BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
If "they" (who ever they are) collectively contribute less than they take out, are "they" net contributors, or even contributors?

This is not a criticism of the unwaged, or low earners, simply a case of saying like it is, IMHO.

It depends on how things are defined. If they are defined purely in monitory means then you are quite correct. However, society needs people to do the dirty work and that work is low paid. They might not be contributing to the economy but they are contributing to society.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
If "they" (who ever they are) collectively contribute less than they take out, are "they" net contributors, or even contributors?

This is not a criticism of the unwaged, or low earners, simply a case of saying like it is, IMHO.

If you want to reduce everything to a figure on either side of a balance sheet then that is true.

To make it easier everyone should have an indicator set up by the state to tot up whether they are in debit or credit to the state as they move through life and the state should produce annual statistics sub-divided by age, race, disability, sex, marital status so that we can all judge their worth to the country and treat them accordingly. IMHO.

As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.

I was just in the middle of making exactly the same point, you beat me to it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
It depends on how things are defined. If they are defined purely in monitory means then you are quite correct. However, society needs people to do the dirty work and that work is low paid. They might not be contributing to the economy but they are contributing to society.

If you want to reduce everything to a figure on either side of a balance sheet then that is true.

To make it easier everyone should have an indicator set up by the state to tot up whether they are in debit or credit to the state as they move through life and the state should produce annual statistics sub-divided by age, race, disability, sex, marital status so that we can all judge their worth to the country and treat them accordingly. IMHO.

As an example someone, say a hard-working, well paid taxpayer aged 50, is probably a cumulative net taker until they are out of education and in their twenties, then a net contributer, until they suddenly have to give up work due to illness/disability and within a few years due to NHS medical treatment cost and state benefits they move back into being a net taker. It's all bollox and just another way to label people.

I would agree, it was a plea for definition.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Pharaoh
Zack Polanski is getting some stick for claiming that Richard Murphy is a recognised economist. Apparently the new term for what he's pushing is 'Modern Monetary Theory', but is it just coincidence that 'MMT' could also stand for 'magic money tree'? (I'm putting this here rather than in the Greens thread, given it's of more general interest.)

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-economics-the-rise-of-modern-monetary-theory

Does MMT then argue that governments can simply spend whatever they like? This is perhaps the nub of the issue. There are certainly some who think that MMT is indeed a “magic money tree” and that, for example: “as a sovereign nation, the UK can always afford high quality universal NHS healthcare.”

The problem is obvious. Bangladesh is a sovereign nation just as much as the UK is (meaning, in this context, that it has its own currency managed by a central bank that is under the ultimate control of the government). But, no matter how large a deficit it ran, Bangladesh couldn’t afford universal NHS-quality healthcare for its people. It simply isn’t rich enough—it doesn’t have the doctors, nurses, or hospitals it would need. And this is the crucial point—if it tried to buy them and printed money to do so the result would mostly be inflation, with more money chasing a restricted supply of doctors and so on.

And the same applies to the UK. Yes, the UK can afford a high quality NHS. And education, and welfare system, and so on. But the idea it can do so without raising taxes is for the birds. Sure, the UK could run very large budget deficits, even with unemployment low. But the result would still be the same as that predicted by conventional economists. Inflation would rise. You can create money out of nothing, but you can’t create doctors, schools, or consumer goods.
 
Zack Polanski is getting some stick for claiming that Richard Murphy is a recognised economist. Apparently the new term for what he's pushing is 'Modern Monetary Theory', but is it just coincidence that 'MMT' could also stand for 'magic money tree'? (I'm putting this here rather than in the Greens thread, given it's of more general interest.)

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-economics-the-rise-of-modern-monetary-theory

That is a very well written piece saying what I have been trying to say for over a decade now. Taxes are going to rise regardless of who is in power. Anyone thinking or suggesting otherwise is deluded. That, or we give up and only the wealthy survive. But then, who cleans up after them?
 

Stevo 666

Veteran
Best not to get your information from comics. Al the BBC article highlights is that Kent either needs more funding, or not enough is being done to share the load across different counties.


£41k and of course not. You don't have to be a net contributor to contribute.
  • A report from the Commission on the Integration of Refugees suggested Britain's coffers could be boosted by £1.2 billion within five years if refugees were granted the right to work.
  • A GOV.UK news story highlighted that skilled refugees were contributing nearly £1 million annually in income tax and national insurance through pilot schemes.
  • A Public and Commercial Services Union report projected that by expediting the asylum process to six months, refugees could be self-sufficient sooner, leading to a net contribution to the public purse.

Back on the racist myths I see.
The asylum seekers coming here, come here because:
  • They speak some English. Not French, German, Spanish, Catalan, Polish, Russian etc. They want an English speaking country.
  • Their uncle / auntie / neighbour/ cousin/ dad's friends sister etc are already here. People like to go where they know some people.

Didn't know the BBC was a comic? But if you don't like the source, that's just tough.

Good to see you accept that the average pay is below the net contributor threshold.

No racist myths, so quit trotting out the tired old liberal leftiebollox generalities. How can they arrive here without travelling through other countries?
 

icowden

Shaman
Didn't know the BBC was a comic? But if you don't like the source, that's just tough.
The Torygraph as you well know, is no longer renowned for it's truthful reporting and has a history of publishing propaganda from Russia and China.
Good to see you accept that the average pay is below the net contributor threshold.
I just don't think it's relevant - and plenty of other people have pointed out that is not especially relevant.
No racist myths, so quit trotting out the tired old liberal leftiebollox generalities. How can they arrive here without travelling through other countries?
They obviously can't. Clearly you think that Italy and Greece should take all Syrian, Afghan, Iranian and Eritrean refugees.
That clearly would not be fair or sustainable.

The UK isn't even in the top 25 countries for numbers of refugees arriving. UNICEF estimate that there are 117.3 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. 8.4 million of those are asylum seekers. The UK currently has 1% of the world's asylum seekers.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Zack Polanski is getting some stick for claiming that Richard Murphy is a recognised economist. Apparently the new term for what he's pushing is 'Modern Monetary Theory', but is it just coincidence that 'MMT' could also stand for 'magic money tree'? (I'm putting this here rather than in the Greens thread, given it's of more general interest.)

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-economics-the-rise-of-modern-monetary-theory

Is there a definition of what is a "recognised economist"?

I have no qualifications in Economics (IT application Software background). I have been following Richard Murphy's podcasts for some time, more recently one of my drinking companions (the most left leaning one) has become a disciple of his.

Forecasting a Stockmarket crash is meaningless, now, if Richard could forecast WHEN, I might be impressed.
 
Is there a definition of what is a "recognised economist"?

I have no qualifications in Economics (IT application Software background). I have been following Richard Murphy's podcasts for some time, more recently one of my drinking companions (the most left leaning one) has become a disciple of his.

Forecasting a Stockmarket crash is meaningless, now, if Richard could forecast WHEN, I might be impressed.

I think the point is the downward spiral, the trend. Not a cliff edge point in time that can be defined.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
I think the point is the downward spiral, the trend. Not a cliff edge point in time that can be defined.

Hasn't the trend been UP, since, say WW2, maybe longer for all I know?

Now, being able to accurately forecast the ups and downs, that would be useful.

Maybe we need another discussion about graphs and time periods?
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Pharaoh
As all parties are tussling with asylum issues, I'll put this here. It feels vaguely balanced, and sets out some of the dilemmas well, I think.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/is-there-merit-in-labours-asylum-policies/

Migration policy undoubtedly involves difficult and uncomfortable trade-offs, especially when it comes to asylum claimants and refugees. But as the reaction to the Government’s proposals for change to asylum and refugee policy revealed, the conversation becomes a lot harder when it’s framed in polarizing binaries (is immigration good or bad?)

In my recently published book Why Immigration Policy Is Hard and How To Make it Better, I try to explain why governments have such a tough time with irregular immigration (for one, they have less control over these flows than the other main forms of immigration around work, study and family) and try to remove some of the hysteria around the discussion.
 
Hasn't the trend been UP, since, say WW2, maybe longer for all I know?

Now, being able to accurately forecast the ups and downs, that would be useful.

Maybe we need another discussion about graphs and time periods?

Lies damned lies and statistics again. If you can't see that this country has been in a downward spiral since 2008 then I can't help you.
Any positive stats you can give are bought and paid for in the national debt which is spiralling out of control. Slowly but surely.
 
Top Bottom