The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Pokerpops]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be?

Targeted more appropriately toward those who need assistance the most.

Lower, and better targeted.

There are much better ways of spending £56bn over the next 10 years than HS2 for example.

[TightEnd]

Brexit is much more complicated than Leave voters realised and could “for sure” be stopped, President Macron has said

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/there-s-still-time-to-halt-brexit-emmanuel-macron-pledges-j8sxp69nl

which is a truth that will never be forgiven.

[DungBeetle]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be?

Targeted more appropriately toward those who need assistance the most.

So if spending levels aren’t the issue what do you propose cutting?

[kukushkin88]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be?

Targeted more appropriately toward those who need assistance the most.

So if spending levels aren’t the issue what do you propose cutting?

I don’t think I understand the question. My response was slightly glib, albeit serious and maybe that has led to a misunderstanding? If you could explain what you mean though, that would be cool.

I’ll put it in these terms. Everyone who makes >35k a year is pretty well insulated against economic hardship. I’m not sure even this government could screw it up hard enough to threaten our financial security. I suppose Brexit could but that doesn’t need to be in this discussion. What is it that we’re afraid will happen if the government spend money on the poverty stricken. Let’s be mindful that the ‘Life of Riley’ benefits family, with all the Sky channels, brand new I-phone, bottomless supply of fine tobacco etc is pure Mail/Express fantasy land.

[kukushkin88]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be?

Targeted more appropriately toward those who need assistance the most.

So if spending levels aren’t the issue what do you propose cutting?

I don’t think I understand the question. My response was slightly glib, albeit serious and maybe that has led to a misunderstanding? If you could explain what you mean though, that would be cool.

I’ll put it in these terms. Everyone who makes >35k a year is pretty well insulated against economic hardship. I’m not sure even this government could screw it up hard enough to threaten our financial security. I suppose Brexit could but that doesn’t need to be in this discussion. What is it that we’re afraid will happen if the government spend money on the poverty stricken. Let’s be mindful that the ‘Life of Riley’ benefits family, with all the Sky channels, brand new I-phone, bottomless supply of fine tobacco etc is pure Mail/Express fantasy land.

Ah, OK I get it, brain let me down there for a moment :-). HS2 is a good example, albeit we should lump money in to transport infrastructure next time things are good. If needed increase spending, do what it takes to ensure our citizens aren’t choosing between them eating or clothing/feeding their children.

[buffyslayer1]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be?

Targeted more appropriately toward those who need assistance the most.

So if spending levels aren’t the issue what do you propose cutting?

I don’t think I understand the question. My response was slightly glib, albeit serious and maybe that has led to a misunderstanding? If you could explain what you mean though, that would be cool.

I’ll put it in these terms. Everyone who makes >35k a year is pretty well insulated against economic hardship. I’m not sure even this government could screw it up hard enough to threaten our financial security. I suppose Brexit could but that doesn’t need to be in this discussion. What is it that we’re afraid will happen if the government spend money on the poverty stricken. Let’s be mindful that the ‘Life of Riley’ benefits family, with all the Sky channels, brand new I-phone, bottomless supply of fine tobacco etc is pure Mail/Express fantasy land.

Ah, OK I get it, brain let me down there for a moment :-). HS2 is a good example, albeit we should lump money in to transport infrastructure next time things are good. If needed increase spending, do what it takes to ensure our citizens aren’t choosing between them eating or clothing/feeding their children.

Trident is also a good example of this as well imo

[nirvana]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be ?

This is a great question. Also made me wonder how much of public spending could be thought of as fixed (to all intents and purposes - like the NHS)  and how much variable.

[Pokerpops]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be ?

This is a great question. Also made me wonder how much of public spending could be thought of as fixed (to all intents and purposes - like the NHS)  and how much variable.

There are a lot of areas that should be considered to be fixed.
NHS, Defence, Education spring immediately to mind.
Pension payments is another.

[kukushkin88]

UK govt spending is 41% of GDP.

What should it be ?

This is a great question. Also made me wonder how much of public spending could be thought of as fixed (to all intents and purposes - like the NHS)  and how much variable.

There are a lot of areas that should be considered to be fixed.
NHS, Defence, Education spring immediately to mind.
Pension payments is another.

When we say ‘fixed’, I presume we mean constantly changing as the population gets bigger/smaller or more importantly older.

[kukushkin88]

I suppose educating kids should also be kind of important:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-45665080

[RickBFA]

Whilst Kush sounds like a compassionate guy, we have to draw a sensible line on the redistribution of wealth argument.

I pay plenty of tax already and took significant personal risks (and effort) to run a business and employ people.

40% tax above £45,000 feels like striking a reasonable balance. I certainly don’t want to pay more.

Perhaps the point missed by Kush is there needs to be an incentive to take risks, run a business etc. You go too far and people will just not take the personal risks.

We should incentive business start ups, entrepreneurs and job creators. Higher taxes does the opposite.

[neeko]

Interesting no one has specified a number yet, personally I am for the status quo, about 40% in the middle of the economic cycle, higher by a few points ina recession and lower during prosperity.

This has nothing to do with particular taxes, only the total amount of spending by govt. (nationalising things would increase the value, but regulating private monopolies to achieve the same aims would have similar effects but not change the amount of govt spending)

[DungBeetle]

Interesting no one has specified a number yet, personally I am for the status quo, about 40% in the middle of the economic cycle, higher by a few points ina recession and lower during prosperity.

This has nothing to do with particular taxes, only the total amount of spending by govt. (nationalising things would increase the value, but regulating private monopolies to achieve the same aims would have similar effects but not change the amount of govt spending)

Sounds like sensible policy to me.

[kukushkin88]

Interesting no one has specified a number yet, personally I am for the status quo, about 40% in the middle of the economic cycle, higher by a few points ina recession and lower during prosperity.

This has nothing to do with particular taxes, only the total amount of spending by govt. (nationalising things would increase the value, but regulating private monopolies to achieve the same aims would have similar effects but not change the amount of govt spending)

Sounds like sensible policy to me.

I guess my answer is, I don’t have enough information to know and it wouldn’t be my area of expertise if I did. I’d like to know where you think we are in the economic cycle?

[StuartHopkin]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Office for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

I have read the posts, but are you just saying they are devastated because they have more debt, without knowing why they have more debt?

A big part of austerity is the government not spending money on essential public services. The problems that the funding previously helped to deal with don’t go anywhere though. So what happens? The articles I linked and the studies they cite seem to suggest the very poorest have been borrowing money to survive. The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017.

I'm still not there. I'm worried I am too far removed.

Can we have an example family?
What public service do they no longer have access to?
Where do they get it now?