| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" 17:03 - Feb 17 with 4484 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Not sure this has already been posted, but perfectly played by the Sky News reporter.
|  |
| |  |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:27 - Feb 18 with 504 views | noggin |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:23 - Feb 18 by Tambu |
Evidence for what the gentleman's last post was most rhetorical in nature. What evidence was required to answer a non question? I need evidence to justify my thoughts? How peculiar. |
Evidence that income tax doesn't help pay for public services. |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:28 - Feb 18 with 492 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 13:13 - Feb 18 by Tambu |
Very willing to share, please don't use misrepresentation on what I said. I'm sure you can use Google to find out how to visit such a large gathering. However I do sense that you have a quite mocking tone, so I do feel disinclined to present you with information you feel you know better than. |
Ah, another Sovereign Project adherent! |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:36 - Feb 18 with 451 views | J2BLUE |
Haha, complete nonsense along with pushing random miracle supplements. Like a slightly more sane infowars. |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:39 - Feb 18 with 442 views | Guthrum |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:01 - Feb 18 by Tambu |
Paying for services is not tax. You are conflating the two. Of course I pay bills. If you don't pay for items that you are in receipt of that is theft. That isn't a good thing. Cue your well tax pays for roads etc. Yes, road tax, petrol tax, tax on the money you earned to pay those bills. Water gas and electric aren't tax bills.
As for the country's bills, you are aware of how much is squandered and pocketed by the very people demanding the tax? But if you are OK with that, carry on. |
As opposed to, say, privatised Thames Water services, where vast amounts of money were taken out in dividends, bonuses and the like, to the detriment of infrastructure and investment. Now they're asking for hand-outs to continue trading - while planning to use a fair bit of that for further pay-outs to executives and investors.
It's not even capitalism, simply plunder. |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:24 - Feb 18 with 371 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:36 - Feb 18 by J2BLUE |
Haha, complete nonsense along with pushing random miracle supplements. Like a slightly more sane infowars. |
Indeed, the rhetoric is very similar! | |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:57 - Feb 18 with 331 views | CoachRob |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:27 - Feb 18 by noggin |
Evidence that income tax doesn't help pay for public services. |
No idea what Tambu is on about, but the idea that idea that taxes don't fund government is well established in post-Keynesian economics and a friend of mine who is one of the authors of the Self-Financing State paper is a professor at UCL. It rejects the Chicago School (Milton Friedman) idea that government's have to get money from taxpayer's to fund public services, taxes play the role of inflation control. Zack Polanski has come out in favour of this description.
Here's the abstract;
"This article provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK government’s expenditure, revenue collection, and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). The Bank of England then debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank. This creates new public deposits, which are used to settle spending by government departments via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the CF. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank, offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist monetary policy objectives. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and secure collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK."
It is not clear whether you favour the Milton Friedman description or the post-Keynesian idea, but I would love someone to explain where the trillions to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation is coming from. It is very clear to me having sat in on countless discussion with experts that it isn't coming from the private sector (taxpayers) - that leaves one entity: the government.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do |  | | |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 19:10 - Feb 18 with 303 views | lowhouseblue |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:57 - Feb 18 by CoachRob |
No idea what Tambu is on about, but the idea that idea that taxes don't fund government is well established in post-Keynesian economics and a friend of mine who is one of the authors of the Self-Financing State paper is a professor at UCL. It rejects the Chicago School (Milton Friedman) idea that government's have to get money from taxpayer's to fund public services, taxes play the role of inflation control. Zack Polanski has come out in favour of this description.
Here's the abstract;
"This article provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK government’s expenditure, revenue collection, and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). The Bank of England then debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank. This creates new public deposits, which are used to settle spending by government departments via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the CF. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank, offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist monetary policy objectives. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and secure collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK."
It is not clear whether you favour the Milton Friedman description or the post-Keynesian idea, but I would love someone to explain where the trillions to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation is coming from. It is very clear to me having sat in on countless discussion with experts that it isn't coming from the private sector (taxpayers) - that leaves one entity: the government.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do |
you mention inflation, but what other constraints on government spending would you see in this framework? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 19:10 - Feb 18 with 312 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:57 - Feb 18 by CoachRob |
No idea what Tambu is on about, but the idea that idea that taxes don't fund government is well established in post-Keynesian economics and a friend of mine who is one of the authors of the Self-Financing State paper is a professor at UCL. It rejects the Chicago School (Milton Friedman) idea that government's have to get money from taxpayer's to fund public services, taxes play the role of inflation control. Zack Polanski has come out in favour of this description.
Here's the abstract;
"This article provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK government’s expenditure, revenue collection, and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). The Bank of England then debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank. This creates new public deposits, which are used to settle spending by government departments via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the CF. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank, offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist monetary policy objectives. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and secure collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK."
It is not clear whether you favour the Milton Friedman description or the post-Keynesian idea, but I would love someone to explain where the trillions to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation is coming from. It is very clear to me having sat in on countless discussion with experts that it isn't coming from the private sector (taxpayers) - that leaves one entity: the government.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do |
I’m pretty sure it’s not this view that’s being referred to, or at least nothing mentioned in the thread so far suggests it is. And besides, as this is quite a common position* it would be very easy to summarise simplistically in a short sentence - money is created for government expenditure and removed via taxation. Easy. Whereas there’s something much deeper going on apparently, that can’t be articulated and that requires the great thinkers to meet in Mexico. And possibly involves cheese (although I may have made that bit up).
*or at least not uncommon, as it’s something Richard Murphy has referenced a lot and he’s regularly on mainstream media. |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 19:31 - Feb 18 with 280 views | J2BLUE |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:57 - Feb 18 by CoachRob |
No idea what Tambu is on about, but the idea that idea that taxes don't fund government is well established in post-Keynesian economics and a friend of mine who is one of the authors of the Self-Financing State paper is a professor at UCL. It rejects the Chicago School (Milton Friedman) idea that government's have to get money from taxpayer's to fund public services, taxes play the role of inflation control. Zack Polanski has come out in favour of this description.
Here's the abstract;
"This article provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK government’s expenditure, revenue collection, and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). The Bank of England then debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank. This creates new public deposits, which are used to settle spending by government departments via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the CF. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank, offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist monetary policy objectives. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and secure collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK."
It is not clear whether you favour the Milton Friedman description or the post-Keynesian idea, but I would love someone to explain where the trillions to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation is coming from. It is very clear to me having sat in on countless discussion with experts that it isn't coming from the private sector (taxpayers) - that leaves one entity: the government.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do |
The Consolidated Fund was established in 1787 as “one fund into which shall flow every stream of public revenue, and from which shall come the supply for every service” (HM Treasury Citation2024, 5). It is often considered to be HM Treasury’s “current account,” handling day-to-day cash flows related to expenditures and revenues.
This is from the paper ^
Seems a massive leap to say taxes don't fund these services. It's a mildly interesting paper on how it works but it's also pretty obvious. The government is not creating the money for 100% of public expenditure out of thin air. | |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 19:44 - Feb 18 with 255 views | lowhouseblue |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 19:31 - Feb 18 by J2BLUE |
The Consolidated Fund was established in 1787 as “one fund into which shall flow every stream of public revenue, and from which shall come the supply for every service” (HM Treasury Citation2024, 5). It is often considered to be HM Treasury’s “current account,” handling day-to-day cash flows related to expenditures and revenues.
This is from the paper ^
Seems a massive leap to say taxes don't fund these services. It's a mildly interesting paper on how it works but it's also pretty obvious. The government is not creating the money for 100% of public expenditure out of thin air. |
plus it assumes away bond markets, it has no credible theory of inflation, it misrepresents monetary and fiscal policy coordination, it ignores trade deficits and exchange instability, and in general it lacks any credible analysis of financial instability.
but still i bet poor old liz truss is wishing it was all true. she tried to assume away bond markets but they were still there. [Post edited 18 Feb 19:46]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 10:18 - Feb 19 with 128 views | lowhouseblue |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 18:57 - Feb 18 by CoachRob |
No idea what Tambu is on about, but the idea that idea that taxes don't fund government is well established in post-Keynesian economics and a friend of mine who is one of the authors of the Self-Financing State paper is a professor at UCL. It rejects the Chicago School (Milton Friedman) idea that government's have to get money from taxpayer's to fund public services, taxes play the role of inflation control. Zack Polanski has come out in favour of this description.
Here's the abstract;
"This article provides the first detailed institutional analysis of the UK government’s expenditure, revenue collection, and debt issuance processes. We show that public expenditure is always financed through money creation rather than taxation or debt issuance. Spending involves the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from a core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). The Bank of England then debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other government accounts held at the Bank. This creates new public deposits, which are used to settle spending by government departments via the commercial banking sector. Only the UK parliament can mandate expenditures from the CF. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank, offsetting past injections. Similarly, gilts have been issued to temporarily withdraw money to assist monetary policy objectives. Under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, however, debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and secure collateral to the non-bank private sector. The findings support neo-Chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK."
It is not clear whether you favour the Milton Friedman description or the post-Keynesian idea, but I would love someone to explain where the trillions to pay for climate mitigation and adaptation is coming from. It is very clear to me having sat in on countless discussion with experts that it isn't coming from the private sector (taxpayers) - that leaves one entity: the government.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do |
i did actually read the article. i really don't know why.
all the way through i had a nagging sense of being reminded of something. i've now got it. after 9/11 a strange mix of people decided they were experts in architecture, or structural engineering, or demolition, or explosives, all in order to write endless pseudo science to push the conspiracy that it was the us government who blew up the twin towers. despite real experts in those areas telling them their 'science' was nonsense, they came together as 'architects for 911 truth' or some such (cil was was a big fan).
this article fits the same pattern of group pseudo theory - except that here the line being pushed is that governments can just spend as much as they want and they are unconstrained. zac polanski's endorsement is then another big tick.
but the bit that raises it almost to satire is that one of the author's stated area of expertise is "helicopter pilot". which i take as an unconscious nod to freidman's thought experiment where currency is dropped from a helicopter onto the population. it's a really nice touch. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 10:22 - Feb 19 with 122 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 17:36 - Feb 18 by J2BLUE |
Haha, complete nonsense along with pushing random miracle supplements. Like a slightly more sane infowars. |
Appears to be very much Freemen nonsense (or what the yanks call sovereign citizens). Very clear flags in the ideas and language mentioned, with just a 30 second skim! |  |
| |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 10:27 - Feb 19 with 109 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Jim Ratcliffe "UK Tax System Refugee" on 10:01 - Feb 18 by OldFart71 |
I wouldn't say the gutter is a huge step up from the sewer. |
Spend a night sleeping in each and report back to us whether you still hold that view. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
