NHS pay rise 1%

HolgateCorner said:
Thanks for posting this, it’s an interesting read.

I think one of the problems for me is that I have an instinct that you go to work and provide a product or a service to somebody and receive money for doing that.

If you earn enough you will pay income tax and that goes to central government for public spending.

The government then spends that money on the NHS, building roads, subsidising new forms of energy generation etc etc.

The public spending money comes from the efforts of people doing a day’s work and putting something tangible into the system and without going into fine detail what they get paid is generally a reflection of the value society places on what they do.

My understanding on a basic level is that MMT discards all that and says the government can supply, in theory, limitless money for public spending and provided inflation is controlled by taxation then we carry on.

This is a big change in how people see the economy working and it raises instinctive questions about the real value of money which will set all kinds of alarms going off for anybody with a private pension fund, investments, shares, savings, their own business etc in case the whole thing crashes and the paper value of everything becomes zero.

I do think people like yourself need to try to be more persuasive rather than adversarial in helping people like me to get my head around it (even when I’m misbehaving). I’m an open door, I hate the Tory austerity mantra and their manipulation of the electorate but the ‘balance the books’ approach has a simple equation which makes sense to normal people. This MMT is a big change which sounds too good to be true and it needs to be carefully sold.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with the article is it seems to suggest any money that the gvt doesn’t reclaim through taxes is saved. That’s not true it could very easily leave the country and that’s the other issue it doesn’t seem to consider other countries but just the uk in isolation.
It also suggest that the gvt controls all money and no mention of crypto currencies which the gvt does not control.
Finally if the gvt increases the money supply there is more money chasing the same amounts of goods and services and that’s when you have inflation. This approach hasn’t been that successful in the past so I’m not sure what has changed to make people think that it will work now.
 
Rofesleg said:
What is the reason for a big pay rise?

1. NHS staff are all underpaid

2. They deserve it as a reward for the last 12 months
Click to expand...
This is where it gets complicated though: all NHS or just essential workers? All essential workers or just clinical?

I've only been in post since 4th Jan. Do I deserve a rise as reward for the last 12 months? No, I don't

I'm classed as essential because of part of my role, but I am non-clinical, so do I deserve a pay rise? No, I don't

Am I underpaid so require a rise? My salary is comparable to my previous private sector role, so I don't feel particularly underpaid for my role, so based on that, I have to say no, I don't

Should those clinical, patient-facing staff, including HCAs, porters, etc who have bust a hump for the last 12 months get a pay rise? Yes, unquestionably

Should that rise be more the 1%? Yes, unquestionably

As part of the NHS family will I stand by my colleagues who in my view deserve a more than 1% rise? Yes, unquestionably
 
FatCat said:
The issue I have with the article is it seems to suggest any money that the gvt doesn’t reclaim through taxes is saved. That’s not true it could very easily leave the country and that’s the other issue it doesn’t seem to consider other countries but just the uk in isolation.
It also suggest that the gvt controls all money and no mention of crypto currencies which the gvt does not control.
Finally if the gvt increases the money supply there is more money chasing the same amounts of goods and services and that’s when you have inflation. This approach hasn’t been that successful in the past so I’m not sure what has changed to make people think that it will work now.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I’d probably be more concerned about the impact of inflation if I was a lot richer than I am.

The stakes, under any approach, are a lot higher for the very rich and I can understand the view that taxation and control of the money supply are largely used as weapons to keep the masses compliant with a system that benefits the rich.
 
FatCat said:
The issue I have with the article is it seems to suggest any money that the gvt doesn’t reclaim through taxes is saved. That’s not true it could very easily leave the country and that’s the other issue it doesn’t seem to consider other countries but just the uk in isolation.
Click to expand...
"Around £400 billion of the national debt is owned by foreign governments, which is good news. They do that because they want to hold sterling - our currency. And that's because that helps them trade with the UK, which is massively to our advantage."

FatCat said:
It also suggest that the gvt controls all money and no mention of crypto currencies which the gvt does not control.
Click to expand...
Can you pay your taxes in Bitcoin?

FatCat said:
Finally if the gvt increases the money supply there is more money chasing the same amounts of goods and services and that’s when you have inflation.
Click to expand...
This is how the system works now. It isn't a new-fangled idea that a new government can come in and introduce. It's how the economy operates. If inflation is such a problem then why were we able to create £37Bn for Covid out of thin air?

FatCat said:
This approach hasn’t been that successful in the past so I’m not sure what has changed to make people think that it will work now.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you re-read the linked thread and then go and do some more in-depth reading. This is exactly what happens now. If it wasn't successful then we wouldn't have an economy.

It's just that since Thatcher (and Reagan in the US) the "Household Budget" metaphor has been used by successive right-of-centre governments to set workers against each other and to favour donors who are invariably business owners and the independently wealthy.
 
Scrotes comments shouldn't really surprise anyone, money, like gold, has no intrinsic value, you can't eat it or build something with it, these days I am not sure you can even burn it for fuel.

Scrotes ridiculing of the comparison between a household budget and a nations budget is absoloutely correct.
 
Scrote said:
"Around £400 billion of the national debt is owned by foreign governments, which is good news. They do that because they want to hold sterling - our currency. And that's because that helps them trade with the UK, which is massively to our advantage."


Can you pay your taxes in Bitcoin?


This is how the system works now. It isn't a new-fangled idea that a new government can come in and introduce. It's how the economy operates. If inflation is such a problem then why were we able to create £37Bn for Covid out of thin air?


I'd suggest you re-read the linked thread and then go and do some more in-depth reading. This is exactly what happens now. If it wasn't successful then we wouldn't have an economy.

It's just that since Thatcher (and Reagan in the US) the "Household Budget" metaphor has been used by successive right-of-centre governments to set workers against each other and to favour donors who are invariably business owners and the independently wealthy.
Click to expand...
I can reread this many times I won’t be convinced - where and when has the print money approach been a success?
 
HolgateCorner said:
Thanks for posting this, it’s an interesting read.

I think one of the problems for me is that I have an instinct that you go to work and provide a product or a service to somebody and receive money for doing that.

If you earn enough you will pay income tax and that goes to central government for public spending.

The government then spends that money on the NHS, building roads, subsidising new forms of energy generation etc etc.

The public spending money comes from the efforts of people doing a day’s work and putting something tangible into the system and without going into fine detail what they get paid is generally a reflection of the value society places on what they do.

My understanding on a basic level is that MMT discards all that and says the government can supply, in theory, limitless money for public spending and provided inflation is controlled by taxation then we carry on.

This is a big change in how people see the economy working and it raises instinctive questions about the real value of money which will set all kinds of alarms going off for anybody with a private pension fund, investments, shares, savings, their own business etc in case the whole thing crashes and the paper value of everything becomes zero.

I do think people like yourself need to try to be more persuasive rather than adversarial in helping people like me to get my head around it (even when I’m misbehaving). I’m an open door, I hate the Tory austerity mantra and their manipulation of the electorate but the ‘balance the books’ approach has a simple equation which makes sense to normal people. This MMT is a big change which sounds too good to be true and it needs to be carefully sold.
Click to expand...
It's worth digging around and finding out more on the subject. I remember linking to a video on "How money is created" way back on the old board - probably knocking 20 years ago. These aren't new ideas. The "Modern" bit is possibly confusing but it separates this style of economics from the Gold Standard. It's been this way for the best part of 100 years.

The reason the household metaphor holds so much sway is because it's easy to understand and 'just makes sense'. The idea that huge economies are actually pretty simple is anathema to too many people - probably for the same reasons that 'maths is hard'. These feelings are played upon by people (politicians) that know how it works but want to manipulate the system to their advantage.

If you think long enough about reality vs Monetarism (the prevailing theory) you end up realising that the proponents of monetarism for other people don't practice what they preach when it comes to themselves and their supporters. It's all smoke and mirror style 'do as we say not as we do'.

Once you get past the semi-religious aspect of economics the rest all falls into place.

We have exactly the same problem of inflation with monetarism and MMT. It's how we deal with the creation side that changes. What actually happens is exactly the same. The creation comes before the taxation and always has.

MMT doesn't propose making everyone a billionaire - it's not even a particulalry leftist school of thought. It's probably more neutral - monetarism is more right-wing (old-school libertarian).

As far as persuading goes - I don't see that as my job. I'm not a salesman. This isn't a sales pitch.

The ideas are out there. Once you're aware of them it's entirely up to you whether you care enough to look. My only position is that if you argue against it then you need to provide a counter position - so far no-one has.

MMT isn't a change. It's just that the people in control of the money-flow don't want you to know about it. There is nothing to sell.
 
FatCat said:
I can reread this many times I won’t be convinced - where and when has the print money approach been a success?
Click to expand...
So if you're not convinced then explain why.

Stop inventing straw-men like "the print money approach". Or explain where the £37Bn for Track & Trace came from. It can't be hard if you're correct.

It just sounds as though you either haven't read or haven't understood. I'd guess the former but that might be being to kind.
 
Scrote said:
It's worth digging around and finding out more on the subject. I remember linking to a video on "How money is created" way back on the old board - probably knocking 20 years ago. These aren't new ideas. The "Modern" bit is possibly confusing but it separates this style of economics from the Gold Standard. It's been this way for the best part of 100 years.

The reason the household metaphor holds so much sway is because it's easy to understand and 'just makes sense'. The idea that huge economies are actually pretty simple is anathema to too many people - probably for the same reasons that 'maths is hard'. These feelings are played upon by people (politicians) that know how it works but want to manipulate the system to their advantage.

If you think long enough about reality vs Monetarism (the prevailing theory) you end up realising that the proponents of monetarism for other people don't practice what they preach when it comes to themselves and their supporters. It's all smoke and mirror style 'do as we say not as we do'.

Once you get past the semi-religious aspect of economics the rest all falls into place.

We have exactly the same problem of inflation with monetarism and MMT. It's how we deal with the creation side that changes. What actually happens is exactly the same. The creation comes before the taxation and always has.

MMT doesn't propose making everyone a billionaire - it's not even a particulalry leftist school of thought. It's probably more neutral - monetarism is more right-wing (old-school libertarian).

As far as persuading goes - I don't see that as my job. I'm not a salesman. This isn't a sales pitch.

The ideas are out there. Once you're aware of them it's entirely up to you whether you care enough to look. My only position is that if you argue against it then you need to provide a counter position - so far no-one has.

MMT isn't a change. It's just that the people in control of the money-flow don't want you to know about it. There is nothing to sell.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the above, I will have a look around.

I acknowledge you are not here to sell anything but you are posting your point of view on government economic policy, whether you like it or not you are entering the debate. I think as an intelligent poster with a valid argument it would be good to see you be less ‘robust’ and more persuasive, particularly if the likes of the Tories keep getting into power on the back of an alternative approach.
 
There's a simple way of paying for a fair rise, use some of the 350 million a week that we don't send to the EU to pay for it.
 
HolgateCorner said:
if the likes of the Tories keep getting into power on the back of an alternative approach.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the last approach at replacing the Tories was the opposite of 'robust' and people weren't interested.

In all honesty, I'm old enough now not to overly care. I'll post the information as I see it and if people want to vote Tory or Brexit or anything else then they're adults and they're entitled to do what they think is right for them.

I want a better society but I'm not going to struggle if we don't get one. That might seem a bit 'I'm alright Jack' but it's not meant as a gloat. It's just the reality of where we are.

I'll happily pay more tax if that's what it takes but I'm not going to lose any sleep if the rest of the country wants to sleepwalk into poverty.
 
Scrote said:
I'm pretty sure the last approach at replacing the Tories was the opposite of 'robust' and people weren't interested.

In all honesty, I'm old enough now not to overly care. I'll post the information as I see it and if people want to vote Tory or Brexit or anything else then they're adults and they're entitled to do what they think is right for them.

I want a better society but I'm not going to struggle if we don't get one. That might seem a bit 'I'm alright Jack' but it's not meant as a gloat. It's just the reality of where we are.

I'll happily pay more tax if that's what it takes but I'm not going to lose any sleep if the rest of the country wants to sleepwalk into poverty.
Click to expand...
I know where you are coming from, I’m a bit like that myself these days, you can take the horse to water and all that.
 
FatCat said:
I can reread this many times I won’t be convinced - where and when has the print money approach been a success?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of Quantitative easing?

Google it!!!! Also, every time a loan is taken out that is creating money. All money is literally created, the whole American economy is essentially a Ponzi scheme, they literally print 100s of billions a year to help service their debt and economy. Ours is a similar system. What do you think government bonds are? You think that's based on some random reserve of cash the government sits on?

You need to research how economies work and how the money supply and inflation are managed, what you are saying would be the downfall of our economy is exactly how the Tories and other previous governments have literally run our economy.
 
JonnyHistory said:
Have you ever heard of Quantitative easing?

Google it!!!! Also, every time a loan is taken out that is creating money. All money is literally created, the whole American economy is essentially a Ponzi scheme, they literally print 100s of billions a year to help service their debt and economy. Ours is a similar system. What do you think government bonds are? You think that's based on some random reserve of cash the government sits on?

You need to research how economies work and how the money supply and inflation are managed, what you are saying would be the downfall of our economy is exactly how the Tories and other previous governments have literally run our economy.
Click to expand...
The issue is this is a theory I have looked online and there are those for and against it like most thinks yet you talk to me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about - I know the theory I just don’t agree with it as many don’t.
 
Blf said:
Promised 2.1% which is now being renaged on. Shocking.
Click to expand...
Given this past increase was voted for in parliament I am not even sure the government can just change its mind without another vote, a vote they couldn't win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blf
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top