Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"GDP in negative growth last quarter of 2023. BUT GDP per capita has been in negative growth since 2021. So have we just entered a recession or have we been in one for the last two years? All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. " The internet says: In the UK, the most generally accepted definition of a recession is two quarters in a row when gross domestic product (GDP) falls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we are it’s by the smallest of margins compared to all our previous ones according to an independent consultant on TV yesterday. Apparently we only just match the 2012/13 one, do you remember that? Me neither as shortly after it was decided it was a false recession caused by who knows what. Figures like 0.3% 0.5% to me mean very little, almost so low it seems it could be because one car ship was delayed so car sales were down that month or other similar one off events. Really need more than two months to decide when we are talking such low percentage points imo. S" It’s two quarters, which is six months. Is that enough? Most worrying part of the OP is that GDP per capita has been falling for much longer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. " There are strikes all around the world - Europe has been a shambles for the past year. Cost of living in the US has been a huge issue for the past 2-3 years. It's not just the UK. In Belgium, for example, the government mandates a cost of living assistant for all employees. This fuels inflation and people still have things to strike over (train drivers, bus drivers, etc. Sounds familiar?). French employees across different industries are also striking, and many other EU countries as well. Germany is having their own economic woes. It's hard to measure whether the UK is actually better off than anywhere else, especially in real-time. In politics, you pick a measure that works for you and emphasise it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"GDP in negative growth last quarter of 2023. BUT GDP per capita has been in negative growth since 2021. So have we just entered a recession or have we been in one for the last two years? All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. The internet says: In the UK, the most generally accepted definition of a recession is two quarters in a row when gross domestic product (GDP) falls. " Yes, but GDP can grow even if GDP per capita is in negative territory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does GDP per capita falling tell us?" More “Capita” same output? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. There are strikes all around the world - Europe has been a shambles for the past year. Cost of living in the US has been a huge issue for the past 2-3 years. It's not just the UK. In Belgium, for example, the government mandates a cost of living assistant for all employees. This fuels inflation and people still have things to strike over (train drivers, bus drivers, etc. Sounds familiar?). French employees across different industries are also striking, and many other EU countries as well. Germany is having their own economic woes. It's hard to measure whether the UK is actually better off than anywhere else, especially in real-time. In politics, you pick a measure that works for you and emphasise it." I think Sunak and hunt would be more than happy with the USA GDP last quarter of 23, yes it was down compared to the previous one but growth of 3.3 % compared to our own .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we are it’s by the smallest of margins compared to all our previous ones according to an independent consultant on TV yesterday. Apparently we only just match the 2012/13 one, do you remember that? Me neither as shortly after it was decided it was a false recession caused by who knows what. Figures like 0.3% 0.5% to me mean very little, almost so low it seems it could be because one car ship was delayed so car sales were down that month or other similar one off events. Really need more than two months to decide when we are talking such low percentage points imo. S It’s two quarters, which is six months. Is that enough? Most worrying part of the OP is that GDP per capita has been falling for much longer." Even though I was wrong saying two I still do not think six is enough when talking figures of less than 0.5% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does GDP per capita falling tell us?" That output, in proportion to population, is falling. (GDP divided by population) It's often used as a measure of wealth - per person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. " I think that’s because the UK is not a rich country, it’s a poor country in which some incredibly rich people live. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we are it’s by the smallest of margins compared to all our previous ones according to an independent consultant on TV yesterday. Apparently we only just match the 2012/13 one, do you remember that? Me neither as shortly after it was decided it was a false recession caused by who knows what. Figures like 0.3% 0.5% to me mean very little, almost so low it seems it could be because one car ship was delayed so car sales were down that month or other similar one off events. Really need more than two months to decide when we are talking such low percentage points imo. S It’s two quarters, which is six months. Is that enough? Most worrying part of the OP is that GDP per capita has been falling for much longer. Even though I was wrong saying two I still do not think six is enough when talking figures of less than 0.5%" How long will we have to be in recession for it to be ‘enough’? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does GDP per capita falling tell us? That output, in proportion to population, is falling. (GDP divided by population) It's often used as a measure of wealth - per person." I know what the definition is, I'm wondering what it actually tells us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw it called a “Rishession” somewhere earlier. "It's going to stick, that and Rishis recession.. Not what their party central office will want but will no doubt deflect from.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does GDP per capita falling tell us? That output, in proportion to population, is falling. (GDP divided by population) It's often used as a measure of wealth - per person. I know what the definition is, I'm wondering what it actually tells us. " It tells us that if overall GDP is growing but GDP per capita is shrinking then inequality is likely increasing, and that the amount of money in the economy per person is shrinking. In order for the economy to grow in real terms we need the GDP per capita to be in the positive. If you think of it as the economy being 100 and there being 10 people, then GDP per capita is 10. The population grows to 12 over the next year and the overall GDP grows to 110. GDP per capita drops to 9.2. So although the economy has grown by 10% each person is actually 8% worse off. This is a simplification, obviously, but that’s the basic principle. It’s why, when the government is telling us the economy is growing, we feel worse off. They’re not lying, just using incomplete data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. There are strikes all around the world - Europe has been a shambles for the past year. Cost of living in the US has been a huge issue for the past 2-3 years. It's not just the UK. In Belgium, for example, the government mandates a cost of living assistant for all employees. This fuels inflation and people still have things to strike over (train drivers, bus drivers, etc. Sounds familiar?). French employees across different industries are also striking, and many other EU countries as well. Germany is having their own economic woes. It's hard to measure whether the UK is actually better off than anywhere else, especially in real-time. In politics, you pick a measure that works for you and emphasise it. I think Sunak and hunt would be more than happy with the USA GDP last quarter of 23, yes it was down compared to the previous one but growth of 3.3 % compared to our own .. " they must be selling a lot more weapons than we are then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All this talk of the U.K. economy performing better than other EU countries doesn’t really feel like it with increasing fuel poverty, low wages, low standards of living and increasing inequality. There are strikes all around the world - Europe has been a shambles for the past year. Cost of living in the US has been a huge issue for the past 2-3 years. It's not just the UK. In Belgium, for example, the government mandates a cost of living assistant for all employees. This fuels inflation and people still have things to strike over (train drivers, bus drivers, etc. Sounds familiar?). French employees across different industries are also striking, and many other EU countries as well. Germany is having their own economic woes. It's hard to measure whether the UK is actually better off than anywhere else, especially in real-time. In politics, you pick a measure that works for you and emphasise it. I think Sunak and hunt would be more than happy with the USA GDP last quarter of 23, yes it was down compared to the previous one but growth of 3.3 % compared to our own .. they must be selling a lot more weapons than we are then" 'they' don't care what drives it, but their people are spending more and inflation is coming down plus there's less out of work.. Sunak/Hunt would be happy if that was us.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you think of it as the economy being 100 and there being 10 people, then GDP per capita is 10. The population grows to 12 over the next year and the overall GDP grows to 110. GDP per capita drops to 9.2. So although the economy has grown by 10% each person is actually 8% worse off." GDP is a measure of output, not income. If GDP falls, that means that we are producing less, not that people are earning less. In your example above, a more reasonable conclusion is that the original 10 people are still earning and producing at the same rate, so nothing has changed for them. The difference comes in the 2 extra new people, who apparently aren't producing at the same rate as the others. So GDP per capita has fallen, but no one is worse off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you think of it as the economy being 100 and there being 10 people, then GDP per capita is 10. The population grows to 12 over the next year and the overall GDP grows to 110. GDP per capita drops to 9.2. So although the economy has grown by 10% each person is actually 8% worse off. GDP is a measure of output, not income. If GDP falls, that means that we are producing less, not that people are earning less. In your example above, a more reasonable conclusion is that the original 10 people are still earning and producing at the same rate, so nothing has changed for them. The difference comes in the 2 extra new people, who apparently aren't producing at the same rate as the others. So GDP per capita has fallen, but no one is worse off." But it could also imply that people are worse off, right? If productivity has fallen, supply-demand ratio takes a hit and it results in inflation. So income may remain the same, but things get more expensive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you think of it as the economy being 100 and there being 10 people, then GDP per capita is 10. The population grows to 12 over the next year and the overall GDP grows to 110. GDP per capita drops to 9.2. So although the economy has grown by 10% each person is actually 8% worse off. GDP is a measure of output, not income. If GDP falls, that means that we are producing less, not that people are earning less. In your example above, a more reasonable conclusion is that the original 10 people are still earning and producing at the same rate, so nothing has changed for them. The difference comes in the 2 extra new people, who apparently aren't producing at the same rate as the others. So GDP per capita has fallen, but no one is worse off." Well yes, but essentially it means it feels like there is less money flowing around in the economy. This doesn’t mean it is the extra people who are to blame as such. Our ageing population means we have a high amount of people who are no longer ‘economically active’ because they have retired potentially, or have recently become unable to work due to chronic illnesses such as Long Covid, or are unable to work as they are waiting for treatment on NHS waiting lists. One of our issues is that we do not have enough people to fill our jobs, meaning we need to rely on immigration, except the government is trying to cut immigration so job vacancies go unfilled and businesses become less productive. Higher GDP per capita is strongly linked to poverty reduction and increased buying power, lower GDP per capita is linked to higher government borrowing in order to fund public services etc. This in turn leads to less disposable income in general as taxes need to go up if borrowing is to be kept down. Consequently we have the highest tax burden since WW2. My initial post was poorly worded, thank you for the correction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you think of it as the economy being 100 and there being 10 people, then GDP per capita is 10. The population grows to 12 over the next year and the overall GDP grows to 110. GDP per capita drops to 9.2. So although the economy has grown by 10% each person is actually 8% worse off. GDP is a measure of output, not income. If GDP falls, that means that we are producing less, not that people are earning less. In your example above, a more reasonable conclusion is that the original 10 people are still earning and producing at the same rate, so nothing has changed for them. The difference comes in the 2 extra new people, who apparently aren't producing at the same rate as the others. So GDP per capita has fallen, but no one is worse off." That's what I was thinking. Glad someone got it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further" Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit" Pretty much as you said, the BoE is adjusting the interest rates to slow down inflation, it has taken a while because they have been super cautious. The reaction is people stop spending and in theory that should then start to drive down inflation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further" Mortgage inflation is 45%, and new car sales are reported at 30 year low (92% private cars purchased on pcp/hp) Once interest rates fall and the credit tap is turned back on things will pick up at a pace. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit Pretty much as you said, the BoE is adjusting the interest rates to slow down inflation, it has taken a while because they have been super cautious. The reaction is people stop spending and in theory that should then start to drive down inflation. " There was no need to increase interest rates as much as they did. Inflation was not caused by an inflationary economy it was caused by energy prices and the price of energy did what interest rate rises were supposed to do which is to take money out of the economy. The recession is down to incompetence in the BoE - interest rate rises on the scale we have had were not required when energy costs were already taking spending money out of the economy. The rate rises have taken even more and fucked the economy. It might help also if Ofgen would grow some teeth and force the energy companies to lower there tariffs now that wholesale energy costs have dropped to pre 2021 levels again - but no. They choose to let (for example British Gas) increase their profits ten fold because the precious shareholders need a bit of cash dividend windfall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit Pretty much as you said, the BoE is adjusting the interest rates to slow down inflation, it has taken a while because they have been super cautious. The reaction is people stop spending and in theory that should then start to drive down inflation. There was no need to increase interest rates as much as they did. Inflation was not caused by an inflationary economy it was caused by energy prices and the price of energy did what interest rate rises were supposed to do which is to take money out of the economy. The recession is down to incompetence in the BoE - interest rate rises on the scale we have had were not required when energy costs were already taking spending money out of the economy. The rate rises have taken even more and fucked the economy. It might help also if Ofgen would grow some teeth and force the energy companies to lower there tariffs now that wholesale energy costs have dropped to pre 2021 levels again - but no. They choose to let (for example British Gas) increase their profits ten fold because the precious shareholders need a bit of cash dividend windfall." I don't think that's accurate as they also look at core inflation and strip out food and energy prices from the figure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit Pretty much as you said, the BoE is adjusting the interest rates to slow down inflation, it has taken a while because they have been super cautious. The reaction is people stop spending and in theory that should then start to drive down inflation. There was no need to increase interest rates as much as they did. Inflation was not caused by an inflationary economy it was caused by energy prices and the price of energy did what interest rate rises were supposed to do which is to take money out of the economy. The recession is down to incompetence in the BoE - interest rate rises on the scale we have had were not required when energy costs were already taking spending money out of the economy. The rate rises have taken even more and fucked the economy. It might help also if Ofgen would grow some teeth and force the energy companies to lower there tariffs now that wholesale energy costs have dropped to pre 2021 levels again - but no. They choose to let (for example British Gas) increase their profits ten fold because the precious shareholders need a bit of cash dividend windfall. I don't think that's accurate as they also look at core inflation and strip out food and energy prices from the figure." You can’t strip out energy if energy costs impact everything else. Notwithstanding this the aim of interest rate rises is to remove cash from the economy to prevent it being spent. This was already in effect by the actual increased energy costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't this reduction in GDP a symptom of high inflation and interest rates? It is following a natural course, and I wouldn't expect it be different as we can also see in the EU. Our goods and services are not being purchased as they were, it makes sense until recession flattens out inflation a little further Is this the aim of the raising of interest rates then. I read that the result was due to people spending less in the run up to Christmas. Higher interest rates might be the reason why they spent less. On a slightly better note it is also reported that in January there was a big increase in spending reported by shops. I also see that Japan have also gone into recession by quite a bit Pretty much as you said, the BoE is adjusting the interest rates to slow down inflation, it has taken a while because they have been super cautious. The reaction is people stop spending and in theory that should then start to drive down inflation. There was no need to increase interest rates as much as they did. Inflation was not caused by an inflationary economy it was caused by energy prices and the price of energy did what interest rate rises were supposed to do which is to take money out of the economy. The recession is down to incompetence in the BoE - interest rate rises on the scale we have had were not required when energy costs were already taking spending money out of the economy. The rate rises have taken even more and fucked the economy. It might help also if Ofgen would grow some teeth and force the energy companies to lower there tariffs now that wholesale energy costs have dropped to pre 2021 levels again - but no. They choose to let (for example British Gas) increase their profits ten fold because the precious shareholders need a bit of cash dividend windfall."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out " You are absolutely correct. The common man is not impacted by this and life goes on. The UK is however underperforming against its peers with the exception of Germany but does that really matter? I am sure that if someone takes the time they can come up with a metric to show how the UK has outperformed every other country over some defined time period or over some particular measure but, to most of us, do we really notice a difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out You are absolutely correct. The common man is not impacted by this and life goes on. The UK is however underperforming against its peers with the exception of Germany but does that really matter? I am sure that if someone takes the time they can come up with a metric to show how the UK has outperformed every other country over some defined time period or over some particular measure but, to most of us, do we really notice a difference?" You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to." So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out " Does life today feel different from a few days ago before the recession news? No. Am I aware that there’s less to put in savings at the end of every month, and the weekly shop is increasingly expensive compared to even a couple of years ago? Yes, very very much. And that’s from someone who is fortunate enough to earn a good salary. How those on below average income survive, I have no idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway." It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think people across many sections of society will have noticed as they have had to access food banks under this government.. " Ah but food banks are good, according to Rees-Mogg. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out You are absolutely correct. The common man is not impacted by this and life goes on. The UK is however underperforming against its peers with the exception of Germany but does that really matter? I am sure that if someone takes the time they can come up with a metric to show how the UK has outperformed every other country over some defined time period or over some particular measure but, to most of us, do we really notice a difference?" Not today perhaps but recessions lead to job losses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out Does life today feel different from a few days ago before the recession news? No. Am I aware that there’s less to put in savings at the end of every month, and the weekly shop is increasingly expensive compared to even a couple of years ago? Yes, very very much. And that’s from someone who is fortunate enough to earn a good salary. How those on below average income survive, I have no idea. " they only buy what they need not what they want | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot see too many people being bothered about whether or not we are in a recession, not withstanding the fact that there is, a lot more to life than economic performance. All those on benefits or any other form of state help will still be paid. Would anyone even notice that we are in recession ?. Welfare benefits will actually be increased in April . Anyone walking down the high street will notice a large number of coffee shops and restaurants. Have pension funds dropped in value or is the FTSE dropping. ? The announcement of a recession had no impact so who cares. Charities and other organisations that help the less well off will still receive their funding , most companies are still increasing dividends so charities or religious organisations with investment income are hardly going to lose out Does life today feel different from a few days ago before the recession news? No. Am I aware that there’s less to put in savings at the end of every month, and the weekly shop is increasingly expensive compared to even a couple of years ago? Yes, very very much. And that’s from someone who is fortunate enough to earn a good salary. How those on below average income survive, I have no idea. they only buy what they need not what they want" And what they need (food, energy, petrol) has gone up exponentially | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. " This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. " What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less." That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. " Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings." It was post covid that this money became a problem, energy prices were rising due to the war in Ukraine and the cost of living was increasing sharply, it did not slow spending, so demand continued driving up inflation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings." This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject "There is definitely something to the idea that the best way to stimulate the economy is to give more money to the people who spend it, ie the poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject "I see what you did there, I'm not biting other than to say you are wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject
I see what you did there, I'm not biting other than to say you are wrong."I’m not wrong to say that money in the economy is better than money sat in an account. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject ". Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don’t notice because you are living the life that you are living as opposed to living the life that you could have been living had living standards maintained their pre-2010 trajectory. It’s also quite hard to imagine the non-tangible when you are eating, living and sleeping that tangible life that you have with nothing to compare it to. So you're saying that there's not a lot of point in government improving things, because we won't notice anyway. It is the governments responsibility to create the social and economic environments that allow people to thrive and improve their own circumstances. Some things we can do ourselves, but we rely on the government to make the broader environment stable and reliable. This along with your other posts are not true, they are your opinion. The BoE is tasked with setting out the monetary policy and the goal of the monetary policy is stable inflation. Above you talk about energy prices, energy is needed for to produce all good and is used by most services and all costs spiralled, pushing up inflation. You have taken no account of the extra cash people had during covid, and how that was being used to buffer the impacts of rising costs, the BoE had no choice but to keep pushing up interest rates to gain control. What extra cash did people get during Covid? Almost everyone furloughed got less than they would have working. Many self employed got nothing and Covid bounce back money was a loan. There wasn’t extra cash in the economy - there was less. That is not true. People could not spend money, being inside with only supermarkets open, people working from home had no travel expenses, lunch costs etc. Savings soared even for those that were furloughed. This is why your assessment of the state of the economy is not correct, there are many factors that caused inflation to continue to rise, this being a major contributor. Surely if people were unable to spend their money then there was less money moving around the economy, but more in people’s savings. This is accurate. Money in accounts is not doing anything for the economy. This is why inheritance tax should be punitive, but that’s another subject . Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. "The impact of making IT punitive is that it would be spent prior to death, this putting it into the economy rather than having it sat in an account doing nothing. It’s basic Keynesian economics. But as I say, this isn’t the thread for this discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. " Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income." . A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income.. A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money " If they wish their children to benefit from their wealth they can do so without incurring IT. Of their children then spend that money, it has the same effect as them spending it - it’s an economic boost. Hoarding money doesn’t help the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income.. A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money If they wish their children to benefit from their wealth they can do so without incurring IT. Of their children then spend that money, it has the same effect as them spending it - it’s an economic boost. Hoarding money doesn’t help the economy." IHT makes the situation even worse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income.. A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money If they wish their children to benefit from their wealth they can do so without incurring IT. Of their children then spend that money, it has the same effect as them spending it - it’s an economic boost. Hoarding money doesn’t help the economy. IHT makes the situation even worse " It’s ok, you don’t understand Keynes. That’s not an offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable." "Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income." " A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning." I agree. But now that person is dead, and cannot enjoy the fruits of their sagacity. "Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money" And they can do that by just ... giving the money to their children. They don't have to wait until they die to do that. And all parents want their children to have a good life. Does that mean that the government should ignore all that unearned income that, if it came from any other source, would normally be taxed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income. A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. I agree. But now that person is dead, and cannot enjoy the fruits of their sagacity. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money And they can do that by just ... giving the money to their children. They don't have to wait until they die to do that. And all parents want their children to have a good life. Does that mean that the government should ignore all that unearned income that, if it came from any other source, would normally be taxed?" Absolutely. Inheritance tax is paid by idiots Potentially exempt transfers do not require anything over average intelligence to comprehend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inheritance tax simply penalises the financially responsible. The threshold is far too low . Hopefully the government may consider abolishing it in the budget . Collecting tax from the dead is hardly fair or acceptable. Except that everything you say is completely wrong. Inheritance tax affects those people who are inheriting the money. They did nothing at all to earn it. It's not a tax collected from financially responsible dead people, it's a tax levied on live people that are receiving unearned income.. A bizarre comment . A lot was probably undertaken to achieve a lifetime of earning. Most financially responsible people want their children to benefit. from their hard work or money If they wish their children to benefit from their wealth they can do so without incurring IT. Of their children then spend that money, it has the same effect as them spending it - it’s an economic boost. Hoarding money doesn’t help the economy. IHT makes the situation even worse " I'm afraid you fell into the loaded BS, hence my comment of not getting drawn in. The thread was about recession and the amount of comments on the subject that were purely opinion exposed the progressive claptrap for what it was, hence the change of tact to IHT. You and I both know that we have paid taxes on everything we have earned and purchased, it is not enough for some people who love nothing more than demanding monies be paid in to an imaginary wealth fund for the poor. These same people tend to contribute less, and campaign for more as long as it is not their money or belongings. It is best to ignore, as I said the topic change was loaded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
