Submitted 2 days ago by LadyButterfly@reddthat.com to [deleted]
I genuinely don’t understand it. We had years and years of brutal public services cuts and them being ground to the bone, where’s the money gone? People around me just say “tax cuts/payoffs for billionaires” but idk if that’s verified
I live in the US and I am almost 60.
I have seen so many tax cuts in my life and I have never seen spending reductions. The they does a tax cut also just spent more.
I keep wondering when will people stop buying the lie of tax cuts……
I’m almost 40 and I’ve only ever seen tax cuts for the rich. My taxes have only gone up. I’d be fine with my taxes going up if the rich people’s taxes went up too, but I pay more taxes than Amazon.
Usually, it ends up in the hands of the elite.
Otherwise they wouldn’t lobby for it.
The Tories pissed it all into the channel as far as I can tell
Military contractors mostly. “More aid to Ukraine” is usually code for “we’re giving money to the US MIC”. Also the money isn’t “saved” in that it now exists somewhere and therefore has to have gone someplace to exist there, the government simply doesn’t borrow as much for those services anymore. Probably borrows a lot more for other stuff though so in the end it doesn’t even balance out.
Check out “Gary’s Economics” on YouTube… he does a great job explaining these type of things
I don’t know about UK specifically, but to pay off the national debt is a common argument for austerity.
Most of the politicians in power over the last decade or so made their friends in private business incredibly rich. Just think of the millions of pounds spent on covid masks that were either not delivered at all or were of such poor quality that they wouldn’t offer any protection. No one went to jail for that, but plenty of MP’s got paid I’m willing to bet.
There are several dials that can be tweaked to balance the budget. A (neo)liberal is for low taxes, small government, and selfcare. So their cuts, when the governments expenses are higher then the incomes, are in public services. And they won’t put it back, because that’s against their ideology.
But why cut social care and police? Even if you say medical care is down to the individual (hard disagree) why cut the police which they use, and social care which is important for children?
Two things, firstly the one thing that needs to be avoided at all costs is raising taxes. Since this robs working and succesful people from their personal ability to take care of themselves and their families. Secondly that there needs to be a class distinction between the people who take advantage of the system and those who don’t. That is to say that in their mind society is functioning in such a way that anybody can ‘make it’ through some effort. And that those who supposedly don’t put in the effort aren’t supposed to be cuddled and given handouts, as an incentive to put in the effort as well.
There is perfectly fine education, care and protection through private parties. Just hire those. You can’t? Well I guess you aren’t trying hard enough. We can concentrate police presence in criminal neighbourhoods. We can concentrate care and education in the neighbourhoods that do function correctly.
This is their ideology I’m describing, not my own, just to be clear. Im being sarcastic.
Reality is ofcourse more nuanced than what im saying, after all the neocon ideology needs to exist in the real world and adapt to it. Which mostly seems to lead to populism.
Pensions, benifits and servicing debt mostly.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 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.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 2 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 2 days ago
She didn’t help much either though.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 2 days ago
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?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 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.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
How government spending actually works.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 1 day ago
That’s excellent thanks
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Nice write up. @LadyButterfly@reddthat.com