Keir Starmer

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.
This is not talked about often enough, just slips between the mantle. Include housing and council tax benefits, the private rental market, subsidies to huge business such as grants to the likes of Tata and the car manufacturers, energy companies, train franchises, et al, then you sort of understand where all the money is going.

Then think about all the businesses taking public money but then paying dividends out to shareholders? It becomes quite clear that they’re basically funnelling funds into their own accounts as every single one of them have some form of portfolio.

Corrupt from top to bottom, and some of the working class think the Tory party are working for them? It’s all about aspiration.
 
Starmer can do no wrong on here. You're wasting your breath. And no, the Tories aren't any better.
Starmer can be an absolute **** for me, as long as the Labour Party do well for the country.

As for those on the left, I’m hoping that they get to see the benefits of the Labour Party in power.
 
Starmer can be an absolute **** for me, as long as the Labour Party do well for the country.

As for those on the left, I’m hoping that they get to see the benefits of the Labour Party in power.
I hope you’re right but I fear that you’re not. Reeves seems as wedded to austerity as Osborne was and look where that has got us!
There’d be a chance of them producing the benefits if they understood what the national debt is and, more importantly, what it isn’t. Sadly they seem in thrall to the failed economists successive governments have been in thrall to. It’s a concept, produced by the wealthy to keep the hoi polloi in their place and nothing more.
 
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.
Giving more money to the poor is not inflationary. It creates demand for stuff that is not in short supply - food, clothing. If the money goes instead to the rich (shareholders, bosses) they will either invest it (much of it abroad) or spend it on luxury goods (mostly on stuff made abroad, or on holidays abroad) so it does nothing for the domestic economy.

Or, approaching it differently, why would greater disparity of wealth (so much income going to so few) be less inflationary than spreading the wealth around?
 
I hope you’re right but I fear that you’re not. Reeves seems as wedded to austerity as Osborne was and look where that has got us!
There’d be a chance of them producing the benefits if they understood what the national debt is and, more importantly, what it isn’t. Sadly they seem in thrall to the failed economists successive governments have been in thrall to. It’s a concept, produced by the wealthy to keep the hoi polloi in their place and nothing more.
I see no relation between the Tories and Labour. I do see why people would think that because Labour have stated that they will not make a real change to fiscal policy for the immediate term but what we must also understand is that if they don’t bow to certain elements then they don’t get the opportunity to effect change. Just ask Corbyn.

Where I think Labour are strong is within the Shadow Cabinet and the real stuff that they want to implement that is hushed up by the largely Tory supporting media. There’s real depth there, so much so that the Tories have taken it on board as a populist vote winner and implemented as their own. Brushing teeth in young child settings, anyone?
 

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.