This is a really helpful answer thanks. I understand the first 2 sentences of the 2nd paragraph, can you ELI5 the rest of the paragraph?
Comment on Where has the tax money "saved" in uk austerity gone?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
The money went to the budget deficit. Typically, a government takes on an amount of debt to effectively pay for today’s problems with tomorrow’s (devalued via inflation) currency, assuming that their interest rates are less than the rate of inflation. Austerity measures are designed to catch up on the repayment of the debt.
The austerity measures disproportionately impacted the poorest households, while the wealthiest bore a much smaller burden. Spending cuts impacted the social security and public services the poor households rely on. The top rate of income tax was reduced, which left more money for the richest households. Quantitative easing shoved money into the financial system, which made loans easier to come by, which drove up prices of assets such as homes, which made those who owned them wealthier while those who didn’t own property are now unable to buy.
The UK can pay someone to make sure that farm shops have slate roofs, and an inspector to ensure 16 mile radius goods sold there, but won’t fund social housing or medical care. The rich get what they want, and the poor get fucked.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 3 days ago
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
Income tax rates go up like this (purely example) 0-20000 - 10% 20-40000 - 15 40-80000 - 20 80-100000 - 30 100-150000 - 40 150000+ 45%
If you make 75000 in this example, you’re taxed 10% on the first 20k, then 15% on the next 20k, then 20% on the remaining 15k, so 2000 + 3000 + 4500.
Lowering the top rate of income tax means that the people who earn more than whatever the limit is (150k in this example) pay less tax. Generally, the consensus is that the rates should shift to the higher income rather than the other way around.
Quantitative easing is the government buying up bonds to support their value. If everyone stops paying their mortgage, the economy tanks because the bonds that represent those mortgages go to zero. If the government promises to buy some them in spite of the zero value, the value is propped up. The people who benefit, by and large, are capitalists (those who make their money from already having lots of money ie wealthy). But it makes the cost of loaning money lower, so it becomes easier to get a loan, which combined with limited housing leads to an increase in sale prices of houses.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 3 days ago
That’s really helpful thanks 😊
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
“It went to the billionaires” is the short version.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 2 days ago
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 2 days ago
That’s excellent thanks
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Nice write up. @LadyButterfly@reddthat.com
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Thanks mate 👍
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
I read this as “Queen Elizabeth made the debt a problem for some people” and was struggling to figure out what she had done or said in 2008 that influenced this, before I eventually realized you meant “Quantitative easing”
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 days ago
She didn’t help much either though.
NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The Sovereign Grant was some £86 million, which certainly sounds like a lot, but the reality is that heads of state are actually just really expensive no matter whether you have a republic or a monarchy. Maybe you could argue that a president could just quietly exist in the background while people expect a monarchy to be lavish and fancy, at least to a degree. There’s a lot of pomp and ceremony associated with the head of state, because they not only represent the government of a country but also serve as a cultural symbol for the nation as a whole.
For comparison, in the US, excluding the policy departments within the Executive Office, the White House Office and Executive Residence and presidential salary budget lines totalled almost $94 million in FY 2025. This does not include the cost of Secret Service protection (paid by the Department for Homeland Security) nor does it include the cost of Air Force One trips (paid by the Department of Defence). And while Brits complain about their monarch not having to pay tax, I think the fact that the American president, or at least the current one, cheats on his taxes is also a somewhat open secret.
I’m American and technically also British despite never having been there (I hold a type of second class citizenship through Hong Kong), and I honestly think £86 million is a bargain for the UK monarchy considering their cultural draw and the fact that they’re not just the head of state of the UK but a dozen other countries as well.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 days ago
That was my main point, I wasn’t really talking about how expensive or otherwise they are (although admittedly it came from a misunderstanding of QE).
I’m from the UK, and it absolutely sickens me that we still have a monarchy, any monarchy (let alone this particular one). I’m opposed to monarchy in principle, and would be even if the specifics of our monarchy weren’t so repulsive.
Appreciate the detailed post, but the cost argument is just window-dressing for me. It’s the core concept I reject. Hopefully we can get shot of them one day.