Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Economics Help"
channel.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
The complexities involved in taxation can be answer by such a broad question definitively. Key to the effectiveness and fairness of taxation is highly dependent upon who is taxed and how. Moreover, as Tejvan pointed out the returns from taxation depend on the economic returns on spending that revenue. What we need to emphasise is that taxation is supposed to bring economic and social improvements to the infrastructure that supports everyone, as everyone has to pay taxation, so everyone should see and should be able to understand how they benefit. Unfortunately, that isn't often the case, as sometimes it isn't obvious. Indeed, political ideology that focuses on individuals and families alone, barely acknowledges the importance of public spending to support them to be able to have a better quality of life. That's why the consequences of policies like austerity were ill understood both by those who advocated it and the electorate in the context of the UK's particular circumstances. That meant in many cases whilst we saved a penny, it cost us pounds further down the line. Our short-term political focus doesn't help either. So taxation is necessary, but also the need for wise, detailed, and careful consideration of tax policy is sorely needed. Our tax system evolves over time, so isn't always clear what Unintended consequences will follow. It is a balancing act, and ideological thinking, and economic experiments based on it, should be avoided. We need to be sceptical about easy answers to tough and complex questions, or we're likely to store up problems for ourselves. Luckily, people like Tejvan are gently reminding us of that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, as a proportion of their income, people on benefits pay a larger proportion of their income on taxes. Why? Nearly 30% of working households are in receipts of benefits. So at least for 30% of households, work doesn't pay. Secondly, the disabled and long-term sick receive benefits. The elderly receive benefits on top of their state pension. They all have to buy goods on which taxes are levied: energy, food, clothing, books, stationary, postage, mobile phone credits, and public transport,childrens clothing and nappies. So, working people pay income tax, national insurance, council tax and so people on benefits. If you can live on less than 400 gbp per month, and not pay tax, you could not function in society, because almost everything is taxed. Energy, for example is taxed at 5% VAT. Spend 60 gbp on electricity and £3.00 goes on tax. Buy children's clothing that VAT at 20%. Get on a bus, thats 20%. Post a letter, or buy something from ebay that you can get locally, 20%. So people on benefits pay more as a percentage of what income they get on taxes. So it's actually false to suppose those on benefits are living it large. Indeed, they are not. Hence the rise in shoplifting, the modern day equivalent of the Spiv on the corner selling black market goods. So your belief is false. If it's still open to the public, look up the Local Authority Association database, which contains economic data collected by Local Authorities. Their figures are upto date. There are many things wrong with our country, including it's economic ideas that got us into this mess, and that's nothing new. Work can only be a panacea when you get paid enough to function on Society. Cutting benefits isn't economically sane. Because unemployment is going up. And to look for work, and to be available for work, one needs a mobile number. You need Internet access, and you need money to travel to interviews. And you need to look presentable to get hired. All that costs money. So, go ahead and cuts benefits, keep child poverty, malnutrition, and deprivation going up. No; bring back the poorhouse. We got rid of things like that for good reason. Work needs to pay, or all it does is sow the seeds of further problems. And bad judgments made without recourse to facts or reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry but that's not quite true. GDP is not something you can spend. It's an estimate of the value of goods and services produced. You can't buy anything with GDP. It's nothing more than a comparative measure. You can buy something with GDI, which is the Gross Dimestic Income of a nation, but because of austerity and other policy failures, GDI is less than GDP in recent years, when it's supposed to be equal. So, your point doesn't make sense when tested against reality. Having higher immigration doesn't necessarily lead to greater GDP or GDI. Only increased economic output does. And there's no guarantee of that when the gaps are mostly in low paid, low skilled jobs. In fact,as one commenter on another video states, "What are you going to do when you realise that your problems don't come from immigration?" Your problems come from bad policy decisions and the wrong priorities in government over decades. These have literally resulted in the erosion of economic capacity in the UK. The loss of a mixed economy, replaced by one dependent mostly on services, together with falling labour protections and public services, is literally destroying economic capacity. And the Pandemic speeded it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not the same world your parents bought you into. And that you think that way suggests you don't have the personal finance knowledge you need. Sorry, but you can't step into the same river twice. The economy is very, very different, and lifetime employment is no longer a given. You need to have a realistic plan, and understand the direct and indirect costs of your ambition. That means making a financial plan based on present and future spending for saving and investing. You can't wing it now, because graduates getting paid minimum wage is a thing. And there are no guarantees. You have to organised. Learn how about, savings and investing in a tax efficient way. And the costs if buying a home and the costs of maintaining. For example, Tejvan's told us he had decided to extend the duration if his mortgage, because mortgage costs were accelerating ahead of his earnings. Instead of finishing paying in 30 years, he's looking at 40 years. Another thing, when Boris Johnson was prime minister he was discussing with the mirtgage industry the introduction of intergenerational mortgages, where the outstanding debt that remains is passed into your inheritors after your death. Google it, and just think why that was being discussed in government. The world is changing, and will still change faster than you know. You need to learn about how to make your money work as hard as it can, and protect yourself as well. You cannot afford to be complacent. You need to know how to do that. I hope you are checking out decent UK personal finance channels and people like Martin Lewis, and researching what you need to do, because you'll need to be ahead of the curve. If you can afford ut, subscribe to Which? Money magazine published by the Consumer Association. A sub gets you not only the magazine that is full of savings, investment, and personal finance advice, but gives you access to advice services as a perk. Good Luck I hope your dreams come true. With luck, the right knowledge, and the right help you can do it. 👍
1
-
1
-
There's no point saying everything is fiddled if you don't know what the definitions are for the stats so you can judge their validity. Moreover, economics itself is less concerned with distributional effects, being content with aggregate measures. But... Humans aren't purely objective in their thinking, and social media and news outlets have their biases too. So what to do? Well, look at your local economy. How well are your neighbours doing? How many people at your workplace are fighting for overtime every week or every month? Are your local shops full of diverse small businesses that are flourishing? Or is your high street full of only pawnshops, pounshops, charity shops, takeaways, corner shops, and betting shops? Your eyes can tell you a lot that statistics won't. Economics by walking about tells you a lot of things that the statistics don't. So, by all means be sceptical, but be grounded in your critique. And allow for uncertainty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1