to think we should be angry about qe making the rich richer and poor poorer

[alittlethyme]

Why isn't there public uproar about qe? It has proved again and again to make the asset rich people richer while making everyone else poorer.

I don't see what being angry will achieve.
The coalition gov is typical of conservative governments throughout history.
Of course nobody likes it, but as school children this is what we learned.
Making the rich richer and the poor poorer is what conservatives do.

Capitalism

I despair at the lack of education on economics and politics in this country. It could easily be added to the curriculum for secondary schools, but then I suppose it wouldn't benefit the government if we all know such things. Keep the people dumb and then they won't question the choices the government make right?

I did actually study both economics and politics at collage as Highers (a good 15 years back now) so I do understand what QE will do to the economy - in theory.

It's a very short term fix that will make things worse in the long run. Like sticking a plaster over a cut and not cleaning it first - it will eventually get infected and be a bigger problem to fix in the future.

Interestingly in the topic of economics, I was doing an evening degree in Uni (about 5 years ago) and as part of it I had to do 1st year economics. It was dumbed down so much compared to the higher I had done previously. They didn't even cover the basic theories : Keynesianism, Marxism Etc.
It was a supply and demand / classic economics class which I think is shockingly basic for a university course.

I suppose on the plus side for the UK is we will get a good exchange rate on the euro. Of course you actually have to be able to afford to go on holiday first.

I think people are annoyed but don't know what they can do. There are things that we can do but its going to take a big movement to bring everyone together, a political movement or party a real labour party The Occupy movement was exciting but it had no focus and fizzled out.

?We are but pawns in the games of the wealthy and powerful elite

It's a very short term fix that will make things worse in the long run. Like sticking a plaster over a cut and not cleaning it first - it will eventually get infected and be a bigger problem to fix in the future.

Is that is part of the problem though? Because a term of office is only 5 years, there is never going to be enough time before the next election to do anything properly? Or maybe it's a good thing because we never go too much in one direction to the left or the right?

I do wish there were a strong electable alternative to the Tory bastards though. Maybe I should take up politics instead of moaning?

I despair at the lack of education on economics and politics in this country. It could easily be added to the curriculum for secondary schools, but then I suppose it wouldn't benefit the government if we all know such things. Keep the people dumb and then they won't question the choices the government make right?

I did economics a level but it is very rare to do so as schools can get much higher grades by pushing people to do the much easier "business study's"

I do remember when I was studying Keynesian topics the people in business study's were designing fucking posters!

My head's about to explode. Was discussing this with DH, and we came to the conclusion that, as usual, it's the unintended consequences that are really scary.

Labour's insistence that 50% of the population go to university - country can't afford free university places for half the population, so fees are introduced, and even the most tedious jobs now require a degree.

Tesco's share price plummets because they're unethical bastards and all their jiggery pokery has come home to roost. Hurrah! But, of course, the pension funds of many ordinary people consist of large chunks of Tesco (and other similar company) shares. And there are a lot of jobs tie up in a successful Tesco.

Ed Milliband says if he gets into govt he will force utility companies to maintain gas/electric prices. More hurrahs, until the gas/electric companies don't put their prices down when the wholesale price falls, in case they can't put the prices up again later.

I think that buy to let landlords who have more than one rented property should be charged way more council tax, but of course all they'll do is either pass the CT on to their tenants, or raise the rent to cover it.

I believe that there should be a living wage. No-one working more than 20 hours a week should be earning so little that they need benefits to pay for housing etc. But I can imagine that if we do nave a Proper hourly rate of at least £8, then all that will happen is that house prices/rents/food etc will go up because people have more money in their pockets.

Economists seem to think that QE is bolstering financial institutions which should probably be allowed to fail, kept the US$, £ and euro abnormally low, increased equity prices while keeping bank interest rates (which is where 'ordinary' savers are more likely to have their money) low.

So I dunno. I'd hate to e in charge of it all though. It really does feel like a house f cards

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coalitions-tax-and-benefits-changes-hit-low-income-families-harder-than-any-other-group-9996470.html

A Treasury spokesman said: “The IFS confirms that the richest have lost the most from the Government’s changes to taxes and welfare. Fairness is at the heart of our approach to reducing the deficit.

Spin, spin, spin.

I feel dizzy.

Except, of course, the genuinely extremely rich people never have to pay any of the new charges if they don't want to, since they can just get their accountant to work out a loophole.

If you're middle class though, you just get more and more fucked.

Then again, many of the very rich people already contribute a fuck ton more than everyone else combined through the amount of crap they buy, they can take pressure off the nhs by going private, and obviously they get taxed at the higher rate.

I'm not so bothered about rich "people" as I am about rich "companies" that decide that they don't care about paying corporation tax. GOOGLE. STARBUCKS. YOU FUCKING TWATS.

But there's nothing the UK government can do about that. It's up to the EU or Luxembourg to fix. The only thing WE could do is to drive down our rates, so companies move here. That gives us jobs, but means, essentially, that the companies win, because they simply have more places where they pay fuck all tax.

This is a very serious discussion but I feel there's always time for

The fact that the Superrich are richer now than at any time in history, and that the gap continues to widen, is really really shameful.

Yet most ordinary folk are busy scrabbling to survive, and if there is any surplus they take a well earned holiday to 'forget about daily life'.
I remember, aged about 14, starting to become politically aware, understanding things like mortgages etc, - the realities of daily life, and being completely STUNNED that my parents (uneducated but by no means stupid) were not 'up in arms'.

My mum explained that with 4 jobs between them to get by, and 2 kids to bring up, there wasn't a lot of time or energy to be 'up in arms'.

And yes, today's vile 'benefits bashing / sleb drooling' culture is classic divide and rule which suits the elected elite very very well indeed.

I think that buy to let landlords who have more than one rented property should be charged way more council tax, but of course all they'll do is either pass the CT on to their tenants, or raise the rent to cover it

I don't understand this point. Council tax is, generally, for the services provided to the residents of an area. The person living in a property is the person who benefits from those services - so why should a landlord living in Devon be paying council tax for a property in Kent? Tenants always pay the council tax on a property, to say otherwise makes no sense at all.

Hear, hear MindReader. I've often been persuaded by reasoned argument on MN to think differently. I find it sad that there are some who will not even consider looking at things differently/from others' perspectives. The lack of empathy and understanding is sometimes actually alarming IMO.

Our welfare bill is greater that the govt generates in income tax. Totally unsustainable. But let's just keep handing cash out to people and instead cut jobs and services - yes that sounds sensible!

www.publicspendingfacts.co.uk/tag/breakdown-of-tax-revenues-in-uk/
firstly, there is no reason that "benefits" need only be covered by income tax, given that there are plenty of other taxes where the government derive revenue.

The UK gets somewhere in the region of 500 billion pounds "income" into the treasury each year. And has a deficit of around 100 billion. (meaning that they have to borrow money)

If you look at the back of your P60 document at the pretty pie chart there's a picture of it you'll see that "welfare spending" account for about ~1/4 of the budget...
so of the 600 billion pounds the government spends, roughly 140billion, of that is spent on "welfare" (according to the treasury figures)

So the statement a bonkers £200 billion bill in handouts is clearly a bunch of bollocks.

Further if you understand what the "welfare bill" is actually broken down into:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending
(you're going to need to understand that in this particular pie chart the "welfare" and "pensions" slices are combine to one big 160 billion pounds.
you find that of that of the 160 billion pounds the the the DWP get.
74 billion is spent on pensions, -you may well ask how 12% (which when added to 24% (and then should be 1/3rd of that spend of spend on pensions) magically morphed into over 40%, it's because that first 24% of spending on welfare of the pie chart sent out by government actually included things that the government Could not cut, (like teachers pensions, police pensions, Fire service pensions etc.)

when you take out the pension part of the DWP you're actually left with around 92 billion... (I added them up for you)
of which about 6 billion is an operating cost.
actually only 86 billion is spent on "totally unsustainable handouts".

not 200 billion as you claim (and even that would only be 1/3rd of what the government takes in revenue.)

Income tax (incidentally accounts for ~158billion pounds.) the welfare bill (excluding pensions) is ~86 billion. (that was the first link)
Our welfare bill is greater that the govt generates in income tax. -so that was a lie too.

The problem is that when you mention things like economics people's eyes glaze over. And when you talk about sensible rational ideas like cutting a bonkers £200 billion bill in handouts you get absolutely sneered at do you think that you get sneered at and peoples eyes glaze over because they think "here comes that lunatic making shit up again!"

maybe you'd sleep better at night if instead of making up facts about benefits you actually looked at the figures.

the benefits "bill" to the country is 86 billion pounds.
this is easily covered by the 100 billion pounds VAT revenue, which everyone (including those on benefits) contribute to

On the whole (nasty side tracking aside) most people don't care about QE, because very few actually understand it, judging by all the different ideas that were being used to explain it on R4 last night the lack of understanding includes some economists! (as what they said appear to contradict in some cases!). it's difficult to rail against something that you don't understand.

Secondly, because if you are told we can either give that rich guy ever more money, or we can deflate the value of goods in the economy meaning that the debts (that all you poor people have) will "in real terms" cost more. putting you in a worse position, then feeding the fat seems like a reasonable strategy.

The headline rich richer and poor poorer doesn't distinguish between those living in gated communities in LA, Durban, Rio and Chelsea, those with their own Caribbean islands and those simply living in wealthy cities like Munich, Melbourne and Toronto. Obviously rich is a relative word and it matters whether were talking about the recent king of Saudi Arabia or the head of a London architects office. The architect can design more open spaces and make everyone feel a little better off.

But, who is going to take money from George Soros, Warren Buffett or the new Saudi king and give it to the inhabitants of the Lake Chad basin who have just had their houses burned by Boko Haram? Put simply, there are practical issues to do with wealth transfer. Dictators constantly show how easy it is to accumulate wealth. But giving it back is all but impossible!

Has wealth transfer ever been accomplished, anywhere? The Soviets tried it, and look how well that turned out. Not even Cuba managed.

Kaykay - yup, get what you mean, but there are some landlords out there who own hundreds and hundreds of properties. They prevent others from buying their own homes, and because they often buy properties in the same area can also push rents up. Unless they sell up and have to then pay CGT (and many will have accountants who can minimise CGT) there should be another way of them contributing to the communities out of which they make so much £.

Seff - bloody brilliant!

'just because some acquatic bint gives you a sword'...

I should like to add:

"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who then was the Gentleman?"

Well, Adam and Eve can do all the spinning they like. But, aren't we still looking for Wat Tyler's head? I seem to remember that equality experiment not going so well.

seff

“The IFS confirms that the richest have lost the most from the Government’s changes to taxes and welfare. Fairness is at the heart of our approach to reducing the deficit.
that's a really hard one...
in truth, the richest people have "paid" more, the bill added up for them has been bigger.

but in truth, 1 rich man who has a 100 million pound fortune can easily afford to loose 1 million pounds.
A person on minimum wage earning 10 thousand pounds a year will not earn 1 million pounds over their whole working life (16 - 70 is 54 years)

So yes, the "rich" have "paid more", but that's hardly a "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" type approach.

Dora - indeed...

Still ain't right though!

Only the rich declaring their assets in Britain will have paid more. The ones with their wealth registered abroad will not.

notaunique great points. I think we've been encouraged to confuse economics, politics and emotion - by politicians and the media.

Economics is accurate in hindsight, but it's not a science. It's best-guess. It shouldn't be treated at absolute.

Politics is about influencing people, and power.

Emotion should be kept for personal things. Emotive statements like 'the rich (who are 'they', btw?) get richer, while the poor get poorer' are inflammatory, and stop us from thinking rationally. Yes, it's sad, and awful, that some people live in dire poverty. This isn't a reason to react, rather a reason to stop and think logically about why, what can be done, and whether those steps are best for everyone.

There's so little intelligent discussion of the economy in most mainstream media, it's impossible to do this. We fall back on cliches and alarmist reporting.

Because we're not all bloody socialists