally misunderstood its value. And misrepresented what I'm trying to debate with you.
Only a twit would think a government with its own bank and currency would believe you have to borrow money from the private sector. Sigh.
So… back on topic…
It looks like we’re shortly going to have someone who once publicly advocated abolishing the monarchy ‘doing a Blair’ and leading an orgy of Daily Mail endorsed cap-doffing and emotional incontinence
I’m sure, like Blair with Diana, she’ll milk it for all it’s worth. She’ll be on to her designer getting her funeral outfit sorted as we speak
rone
Full Member
Right, you've made your points. Next!
Do we have productivity problems because so many people are a bit crap at their jobs? Because they haven’t b been effectively trained in basic skills through the education system
Massive lack of investment in training / resources as I understand. There will people better than me at explaining that one.
Quick question that I haven't seen asked or answered as I've had to skip a few pages in this fast moving thread but is anybody managing the upside on the fuel situation? Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there's no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it's a gift for the oil/gas companies?
So… back on topic…
The topic was about Truss spending 140bn to subsidise energy bills etc. And how that might happen.
It wasn't off-topic.
Pure ignroance.
Speeder
Full Member
Quick question that I haven’t seen asked or answered as I’ve had to skip a few pages in this fast moving thread but is anybody managing the upside on the fuel situation? Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/gas companies?
Without someway of, at minimum, taxing the extra profits, yes it's absolutely a gift to the energy companies.
I'd nationalise everything to do with energy.
rone
Full Member
So… back on topic…The topic was about Truss spending 140bn to subsidise energy bills etc. And how that might happen.
It wasn’t off-topic.
Pure ignroance.
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point please.
Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/gas companies?
She’s just effectively written the energy companies a taxpayer funded blank cheque
The profiteering they’ve already been gleefully indulging in is going to pale into insignificance compared to what they’re going to get up to this winter in an orgy of price-gouging
Welcome to corporate socialism
Corporate theft.
Righto
Can we please get back on topic because we’ve been through this a million times?
Not because your reference to the Weimar Republic and the pressure that the Treaty of Versailles put on Germany exactly a 100 years ago is ridiculous?
Obviously if the price cap is put in place and the Govt promises to fill in the difference, there’s no limit to how much **** we (the country) can get into. Surely it’s a gift for the oil/
Yes there is some truth in that but the only rapid fix for the short term is to subsidise the bills.
Long term we need a better plan.
The tax take is largely irrelevant in this process. Hence the Tories aren't doing it because it's not needed in the process.
It’s basically like Brown bailing the banks out then giving them the nod that they could happily carry on with the whole sub-prime mortgage thing
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax.
Are you sure? Are you sure that voters understand and/or Labour are articulating that point to them?
Labour's counterproposal doesn't seem to.
Edit: The coalition government's austerity measures, which cost approx 57000 lives, were sold on claim of the necessity of balanced budgets.
She’s just effectively written the energy companies a taxpayer funded blank cheque
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.
For a start they haven't published the funding details yet and taxes don't pay for government spending.
Second Q/E might get used in which case the process would not involve any tax payers at all.
You see, it's convenient to marginalise me because it shows terrible flaws in your analysis.
(Labour's plan only was for 29bn and only 8bn was windfall tax - where do you think the other bit was coming from?)
It’s basically like Brown bailing the banks out then giving them the nod that they could happily carry on with the whole sub-prime mortgage thing
Sub prime was a US affair that affected the world.
I don't understand Brown's contribution to sub-prime?
Have I missed something?
So,
Liz Truss, then?
ernielynch
Free Member
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax.Are you sure? Are you sure that voters understand and/or Labour are articulating that point to them?
Labour’s counterproposal doesn’t seem to.
Up here in Scotland we all learned what it was 10 years ago, people wouldn't shut up about it. Dunno about down south mind. Interesting that now it's fully admitted that the uk runs a deficit, guess you could be forgiven for thinking that it was only Scotland that ran one. 😆
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point please
Fair enough (not everyone does.)
Okay so then you understand that the deficit spend becomes a private sector surplus?
How else do you think money enters the economy if not through deficit spending?
The opposite of this is contraction and austerity. You see?
So,
Liz Truss, then?
Ask again in 6 months. How can anyone judge based on two days in charge and one policy announcement.
So,
Liz Truss, then
To be fair Cougar how is this not linked to Truss's plans to spend?
I'm only getting away from it when people have a ridiculous dig.
I’d nationalise everything to do with energy.
I completely agree but neoliberal parties aren't going for this currently are they?
I worked all thru it
I know many folk who got nothing or a measly 20 quid on top of starvation level benefits when their job disappeared
As ever. Furlogh money went disproportionately into the pockets of the well off
Again - I sympathise. It wasn't because they couldn't do it. Tories chose not to but a lot of people did get help using the mechanisms we discuss.
Yes. Disproportionately to the well off
rone
Full Member
We all understand the concept of deficit, and that we spend more than we tax. Next point pleaseFair enough (not everyone does.)
Okay so then you understand that the deficit spend becomes a private sector surplus?
How else do you think money enters the economy if not through deficit spending?
The opposite of this is contraction and austerity. You see?
Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn't got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It's just a money transfer to already rich companies.
rone
Full Member
I’d nationalise everything to do with energy.I completely agree but neoliberal parties aren’t going for this currently are they?
If enough people woke up to the fact and demanded it, it's not beyond possibility.
I thought that even Tory voters had woken up to this fact?
Labour have currently moved into the opposite direction and recently ruled out nationalisation of energy. In contrast to their previous position.
Starmer claims that the pandemic has "changed everything" and the nationalisation which he previously envisaged is no longer affordable.
Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn’t got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies which is no use to you or I.
But the major problem we have currently is paying people's bills. Otherwise everything is screwed.
Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point.
It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies.
And don’t forget that she’s about to cut corporation tax for them too
Ker-****ing-ching!
It really is win/win/win for the oil and gas firms
And removing barriers to them fracking and “accelerating” North Sea extraction, while promising to put more barriers in the way of solar and onshore wind. Let the planet burn. But hey, she’s spending lots of money and letting her backers keep it, proving that’s always possible, so all’s good.
rone
Full Member
Yeah, I get it, but the whole thing is broken if it isn’t got back, which is clearly what truss is intending here. It’s just a money transfer to already rich companies which is no use to you or I.But the major problem we have currently is paying people’s bills. Otherwise everything is screwed.
Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point.
I'm not against it to cover the current crisis. I can just see what Truss is doing, so her policy needs heavily criticised. It's not even hidden, it's an open money transfer. It's wild economics. Meanwhile tax rates are going to get cut too at the upper end. Utterly batshit.
Yep, spend to “keep the lights on”, but tax more of it back from the companies that will make huge profits from that spend, not less. There is no reason not to do so. Unless you are personally ideologically bound to the fossil fuel companies by money, and so is your party.
Blame the system in the first place for allowing them to get to that point
I thought it was gob-smacking listening to her blaming the mess we’re in now on the failure of regulation of energy firms and the complete failure of government energy policy and lack of planning
Like she was talking about a previous administration from a different party, she had absolutely nothing to do with, instead of having been a minister in that very government for over a decade and being personally responsible for all that
She’s harder-faced than Boris
And don’t forget that she’s about to cut corporation tax for them too
Ker-****ing-ching!
Is she?
Tories were originally cutting corp tax a few years ago then abandonded it. Isn't she just not doing the April rise?
I hope not for small companies.
I pay 19% Corp tax, 8% Dividend tax and a bit of PAYE, NI etc.
It's also going to be a tool for Truss to start enacting their small government policies. Opps canny pay for that, canny pay for that, remember we paid for your energy bills...
Yeah Liz, we mind very well.
My word, that look into the camera at the end of her announcement about the Queen a few minutes ago... that will haunt me.
Reminded me of The Evil Dead.
"I'll eat you soul, I'll eat you soul."
Sorry, low brow I know but it genuinely came straight to mind as I watched.
Awful speech
Well after today's historic announcement I am fairly certain that the next opinion poll will show a huge surge in support for the government. Price cap policies won't figure.
Best start to her PMship she could have imagined. Political embargo for 10 days.
the next opinion poll will show a huge surge in support for the government
You’d think so. Will be Starmer’s fault though. [ joke ]
The truth is, I’m not sure. Johnson could have got a three month bounce out of this situation early in his premiership, before more people had seen through him. I don’t think Truss can do the same at this point, I just don’t see the public warming to her in the same way, even if there is a non-political nation wide event for her to try and ride. She doesn’t have the certain “it” to make the connection with enough people.
Best start to her PMship she could have imagined. Political embargo for 10 days.
She is probably regretting ruling out a snap election.
As ever. Furlogh money went disproportionately into the pockets of the well off
I'm not letting that pass, what utter horseshit. The well off if they did benefit from furlough had it capped, the less well off got 80% of their normal income, higher earners got a lot less than their normal take home. The least well off didnt see any difference as they are by definition not working and fully dependant on benefits (which actually went up slightly).
The welfare state is supposed to be there for everyone, except in reality if you are a higher earner in which case if you lose your income you're on your own and no one cares, the fact you've paid in significant more in tax over the years is irrelevant.
Liz Truss reveals campaign donation of £100,000 from wife of ex-BP executive
Contributions were disclosed minutes before the new PM announced details of her plan to tackle rising energy bills
the less well off got 80% of their normal income...
... The least well off didnt see any difference as they are by definition not working
Are you not familiar with the term "working poor"?
Have you ever considered why we need Working Tax Credits?
For a lot of people that 20% was a significant amount.
The welfare state is supposed to be there for everyone, except in reality if you are a higher earner in which case if you lose your income you’re on your own and no one cares, the fact you’ve paid in significant more in tax over the years is irrelevant.
If you lose your income even if you are low earner there's no safety net and no-one cares. no-one is living a comfortable life on broo money with some jobsworth up their arse every couple of weeks.
rone - re corp tax; my understanding is same as yours - there is no cut, just a decision to withdraw a proposed increase.
..
Oil extraction companies pay a higher ring fence rate of corporation tax so the government should see a good chunk of the loaned funds back.
I’m not letting that pass, what utter horseshit.
£2500 a month after tax is well into the richest few % of the country. Lose your zero hours job. Universal credit plus £ 20
Once again its the usual Stw total lack of understanding of how money gets funnelled tp the richest and how little money most people in the country have
Furlough mone was vastly skewed towards the well off. Its undeniable
Oil extraction companies pay a higher ring fence rate of corporation tax so the government should see a good chunk of the loaned funds back.
No chance. The profits will be declared in the tax haven of their choice. It won’t be declared in the U.K. so it’s liable for tax
The energy companies (BP / Shell) already pay c40% corporation tax on UK profits - so for the ones listed in London the country does very well out of that.
That’s on top of the license fees they pay to secure rights for reserves in UK waters and the per barrel tax they pay on everything they extract.
To listen to Sir Keir you’d be mistaken for thinking the oil / gas companies are making £170b excess profit on the back of Uk consumers - when he knows perfectly well it’s the estimate of profit from global operations. UK ops will generate c£20b a year excess profit of which we’ll get £8b a year anyway.
One other point that escaped Sir Keir in his criticism of government borrowing vs. a windfall tax is that the issue right now is liquidity for retail energy companies.
A windfall tax wouldn’t generate any returns until some time after the financial year ends with the result that the government would need to borrow even if it did a windfall tax - in order to offset the gap between market prices and the level paid by consumers and provide the liquidity that’s immediately required.
The windfall tax wouldn’t be used to buy the energy, it would be used to get excess money back afterwards rather than it disappearing into the profits of the energy producers (who the PM and her cabinet just happen to have strong connections with) as part of some huge perverse payout due to a war in Europe and a pandemic.
Expect liz and her bunch of lackies to push out a load of shit news now while nobody is looking
Jeremy, continually repeating your mantra that '...furlough was vastly skewed towards the well-off' doesn't make it correct - which it isn't.
Where is your hard, fact based, incontravertable evidence?
You know - proper research undertaken by an established, proven and authoritative individual/organisation.
Not random quotes from the guardian or similar.
kelvin - substantiate your statement that truss and her cabinet have strong connections to energy producers.
Articles from the guardian etc don't substantiate anything.
Evidence from independent, proven and authoritative sources - individuals or organisations - have some relevance.
Anything else is just noise.
Expect liz and her bunch of lackies to push out a load of shit news now while nobody is looking
parliament is suspended for 10 days (bloody stupid) so they can’t. 10 days of moaning I think
£2500 a month after tax is well into the richest few %
More utter horse poop, this equates to £40k which is 59th percentile for individual salaries, along way from the top few percent. As a household income it represents the 46th percentile, so less than average.
Are you not familiar with the term “working poor”?
Who were still eligible for furlough, the least well off TJ refered to usually don't work at all and therefore did not lose money by being furloughed. Most people's outgoing also dropped as they weren't travelling to work, a bigger percentage of a low income families out goings.
Furlough money was vastly skewed towards the well off.
Rubbish, the well off got no more in real terms than the less well off and received significantly less as a percentage if their normal income. Even if your income is higher it doesnt mean you can reduce your out goings quickly.
"Rubbish, the well off got no more in real terms than the less well off"
I remember starting a thread called corporate socialism at the begining of furlough, when the govt chucked millions in the direction of Easyjet, whilst they were paying out substantial millions in dividends and bonuses.
Ditto with the railways, where the Govt subsidised the industry to the tune of 2.5 billion 500 million of which is now sitting in offshore tax havens as company profits, when there were no actual 'profits'.
So whilst there might be an argument that the well off did not do proportionately better than the poor, the stinking rich did exceptionally well out of furlough.
It's one thing protecting jobs in large corporations during the pandemic but dividends and bonuses paid out of the public purse for businesses that aren't at that time profitable is grotesque.
stumpyjon
Full MemberRubbish, the well off got no more in real terms than the less well off and received significantly less as a percentage if their normal income.
This is... complicated. For one, you need to consider who was actually furloughed and for how long (ie, were the well off more or less likely to benefit from furlough) and how they benefitted.
For instance, less qualified and lower paid people are much more likely to have been made redundant at the end of a furlough period. Clearly that means they've benefitted less than someone whose job was saved, even if they received the exact same amount of money. Furlough wasn't just to pay the wages, it was to preserve the jobs.
Self employment makes it bloody complicated too.
And "the well off got no more in real terms than the less well off and received significantly less as a percentage if their normal income" depends entirely on where you think the "well off" line is. The break point for the 80% support was, I think, £37500 (£2500 per month max, 80% of earnings) which is a decent chunk above the median income... So I think you can only really say that "the well off received less as a percentage" if you think someone earning £37500 falls into the "less well off" category. A matter of definition, really but I think most people wouldn't put "earns 20% more than the median fulltime salary" in the "less well off" group.
You can also make a good argument that while the less well off benefited only via their wages, the better off could benefit multiple times, as a personal recipient and also as an employer or an investor. You don't have to have been furloughed to have benefited from furlough.
Full time workers were more likely to be furloughed than part time in equivalent roles, and part time and especially zero hours workers were more likely to lose hours instead.
And by far the biggest individual beneficiaries will be investors and senior staff. They're less likely to have got money directly of course. This mostly comes down to the lack of obligations for employees benefitting from the furlough scheme, which imo is the one really big failing of it. You could take the taxpayer cash, and still pay out dividends, bonuses etc.
TLDR- I definitely can't say with confidence whether furlough money was skewed towards the better or worse off, there are too many variables and not enough good data. It is bloody complicated. But I can definitely say that furlough benefits were skewed towards the better off.
But to go right back to the original question, is it something the government did well? They kinda just copied what other countries were doing, arguably a bit slow, just like with lockdowns. And it was pretty much essential and commonsense. There was definitely a possibility that "small government" supply side maniacs could have derailed it, or that a bank manager like Hammond might have lacked the vision and competence to deliver enough. SO I'll give them credit for doing what they had to but I'd call it adequacy not a shining achievement.
Rubbish, the well off got no more in real terms than the less well off and
Obvious nonsense
The well of got 2500 a month. The vast majority of the country do not earn that much. No one earning 1000 a month got given 2500 a month. So clearly the well off got more
Also your sums are wrong 2500 per month as 80% of your take home pay puts you firmly into the well off category
The break point for the 80% support was, I think, £37500 (£2500 per month max, 80% of
Take home not top line
earning net 2.5k a month is not well off these days. using PAYE INCOME as a proxy for being rich is dumb.
plenty of people who are well off earn less than that or even nothing at all.
income v cost of living v personal/family wealth are part of the equation
and whilst I saw furlough as super important, and largely successful it was clear some big business and their leaders took advantage
And once again we have tbe nonsense that earning more than tbe vast majority of the country does not make you well off0
2500 as 80% of your take home wage puts you in the top earners. That well over 50 000 pa pre tax earnings is it not?
TJ you've argued this point so many times. Your viewpoint is too simplistic to the point of being idiotic.
you won't change or shut up about it so that's the last I'll say on the matter
Because on here there is a constant ridiculous assertion that being in the best paid 10% of the country dies not make you well off.
Some folk on here are so detached from reality
Some folk on here are so detached from reality
That’s the first sensible thing you’ve said in a long time.
earning net 2.5k a month is not well off these days
Bloody hell, this place sometimes. I earn less than that (not by very much though tbf) and I livw in the expensive Thames Valley. I wasn't worried about the up coming energy rises for myself, we could have dealt with it. It would be noticeable for sure but we'd have coped.
So the game plan for Truss will be to spend big now. She has to, for even a hope of getting the economy away from recession. The real economy is drained of money.
I've been saying for months the only way out of this is to spend big - and society's main deficit is energy. Same as Covid in terms of immediate attention. Years of bad taxation structure, and starving the bottom end of wages has robbed consumers of money.
Forget the taxation part for now - that comes later when the economy is doing something. Those up in arms about taxation for energy companies misunderstand how the system works.
All government spending reaches the private sector eventually. It's all a handout. That's how money works. I mean clearly there's been a disparity for several decades of how that money gets distributed and to whom.
By identifying the biggest problem and plugging the hole now is a good thing to do. You can save your screams for what comes next I think.
The ideology will kick in once the economy starts to move (if at all.)
Then you need to be on the lookout.
The next thing to look at will be the funding of all of this. I'm taking a guess this will be done by Q/E. It satisfies all camps currently. That will define how smart she is or isn't.
To out manoeuvre Truss, Starmer has to go big and start putting a long term plan out with massive investment - including nationalisation, and other restructuring. He will need to go where Corbyn (on an economic footing) went for the left to have a chance.
Oh and next GDP reporting will likely give Truss problems.
Also those on the left when you criticise 'money printing' you are effectively denying the left of its future ability to intervene with the state. That doesn't put you on the left at all. You have to accept it's tool of the state or the left with never have the capacity to fix things.
Some of the people on this site remind me of that thick bloke on QT who appeared to genuinely believe his 80k salary was below average. Just utterly divorced from reality.
More utter horse poop, this equates to £40k
If you're going to quote numbers, best they're accurate. You're approximately 10 to 11% out on the gross pay figure. Which then skews all your other figures and makes the percentiles look like they are out too.
*sigh*
earnings do not equal "well off"
disposable income equals "well off"
scenario A
semi retired couple late 50s joint income £30k 2 bed bungalow up north no mortgage. dependents grown up left home. bunch of inheritance in the bank due to parents dying and selling family home
scenario B
young professional couple joint income £80k. £250k mortgage on 2 bed terrace in the SE one child in nursery one on the way. trying to save to move home for expanding family
who has more disposable income? who is "well off" in this scenario?
if your definition of well off is solely based on paye income then I'm afraid its like talking to a colour blind person and trying to explain colours
And again it was a rush job. If they'd sat down n messed about with it the damage would be greater than it was.
It was flawed but it was 1st Aid treatment
TJ is right.
As for Truss and her cabinet’s links to fossil fuel companies. It’s going to be a long list… not got the time now, but start with her launching the parliamentary group of the IEA, and the fact she worked for Shell.