Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Point bWhat you are suggesting, without evidence, is that there are businesses that would not exist if it wasn't for welfare recipients.
If it were that simple to create business activity then there would be no economic problems ever, all we would have to do is ramp up welfare payments to everybody.
He is now concentrating on the point that some businesses benefit from welfare payments.
There are indeed certain types of businesses in certain locations that are heavily dependant on welfare payments to their customers to keep them alive.
Please go back and read what I've actually said on this thread. I've never made that big leap to point b.
Where did I say this?You are saying that there is economic benefit from providing welfare to people who then go and spend it.
Where did I say this?You are saying that there is economic benefit from providing welfare to people who then go and spend it.
HOw do you conclude that the money would be spent and/or reinvested if not taxed? How much of it would go offshore? How much of it would go into non-productive assets like property? How much of it would be saved?Fact is that if other customers were taxed less there would be more money to spend at the same businesses; the very businesses that have customers on welfare would also be better off if they were not taxed as much to contribute to the welfare program; if other companies were taxed less they would reinvest more providing more jobs for people on welfare to apply for.
Where did I say this?
HOw do you conclude that the money would be spent and/or reinvested if not taxed? How much of it would go offshore? How much of it would go into non-productive assets like property? How much of it would be saved?
HOw do you conclude that the money would be spent and/or reinvested if not taxed? How much of it would go offshore? How much of it would go into non-productive assets like property? How much of it would be saved?
Indeed, I read it quite carefully, which is why I suggested that you go back and read my posts. I did not say what you claim that I said.Did you actually read the post? I quoted one of your earlier posts.
With posts like this you are only exposing more of your economic ignorance and ineptitude.
Unless money is kept under the mattress it is in some way used in the economy. Money in savings accounts is used to make loans, which means someone else does the spending either on production/capital goods or consumer goods. The other option is money being directly invested in businesses allowing them to expand.
Property as a non-productive asset, now I really have heard it all. How do you think businesses would be able to operate or expand without existing or new/improving real estate assets? Real estate is one of the most important capital goods to an economy.
If money is leaving the country then it is because of bad economic prospects. Taxing more money out of the economy, in order to "keep it here", only perpetuates that problem and the view of investors who are moving money out of the country.
You are saying that there is economic benefit from providing welfare to people who then go and spend it.
Here?Where did I say this?
The primary beneficiaries of welfare are of course the welfare recipients. But unless they are sticking it all under the mattress, there will be, as a matter of fact, downstream economic benefits from that spend.
Spending from benefits has knock-on economic effects.
Benefits paid from taxes to certain individuals go way beyond those individuals. An awful lot of this money goes into retail, paying for goods and staff. Some of it comes back in tax, particularly VAT and customs duties.
Those businesses that benefit from welfare spending get particular benefits from that spend. Employees in those retail benefits get particular benefits from that spend.
Gents, perhaps you'd like to go back and look at the issue that I'm actually argueing (sic) here. Firefly said “Benefits paid from taxes to certain individuals only benefit the receivers”. I pointed out that, as a matter of fact, this is not true. The retail businesses where benefit recipients spend their money also benefit. That is a simple fact.
I think we can all agree that benefits benefit the PARTICULAR shops/services where they are spent as it’s unlikely that the recipients spent in the exact same shops/services that the money would have been spent in if it had stayed in someone else’s pocket and not been extracted as tax. But as a whole, spending in ALL shops/services is the same so there is no economic benefit in providing benefits. Perhaps you could clearly articulate if you think welfare provides economic benefits rather than inviting other posters to explain why/where/how they had reached a conclusion about your opinion on the matter. Then we could go back to the original topic. TVM.Yes, that's true. But the issue is, as a matter of fact, that those particular businesses benefit substantially from spending by welfare recipients.
My posts were 100% clear on what they said. They did not constitute a complete cost/benefit analysis of our social welfare system, but I don't think that is the usual standard of evidence. They simply pointed out the downstream benefits of welfare spending - no more and no less.I think your posts weren’t clear in what they were or weren’t saying so it’s not surprising that Chris, Firefly, Purple, me and probably most other readers read them as what they appeared to say and not what you intended to say.
So how come that when you say this, you aren't trampled in a rush by the usual suspects seeking to disagree with you on points that you haven't actually made. Why does it take you to say this for us all to agree with it.I think we can all agree that benefits benefit the PARTICULAR shops/services where they are spent as it’s unlikely that the recipients spent in the exact same shops/services that the money would have been spent in if it had stayed in someone else’s pocket and not been extracted as tax.
No, I won't. I'm not going to feel obliged to write essays covering every possible matter related to every possible posts because the usual suspects want to argue every point, including the points that I don't make.Perhaps you could clearly articulate if you think welfare provides economic benefits rather than inviting other posters to explain why/where/how they had reached a conclusion about your opinion on the matter.
The Virgin Mary?TVM.
I have TVM in my corner...So how come that when you say this, you aren't trampled in a rush by the usual suspects seeking to disagree with you on points that you haven't actually made. Why does it take you to say this for us all to agree with it.
Ah g'wan, a yes/no will suffice.No, I won't. I'm not going to feel obliged to write essays...
OK, we're all in agreement then; welfare payments offer no economic value add to the economy as a whole and are, at best, neutral.
Orka has already pointed out where you make claim to benefits of welfare spending and "knock-on economic effects". But be my guest and deny reality.Indeed, I read it quite carefully, which is why I suggested that you go back and read my posts. I did not say what you claim that I said.
I made absolutely no personal attack, I have only pointed out fallacies in your posts and serious gaps in your economic knowledge.You might want to read up on the AAM guidelines on personal attacks. On the substantive issue, perhaps you haven't read the papers in the last two years. Perhaps you mightn't be aware that businesses are having huge difficulties getting banks to lend. Perhaps you might not be aware of banks having to build up the capital to meet more stringent requirements. Perhaps you might not have heard of our property bubble?
I think we can all agree that benefits benefit the PARTICULAR shops/services where they are spent as it’s unlikely that the recipients spent in the exact same shops/services that the money would have been spent in if it had stayed in someone else’s pocket and not been extracted as tax.
Yes, there is absolutely no economic benefit in the welfare system.But as a whole, spending in ALL shops/services is the same so there is no economic benefit in providing benefits.
The title of this thread does not suggest that poverty traps are discouraging people from taking up jobs. The level of social welfare is not, in itself, a poverty trap. The poverty traps occur when a whole raft of services (e.g. medical card, school transport) are suddenly removed when a person starts earning a low wage.Poverty traps exist and they are as the title of this thread suggests "...discouraging people from taking up jobs".
Strange how it is OK to bring in policy that will be 'extremely tough for certain people' but if there is any mention of increased taxation or reduced tax breaks, the lambs start bleating about how tough life is for landlords or employers. So in summary, it is OK to bring in policies that are 'extremely tough' on those who are most in need, but not tough on those who are least in need -right?Of course this will be extremely tough for certain people but the alternative is that we have empty low paid jobs and people sitting at home - a double whammy to the tax payers of this country, of which Complainer is one....wouldn't you like to see you tax being spend on better things like special needs assistants?
Orka pointed out that "we can all agree that benefits benefit the PARTICULAR shops/services where they are spent as it’s unlikely that the recipients spent in the exact same shops/services that the money would have been spent in if it had stayed in someone else’s pocket and not been extracted as tax.". This is what I've been saying ad nauseum on this thread - no more, and no less. You have spent several days trying to argue with me on some broader point about the welfare system on which I have made no comment - good, bad or indifferent. Why do you choose to argue with me, and not Orka, when we both say the same thing?Orka has already pointed out where you make claim to benefits of welfare spending and "knock-on economic effects". But be my guest and deny reality.
You accused me of 'economic ineptitude and ignorance. That is a personal attack. You played the man, not the ball.I made absolutely no personal attack, I have only pointed out fallacies in your posts and serious gaps in your economic knowledge.
I simply pointed the flaws in your blanket assumption that untaxed money suddently becomes productive in our economy. It doesn't, or certainly some if it doesn't. Some of it goes overseas. Some of it will be absorbed into the black hole of our banking system.How do you think those businesses would get more money if savings were decreased through higher taxation? Decreased savings means less loanable funds, which means more difficulties for businesses. Are you saying that the credit market will be in a better position if the banks didn't have to improve their capital requirements and faced failure? Please clarify this.
And what has the property bubble got to do with this thread or any of the arguments I have made?
The title of this thread does not suggest that poverty traps are discouraging people from taking up jobs. The level of social welfare is not, in itself, a poverty trap. The poverty traps occur when a whole raft of services (e.g. medical card, school transport) are suddenly removed when a person starts earning a low wage.
Strange how it is OK to bring in policy that will be 'extremely tough for certain people' but if there is any mention of increased taxation or reduced tax breaks, the lambs start bleating about how tough life is for landlords or employers. So in summary, it is OK to bring in policies that are 'extremely tough' on those who are most in need, but not tough on those who are least in need -right?
The choice is not between decent levels of social welfare and SNAs.
The poverty traps occur when a whole raft of services (e.g. medical card, school transport) are suddenly removed when a person starts earning a low wage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?