That 22bn

Seems like this thread just disappeared down a black hole?

What happend?

Irrespective if this total fabrication of accounting for government spending. The Labour government should not be using  more austerity to solve anything.

Seems like this thread just disappeared down a black hole?

What happend?

Everyone got tired of you constantly harping on with your Magic Money Theory.

Everyone got tired of you constantly harping on with your Magic Money Theory.

Not half as tired as I am listening to people justifying Tory economics.

It’s a thread about  a 22bn black hole. What else are we going to talk about?

I mean why join a discussion about government finances and complain about the debate?

I don’t spend time in threads that bore me.

The minute Labour stop playing Tory and turn on the spending taps – then I’m on side mister.

Not half as tired as I am listening to people justifying Tory economics.

With classic Tory terminology such as “magic money tree” do you mean?

John Crace is still reminding Guardian readers of Labour’s Tory black hole extravaganza. From yesterday’s Guardian :

You get the feeling that Reeves has been waiting all her life for this moment. Not just to be chancellor. But to be the Prophetess of Doom. The Slayer of Pleasure. Much of the time she can appear robotic at the dispatch box. Reciting her lines metronomically into the middle distance. Making eye contact with no one. A woman totally at home with saying no.

But mention the £22bn hole in the public finances and her eyes light up. Her voice becomes animated. This is her time. Her chance to shine.

There is no money, she grins. Things are terrible. Worse than even she had dared imagined. For imagined, read hoped. This is her best life. I guess, you take your fun where you find it.

As the Prophetess of Doom, Rachel Reeves takes on the role she’s waited for all her life

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/03/as-the-prophetess-of-doom-rachel-reeves-takes-on-the-role-shes-waited-for-all-her-life

The Guardian has turned into a parody paper, i’m absolutely sure Rachel Reeves was desperate for her entire life to get to this position of public office to be the bearer of bad news, her lifetime ambition was always to work out how to balance budgetary requirements rather than spending tens of billions we don’t have on projects that may, or may not work out.

What happened?

they finally all worked out that 22bn is just 1.8% of government spending, and hence a rounding error in the greater scheme of things.

Would a transactional tax if say 10% mean that we could reduce all other taxes? It would end the Global companies from screwing the system via offshoring. As soon as a transaction takes place here, some of it goes straight to HMRC.

You mean like VAT?

her lifetime ambition was always to work out how to balance budgetary requirements rather than spending tens of billions we don’t have on projects that may, or may not work out.

Doesn’t sound like a very progressive ambition does it. Maybe she should have been an accountant in a large company?
A government needs to spend billions on projects and some may work some may not but a bit of upfront analysis should help them go in favour of working with money that we do actually have but you refuse to understand.

But let’s pretend she does need to fix the ‘blackhole’ by making cuts, what happens when it is fixed? Who will actually notice any difference (other than the negative effect for those who have had things cut)?

If we allow this constant theme of balance budgets to keep going the upshot will be silly restrictions of spending here and there.

It makes no sense to run a country like this.

Part of the calculation that hasn’t been mentioned is that the OBR forecasted inflation incorrectly.

> Departmental budgets for 2024-25 were set at SR21 in cash terms, but inflation has been significantly higher than forecast at the time. At SR21 the OBR forecast that the cumulative increase in prices as measured by the GDP deflator over that three-year period would be around 7%. In reality, cumulative inflation over the first two years was around 13% and is forecast to be 15% over all three years.

100% incorrectly calculated.

This is why the fiscal rules are ridiculous too relying on what might happen five years for instance.

In much better speculative news  for October, it’s looking like what might happen in the budget is Reeves will remove the Q/E purchased bonds from the public ‘debt’ as part of the final figure.  2.7trillion to 2.

That is, bonds owned effectively by the UK Government on the BoE balance sheet. That’s 700bn of the public debt.

(So reserves that were created and swapped from the Gov to the BoE – a total accountancy trick in reality but added to classic view of what constitutes ‘debt’.  Q/E created debt.)

If she does do that – a good move,  the government will have less debt on the balance sheet and she can redefine what we can spend. Debt to GDP will immediately contract – literally over night.

The Tories will attack her for messing with the books but they were effectively silly numbers in the first place.

This would be a great move. Totally unnecessary in the scheme of real restrictions but if it allows them to believe they’ve created fiscal space – then crack on.

It’s also bloody ridiculous! Can you see how silly the way the government’s books operate is?

Not a household! Try eliminating your debt at home with your own bank.

Labour will then still work within the fiscal rules.

Well that’s a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?

No, didn’t think so.

The Guardian has turned into a parody paper, i’m absolutely sure Rachel Reeves was desperate for her entire life to get to this position of public office to be the bearer of bad news,

Tell me you don’t normally read The Guardian without telling me you don’t normally read The Guardian. John Crace is responsible for biting satirical sketch articles, loosely based on the news.

Well that’s a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea

As usual an empty threat by the egregiousl rich as they won’t go it’s too comfortable and cultured here that’s why they chose to live here. Also economics like nature abhors a vacuum and something will fill the hole.

Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?

No, didn’t think so.

I think it rather more likely we await next weeks announcement to that the pledge not to increase PAYE tax is unsustainable and we should all enjoy paying more tax, to receive less

Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?

No, didn’t think so.

The reason you’re not paying 80% tax and 80% VAT is precisely because you can go abroad or fake anxiety and quit.

It’s already priced in. And the fact you’re still here shows they got your reduced rate of tax about right, for now.

Well that’s a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea

The Daily Telegraph?

It’s much easier to say we don’t need their money, and that claiming it was going to pay for loads of stuff was a nonsense from the start.

Stupid ‘pay-for’ arguments totally self-defeating. Another pointless shit-storm brewing.

It’s much easier to say we don’t need their money, and that claiming it was going to pay for loads of stuff was a nonsense from the start.

But ‘Tax the Rich’ has been long held position for many who want to see punitive taxes raised on a group that are swerving taxation (paying their “fair share”) by moving their wealth to assets rathe than income. It was never about ‘paying for stuff’ and always about attempting to reverse increasingly egregious societal inequality

And also to make sure that government spending doesn’t just end up making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

But if we don’t need “their taxes”… then we don’t need “my taxes”… why am I paying?

 why am I paying?

The very short answer to that is – Do you want to take your wages home in a wheelbarrow?

Hands up those who think that the country would be significantly improved if a handful of uber-rich tax-avoiders **** off to Monaco or wherever else they wish to live out their vacuous lives.

Some might think it’s great that oil sheiks and russian kleptocrats have bought up huge tracts of london to keep as their private wealth stores and fiefdoms. I disagree with that perspective.

I’ve long held that past a certain threshold you should be banned from voting. That if your assets or income insulate you from the day to day worry of paying the bills, putting food on the table, paying the mortgage etc etc then you shouldn’t get a say in how the rest of us organise things.

I’d make a great PM, vote for me…

^^the slight risk there would be if the wealthy then started trying to influence the policy makers directly.. a few gifts here and there, expensive holidays, jollies to events etc

I know it’s unlikely but even politicians can lose track of their morals at times.

I thought we could just wish the £22bn away in any case? Don’t we just chant “Em-Em-Teeeee” over and over again whilst waving a sprig of Heather over it?

In response to the disqualification to vote with assets over £x – I have advocated in the past an age-weighting on the vote. The longer a voter of 18+ has (according to the death tables) to live with the consequences of a vote, the greater the weighting. Parents of children under 18 also favourably weighted to take into consideration the impact on 1st generation offspring.

It would be a much better place if it was run with the 30+ years impact on the lives of the young to the forefront. Rather than the 5-10 years that people with huge assets and pensions have left.

I’d make a great PM, vote for me…

Let’s see you in a suit.

Hands up those who think that the country would be significantly improved if a handful of uber-rich tax-avoiders **** off to Monaco or wherever else they wish to live out their vacuous lives.

*raises hand*

Let’s see you in a suit.

Who’s paying?

Let’s see you in a suit.

What type?

They should get Lord Ali to pay off the debt as he seems to pay for everything for them already

While I agree with an upper age limit and a wealth limit on voting (I would also add a political awareness test) it is not democracy is it as each of us narrows down who can or cannot vote.