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

Aden Wellsmith
Garys Economics
comments

Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Immigration, the alt-right, the left and young men - Gary meets JimmyTheGiant" video.

You have nothing to positive offer them. All you can offer is lies debts, poverty, taxes, austerity, persecution.
6
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
@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
@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