Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Osborne's austerity hasn't worked, so he proposes more austerity. watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Austerity also doesn't make sense from a pragmatic perspective. If the government spends less, then they have less income from tax. The poor have less money due to cuts to benefits so they spend less so the government has less income from VAT. The poor spending less also means that businesses struggle because they are getting less money. The businesses then pay less tax and may ultimately go out of business because they're making a loss, thus putting people out of work.
    I do hope you're not serious here - but your tone does seem quite earnest.

    It is entirely mental to suggest taking money from people to give other people money to spend (in turn, disincentivising them from actually being economically active) somehow boosts your economy or your tax-take. It does quite the opposite - with the additional negative of higher tax discouraging investment, growth and innovation.

    From a selfish standpoint, I don't want austerity. It will mean that it's harder for me to get a job in my chosen career, and if I do, I will have worse pay and conditions.
    I'm glad at least you're acknowledging this is a selfish and ultimately anti-social position.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I do hope you're not serious here - but your tone does seem quite earnest.

    It is entirely mental to suggest taking money from people to give other people money to spend (in turn, disincentivising them from actually being economically active) somehow boosts your economy or your tax-take. It does quite the opposite - with the additional negative of higher tax discouraging investment, growth and innovation.



    I'm glad at least you're acknowledging this is a selfish and ultimately anti-social position.
    1. giving money to the poor through benefits does actually increase long-term GDP due to increased purchasing and therefore increase business growth; resulting in higher tax earnings for the government. however, it would be much better to reduce what i would call the unavoidable expenditure (what u have to pay to survive, like energy, food, housing etc) of the poor, therefore increasing the amount of money that they can spend on products. this both increases VAT earnings and increases business growth without increasing benefits.

    2. shut up u tory
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I do hope you're not serious here - but your tone does seem quite earnest.

    It is entirely mental to suggest taking money from people to give other people money to spend (in turn, disincentivising them from actually being economically active) somehow boosts your economy or your tax-take. It does quite the opposite - with the additional negative of higher tax discouraging investment, growth and innovation.



    I'm glad at least you're acknowledging this is a selfish and ultimately anti-social position.
    Actually, rich people tend to spend less of their income than poor people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Actually, rich people tend to spend less of their income than poor people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Only as a proportion lol so who cares?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    1. giving money to the poor through benefits does actually increase long-term GDP due to increased purchasing and therefore increase business growth; resulting in higher tax earnings for the government. however, it would be much better to reduce what i would call the unavoidable expenditure (what u have to pay to survive, like energy, food, housing etc) of the poor, therefore increasing the amount of money that they can spend on products. this both increases VAT earnings and increases business growth without increasing benefits.

    2. shut up u tory
    Majority of people only understand their own experiences and if you aren't able to relate to their personal world they'll call you a liar without actually researching the topic.

    But your right.

    People think that if wealthy tax payers have more of their own money the economy will get better. Basically they believe rich people will invest in businesses. Well this only happens when a economy is doing well. So where is all the investment? I don't see it. In fact the FTSE100 is going down not up.

    So that is one of their most core beliefs crushed and shows we are in recession at the same time.

    But you see the wealthy aren't interested in lowering prices for basic things like housing, food and energy. This causes deflation and deflation is bad! Well for the rich and not for the poor. Deflation essentially shrinks asset prices and all commodities along with it. We are experiencing deflation right now on the commodities market. This is why gasoline is cheap and food prices are dwindling.

    Notice how the rich have supported the Sugar tax because we can't have the Koch Brothers loosing money can we.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/17/coca...o_fight_a_tax/

    This Tory Government is nothing but a life raft for the wealthy to prepare for a economic collapse.

    And you Keynesians.

    Shut up for crying out loud. Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney and Max Kieser have already proven you wrong. No one listens to what Kruggy Krugman says anymore. He is a idiot. His approval rating only means good things to the economic illiterate. I swear half of you are brain washed into thinking Keynesian-ism has no weaknesses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We haven't actually had very much austerity at all, the cuts have been very mild.

    What's really needed is a reduction in regulation, to kick start the economy again, but the big corporates will never allow that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We need communism- and we need it NOW.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    I swear half of you are brain washed into thinking Keynesian-ism has no weaknesses.
    Keynesian economics is a 1930s development and in its original form it has been found to have several weaknesses but it is far from an outright discredited theory. Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics are not synonymous with each other and there are many admirers of certain aspects of Keynesian economics who do not rate Krugman highly.

    Recessions are poorly understood by economists as much of their work has focused on economies in a reasonably healthy state. To complicate matters, recession all seem to have their own unique quirks and ideosyncracies meaning that magic bullet solutions are unlikely to exist. It is these quirks and ideosyncracies that add to know existing weaknesses of Keynesian economics in its raw form.

    GDP is a standard economic yardstick but it is not a meaningful figure from the perspective of the average person because it is just a tally of transactions and does not reflect their own standard of living or disposable income. As I have previously stated,
    The richest 1% can get richer whilst the poorest 99% can get poorer yet GDP can still rise. A jobless economic recovery or an economic recovery with stagnant salaries and no evident increase in living standards is technically possible by taking GDP as the sole yardstick.There is an alternative to GDP called the genuine progress indicator or GPI. It has some support amongst the 'green' or alternative economics community but it has not caught on in mainstream economics circles.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Actually, rich people tend to spend less of their income than poor people.
    So? "Spending" your income isn't the only way for it to be economically useful. If you have it invested, you're supporting new businesses - or contributing to the expansion of existing ones. Even if you just have your money in a bank account, it's not just sitting in a vault somewhere - it's providing mortgages, loans and a return for you and other customers.

    Rich people don't just convert all their money into gold bars and sleep on them...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So? "Spending" your income isn't the only way for it to be economically useful. If you have it invested, you're supporting new businesses - or contributing to the expansion of existing ones.
    Depends where the investment is. If British money is invested abroad or into things which create few jobs such as land or gold then it will not benefit the productive economy in Britain.

    Even if you just have your money in a bank account, it's not just sitting in a vault somewhere - it's providing mortgages, loans and a return for you and other customers.
    If banks are willing to lend - which they have been very reluctant to do since 2008. Business loans are no longer anywhere as easy to get as they were before 2008. If banks really had lots of money to lend then why on earth did they need to be bailed out by the government? Besides, miserably low interest rates give no incentive to people to keep cash in the bank.


    Rich people don't just convert all their money into gold bars and sleep on them...
    Gold has been a very good investment during this recession. Land and property has also been generally reliable nationally and quite lucrative in London.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If we're using this analogy shouldn't we get rid of some of the weight from the cart, by reducing government spending? Also the horses would be private sector companies, as they're what lead a recovery. Shouldn't they be helped by providing tax cuts allowing them to prosper?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Love how he leaks details of the budget.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So? "Spending" your income isn't the only way for it to be economically useful. If you have it invested, you're supporting new businesses - or contributing to the expansion of existing ones. Even if you just have your money in a bank account, it's not just sitting in a vault somewhere - it's providing mortgages, loans and a return for you and other customers.

    Rich people don't just convert all their money into gold bars and sleep on them...
    1) Investment in new businesses or new issue stock accounts for a small portion of stock market activity. Most 'investment' is really just forking over money to someone in exchange for their shares. Totally unproductive.

    2) Banks don't 'dip in' to their clients' bank accounts when loans and mortgages are issued - they simply create the money from thin air, which is then destroyed on repayment. Besides it's totally useless to us anyway if it's all kept offshore somewhere.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    Love how he leaks details of the budget.
    All chancellors do this


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    People don't understand the meaning of Austerity , it means to live within your means ( or not to spend more money than you have , the government only spends what it can afford .... )
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    People don't understand the meaning of Austerity , it means to live within your means ( or not to spend more money than you have , the government only spends what it can afford .... )
    True austerity would have meant huge cuts in the last parliament to eradicate the deficit, I would have prefer that so we could borrow massively now for infrastructure projects whilst rates are so low.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by paul514)
    True austerity would have meant huge cuts in the last parliament to eradicate the deficit, I would have prefer that so we could borrow massively now for infrastructure projects whilst rates are so low.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And thats add to the national debt meaning that we borrow forever and we will never pay it off .... Don't you understand how basic economics works ?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    People don't understand the meaning of Austerity , it means to live within your means ( or not to spend more money than you have , the government only spends what it can afford .... )
    So how is it we just have to cut disability benefits but can still afford to fork over billions to private companies to conduct wasteful, harsh and often demeaning fit-for-work assessments? We are pissing money away on the Tories' incompetent ******* mates so they can take support away from society's most vulnerable, with often catastrophic consequences. It's a ****ing travesty.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I



    I'm glad at least you're acknowledging this is a selfish and ultimately anti-social position.
    So? Your ideology that you want to force everyone into is based around selfishness as well. You want everyone to only care about what is directivity in front to them to increase their lot in life (and maybe their family's). Them not caring and thinking about the effect their actions have on society as a whole is a fundamental to your social-political view. Yet contradictory your school always appeals to how it would make everyone better off, but we are not supposed to care about everyone else? Yet if someone's direct selfishness gets expressed in way such as realising they can improve their lot through a union or some form of collective bargaining or pressure, in this case the user is saying she would vote for a party to wield the state in such a way to improve her lot, you complain about her being anti-social.

    On the one hand you are contradictory, your theory states everyone is self interested and we should leave them alone to express their self interest. But if they express self interest in a way that goes against what your theories say they should you interfere. It;s a flawed understanding of humans and contradictory flawed ideology of how humans do and should behave.

    Human nature isn't how you want it to be.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.