I left school at 15 years of age without qualification because my school didn't do that stuff. I retired at 65 years of age after 50 years of full-time employment except for 7 years further and higher education (working my way through to subsidise my grant) upto degree level which has since served me well.
By the time Rachel Reeves retires she will probably have worked less years than myself and under false pretentions. Good health has allowed me 17 years of retirement although I am now a partial invalid.
I don't think I owe Reeves government anything. But hell mend it if she doesn't owe me, and many more like me, a little bit more than what she has taken away.
When Rachel found £22 billion was missing from accounts did it cross her mind ask the UK’s 165 Billionaires for help? It seems so obvious. She was getting warmer seeking out non-doms until a visit from American who urged her to have sympathy for that threatened 'community' and to reconsider inheritance tax plans.
The emissary was Stephen Schwarzman CEO of Blackstone the largest commercial landlord in the world. Stephen took home a cool £billion last year and is personally worth £35 billion so he feels non-dom’s pain.
Now the first £5 billion will come from those who subsist on one of the most inadequate benefit systems in Europe.
We owe you so much Leah for the concise and crystal clear way you explain the fundamentals of economics and so much more. Thank you. There's a coffee coming your way.
In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister with the promise to 'make Britain great again' and 'roll back the state'.
As part of this 'strategy' was to balance the books of the government. Or, in her own words, "I can't help reflecting that it's taken a Government headed by a housewife with experience of running a family to balance the books for the first time in twenty years—with a little left over for a rainy day."
By announcing that very goal the little housewife economist from the 1950s revealed her complete ignorance of the purpose of the 'dismal science'.
Economics is not bookkeeping! It is not the generation of a profit and loss account! It is not about the production of a balance sheet!
Among many things fiscal economics is concerned with the (re-)allocation of resources for greatest efficiency and (re-)distribution of wealth for greatest need. Governments run budget deficits - spending outstripping taxation - and surpluses - when taxation exceeds expenditure - depending on circumstances and objectives. The government spending is discretionary and taxation is targeted. The goal is NOT to 'balance the books'.
Reeves well deserves her 'Rachel from Accounts' moniker.
I do wonder what the EngUKGovs' agenda is...aside lining the pockets of their donors et al.
In a way, to make their 'UK' seem poorer than it is, fits in with their narrative of Scotland 'too poor' so don't dare walk out that door, or you'll be ruined into the bargain. They're a sleekit bunch, these BritEngNats, they want to take back control of Holyrood and thereby of Scotland, and what better way than to con the people of Scotland into believing that their finances and wider economy are in deep doo doo. I mean who'd want to rock that shoogly boat. Removing life saving and essential money from the poorest and the disabled, stooping very low, hmm, but keep them begging, desperate and dependant, keep their carers in poverty, and of course, the less disabled are perfect cannon fodder.
I left school at 15 years of age without qualification because my school didn't do that stuff. I retired at 65 years of age after 50 years of full-time employment except for 7 years further and higher education (working my way through to subsidise my grant) upto degree level which has since served me well.
By the time Rachel Reeves retires she will probably have worked less years than myself and under false pretentions. Good health has allowed me 17 years of retirement although I am now a partial invalid.
I don't think I owe Reeves government anything. But hell mend it if she doesn't owe me, and many more like me, a little bit more than what she has taken away.
When Rachel found £22 billion was missing from accounts did it cross her mind ask the UK’s 165 Billionaires for help? It seems so obvious. She was getting warmer seeking out non-doms until a visit from American who urged her to have sympathy for that threatened 'community' and to reconsider inheritance tax plans.
The emissary was Stephen Schwarzman CEO of Blackstone the largest commercial landlord in the world. Stephen took home a cool £billion last year and is personally worth £35 billion so he feels non-dom’s pain.
Now the first £5 billion will come from those who subsist on one of the most inadequate benefit systems in Europe.
We owe you so much Leah for the concise and crystal clear way you explain the fundamentals of economics and so much more. Thank you. There's a coffee coming your way.
Great article Leah. Bang on the money.
In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister with the promise to 'make Britain great again' and 'roll back the state'.
As part of this 'strategy' was to balance the books of the government. Or, in her own words, "I can't help reflecting that it's taken a Government headed by a housewife with experience of running a family to balance the books for the first time in twenty years—with a little left over for a rainy day."
By announcing that very goal the little housewife economist from the 1950s revealed her complete ignorance of the purpose of the 'dismal science'.
Economics is not bookkeeping! It is not the generation of a profit and loss account! It is not about the production of a balance sheet!
Among many things fiscal economics is concerned with the (re-)allocation of resources for greatest efficiency and (re-)distribution of wealth for greatest need. Governments run budget deficits - spending outstripping taxation - and surpluses - when taxation exceeds expenditure - depending on circumstances and objectives. The government spending is discretionary and taxation is targeted. The goal is NOT to 'balance the books'.
Reeves well deserves her 'Rachel from Accounts' moniker.
I do wonder what the EngUKGovs' agenda is...aside lining the pockets of their donors et al.
In a way, to make their 'UK' seem poorer than it is, fits in with their narrative of Scotland 'too poor' so don't dare walk out that door, or you'll be ruined into the bargain. They're a sleekit bunch, these BritEngNats, they want to take back control of Holyrood and thereby of Scotland, and what better way than to con the people of Scotland into believing that their finances and wider economy are in deep doo doo. I mean who'd want to rock that shoogly boat. Removing life saving and essential money from the poorest and the disabled, stooping very low, hmm, but keep them begging, desperate and dependant, keep their carers in poverty, and of course, the less disabled are perfect cannon fodder.
:-(