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

  1.  @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
  2. 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
  3. So Dr PHD. How big are the UK state debts? Not the reported, the real number.
    14
  4. You have nothing to positive offer them. All you can offer is lies debts, poverty, taxes, austerity, persecution.
    6
  5. 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
  6. Mass migration means GDP per head goes down. It increases poverty.
    5
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. @ No it can go exponetially wrong.
    3
  10. And look at the common factor. The state.
    3
  11. Inequality is a symptom. What's the cause? It's debt.
    3
  12. You're assuming there is a 'palatable' way out.
    3
  13. 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
  14.  @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
  15. @ You don't measure GDP in percentages.
    3
  16.  @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
  17. @ 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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. You've earned around 575K, and that excludes your pension. Where's the money gone is the more scientific question.
    2
  22.  @MCDONALD6969  The race to the bottom.
    2
  23.  @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
  24. @ Money is created. Debt is created. The two are equal. What's the issue?
    2
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. @ 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
  28. @ They are leaving. Plenty of places. Assets? Which ones? Property? Sell it. Cash out. Move. Shares? Bonds? Click. Moved.
    2
  29.  @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
  30. 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
  31.  @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
  32. @ 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
  33.  @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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. @ Until you can't borrow. Like now. Then what?
    1
  41. @ 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
  42. @ Which then makes the middle class the rich, and they then get taxed.
    1
  43. 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
  44. But look at the tax levels. Do you think they would stay for UK levels of taxation?
    1
  45.  @DorothyReich  The leprechaun myth.
    1
  46. So where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state for their old age?
    1
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49.  @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
  50. 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