General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Aden Wellsmith
Garys Economics
comments

Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Garys Economics" channel.

@Blueberryp92 I had a long conversation with my best man. Known him since school. He and his wife, high earners. Employ people. Pay vast amounts of tax. I know roughly what they earn. They pay the same tax as 200 min wage earners. They have bought a place outside the UK. April is the last tax payment they will get from the UK. They will be mortgage free. No corporation tax. No tax for 3 years as a sweetener. So what will replacement? More min wage migrants who pay less tax than cost in services?
19
The usual sound bite. So how much extra money do you need? It's never said. It's the 'if only we could catch a leprechaun' everythingn would be happy every after in the kingdom Have you ever asked why banker Gary says the only debt is the money owed to bankers? The borrowing.
15
So Dr PHD. How big are the UK state debts? Not the reported, the real number.
14
You have nothing to positive offer them. All you can offer is lies debts, poverty, taxes, austerity, persecution.
6
Inequality is a sympton. A consequence mostly of the socialist pension debts. The workers assets have been looted leaving a debt. Debt is just negative wealth.
5
Mass migration means GDP per head goes down. It increases poverty.
5
So answer some basic questions. There's 16 trillion pounds of socialist pension debt with no asset. How's that going to be paid without austerity?
4
So where has the 20% the workers have paid the socialist welfare state for their old age gone? It's all spent. Leaving a debt which is negative wealth. Ask what people could have had if their had been allowed, permitted, to do the right thing and just accumulate wealth through their investments
4
@ No it can go exponetially wrong.
3
And look at the common factor. The state.
3
Inequality is a symptom. What's the cause? It's debt.
3
You're assuming there is a 'palatable' way out.
3
The welfare state takes 20% of peoples income in the form of NI and redistributes that wealth. That results in a debt, a massive debt, that the workers are now on the hook to pay. Debt is just negative wealth. That's redistribution for you in action as you demand. How's that working out? The alternative is that the workers invest that 20% and own the wealth.
3
@ColaSpandex It's redistribution. It's one example of the policy that people are calling for. So its perfectly reasonable to ask how that redistribution is working, and what consequences [good or bad] it produces, when compared to an alternative approach to pensions. So 16 trillion pounds of debt, hidden off the books. 30% of tax goes on the debts. Pensioners are still in poverty. Wealth inquality is massive. [Zero assets for that transfer, just debt which is negative wealth]. So I take it you want more redistribution to fix a problem caused by one type of redistribution? Instead we need people to invest that 19% Plus 8% work place pensions, 27% of their income into a fund that they own. That way they keep their wealth. What's wrong with that? The idea that ripping one group off to pay another group that have been ripped off, fixes the problem is bizarre.
3
@ You don't measure GDP in percentages.
3
@Alaaaa23567 They will vote against it. The reason is that unlike the UK, in CH you get to accumulate wealth and the Swiss voter has a mechanism to say no. I used to live there. You could hear checkout girls in Migros discussing their holiday in Bali. Do you think that would happen in the UK? No. The big difference is that in CH the state doesn't asset strip the works of 18% of their income to pay their socialist pension debts.
2
@ Traders like Gary just care about being paid. They don't care about the peasants. Why for example does Gary say that government debt is 2.7 trillion? That's just the borrowing. There's all those other debts from nuclear clean up, public sector pensions, state pensions ....
2
@AndrewJOliver n general is about addressing the fact that the wealth gap in the UK ========= Wealth gap is bad. So what's caused it is more than relevant. The reason for the wealth gap is down to socialist policy of redistribution of the workers's wealth. 20% of their income take and and given to someone else. None of it invested. That leaves a debt, and debt is negative wealth. So the cause of wealth inequality is not investing those pension contributions and the debt. That's why I asked you for the size of the debt. Next the housing crisis. 100% in agreement is real. So what's the cause? Unless you fix the cause you won't fix the problem. It's supply and demand, and the problem is the demand. Deal with demand, prices will fall, units become available. So wealth inequality - a disaster Housing crisis? Caused by migration, its also a disaster. The lefts solution from people like Gary, is more asset stripping of the workers, and more migration
2
@kaiharrod The second reality of the orginal state pension was that retirement age was set well above life expectancy for the poor. They paid in, got nothing if anything back. The rich who had longer life expectancy then cleaned up at the workers expense. You have the same going on now. Increase the retirement age, screw the poor out of any wealth they have paid in.
2
@Dantianblue ONS. Now my question for you. You clearly don't believe or the ONS on the pension debts. That means you have a number you are comparing it against. That number will range from zero to a large number. What number do you have for the amount owed for the debts, all of them. I'll start with one number, the borrowing to get the ball rolling. The amount owed, close of business Friday, was £2,625.10 billion. That comes from the UK Debt Management Office. Now its your turn. Lets pick just one of the other debts. Civil service pensions. How big is that date? Not future liabilities, not past liabilities, just current liabilities. We don't want to inflate the number.
2
You've earned around 575K, and that excludes your pension. Where's the money gone is the more scientific question.
2
@MCDONALD6969 The race to the bottom.
2
@mariustoma2194 Inequality is a consequence. The rich get richer if they invest and don't spend. So ask the question, why aren't the workers doing the same? So first question do they earn a surplus they could invest? The answer is yes. Just under 20% of their income is taken and given to someone else in the form of NI. 30% of their tax goes on the state debts. A huge chunk to bankers like Gary. None of that 30% goes on their services. So they have 30% of their income, plus another 8% for work place pensions that could be going into accululating wealth. That is, if socialists like Gary didn't want to asset strip people.
2
@ Money is created. Debt is created. The two are equal. What's the issue?
2
He's wrong. Things are dire. You think someone comes along and sells you horse manure and you've jumped. He's the saviour.
2
And all that money was REPAID IN FULL. At PENAL rates of interest, the state made a 35 bn profit on the bail out. The SLS creamed the cash.
2
@ My oldest friend wife told me yesterday, they are off. 250 min wage taxpayers are needed, with no services, zilch to replace the tax they paid. Given they employ 5-6 people, you could lose that too.
2
@ They are leaving. Plenty of places. Assets? Which ones? Property? Sell it. Cash out. Move. Shares? Bonds? Click. Moved.
2
@jorgemonasterio8361 He may as well be talking about leprechauns. It's an even more realistic 'solution'. How much cash do you need? What's the problem you want to solve? How big's the problem? For example, the welfare state is 16 trillion in debt. 10% per year increase. Just to keep things as they are you need 1.600 bn a year. Each year, every year. How many hyper rich are there in the UK who can pay that?
2
Sunday times rich list. Top 100, gets down below your multimillionaire status. Remove the foreigners living in the UK. I've done that very crudely, you have 316.88 left to tax. The interest on that is under 16 bn a year at 5%. That's less than the money Starmer has agreed to pay to give away the Chagos islands. The pension debts will have increased by 1,600 bn this year. What are you going to do to get the other 1,584 bn? What happens next year?
2
@GeekGamer666 Option 2. Take all their wealth. That covers the increase in the pension debts for 72 days. A little over 2 months. What do you do for the next 80 years?
2
@ I hear this argument all the time though that only high earners are net contributors to the tax take. 40K a year is break even. Average wage is 39K and there's a deficit. So why import millions of non working and min wage earners? On the wealth side. The workers have paid 20% of their income to the state. All that has been redistributed, as you demand. That leaves a debt. A massive debt. So your policies have caused the inequality. What should have happened is that 20% should be invested and owned by the workers. With work place pensions on top that 26-27% of income. Over the years that accumulates into a lot of wealth. That's what happens in places like Switzerland Singapore and Australia.
2
@tylerheinrichs2806 None. They need massive welfare to just live. Plus you have millions of min wage or no wage migrants arriving to the UK. Someone 'has' to fund them. Somone 'has' to fund those debts gary won't talk about. The debts not owed to him and his banker mates. I say 'has' because' the reality is they don't have to be paid.
2
My best friend is off. He and his wife, 500K a year. That's 250 min wage earners for a year in tax, gone. Plus the corporation tax, capital gains tax, the works. The super rich will just off shore the lot. Dyson's gone. That odious plumber's gone. Branson's gone. All the hedge funds have assets held offshore to avoid bail ins. Now what? More poor migrants on welfare? They can't even cover the cost of their own services. The other day Reeves was begging them not to go. Even more worrying is investment. That screws any growth ideas.
2
When Rachel Reeves is reversing her policies because of it, the effect is real. The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax. When even a small percentage leave [or their assets leave], the tax take gets hit hard. That results in austerity either in the form of cuts to spending or cuts to take home pay.
2
Zero debt, and chopping off body parts of politicians who get others into debt. On Islamic finance its all usury just like any bank. No matter how you wrap it up, it looks like debt, acts like debt. Just like if it quacks, waddles, has a bill and looks like a duck, its a duck.
1
They don't. They all are playing fantasy economics. The new game. How many of them include all the state debts when they talk about debt? They all say debt to gdp is 100%. It's not. That's just borrowing to GDP, and its predicated that its not an issue if tax was 100%, services were zero, and that 100% tax goes on the debt.
1
The answer is yes. I bet you make the standard error, that debt is debt. Ignore the difference between fixed rate debts and inflation linked debts. Fixed rate debts, you can print to pay. Causes inflation, screws the creditors, but there is no default. There's no cap on printing fiat money. But for inflation linked debt, the debt is for real resources. Purchasing power. That's limited by the ability to tax, because it's a transfer between the producers and the creditors. So how big are the pension debts? Balance sheet number? Gary won't tell you. He's a banker and just worries about banker's. The money owed to the peasants, ignored.
1
So how are the numbers fiddled to make things look safe? You can do two things. Don't include debts, inflate income available for the debts Debt over GPD. A bad measure. The reason is the state cannot tax 100% of the economy. People can't afford it and want to eat. It's just like saying including your neighbour's income in your mortgage application. Why not Debt / Taxes? ie debt / income. Problem here is that people want services for their taxes, so even that is a bad measure. Debt / (taxes less core spending). This is a more realistic measure. Or you ask the question, what's a reason gross profit margin for the state on its services? That's taxes / cost of services - 1.0. Currently the state makes a 30% gross profit margin. That's a measure of the austerity needed to pay the debts. That's fiddling the income side. Fiddling the debt numbers? Just don't report debts. State pension, PS worker's pensions, the EU, unpaid wages, unpaid invoices, damages [NHS, Post Office], the EU, nuclear clean up, all left off. Just the money owed to bankers included. Other measures. Total debt per tax payer. £800,000. Rate of increase in the debt. If its consistently above growth in GDP, its screwed. Long term growth rate is 10% per annum.
1
@ Until you can't borrow. Like now. Then what?
1
@ The debts are growing at 10% a year. Can you get 10% growth just to stand still? What happens when the workers say I've produced 10% more, year on year, and I'm not better off because the state's taken it to pay its debts?
1
@ Which then makes the middle class the rich, and they then get taxed.
1
How to fiddle debt numbers to make them look affordable. What you do is have a ratio, like for mortgages that you can borrow three times earnings. That affordability ratio is then debt / annual earnings. If its less than tree its deemed safe. So to make debts look affordable you can fiddle the numerator down, or inflation the denominator. Here's some ways to do it. 1. Fiddle the income, On the income side, assume that you can spend all of GDP on the debt, not just tax. On the tax front, will the public accept zero services and all their money going on the debts? Clearly not, so even using tax as the income amount is a fiddle. 2. Fiddle the debt number Banks aren't stupid and insist the money owed to them is reported. So the borrowing gets reported. But what about the other debts? Public sector pensions? Off the books so off the debt number. Same for State pensions Nuclear clean up Unpaid wages Unpaid invoices EU pensions Damages for people killed and injured by the NHS, the Post Office Expected losses on insurance contracts such as guarantees. Notice almost all debts are omitted, just the money owed to bankers and speculators like Gary. Makes the debt look "affordable" when you only include one of the debts, and double your income and state its 100% taxation with no services What other measures can you use to measure affordability? Debts / (taxes less core spending). Core spending is spending you can't cut without people dying. You could also look at what level of austerity the public will tolerate. There are two measures of austerity. First is gross profit made by the state. That's taxes less cost of services. The other is take home pay. So another measure, spending on the debt, is a measure of austerity. Then you what I think is a measure that's very predictive. It's to compare the growth in size of the debts - all of them - against the increase in GDP. When the growth in the debt is consistently above the growth in GDP, its going to go wrong. But for the left there's another measure relating to this that they really want to bury. What could you have had if your wealth hadn't been taken, but you invested and owned it? How big would your fund have been if you had been permitted to do what the rich have done.
1
But look at the tax levels. Do you think they would stay for UK levels of taxation?
1
@DorothyReich The leprechaun myth.
1
So where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state for their old age?
1
But he's not. Look the workers have paid the welfare state 20% of their income for their old age. Where's that wealth? Gary won't tell you. The reason is he's a banker. He'll only tell you about the money owed to him and his banker mates. The money owed to the peasants, not a peep.
1
Pol pot did the same. Then when that didn't work started killing people. Its already happening in the UK. 10,000 cases of corporate homicide under investigation in Scotland.
1
@MCJSA So the UK. Look at the numbers. 30% gross profit margin made by the state. Why not ban the state from making massive profits and instead have the workers invest their own wealth?
1
So if you are an actuary. How big are the state's pension debts? Why would Gary state that the only debt is the money owed to bankers like himself.
1
Correct question.. So the 20% of income that the workers pay the welfare state. There's a lot of compound interst there. Problem is that because the socialist welfare state has spent all the wealth, it leaves a debt. That debt, hidden off the books by Gary, grows at exponential rates. That's compound interest for you So ask Gary why he hides the debt. Ask Gary why the only debt that matters is the money owed to bankers like himself.
1
@ Missing what?
1
@ethelmini Not looking good for MPs then.
1
@ I haven't. 1. 20% of income, your wealth gets given to someone else. You now have a share of the pension debts to pay. 600K per tax payer. Debt is just negative wealth 2. Look at the government accounts. 30% of tax goes on the debt. So where's that wealth the workers have paid the state for their old age? It's all gone.
1
@ So who is Gary lying for?
1
@Daniel-zm1wt So answer some basic questions. There's 16 trillion pounds of socialist pension debt with no assets. All hidden off the books. Q. Why hide the debts? 1. How are they going to be paid without austerity? 2. Wealth inequality has been caused by the debts Is that a good thing? 3. Lack of investment - cause by the debt. A good thing? 4. Low take home pay - 30% of tax goes on the debt. 5. Pensioner poverty cause by the debt. So come on, justify why those are great things.
1
@AndrewJOliver Austerity is a symptom. This is the bit the left doesn't understand. There are two types of austerity. Public and private. Public austerity is where state spending is cut. Private austerity is where your income is cut and the cost of your purchases increases. That's a reasonable definition. So now look at the WGA. The whole of government accounts. The state makes a 30% grosss profit margin on its services. Tax receipts compared to cost of services. 30% profit. The reason is the 30% is going on the debts. 30% reduction in your taxes paid, cures private auserity. 30% increase in state spending would 'cure' public austerity. Austerity is a symptom of the debts, not a policy.
1
@AndrewJOliver So lets take an example of one of the debts. Civil service pensions. Zero assets. But they are owed a pension. How are you going to "get that debt back" from them via taxation?
1
@AndrewJOliver On the New Deal. That was 1% of US GDP. A 1% deficit spend. We've been runing at 5-10% deficit spending in the UK. Kenysian economics on steriods. Why has it not worked? Andrew this is the issue. You need to be far more critical about people like Gary. They are trying to flog you something and they want your cash. Are you being told the truth? The pension debts is a good example where you can test them. If they come back and say, national debt is 2.5 trillion, then they are saying the only debt is the money owed to bankers. It's not. They want you to think its affordable. It's not.
1
@AndrewJOliver We can get to that. But you are trying the divertion. One of the big debts is civil service pensions. In the trillions. More than the borrowing. Where's that money gone, how do you tax to get those debts paid? Do you tax civil servants 100% of their pensions?
1
@AndrewJOliver On the covid. The fix for this is to publish all state spending in full. Names, addresses, company names the works. Then you offer a reward as a percentage of money recovered. Say 10% Massive fraud, you then start producing programs to track the fraud down. Not going to be hard. That's down to the penny. But if you don't tax people and hand their money out to the spivs in the first place, then it can't go missing.
1
@jonhughes7264 So lets do the maths on that. There's a 16 trillion pension debt going up at 10% a year. All ONS numbers. You need another 1,600 bn a year, year in, year out. The top 200 Rich list. I suspect you think 100% taxation which basically means confiscation. How do you turn that money into assets? You wil get 2 months of the increase in the debts. That's for the top 100, excluding foreigners, but including Brits who have left the UK. Look its a great sound bite. Someone else pays. But when you look at the numbers, it doesn't add up. The debts are too large for the rich to pay. So what's going on. The left who have looted the wealth, need people to pay into the ponzi. So first you hide the debts. Then you say if only we could get our hands on the leprechauns. ... Just as valid as saying there's a golden goose to pay the debts. Why not go after the people who took the wealth in the first place running a pension ponzi?
1
@AndrewJOliver You need 1,600 bn a year. That's 50% of GDP. You need to raise that year in year out just to keep the current set up. The pension debts are 16 trillion increasing at 10% a year over the long term. That's 1,600 bn a year. What wealth do they own? What rate of tax on the wealth? How much does that raise? How much of the 1,600 bn requirement does that fulfil?
1
@gordon1201 So civil service pensions do not get paid. Do you think they will accept that? Just one of the debts. One bit that Gary won't tell you is that there's a big difference between fixed rate debts and inflation linked debts. With fixed rate debts MMT is clear. You can print to pay, cause massive inflation, clear the debts. For inflation linked debts, when you print to pay, you get inflation and the debts get bigger in cash terms. Doesnt' work. Those pension debts are inflation linked. To pay them you need to tax the workers and hand over their wealth to the creditors. Pensioners.
1
@AndrewJOliver videos on this channel and others that explain how government debt works. So find where Gary states how big the pension debts are? I know exactly how it works. Find where the pensions liabilities are reported. Must be easy for you to find them. Gary must have put out a number. My prediction. You won't find it. You won't say.
1
@AndrewJOliver Talk UK. The UK Left is pushing for more migration because they think they will vote for them, The Tories are pushing for more migration to surpress wages and working conditions. In all cases the working class is screwed because they have to fund it. So back to that covid question and ask, how to solve migration? You publish all the costs for each migrant. NHS - 3k a year Schooling 8.5k a year Common goods - 3K a year. Total it up for the time here. Then you publish the income tax paid, scaled up for other taxes. We see the nunbers for the net contributors versus net consumers. Nothing like information to change policies.
1
@kaiharrod Correct, but.... The problem was that instead of investing the contributions, the wealth, with the wealth paying pensions, they redistributed the wealth leaving a debt. So now the debt has reached the point where you get massive consequences, dire ones. Wealth inequality is bad. But 20% of peoples income has been asset stripped from them to pay the pension debts. Austerity is bad. 30% of state income goes on the debt not services. Low take home pay. Imagine reducing your tax bill by 30%. Would that help with cost of living? Pensioner poverty. Mr Average, if he had invested his NI would have had a fund of 1.15 million. 35K a year just in dividends. What does the sate offer? So that policy came with consequences. The consequence are bad. Why did it happen? Well the debts were hidden off the books to prevent people from seeing what was going on. Which bit do you think is wrong and why?
1
@kaiharrod Or let me put it another way. I know why the state pension was set up. My view it should have been based on capital owned by the worker. Then we wouldn't have the mess. You could argue that isn't a good idea, and that socialist redistribution is the way. You then state that 30% gross profit margin is good. Wealth inequality is good. Poverty for pensioners is good and they should say thank you to the lords and masters in Labour and the Tories. Low take home pay is a good idea. ... . That would be honest. but socialists won't be honest about their policies and the consequences.
1
@kaiharrod Not now. The scale of the correction is the issue. The debts there. Can't be magic'ed away. So the question is who gets the pain and how much? 1. State spending 2. Pensioners. 3. Tax payers - ie workers. It's an epic disaster. Step one, publish the debts in full. No fiddles on the discount rate. Send every taxpayer an annual statement with their pro rata share. The reason is without that people get conned by the Gary's of this world who say, if only we had a goose that laid golden eggs... The fairy story. That debt number also gives you the progress of any fix. You also need to include in that number what you could have had, if your wealth had been invested. Part of this is to prevent anyone involved in causing the mess from profitting. They need to be blamed and suffer the consequences. The other part, it shows part of the solution. You must invest your NI. Over time that exceeds for almost all the value of what the state currently offers. Over a 20 year period, the workers will be better off in wealth terms and the risk to the sytem goes down. Sadly they have to pay twice. They still lose. The state then just guarantees a basic income if you exhaust your wealth. That also covers anyone who cannot save, such as the disabled. We also need to stop giving away access to the welfare system to new arrivals. They get zero. I would even tax them at break even levels. 40K a year. That again cuts the problem down. But there is no palatable easy solution.
1
@rickymort135 A liability/debt is a present obligation of the enterprise arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits For example, if the state has received money in the past and is obligated to pay it back in the future its a debt. e.g Borrowing or pensions. Economic value covers services and goods. For example, if you worked for the state in the past and as a result the state is obligated to pay you a pension in the future, its a debt. Same for unpaid wages. Other examples, if we take the NHS. If the NHS has damaged someone in the past, from a mistake then the expected damages are also a debt/liability Borrowing State pension Civil service pension Unpaid wages Unpaid invoices The EU Expected losses on insurance contracts Expected damages (Post office, NHS etc) Nuclear clean up (paid up front, state pays for the work) Expected losses on guarantees. So in your case of Groceries. There's no payment in the past, The transaction for the delivery of groceries, against payment, has both legs in the future. It's not a current debt.
1
@rickymort135 So the borrowing. Payments of capital and interest in the future. Why is that reported?
1
@ A liability/debt is a present obligation of the enterprise arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits For example, if the state has received money in the past and is obligated to pay it back in the future its a debt. e.g Borrowing or pensions. Economic value covers services and goods. For example, if you worked for the state in the past and as a result the state is obligated to pay you a pension in the future, its a debt. Same for unpaid wages. Other examples, if we take the NHS. If the NHS has damaged someone in the past, from a mistake then the expected damages are also a debt/liability So your grocery example, both legs are in the future. Not a current debt.
1
@rickymort135 unfunded pension liabilities they're talking about the future not the past. No. I'm talking current liabilities. Just the money owed for past payments [or work] that mean the state will pay pensions in the future. If someone makes a contribution tomorrow, that's not included. What's the difference between past liabilities, current liabilities and future [potential liabilities] On current liabilities go on the balance sheet up less you are pulling a Bernie Maddoff.
1
@rickymort135 And address my point, GDP per capita is 3x what it was in the 60s, meaning we've never had more purchasing power per individual in the country. Bought on credit. Give me your credit card, and I'll spend lots. Of course you'll have to pay it back. The richest bit. Only if you don't include the debts. All of them. That's the point. On the wealth inequality. Where are the trillions of pounds of wealth the workers have paid the socialist welfare state for their old age? Invested? Nah. All spent to give that illusion of wealth.
1
@rickymort135 ONS for the numbers. What number do you have?
1
@rickymort135 THe number comes from the ONS. It's based on their historical estimates for the unfunded pension liabilities that are omitted from the accounts. They are not uptodate, so its sinmply their last number with their published long term growth rate. All on the National Archive website As I said in replies to you its come from the ONS. Now you think the number is wrong. That means you must have a number you are comparing it against. Post your number and reference or admit what I expect to be the case. You don't want people to know.
1
@rickymort135 go to statistica and look at public debt as a percentage of GDP. ========== I know what's there. You are talking about borrowing only. I'm talking about all debts. Here are the top 10 debts Borrowing State pension Civil service pension Unpaid wages Unpaid invoices The EU Expected losses on insurance contracts Expected damages (Post office, NHS etc) Nuclear clean up (paid up front, state pays for the work) Expected losses on guarantees. This morning [yes today's] borrowing number is Total Amount Outstanding (including inflation uplift for index-linked gilts) = £2,625.10 billion nominal That's just hours old, unlike Statstica. So lets pick just one of those debts. Civil service pension for example. How big is that debt? You can knock off any assets they have invested to pay them. Oh wait, I've got today's number for you. Zero. No assets what so ever. You need to ask the simple question. Is Statisica giving you all the debts, or is it just telling you about the money owed to bankers.
1
@rickymort135 Public debts - plural - is what matters. That means all the debts. This is the game that Gary plays and you've fallen for it. To make debt look affordable you typically want a ratio of debts / income to be as small as possible. 1. Omit debts. Just don't include them Makes things look more affordable. 2. Inflate income. For example use GDP and not tax receipts. Even tax receipts isn't right. 100% of taxes going on debts, none on services? Is that realistic? No the correct income is tax receipts less core spending [ie. Costs]. That's the accurate measure of income. So now work out if its affordable
1
@AndrewJOliver No he doesn't. I've watched it. He doesn't even state the debt number. Until you get a clear statement of the position we are in, its just fantasy economics. I set you that challenge. Can you find the size of the UK debts. You've failed. For example, if we take the borrowing. This morning that number is £2,625.10 billion. That's the official published borrowing number [close of business Friday] Easy to find if you know how. Now can you find a number for one of the other debts. Doesn't have even be recent, last 2-3 yearw will do. How about the civil service pension debts? Now I'm pushing you because you are saying you are right, but you can't find the number. I'm not surprised you can't find it. Gary for example is a banker. He's going to tell you the only debt is the money owed to him and his mates. All to make sure he's paid. Money owed to the peasants doesn't count. That is after all the plan. They want you to be ignorant so you carry on paying the state, handing over your wealth. Then when its your turn, so long sucker.
1
@AndrewJOliver 1:47 in the video you reference going to explain that today okay so government debt the government debt has increased since Covid from £1.9 trillion to £2.5 trillion, now I think these really big numbers like trillions So just the borrowing. Not the pensions. Not all the other debts. Just the money owed to bankers. Why would Gary ignore the money owed to the peasants and claim the only debt is the money owed to him and other bankers? It's fantasy economics at best. In reality its shilling for a fraud. So how is the search going for the pension debts? Not going well is it? You won't find the numbers. You really have to know where they hide them, and even then, how they rig them to make them look smaller. So how about an interim question. Why do you think you can't find the number?
1
@rickymort135 And what's the increase in all the debts? £2,625.10 billion is this morning's borrowing In 1960 the UK's national borrowing was £27 billion So we're talking a 100 fold increase in just the borrowing. If you say we are 'rich' you have to include assets and liabilities. Rich means having an excess of assets over liabilities. So what's the number for all the liabilies.
1
@rickymort135 I know exactly what I was doing. You made no inflation claims. You also made claims about debt. So what debts are you measuring to make the claims? Here's the top 10. Which are you including, which omitting? Borrowing State pension Civil service pension Unpaid wages Unpaid invoices The EU Expected losses on insurance contracts Expected damages (Post office, NHS etc) Nuclear clean up (paid up front, state pays for the work) Expected losses on guarantees.
1
@thewaffle003 Far from it. Simple test you can go verify yourself. Gary reports the National Debt at 2,500 bn. That's a little off, the National Borrowing, this morning as 2,625.10 bn So where's the pension debts? What about those civils servant and their pensions? Not owed them according to Gary. The only debt is to him and his banker mates. See if you can find out how much the civil servants are owed. Just one of the other debts from the borrowing. You might struggle.
1
@rickymort135 No you replyed ot someon else expecting me to respond. It's very simple. Future food purchases are paid for in the future. The payment and receipt of food are both in the future, so that isn't a debt. If you paid last week for a delivery of a TV next month, that's a debt. The company who sold you the TV owes you the TV. One leg [the payment was in the past] The delivery in the future. If you deposit money with a bank at 2% interest, due in a year. Then you have 1 leg in the past, one in the future. The bank owes you. If you borrowed money in the past, to be repaid in the future, its a debt. If you spent on a credit car two years ago and paid of the balance, last year, its not a current debt. It was a debt, but since both sides are now in the past, there is currently no debt. Now for thewaffle. Those pensions debt cause the wealth inequallity and austerity. People had paid the state close to 20% of their income. If they had invested that you wouldn't have been talking about wealth inequality. Mr Average for example, retiring today, 1.15 million in a fund if their NI had been invested. Instead they get zero assets and a share of those pension debts. 800K. They are down close to £2 million. future liabilities, or potential future liabilities I'm not talking future liabilities or past liabilities. Current liabilities only. What's the difference in your world, for the balance sheet for a) Past liabilities? b) Current liabilities? c) Future liabilities?
1
@rickymort135 PS. Your post from earlier didn't shbow up in any of my alerts. It does however show up when I read all the comments. So civil servants. Are they owed a pension? Simple yes or no.
1
@rickymort135 1. Borrowing. All the payments are in the future. So its not a debt in your world? Why? 2. I'm attacking the welfare state for causing wealth inequality, austerity, lack of investment, pensioner poverty. 3. I'm saying the civil servants are owed a pension. You're saying they aren't. 4. I'm agreeing with you. Spending 100K on food in the future isn't a debt,
1
@someonenotnoone So 20% of the workers income went to the welfare state. None of that was invested. It was all redistributed. That leaves a debt. For example, are civils servants owed a pension for their contributions? I think they are. Seems a strange idea to the left here. So that's a debt. None of those contributions by public sector workers [civil servants, NHS, police .. .] were invested. So there's no assets to pay them. It's just debt. Same as the state pension. All the contributions there were redistributed. Given to someone else. None invested. That's what the system has done. So why aren't public sector workers owed a pension?
1
@rickymort135 Future liabilities arrise when both legs are the future. Past liabilities are when both legs were in the past. Current liabilities are when the are split. A liability/debt is a present obligation of the enterprise arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits [IFRS definition] 1) future payments from future income Not a debt 2). mum is owed if you agree to pay all her future groceries Not a debt. No payment in the past. [If she paid you, with a contract, then yes] 3) Civil servants are owed pensions It's a debt, payments in the past in, payments out in the future, with a contract. Just like the borrowing 4) It's a future liability. I'm talking current liabilities. Hence you don't know what you are talking about. 5) You'd agree with me that adding up all those future payments That's not what you do. You add up the future values, present valued, times the probility of paying them, JUST for those where payments were made in the past. That exactly the same as you claiming if the government's going to borrow money in the future it must be a debt now. It's not. 6) 30k salary would be a very very silly thing right? Correct. But that is exactly what I am NOT doing. You're reading into it what you want to read not what's written. So back to my question on debts. What are 1. Past debts 2. Current debts 3. Future debts.
1
@rickymort135 Future liability. The two legs in the future. Your grocery example. NOT include as a debt. Past liabilities. Two legs in the past. Not a current liability Current liability. The present value of future payments that will be made. Borrowing. State received money in the past to be paid in the future. State pension, civil service pension. Money paid in the past, paid out in the future. Same for EU under that crap Brexit deal. Notice in the definition its economic value. That covers services, goods and cash. All have economic value. So unpaid wages and unpaid invoices are a debt. Nuclear clean up, That's a debt. Payments under the nuclear levy in the past for goods and services, the clean up in the future. Lastly we have the issurance debts. Expected losses on insurance and guarantees, Like export credit. Not expected losses. Lastly, expected damages, NHS, post office.
1
@TJay96 hats a ridiculous amount of immigration most of which are low skilled, keeping working class wages down. ======== Correct. A dire effect. Housing crisis - another State spending? Dire again. 1.5 million plus dependents on welfare. That's 3 million Then we have crime So what's the solution? 1.Deport all criminals. 2. No discrimination 3. No welfare for migrants 4. No social housing for migrants 5. 40K a year minimum tax code. [Break even]. Deport criminals takes time. Welfare? Can be ended in a weekend. Tax codes? Sent out in a week end, kicks in at the end of the month. Social housing takes time to solve. There are contracts. So notice gets given.
1
@rickymort135 No. Pensions can be past, current or future. The key is when people paid the state, and when the state's obliged to pay them. So lets take the case of your mum. She's paid the state for her pension, and will use that money to buy her groceries. She paid the state in the past. The state will pay her in the future. One leg in the past, one in the future, that means its a current debt. That appears on the balance sheet. Joe Little, 14, hasn't started work yet. He's not contributed to the state for his pension. He will do in the future when he starts work, and his pension will/may be paid when he is old. The contributions in the future, the pension in the future. Not a current liability so DOESN'T get included in the debt number Ethel, who paid in in the 1940s and has died, well the payments and the pensions are all in the past. Doesn't appear on the books. Remember 4 books of accounts. Assets and liabilities are the balance sheet. Income and expense are separate. Income and expenses are recorded this year only. That is contributions in, and payments out. You DO NOT record in the income and expense books future payments in or out. On the balance sheet you do record the current value of assets and liabilities. But you need that two leg test, and you record the present value of them. For example, you don't assume that you have 1 Apple share and its going to be worth a trillion in the future. If you own it [one test] you record the current market value. Do you know the difference between income and expense books, and the balance sheet?
1
@rickymort135 So the borrowing, in your school of accoiunting. All the payments in the future, so not a debt?
1
@rickymort135 Lets not skip it. IFRS. International Financial Reporting Standards. The definition is this. A liability/debt is a present obligation of the enterprise arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the enterprise of resources embodying economic benefits In financial accounting, a liability is a quantity of value that a financial entity owes. More technically, it is value that an entity is expected to deliver in the future to satisfy a present obligation arising from past events.[1] The value delivered to settle a liability may be in the form of assets transferred or services performed. If you want the wikpedia one. So both agree with each other. Now what?
1
@rickymort135 On your second argument. There are rules on assets, if you want to book them You can book assets, but the condition is you own them. Slavery has been outlawed. You can't own people. Next, if you want to book the future income from your slaves, you have to book future expenses by the same logic [doesn't work that way if you use the accounting rules]. So lets see. There's a deficit. The average "slave" in the UK costs more than they generate. Do you really want to book the slaves as an asset?
1
@rickymort135 Come on, you have to own the asset to book it. What assets are owned? You can't' own people. Don't tell me you want to count future outgoings but not future incomings... If you want follow the accounting rules, then you need to own the asset to book the income stream. You've got the rules from your prefered source, wikipedia. Why are you ignore them? On the liabilities, the rules are that its the obligation of past events resulting an outflow of economic value in the future. So you don't include future state spending unless that test is meet, and you don't include future tax receipts too because you don't own people. Follow the rules.
1
@rickymort135 On GDP. So you are proposing 100% taxation so the state can pay its debts. What do people live off when you impose 100% austerity?
1
@rickymort135 You said use GPD to pay the debts. So back to the question you've not answered. Are public sector workers like doctors and nurses owed a pension? It's very common on the left to dodge the question. Indirectly, like yourself, you say no, there's no pension debts.
1
@rickymort135 If your argument relies on assuming no more tax receipts collected in the future, it's a pretty weak argument. No. On the rules. Just apply IFRS rules. They are the government rules for accounting. They state, we use them. Then they don't because they want to hide the debts. So what information does that debt number tell you?
1
@rickymort135 .And I checked and the government follows FREM an adapted version of IFRS which spells out how to report tax income... So you're doubly incorrect Post the the evidence. Somehting that is searchable to back up your statement. = BTW under IFRS, no, civil servants technically aren't owed pensions because there's no contractual obligation. For PS workers, it is contractual. The state needs to implement a law that changes the contract. For the state pension its the law. To get out of paying in full, the state needs to change the law. That they have to change the law to get out, is 100% evidence that its currently a debt. Changing the law not to pay, is just the mechanism where the state defaults, again, and the peasants lose. You're just a typical socialist. Take the money, then screw the peasants over. Here's your problem. Reform come in. State simply to the treasury, DWP, you follow IFRS to the letter. The debts then get published. They then send a letter with the full details of the debts that have been stuffed down the back of the sofa to all taxpayers, with their share. They could even add on, if your NI had been invested, this is what you could have had. Last line, this is your total loss. What's the swamp going to do about that?
1
@rickymort135 Again, since you know admit, you must change the law to default. That leads the question you've not answered. What changes if people are told about the debt? The debts don't change. It's just information.
1
It won't. The wealth has been looted by the welfare state leaving a debt.
1
@GorzillaPoo You've not understood it. 30% is the gross profit margin of the state. What would happen if the the workers invested that 30%, plus another 8% for work place pensions? Would they accumulate wealth? Take Mr Average, back test it, tell us what Mr Average retiring at the end of last year would have. You would be shocked.
1
@GorzillaPoo So Mr Average. 39K a year. 30% of his tax is the state's profit margin. Going on debts. 8% is work place pensions That's' 14.82K a year. What does that compound up to if invested?
1
Or ask the question why does the state need so much cash when services are being axed?
1
@aldozilli1293 The super rich don't invest in bonds. 1. Insurance companies - forced to lend their capital. 2. Banks - forced to lend their capital. 3. Pensioners forced to lend their capital if they buy an annuity [the rules are rigged] 4. Other central banks in a scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. 5. The government. See the Asset Purchase Facility. The rich aren't involved.
1
1. Inflation.. 2. Where are the trillions, not billions, the workers have paid the socialist welfare state.
1
And you are asking the wrong question. You need to ask why the poorer in society have not invested 20% of their income to get wealthier. The answer is that the socialist welfare state has looted 20% of their wealth and redistributed all that money. That then leaves a debt, that the poor are also on the hook to pay. Debt is just negative wealth. Gary won't tell you that little bit, because you would be angry. So how are you going to pay your £600,000 share of the socialist welfare state's debts?
1
The top 10% pay the same amount of tax as the other 90%. So what happens when even a small number of that 10% leave? Your entire government spending model is shafted. @Gph0367 Why not loo at the 30% profit the state makes on services.
1
So its sitting there are 0%. No tax avoided. Dream on. Ask instead why the state makes a 30% gross profit on services. @shrunkensimon
1
Of course they do. Look at their payslips. 20% goes to the welfare state that gives their money to someone else. @Gph0367
1
Why would they invest it? So they benefit and become richer. There services wouldn't change since currently that 20% isn't used on any services. So here's the question I suspect you won't answer, or can't. The welfare state owes people a pension. People have paid it for that pension. It's a debt. How big are its debts? @kimmieutsunomiya1457
1
The reason they need the welfare state is because the welfare state has asset stripped them That's a very strange argument of yours. @kimmieutsunomiya1457
1
So how are you going to pay your fair share of the socialist welfare state's debts? You are on the hook for £60,000. This year's increase £60,000 @kimmieutsunomiya1457
1
Tax the rich doesn't work. You have to ask first, how big is the government debt problem? Include all the debts, in particular pensions. Then ask, how far down the scale of 'rich' do you have to go to pay the debts? That's money taxed with no services. Austerity. Turns out you have to really screw all tax payers. There aren't enough rich to pay. @pgbtomas
1
Interesting to look at America. When that's forced on people, when Walmart closes stores because of theft, the people object. They don't want to buy local. @mikereut6088
1
They get their money from two groups. Savers, and shareholders. @Lindafoy11
1
GIGO. Why would Gary ignore the pensions debts? GIGO
1
@KrupyFren So lets look at it from a different angle. You can run a pension scheme in two ways,. The socialist approach where the contributions are redistributed. What we have now. The alternative is investment lead. here the money is invested, and the worker owns there assets, those assets used to pay their pension. In the first case the government finances work just like a household, as you've stated. Unless you can extract the value from the workers and pay it to the creditors, the pensions, you can't pay the pensions. It's not about X, its about value. It's real resources. That's what inflation linked debts are. They are a promise to pay what ever it takes to get the real resources. In the second case, you don't have a household constraint. You have a world wide constraint. Turns out that Mr Average if he had invested his NI would have had 1.2 million in a fund at retirement, and a 35K a year income from dividends alone. We wouldn't need to force austerity onto the workers to pay the debts.
1
@KrupyFren What's my premise?
1
@GhostSamaritan On models and Covid, we had that bonking professor and his model. I spent a couple of days looking at his code and it was dire. There's instead the SIR model. That's what should be used and that model is based on justifiable simplifications and hard maths [central limit theorem] for the parameters. You can adjust the parameters as the epidemic progresses, and that should be done based on a Baynsian approach. The initial parameters, you take them from the last Covid/Sars outbreak. The problem with Gary and co, is they don't even input the basic parameters. They ignore them because their politics have created them, and the effects are dire. ie. Exclude the pension debts. What if they didn't exist? Fantasy economics. People are desperate because of the effects so they buy into the sham. Look at the comments to see that.
1
@larfermor GIGO is the problem with economics. Major errors on the input side.
1
@Pixiedust8399 Who is owed it? Pensions ======= 1. Civil servants. They are owed by the state. 2. Current pensioners. They are owed by the state. 3. Any person who has contributed to the state pension. They are owed Borrowing ======== Officially its a secret who owns gilts. 1. APF Ltd owns about a trillion of the 2.7 trillion 2. Banks they have to own capital in gilts 3. Insurance companies. Both for future payouts but also for things like Annuities. 4. Other central banks.
1
“The gilts register is not a publicly available document, and corporate and individual holders therefore have a reasonable expectation that details of their holdings will not be disclosed”
1
@ Their accountants advice. Now how do you replace their wealth since the UK can't tax it? Don't forget with 6 employees, the UK may well lose their tax too.
1
@Manchild-o7d They aren't super rich. They are off. Not the only people I know who have done this. So what's missing from your argument. First is how much you need in extra tax. Never said is it. Second. What's super rich in your definition. What rate of tax do they pay? Then we can compare the need against the money raised. We could also look into why you need the money? For example, the state makes a 30% gross profit margin on its services. Or even the mechanics. ie. The super rich get forced to sell off assets to pay the tax. Who buys them? Ah yes, the Soros's of the world. Do you not understand whose driving this? Or if they are bought locally, by whom? What happens next year when you need that tax? Ah yes, why not go after the people who bought those assets. All that does is mean asset prices collapse. Look to at the Sunday times Rich List. How many are not British? How many have left? How many who are brits have moved their assets? What's left?
1
@tylerheinrichs2806 So the housing crisis. Caused by mass migration. Here's the fix. Easy to implement. 1. Deport all foreign criminals. 2. No welfare for foreigners. Canceled. No social housing. No housing benefit. No income support. 3. A minimum 40K a year tax code on foreigners. That's break even. Below that, you get a subsidy from others. 4. No discimination. That results in huge numbers of economic migrants making an economic decision that the UK isn't for them. They leave. So housing is freed up. Social housing becomes available for those low wage earners. Lots of social housing. Welfare bill falls. In terms of wages, they rise. Just as house prices fall.
1
@ColaSpandex Do you suggest that we should stop paying state pensions? No. We should change the system to remove the ponzi over time. So when I ask the left the Gary's of this world they say the state pension isn't a debt. Even the ONS, OBR and treasury all say in writing, the state pension isn't a debt BECAUSE WE WON'T PAY IT. FOI requests. So I'm offering more. People start investing their NI. If you run out of money, then others chip in to help. The guarantee. Over time, that becomes a redundant guarantee. Mr Average, his NI is 6,240.60. Average return on the FTSE all share is inflation + 3.25%. Cost of a state pension, 160K, lump sum. How long does it take to accumulate 160K? 18 years. If you add on work place pensions, that's 13 years. For Mr MIn wage it takes longer. 25 years. After 25 years he would have a lump sum that can buy an annuity that generates him a state pension when he retires. If he worked for 50 years, 555K in a fund. Dividends alone comes to 18K, which is the state pension. The state is saying we are going to cut his pension, and there's no assets to pass on.
1
@Nicho2020 So lets say no welfare for migrants. 40K minimum tax code per adult. If they don't like it - they can go elsewhere.
1
@ColaSpandex It is redistribution of wealth. That's how NI and the state pension works. Now its obvious why you don't want to talk about that redistribtution when you are proposing repeating the policy. It's also why the left want to hide the information. So a policy for reform. Send everyone the bill on being elected. This is what you have lost because your wealth was taken.
1
@fnowacki There's no interest on notes, which can be arranged for anything else. The problem is the state and civil service pension ponzi. That's inflation linked debt, and MMT is clear. You have to tax people, to give the money to the creditors to pay. You cannot inflate your way out of inflation linked debt by printing.
1
@tituscrow4951 The debts, pensions, are growing at 10% per annum over the long term. 1-2% is what you can get with the state being as bloated as it is. So you can't get pensions paid as a consequence. The state is bust unless it can get growth in tax receipts without spending it on services [austerity] that exceeds the rate of increase in its debts.
1
@nowisgodinyourlovelylife717 Where are the trillions the workers have paid the welfare state for their old age? The question the left don't want to answer. Same for how big the debts are.
1
@SmartfoolGB Politicians are in control. They want you to believe in leprechauns. They have spent the wealth, leaving the debt. They want you to believe someone else will pay, whilst they carry on looting your wealth.
1
@nfzeta128 And what percentage of income tax does the top 10% pay? When it comes to migration, the question is what percentage pay more tax than they cost in state services.
1
@nfzeta128 Ah the plantation owner philosophy. Who will pick my cotton started the US civil war. So the 1.5 million of these 'workers' who are on the dole, plus their dependents?
1
@GeorgeSmileyOBE Ask the simple question. How big are the state's pension debts. If you cannot come back with a number, then you have been decieved.
1
@GeorgeSmileyOBE And what are social security liabilities? What's the total for federal employees? Not on the books.
1
@nfzeta128 On the top 10%. Post the numbers. On the other question. It's because they made the UK poorer. Other people are forced with no right of consent to fund them,. All because people like yourself won't pick your own cotton.
1
@GeorgeSmileyOBE I know how to use life curves, etc, discount curves to get the liabilities. The Central limit does apply So what's the actuarial valuation of the debts? " liabilities are on the books" You say. OK post the number.
1
@ColaSpandex No, I'm NOT asking for future paments. I'm asking for the liability number. Zero? One option. Default on public sector pensions. What do you think happens? Default on state pensions? What happens? There's no fund. 100% agree. No fund. No fund doesn't mean no liabiltiies = The people in "debt" are those who have, up to this point, received more than they paid ever paid in. No. They owe nothing. But here's the question. How many have "won"? Ie. Paid in less than they get back? So why can't you say how big the liabilties are? Very telling. Are you involved in the fraud?
1
@ColaSpandex If you are in any doubt about how the system works. Government takes close to 20% of people's income. Their wealth. Government says, we will pay you a pension After that wealth is taken from the workers, its given to someone else Redistributed. Use to pay the state's pension debts. A socialist policy. None is invested, that would be a capitalist approach. So the state owes people a pension, has zero assets to pay it. Now it has a problem. It needs to hide the debts or the peasants would work out the consequences. Anything you disagree with? Still waiting for the liability number.
1
@ColaSpandex It's anywhere between zero So your plan to pull the plug. What do you think public sector workers will think and do? What will the pensioner's do to eat in general? The reason the debt number matters is that it tells you if that will happen. The reason you and the state want to hide it, is that you want to rip off the public, get your cut out of the pensions, current and future, then leave them destitute
1
@AB_LDN I doubt he will. First he would have to admit that the number's he's pushed are wrong. He thinks the national debt is 2.7 trillion. It's not. That's the national borrowing and borrowing is a fraction of the actual debts. So he would have to admit to getting it majorly wrong. Bad for his reputation. Second he's a socialist. Imagine having to admit that your policies as screwed people, that you've stuff the bill down the back of the sofa. Not going to happen too. Even if you charged 10% on wealth, annually, it wouldn't work. The rich would leave. Friday, I had a long talk to my best friend. We've known each other since chiildhoold. He and his wife are leaving the UK. 250 min wage earners annual tax payments, gone. Thats without looking at what their employees will do. Another 5-6 people. The middle class are leaving. They aren't the only examples.
1
@charlesloucks1840 What passive income schemes? 1. Money on deposit. Lent out to people in the economy. 2. Investments in shares. That is the economy. What you aren't saying is why the state needs so much cash.
1
@charlesloucks1840 OK, that means lots of pensioners get no pensions or major cuts. ie. Annuities. For the APF, I agree entirely. That's money in, money out. =e government can create the money out of thin air How about a new currency. We print that, and we use that to pay public sector workers. No need to tax. Needs a new name. How about the Voucher? You can never run out of vouchers. Heck for that PS worker on 100K, we pay them 200K of vouchers. A pay rise. What do you think would happen?
1
@charlesloucks1840 mortgages issued by Social Security There are none. Social security has zero assets. Social Security is just debt owed to current and future pensioners.
1
@arthurpewtey It's unpleasant. Who takes the pain and in what proportion. 1. The debts published. Everyone gets sent a statement with their share. 2. Included in that is what people could have had, if their money had been invested. 3. The sum of the two number is the loss. 4. You could project forward to include expected state pensions to be paid, and expected returns on the fund less that income. That gives the total life time loss. All standard actuarial maths. That's' the starter. That tells people two things. First what the problem is taht need to be solved. For example tell me how big the state pension debts are? Assets we know, zero. If you can't tell me how can you decide on any policies? So what happens now people have that information. First those that caused the mess are going to be running to the hills. They should be caught, arrested, tried and jailed. They need to be asset stripped. They are clearly not part of the solution. It's a token guesture but it sends a message. Second, given the huge differnece between what the state offers and what investing your wealth offers, it shows the least harmful way out. What the state does is offer a guarantee, that if and only if your assets [all of them] run out, will other people help. Then you have to invest your NI and your workplace pension. Over time that builds up. For Mr Avearge he is better off after 12 years of working. For Mr Minwage its longer at 22-23 years. After 50 they are more than quids in. Set it up that any unused fund goes to heir's pension funds tax free, and since the poor die younger, they benefit more over time. But in the interim, existing pensioners are shafted. Tax payers get shafted. ie. Austerity. Taxation with out services. But with debts the consequence is asterity. That's what debt does. So what's the socialist plan appart from the tooth fairy?
1
Yes 100% correct until you get to your last sentence. The problem is that the welfare state has a 16 trillon pound pension debt with no assets. It's asset stripped the workers and put them into debt bondage. Then there's the borrowing on top. The money owed to the bankers like Gary. The only debt he will talk about. Every wonder why that is? Then nuclear clean up, unpaid wages and invoices. Losses on insuarnce. The EU debt the remainers forced us to pay. Damages - think NHS, false imprisonment, the Post Office. .. 30% of taxes currently go on the debts. A 30% gross profit margin is what that is. Money not going on services. It's called austerity. So you can only get out by making people poorer.
1
@someonenotnoone Correct. But for the UK, the wealth inequality is caused by socialist pensions. Socialist pensions are just debt, no assets. Massive debts with is just negative wealth. So where's the wealth the workers have paid the socialist welfare state? Invested to produce capital? The capitalist solution. Ah no. All redistribtued a socialist policy. So how do you pay that debt without austerity for the workers? If you think the rich will pay, out line the numbers,
1
Why do you want public ownership? What's the ultimate aim? Look at the current state of the UK state. 30% gross profit on services. In what way is that for the public good? @darrylbradshaw216
1
Almost. When it comes to real resources its physical. When it comes to Gary Economics, its just a fantasy game like fantasy football. What would happen if we ignore reality, what if? ie. What if we ignore 90% of the state debts.
1
@jamesalderman1443 The bigger error, and its Gary's is GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out. If you don't put all the debts into your system, you wont' get correct answers out even if the model is correct.
1
Why? What does that achieve?
1
@pipeandpotter1236 The BoE sets the base rate to control inflation. Interest rates have gone up because of QE [all money loaned to the state], and spent. Second bit of BoE policy, is to control risk. So I take it you were objecting to rich people hoarding cash at 0% interest, and tax evasion on the income as a result? What needs to change? The BoE Target should be the price index. Rebase that to 100, and the target is 100+-5. If it goes outside that range, the BoE Board is sacked and replaced.
1
Why are you missing out the big state debts in an effort to try and make state debts look affordable? Meanwhile why is the state making a 30% PROFIT on its services? It's the debts. It's causes austerity.
1
Wind turbines = higher prices.
1
@shadowofmyfutureself Gary's one of them. For example the other day he talked about goven debt being affordable. ie. The ratio of debt / gdp being the measure. What debt? Oh only the debt owed to his banker mates matters. All the other debts, like PS worker's pensions, state pensions, nuclear clean up, EU, Post office and NHS damages, ... not included. That makes the debt look 'affordable'. Next GDP. As if the state can tax 100% and deliver zero services. Inflate the income, the denominator makes the debt look affordable. One the rich leaving, what happens is that their wealth leaves. They don't have to. Remember the top 1% pay 27% of income tax. How many have to leave [or their wealth] to have a serious effect on the UK government? Same for companies. If companies decide, we're going to put our money elsewhere, you lose tax money mostly because of the jobs it generates.
1
Where's the 20% of your income that's NI. Whose creaming that cash? Gary just trying to distract you. It's someone else, not the socialist that are robbing you blind and putting hyou into debt.
1
@garyseconomics You want redistribution. However we already have redistribution. National Insurance is just redistribution. People pay in close to 20% of their income to the socialist welfare state. None of that money is invested to produce capital. It's all redistributed. That leaves a debt. A debt that you won't acknowledge. You've made clear statement that government debt is around the 2.5 trillion mark. That's not the debts. That's just the borrowing part of the debts. The borrowing is £2,646.45 bn as of this morning. DMO number. What about all the other debts? That's why you are trying to distract people. You go one about the debt, but only talk about the money owed to bankers. Why would you only be concerned with money owed to bankers and not money owed to the peasants?
1
@ There's already been a massive tax on wealth. National insurance at the end of the day is a wealth tax. 20% of your income is taken and given to someone else. As a result you are deprived of the wealth that money would bring. For Mr Average, if his NI had been invested and he retired at the end of last year, his fund would have been worth 1.15 milllion. He's lost all that wealth. It's a wealth tax. Then we have the debts. He's owed a pension, as other people who have paid in. That's a debt that the state owes people. How big is that debt? Gary won't tell you how big it is. He will just tell you how big the borrowing is. That's the only debt that matters to him. I suspect its because he's a banker and bankers want to be paid even if the peasants aren't. He then comes along and says look the debt is affordable because the ratio of debt to GPD is 1. But if you want to fiddle affordability, what do you do? 1. Decrease the debt number. Leave off pensions, wages, invoices, insurance, damages, the EU, nuclear clean up. Makes the ratio look better. 2. Increase the income. Eg. GDP not tax receipts. Even that's an inflated number. 100% of tax going on debt's never going to work. The simple test for Gary is for him to come back and itemise the debts. I've given him a free starter. The borrowing this morning was £2,646.45 billion [DMO number] What do you conclude if he can't find any of the other numbers? What do you conclude when, if he does, that number exceeds the debt he reported on? Hiding the debts so the peasants carry on paying in is the name of the game.
1
@BocaoZ It's spot on. 16 trillion pounds of pension debts off the book. 30% of state spending on the debts means austerity Taxes 30% above cost of services. low take home pay, cost of living crisis. Wealth inequality caused by the asset stripping of the workers. So why woudl a PhD Lecturer ignore all the debts?
1
@Everlast-2025 Congratulations. You've done more than Richard who won't admit to the debts. Now it's more. That's with the assumption that the wealth has been invested in AA Corporate bonds, and that there is never any default. Risk free rates, to discount, are much lower than AA Corp Bonds. So the actual debt is far higher. Then on top, there are the other debts. Nuclear clean up is a hard one to default on.
1
 @Everlast-2025 So what's that gearing? Totall Debts / (tax - core spending)? What's the annual rate of increase and how does that compare to GDP? Can Mr Average afford a pro rata share?
1
@vonder7 The country is struggling for two reasons. 1. The asset stripping by the welfare state of the masses, placing the workers into debts. 2. Mass importation of poverty. Neither Tories or Labour have any policies to fix it because they created the mess.
1
@bacrebac Apart from statistical mechanics! 🙂 Lots of areas even in physics ... The difference is that when it comes to economics etc, Garbage in Garbage out is the norm.
1
@vonder7 So here's the counter example. How's the ineqality created? If its created by a lack of working, then I agree with you. If its created by the state asset looting the wealth of the workers, then its more than unhealthy, its a disaster
1
@fiqhonomics So was debt, but you have the left saying borrow and spend. Perhaps Sharia law should be applied to MPs.
1
@ pareto distribution
1
@ Unfortunately there is NO free market solution for base load energy Yes there is. Cheaper prices for those that accept brownouts, and expensive prices for those t hat don't.
1
@ How's is government debt sustainable?
1
@ And that's symptoms. What's the cause? Where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
1
@ So how have they analysed where the trillions the workers have paid welfare states for their old age have gone? They have whinged about the effects of the ponzi, not the ponzi.
1
@ So the welfare state. Trillions paid in. Now what does socialism do? Screws people.
1
@ It's a socialist problem. The workers have paid the DWP trillions of pounds. SS has been paid trillions of dollars. Vast amounts of wealth taken from the workers causing wealth inequality.
1
@ticosewell No. The problem is the state asset stripping people and forcing them into debt. Even Richard can't admit that the workers are owed a pension. He can't admit to the size of the debts.
1
Why is the civil service pension not a debt? @gordon1201
1
Assets can and do leave.
1
Biden and co were looting. Hence they are scared of Elon.
1
So where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state? Produces a debt, that's negative wealth. Why are you surprised at wealth inequality that is a direct consequence of that ponzi?
1
@ So lets look at a policy that causes wealth inequality. Where are the trillions of pounds of wealth the workers have paid the socialist welfare state for their old age?
1