Keir Starmer



In terms of the 3 way split hinted at above this puts a bit more meat on the bones.

IMG_20240207_191851.jpg
It appears Ed is in the camp of those who want to ensure the party is elected on a mandate to tackle the problems facing the country. I mean that's the idea isn't it?

Unfortunately the Osbornites and those obsessed with shutting down Tory attack lines above anything else are in charge here.
 
You’ve made two assumptions there.

Firstly, you’re making an assumption that the money is not already in the economy, it is and the workers themselves already receive this money via the government. it would have little to no real world inflationary impacts. Wages would increase without increasing the money supply.

Secondly, you’re making an assumption that companies are barely making ends meet, that is often far from the case and, where it is true, balance sheet realities dictate what a company will pay. A worker at Tesco, once you factor in inflation, has lower wages today than they did in 2010 yet this company returns billions of pounds of profit each year. This is a picture we see repeated across the supermarket sector. Now the workers themselves take home pay has gone up through a significant uplifting of the point we start paying taxes on top of this they are potentially receiving working tax credits (a progressive tax) but ultimately you have a situation where the tax payer is contributing to private companies profits. How you unwind this system and get people off dependency on in work benefits in a controlled manner is a challenge but one we have to achieve.

I’m an advocate of supply and demand mechanics and was strongly opposed to the government support of energy bills for the reasons you allude too.
I’m not saying the money isn’t already in the system.

What I’m saying is that putting more money in the hands of the working class creates inflationary pressures because the money is spent, not invested. When spending increases, prices go up.

This is not to knock the working class from gaining economic power, but the reality that the economic power is only real if it is used prior to inflationary pressures negating it.

It’s two hands washing each other. The desire is to keep inflation low and to have small, marginal increases in wages that almost match inflation, but are slightly greater. Then, to help those working class/working poor people invest some of that money so that they’re not creating the inflation that harms them today, but generating future income that helps elevate them.

The death spiral at the lower rungs of the economic ladder has to be solved so that government (often the least best here of money) isn’t forced to spend more, and waste too much if it in the administration if such programs.

Raising income tax thresholds at the low end, improving savings incentives, and creating a more entrepreneurial/self-sufficient mindset amongst the masses would go a long way towards helping achieve the raising of lower level living standards without the spectre of increased wages = increased spending = inflationary pressures.

As always, there’s more than one way to skin the cat, so I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
 
I’m not saying the money isn’t already in the system.

What I’m saying is that putting more money in the hands of the working class creates inflationary pressures because the money is spent, not invested. When spending increases, prices go up.

This is not to knock the working class from gaining economic power, but the reality that the economic power is only real if it is used prior to inflationary pressures negating it.

It’s two hands washing each other. The desire is to keep inflation low and to have small, marginal increases in wages that almost match inflation, but are slightly greater. Then, to help those working class/working poor people invest some of that money so that they’re not creating the inflation that harms them today, but generating future income that helps elevate them.

The death spiral at the lower rungs of the economic ladder has to be solved so that government (often the least best here of money) isn’t forced to spend more, and waste too much if it in the administration if such programs.

Raising income tax thresholds at the low end, improving savings incentives, and creating a more entrepreneurial/self-sufficient mindset amongst the masses would go a long way towards helping achieve the raising of lower level living standards without the spectre of increased wages = increased spending = inflationary pressures.

As always, there’s more than one way to skin the cat, so I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

The working class already have the money and are already spending it.

How it works today here in good ole Blighty is:

Tesco pay them £1000 but as that’s not considered enough so government give them an extra £500. Worker receives £1,500. (Numbers made up for illustration purposes)

What I’m advocating is Tesco pays them the full £1,500 government contributes £0 and instead of posting £3bn in profits Tesco post £1.5bn and the government can use the billions saved on our services.

Governments can not continue to raise tax levels to make up for lower wages indefinitely- there comes a point you can’t do that anymore.
 
The working class already have the money and are already spending it.

How it works today here in good ole Blighty is:

Tesco pay them £1000 but as that’s not considered enough so government give them an extra £500. Worker receives £1,500. (Numbers made up for illustration purposes)

What I’m advocating is Tesco pays them the full £1,500 government contributes £0 and instead of posting £3bn in profits Tesco post £1.5bn and the government can use the billions saved on our services.

Governments can not continue to raise tax levels to make up for lower wages indefinitely- there comes a point you can’t do that anymore.
We have the same system here, just switch Walmart for Tesco!

The way to tax your way out of it is to set a decent minimum (“living”) minimum wage and provide the companies with incentives to cover what would otherwise be government costs. If they don’t, they get penalized by taxes to cover it…and then some!

Some of the largest corporations in America are the biggest welfare queens!!

The problem is that regardless of where the money comes from, the working poor are still underwater or barely coveting their costs. Then, the question becomes “Is an iPhone, a car and a 60 inch tv a reasonable cost for someone on the brink?”

I see people working minimum wage jobs wearing fancy clothes, nail extensions and tattoos and wonder what that money might be earning for them instead of being wasted on such nonsense? Then, I get my pay cheque, see my tax bill, and shake my head knowing they’re probably getting significant govt benefits, too!
 
We have the same system here, just switch Walmart for Tesco!

The way to tax your way out of it is to set a decent minimum (“living”) minimum wage and provide the companies with incentives to cover what would otherwise be government costs. If they don’t, they get penalized by taxes to cover it…and then some!

Some of the largest corporations in America are the biggest welfare queens!!

I’m genuinely surprised the US has a similar system. Agreed on solution.
 


In terms of the 3 way split hinted at above this puts a bit more meat on the bones.

View attachment 106467
It appears Ed is in the camp of those who want to ensure the party is elected on a mandate to tackle the problems facing the country. I mean that's the idea isn't it?

Unfortunately the Osbornites and those obsessed with shutting down Tory attack lines above anything else are in charge here.

What a waste of space he is. Another day he’s accused of being a flip-flopping weather vane, whist he’s actually having an excellent day, so he ends it by being a flip-flopping weather vane. He’s better than Sunak at politics but not much better, ffs.
 
I have said this before, but many of our so-called 'benefits' amount to subsidising inadequate wages and subsidising excessive rents. In short, the real beneficiaries of these benefits are employers and landlords.

Somehow, this is seen as acceptable by mainstream thinkers in this country, including so-called conservatives for whom such subsidies of the market should be an abomination.

The underlying issue is the tacit acceptance, if not encouragement, of a low-skill, low-paid economy that is untenable in the long term. Jobs that are, bluntly, uneconomic, but are justified on the grounds that it's cheaper than paying dole and keeps the peasants occupied.

An advanced nation like the UK should be about high wages, justified by high productivity and high skills. We are a million miles off this, and no one seems arsed to do anything about it. The left because they are in denial, and the right because - despite posing as patriots - when it comes to fundamentals, they don't give a flying fuck.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.