These frequent tax code changes are disrupting my long-term investment strategies. Are there ways to structure my investments to be more resilient to potential tax code modifications?
I honestly think UK needs a completely restructure of their political system. It is just not working. Keir Starmer being elected out of 300 million people to run the country is evidence for that too.
This is why the UK should elect more progressive politicians, who know how to manage budgets and give us (yes, pur country's initials literally spell out that pronoun) much better tax credits in return for better public education and better public healthcare. but since these are nonexistent, my wife and I are being guided to finance our retirement and healthcare through a diversified investment portfolio
@@hasede-lg9hj How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financial future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financial future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
It doesn't help understanding then when the HMRC web site quotes this on tax account home pages "View your tax and National Insurance contributions and find out how the government spends your taxes."
You need to listen when he says that most in Government don't understand it either. You might want to watch other Videos about MMT. Doctor Stephanie Kelton has done some wonderful videos on the topic.
My guess is, for what its worth, that it would make it more difficult for Neoliberals to control government. If you understand how it works, you dont get a seat at the table.
@@andielines or if they make it look like they don't understand (when they do really) then they can play the game from a position of portrayed or actual ignorance?
When the Chinese rulers took your property they gave a receipt when the merchants used as a means of exchange as well as proof that they had paid tax ..
Great reinforcement of one of your core messages. The penny drop moment for me came when understanding who ends up with the money governments create. New money starts its journey in the hands of ordinarily people who use it to pay for goods and services. It ends up in the hands of wealthy asset owners (I have nothing against them), ultimately resulting in asset price inflation (includes houses) unless the wealthy are taxed more. Thats why it is essential to tax the wealthy more, as they hold the money the govt creates. If we continue to get this wrong, the wealth gap widens. Left unchecked, one person would have all the money and everyone else starves. That doesnt even benefit the winner, so its the govts role to keep the game going. The level of disparity between rich and poor that each one of us considers acceptable could be said to define our political view, i.e. are we 'left' or 'right'.
Hey Mr. Murphy, would you mind making a video on the right timing of taxing back the money put in circulation earlier? To me it seems that's important to first find out how long money is circulation (depending on where it was injected into the economy) - and second to decide when to tax back how much or don't do it (specifically after crisises with extra-ordinary spending).
You have been banging on about this topic for ever - so what that spending comes before tax - I spend before I’m paid using credit. It doesn’t mean I don’t need to pay eventually.
Do you own the bank that's extending you credit? No, so you have to pay it back. The government does own the BofE, meaning it could borrow as much as it needs to fund all the infrastructure and services required to get the country working properly, provided it's more or less balanced by taxation.
@@blackbulldog4897 To avoid inflation, or deflation. Therefore increased government spending can be a tool to correct inequality, spend more and tax the wealthy.
@@garysmith5025 Taxation has multiple functions, primarily to drain demand so there are resources available for govt to use, drive demand for the currency etc. I'm of the opinion our govt should use it's fiscal power to organise the resources at it's disposal for the public good. Taxing the wealthy probably won't do anything productive at all.
Professor Murphy, If it is not too much of a trouble, would you shed some light on the topic of direct tax and how it is linked to the economic activities in the country.
Thanks Richard. I’m 72 years old and finally understand how tax works. Government spend hopefully wisely!) then society pays tax to pay off the government loan it took out from the Bank of England.
Not really a loan. That's the point. The governemnt technically doesn't need to borrow its own money - at least if you regard government and the central bank as a "state union". The governemnt basically only "orders" the BoE to perform payments via the Treasury, jot borrowing it before. However, recent governments want to let it loo like they take loans
The tax isn't to pay off the government Loan. It is not a loan, it is a creation of money by the Bank of England for the government. The tax is There to control inflation.
Where can we view the UK English government's accounts? Surely there's a record of income and expenditure, detailed graphs and all that so its all 'transparent'. It's okay I know thats daft and not how it works, be useful to see though!
Unfortunately government constrains us by failing to subscribe to MMT (modern monetary theory) as explained here. Why? I suspect it's about keeping control in the hands of banks to protect the wealth of the few. Why must we work for the benefit of the financial sector when it should work for society? A further dilemma on the state balance sheet is the lack of assets. We have sold them off and most are owned by private companies and foreign governments. This means that we need to use an overdraft for investment, to stimulate growth. Many say that Brown sold off the gold. More serious imo is that Thatcher started a fire sale of our national infrastructure. It was sold far too cheaply for the benefit of private profit and the lie of trickle down.
More generally I think its to support the neo-liberal myth that the private sector is the real wealth creator and the government's job is merely to get out of their way. Of course the GFC of 2008/9 and subsequent bail out of banks by government should have destroyed that myth once and for all but clearly a lot of people have a lot invested (literally and metaphorically!) in maintaining it. More difficult to justify or explain is the collusion of the media and pundit class.
Could you do a video on how money circulates, and each time it passes hands the government get a cut via tax. I am fed up with ignorant politicians saying a programme has 'cost' the government x billion dollars. It is not a one off transaction. All the money a government spends passes hands from the original recipient to the next, for example plumber, to the next, for example dentist, to the next, for example groceries (the shop keeper is taxed on the profit), and so on and so on, and I have calculated the government in Aus get over 90% back within 2 years and eventually all of it back.
Hi Richard J Murphy, I think you should be aware that taxation comes in two distinct forms, income tax and spending tax, on of them works by reducing the amount of money that people have as disposable income and the other reduces the value of purchases. The effect these have on a economy is that one encourages spending which tends toward inflation the other encourages savings which can reduce inflation. The system could be used to control inflation in a fully dynamic manner by frequent adjustments to the relative levels of income versus spending taxes while the authorities retain the exact same level of revenues. The other significant ways that taxation can be applied is as you suggest to regulate otherwise random 'market forces', in which some industries during their rapid expansive phase tend to generate higher levels of profit regardless of value while older businesses that are essential are deprived of needed investment. Probably the best way of arranging this as an effective control mechanism would be taxation rates for business related to relative changes in total turnover by charging higher raters on those showing the most rapid expansion. Cheers, Richard.
The incidence of taxes on wages is on the employer. The incidence of sales taxes is mostly on sellers and producers. The combined effect of these taxes is an economy at least 30% smaller than it would be if taxes were not just a punishment for honest work
Income tax comes out of an employees wage. It's only that we are taxed at source so the employer is responsible paying that to the govt. The employer is NOT paying that tax. If we were not taxed at source it would be the employees responsibility to pay@@physiocrat7143
How and why can the bank of England charge interest on its loans to the government? If the only money in circulation is what has been created by the bank, how can they expect to be paid back more?
Thank you for this explanation. It makes perfect sense. Would you please discuss the reason for the government issuing bonds? (In the US there's the understanding that the Treasury has to issue bonds to fund its overdraft with the Federal Reserve. I have the feeling you will disagree with this belief. I would love to hear your response.)
Also, tax is what gives a currency value, forcing tax to be paid in Sterling create demand for Sterling, otherwise we might as well be using dollars or Euros.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Your answer just shows how gullible and lazy people are. I doubt if you have researched what happens to the money that you paid into your council's bank account. I expect that you also wore a mask, had the jab and obeyed the lockdown. I din none of those and also haven't paid council tax for 5 years. You might be offended by the above. I am offended by the lazy stupidity of my fellow countrymen who by their stupidity are taking me down with them.
@@johntimbrell I researched it and made sure, but obviously you have not. It goes straight to the council's bank account- you clearly have not checked and all the jibes in your comment not only apply to you but highlight a lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking. You have swallowed nonsense from sov cit websites without questioning it.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu You have not checked where the money goes.after you pay it into the council's bank account. OK! I accept that I may have come to a wrong judgement but I have to trust my research which so far means that I haven't paid council tax for five years. Yo continue to pay yours but guess what? Your money will go to pay for hotel bills of illegal immigrants while some of our fellow countrymen. are homeless. I despair how ignorant my countrymen are. I'm 82 and now with a clean driving record I am being charged £3700 to tax my vehicle. The evil government are taking control and people like you are helping them. Wake up.
@@johntimbrell Are you paying the money saved from council tax towards the homeless of our country, do you use it to dispose of your house hold waste? Sounds like you might be sponging off there rest of your community.
Unless im mistaken, John Major's government ran a surplus at points and didnt cause either deflation or recession by doing so. MMT is a theory with a political underpinning and as such we should be suspicious
@@patrickokeeffe-i7i that's also very true! Not saying that that is better, but I think this guy presents disputed and motivated theory as fact in a (slightly) disingenuous way
Given that infaltion is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, wouldn't the more productive way of tackling it be to increase the amount of "goods" by maximising the productive capacity of the workforce and potential workforce via some form of job guarentee scheme rather than reducing the supply of money by some half baked drive to austerity which necessarily damges public services and impoverishes large numbers of citizens?
Yes and no! The lack of goods isn't necessarily at a national level. The latest inflation spike was cause solely by a global shortage of natural gas following Russia's antics, the price of gas rose and was passed on to products which come from it such as electricity, ammonia, fertiliser, plastics, etc. Gas prices fell back and inflation followed. Basically I'm saying, as long as the government more or less balances increased public spending with taxation it can ignore inflation as it's more usually caused by external influences. So, as you suggest, there is no reason for austerity quite the opposite in fact; unless you're following a 250 year old theory of economics which is what the majority of politicians learned at Oxford.
If second and third tiers of government rely upon the raising of revenue from society to pay for their programs, then why maintain this model if it doesn't work effectively? Could they remain in place, if this is required to more efficiently deliver programs but be funded by the first/top level of government? Meanwhile, we have many, many services, infrastructure, systems in decline, falling apart etc. that the second and third tiers of government say they can't sustain.
Deflation doesn't affect the timing of decisions to buy demand inelastic goods and services. With demand elastic goods and services it's different and waiting for prices to fall in the January sales, etc, is routine. Maybe we should question more closely this gospel of the economy needing some inflation and ask whose interests it actually serves.
@@fburton8 : if the economy cycles between low-moderate inflation and low-moderate deflation, I don't see the harm. What might be worse is intervening to artificially create and sustain at all times a built in level of inflation.
Exactly! I just cant get my head around this whole 'inflation' trope. I may be being a bit dense here, but it is constantly trotted out to defend one side of the equation that 'creating more money leads to inflation' But how? We are no longer on any gold standard. Talk of inflation may affect people's behaviour and thus become self-fulfilling, but that's not a direct 'economic mechanism', is it?
I was wondering about this, I know its the theory but have we ever had a period of steady deflation to test it in reality? From my own experience I only buy stuff when I need it and couldn't delay my purchases without getting cold or hungry, but I don't have a lot of spare cash and don't buy luxury items so it may be different for wealthy people.
@@fburton8 : I'm not sure how free any country is to break with the orthodoxies. I'm querying the orthodoxy from the angle that I'm never shielded from states of inflation that are against my interests but I am blocked from enjoying any periods of deflation during which, I believe, I would feel beneficial effects.
Governments that create fiat currency do not need to tax because they need currency but do need to impose taxes to give you they impression that is the only way they extract wealth from you..inflation of the currency supply which reduces its buying power..
Tax guarantees demand for the currency as everyone needs it to pay taxes. The monetary cycle is a bit like the water cycle. You can't stop the process because you don't like evaporation. We want to understand it and harness it. Currently our leaders pretend it doesn't exist - tragically - and whinge about scarcity while pissing in gold plated urinals 😹
Sooo...taxes reimburse the Governments spending habit? And the Government can write policy so as to engineer which groups or stratas of society are more exposed to various taxes? Statutory Slavery anyone?
New money comes from both govt spending and private bank lending, typically for mortgages. In both cases, the money is numbers typed into a ledger, ie. new money created out of thin air. Bank of England says the majority of new money is created by private banks. It might be as high as 97%. (It's difficult to tell because they break money down into different types) REF: Money Creation in the Modern Economy, by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas, of Bank of England’s Monetary Analysis Directorate
After listening to this, I still don't understand what happens to the revenue that is returned to the (first) tier of government through various taxes. The video presents an absolute position, that is, it is only created money that is used to used to fund the programs of (the first tier of) government. Maybe what's not being said is that the first tier of government actually provides revenue (i.e. from the taxes it collects) to partly fund the second level of government (and maybe the third level in cases?).
But on a serious note, how did we as the electorate make our politicians realise we do understand how things work and make them listen so they take it on board we are not mugs anymore
@@terryboland3816 you’re in the comments looking for arguments and disparaging Richard, without offering any alternative information. Who’s the mug, pal?
I think it’s more the former as they don’t seem to understand. They are neoliberal to the core it seems. As it plays into big businesses favour, it’s allowed to perpetuate.
Another great and wise video. We are fighting the wealthy Right that wants small or no government (except to protect their assets and entitlements). We, the people, are losing. But we must fight.
This is nonesene. This is what we call Reotractive Continuity. The fact that the Government is running constant deficit, and that its essentially funded with inflation, does NOT mean it should be this way. This argument is essentially gashligthing people into believeing that this was always the plan. First of all, this has only really been possible with the change to full FIAT money since the 1970s. Second, it only is really tolerated while the increases in the standard of living exceeds the cost imposed by inflation. Third of all, YOU better argue that this is a better system than the alternative. We do know this: We are plenty capable of growing our economies without excessive money printing. Excessive money printing is parasitical behviour. Why? We dont know when, how much, or why, it is simple done. We should not be so quick to come to accept it as an acceptable part of our daily life.
"it owns its own bank and is the only 4:23 person who is allowed to literally 4:26 create money "? “ . . . the central bank only creates 3% of the 24:10 money supply and the correct answer is 24:14 the majority the vast majority 97% of 24:18 the money supply is created by the banks 24:20 when they lend money ”?
@@Nhoj737 do you know where he gets the 97% figure from? If you look at the available figures for the UK it looks more like 45/55 CB/retail banks if you compare ons releases and BoE "Money and Credit Tables".
@@GhostOnTheHalfShellpublic debt is private savings so national debt is never an issue. However, too much Private debt that commercial banks lend can be a big problem. Remember Northern Rock, it looks couldn't borrow short term money got badly burnt and had to be rescued by BoE.
I'm afraid your answer is functionally incorrect. Governments since the 1960s have functionally operated in a global financial system where money creation has been largely outsourced to banks. The vast amount money in circulation globally (global M2) is not cash (2%) but bank credit (95%), the other being central bank reserve credits (3%). Those bank credits are generated by the banks issuing loans, and the volume of the money banks create fluctuates as those loans are issued and repaid. And this process happens independently of central banks and governments. It is controlled and operated offshore in the global financial markets. So, governments have chosen to let this global financial system take over money creation since the late 1960s.
!!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of information can be a big hurdle. I've been making more than $100k passively by just investing through an advisor, and I don't have to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my finances remain secure. So I really don't blame people who panic.
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Ruth Ann Tsakonas passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not only effective but also enjoyable.
Entrepreneurs like me can never get bank loans, the few that can are offered short terms, high interest rates. The UK sucks for entrepreneurs. MIGRATE!
Banks like mortgages because they are less risky than business loans. This is part of what's wrong with our economy. Too much money created for speculative activity in real estate, rather than investment in productive economy. I expect all Neoliberal economies have the same problem. I know Canada has a similar property bubble problem, homes are unaffordable
sounds dumb and maybe you have already done a video on it but, if the government spends 60billion on investing in infrastructure but its just from the overdraft from the bank of england, how will that extra money cause hyper inflation? is is because the money will get to lots of people and because they have more money to spend businesses increase their prices because they know their customers can afford it?
I can't help but think all this MMT stuff only really makes sense once people actually believe in it. At the end of the day tax and spend is still the consensus opinion for financial markets so it is truth
It's observable fact, it's how govt fiscal ops work every day. No need for any kind of belief system unless, of course, you are attempting to deny observable reality.
Yes, every sovereign government can create more money. Why are most circumspect in doing so? Because the currency would collapse on world markets, foreign investment would flee, and the IMF would demand that government to cease and desist such practices before they will bail them out. Just because you CAN do something does not mean it is a good idea to do so. Get real.
@@blackbulldog4897 None- unless you call them in. As has happened in the past. Then they have a great deal of power- and will not permit other than financial rectitude.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Correct, the IMF has zero power over the UK govt. So, why would a govt with it's own fiat, floating currency ever need the IMF for anything at all?
@@blackbulldog4897 Read your history. In 1976 the Labour government called in the IMF, asking for a £3.6B loan. Hang on- that cannot be right! According to Richard, a government cannot run out of money. Our history books must be lying to us, and those of us who lived through it suffering false memories. Or Richard is wrong. You choose...
Japan's debt/gdp ratio is currently 263% and has been over 100% since 2000. UK is currently close to 100%. In 1945 UK debt/gdp was at 250% and by 1963 it was down to 100% and 30% by 2000. Japan isn't booming any more like in the 60's - 80's, but AFAIK they haven't suffered any currency collapse, IMF intervention or investment flight. Everything works well (no potholes, great infrastructure, recovering from Fukushima and around 19 other earthquakes since 2000 as well as the 2008 bank bailouts. So how does Japan manage to get away with that, but nowadays the UK creating some more money s a guarantee of economic collapse?
While I find him deeply annoying because he talks about complex issues as if there are binary choices and answers which only he knows, in this case he is presenting this is both deeply stupid and down right dangerous. The control of monetary policy which he massively oversimplifies is ONE aspect of the whole. What he fails to point out is that tax’s does go to expenditure and interest on the debt that the Bank of England has borrowed. The fact that a seemingly intelligent man believes a country can just print its way out of debt is so unbelievable stupid that I assume he has a business degree and not an economics degree or A level for that matter. The truth of course he is so captured by his left wing views that he will believe anything if it supports his ideology.
No advocate of MMT or Keynesian economics thinks "a country can just print its way out of debt" in the way you describe. Why the need for such ludicrous straw man arguments?🙄
@@WarrenPeaceOG sorry warren I have re-read and assume I am putting forward the argument - ie creating a straw man - while I think he is. I think he is putting this forward hence the arched comment about Scotland and wales but also see his earlier video where he more specifically does so.
@@GodfreyMann This is the fellow who thinks the government can become infinitely wealthy by printing money and that taxes don't fund government services. Sounds like you're just as stupid as him. Go and learn about economics then come back and apologise.
@@terryboland3816 Don't be so disingenuous. You are not as stupid as you pretend to be. Murphy never said or implied the government can become infinitely wealthy by printing money - this is an idiotic straw man. You're a sh!tposting troll
These frequent tax code changes are disrupting my long-term investment strategies. Are there ways to structure my investments to be more resilient to potential tax code modifications?
I honestly think UK needs a completely restructure of their political system. It is just not working. Keir Starmer being elected out of 300 million people to run the country is evidence for that too.
This is why the UK should elect more progressive politicians, who know how to manage budgets and give us (yes, pur country's initials literally spell out that pronoun) much better tax credits in return for better public education and better public healthcare. but since these are nonexistent, my wife and I are being guided to finance our retirement and healthcare through a diversified investment portfolio
@@hasede-lg9hj How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financial future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financial future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
Annette Marie Holt is the licensed advisor I use. Just search the name. You’d find necessary details to work with to set up an appointment.
It doesn't help understanding then when the HMRC web site quotes this on tax account home pages "View your tax and National Insurance contributions and find out how the government spends your taxes."
No, it does help understanding. What doesn't help understanding is Bozo Murphy putting this sort of garbage on UA-cam.
@@terryboland3816 so, are you saying that he's getting wrong ? little confusing all this...where is the truth ?
You need to listen when he says that most in Government don't understand it either. You might want to watch other Videos about MMT. Doctor Stephanie Kelton has done some wonderful videos on the topic.
@@terryboland3816 🤡
@@terryboland3816 and you do? please enlighten us!
🏆 EXCELLENT! 🍻
Thanks for making this crystal clear
🏴✊🏻🏴
Taxing the Rich and Entitled has not been followed since wartime Inheritance and Earnings rates!
Your message needs spreading more often Richard! Why isn't it brought up every time in parliament, on question time, panel shows, TV interviews?
Massive ignorance and deception! Modern Monetary Theory has been around for decades
My guess is, for what its worth, that it would make it more difficult for Neoliberals to control government. If you understand how it works, you dont get a seat at the table.
@@andielines or if they make it look like they don't understand (when they do really) then they can play the game from a position of portrayed or actual ignorance?
Because it is nonsense on stilts?
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop
It's not nonsense but it is only part of the picture.
Excellent - Thank you.
It's also about forcing people to have and earn GBP, as taxes can only be paid in GBP.
When the Chinese rulers took your property they gave a receipt when the merchants used as a means of exchange as well as proof that they had paid tax ..
@@frederickfred2714 Any chance you get that translated into English? I have no idea what you're saying.
Great reinforcement of one of your core messages. The penny drop moment for me came when understanding who ends up with the money governments create. New money starts its journey in the hands of ordinarily people who use it to pay for goods and services. It ends up in the hands of wealthy asset owners (I have nothing against them), ultimately resulting in asset price inflation (includes houses) unless the wealthy are taxed more. Thats why it is essential to tax the wealthy more, as they hold the money the govt creates. If we continue to get this wrong, the wealth gap widens. Left unchecked, one person would have all the money and everyone else starves. That doesnt even benefit the winner, so its the govts role to keep the game going. The level of disparity between rich and poor that each one of us considers acceptable could be said to define our political view, i.e. are we 'left' or 'right'.
Hey Mr. Murphy, would you mind making a video on the right timing of taxing back the money put in circulation earlier?
To me it seems that's important to first find out how long money is circulation (depending on where it was injected into the economy) - and second to decide when to tax back how much or don't do it (specifically after crisises with extra-ordinary spending).
You have been banging on about this topic for ever - so what that spending comes before tax - I spend before I’m paid using credit. It doesn’t mean I don’t need to pay eventually.
Do you own the bank that's extending you credit? No, so you have to pay it back. The government does own the BofE, meaning it could borrow as much as it needs to fund all the infrastructure and services required to get the country working properly, provided it's more or less balanced by taxation.
@@billrigg1324 You are confusing yourself, a currency user, with the government, the currency issuer.
@@garysmith5025 Well, whatever we can do we can afford is a truism.
Why do you think all spending has to be balanced by taxation?
@@blackbulldog4897 To avoid inflation, or deflation. Therefore increased government spending can be a tool to correct inequality, spend more and tax the wealthy.
@@garysmith5025 Taxation has multiple functions, primarily to drain demand so there are resources available for govt to use, drive demand for the currency etc.
I'm of the opinion our govt should use it's fiscal power to organise the resources at it's disposal for the public good.
Taxing the wealthy probably won't do anything productive at all.
Professor Murphy,
If it is not too much of a trouble, would you shed some light on the topic of direct tax and how it is linked to the economic activities in the country.
Thanks Richard. I’m 72 years old and finally understand how tax works. Government spend hopefully wisely!) then society pays tax to pay off the government loan it took out from the Bank of England.
Not really a loan. That's the point. The governemnt technically doesn't need to borrow its own money - at least if you regard government and the central bank as a "state union".
The governemnt basically only "orders" the BoE to perform payments via the Treasury, jot borrowing it before.
However, recent governments want to let it loo like they take loans
The tax isn't to pay off the government Loan. It is not a loan, it is a creation of money by the Bank of England for the government. The tax is There to control inflation.
Before I watch, I understand it as destroying excess money at the points of inflation.
Let's go......
Nicely put, especially the last piece . The people who are in charge, don’t actually understand how tax works that made me chuckle.
It's naive in the extreme to believe these neoliberal ghouls don't know what they are doing.
Where can we view the UK English government's accounts? Surely there's a record of income and expenditure, detailed graphs and all that so its all 'transparent'. It's okay I know thats daft and not how it works, be useful to see though!
You can't view the UK English government's accounts, they don't exist. They don't exist because there is no such thing as the UK English government.
Check the Whole of Government Accounts.
Liquidity and trade deficits are the biggest factors in collecting tax and getting the money back into the treasury.
Council tax goes in the general fund pot. Council funding comes direct from central government.
No, council tax goes directly into the council's bank account.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No it doesn’t. Just go look it up or ask them. Councils are simply tax collectors for central government.
Unfortunately government constrains us by failing to subscribe to MMT (modern monetary theory) as explained here. Why? I suspect it's about keeping control in the hands of banks to protect the wealth of the few. Why must we work for the benefit of the financial sector when it should work for society? A further dilemma on the state balance sheet is the lack of assets. We have sold them off and most are owned by private companies and foreign governments. This means that we need to use an overdraft for investment, to stimulate growth. Many say that Brown sold off the gold. More serious imo is that Thatcher started a fire sale of our national infrastructure. It was sold far too cheaply for the benefit of private profit and the lie of trickle down.
More generally I think its to support the neo-liberal myth that the private sector is the real wealth creator and the government's job is merely to get out of their way. Of course the GFC of 2008/9 and subsequent bail out of banks by government should have destroyed that myth once and for all but clearly a lot of people have a lot invested (literally and metaphorically!) in maintaining it. More difficult to justify or explain is the collusion of the media and pundit class.
MMT isn't something that's subscribed to or not, it describes how our fiat money system works, now, today.
Could you do a video on how money circulates, and each time it passes hands the government get a cut via tax. I am fed up with ignorant politicians saying a programme has 'cost' the government x billion dollars. It is not a one off transaction. All the money a government spends passes hands from the original recipient to the next, for example plumber, to the next, for example dentist, to the next, for example groceries (the shop keeper is taxed on the profit), and so on and so on, and I have calculated the government in Aus get over 90% back within 2 years and eventually all of it back.
Hi Richard J Murphy, I think you should be aware that taxation comes in two distinct forms, income tax and spending tax, on of them works by reducing the amount of money that people have as disposable income and the other reduces the value of purchases. The effect these have on a economy is that one encourages spending which tends toward inflation the other encourages savings which can reduce inflation.
The system could be used to control inflation in a fully dynamic manner by frequent adjustments to the relative levels of income versus spending taxes while the authorities retain the exact same level of revenues.
The other significant ways that taxation can be applied is as you suggest to regulate otherwise random 'market forces', in which some industries during their rapid expansive phase tend to generate higher levels of profit regardless of value while older businesses that are essential are deprived of needed investment.
Probably the best way of arranging this as an effective control mechanism would be taxation rates for business related to relative changes in total turnover by charging higher raters on those showing the most rapid expansion.
Cheers, Richard.
The incidence of taxes on wages is on the employer. The incidence of sales taxes is mostly on sellers and producers. The combined effect of these taxes is an economy at least 30% smaller than it would be if taxes were not just a punishment for honest work
Income tax comes out of an employees wage. It's only that we are taxed at source so the employer is responsible paying that to the govt. The employer is NOT paying that tax. If we were not taxed at source it would be the employees responsibility to pay@@physiocrat7143
How and why can the bank of England charge interest on its loans to the government? If the only money in circulation is what has been created by the bank, how can they expect to be paid back more?
Is "consent" really the right word?
Surely acquiesce, be hoodwinked, or be statutorily coerced are better terms...
Thank you for this explanation. It makes perfect sense. Would you please discuss the reason for the government issuing bonds? (In the US there's the understanding that the Treasury has to issue bonds to fund its overdraft with the Federal Reserve. I have the feeling you will disagree with this belief. I would love to hear your response.)
Also, tax is what gives a currency value, forcing tax to be paid in Sterling create demand for Sterling, otherwise we might as well be using dollars or Euros.
What is that link between inequality levels and overall income levels you mentioned? Is that a graph?
@Richard J Murphy. Council tax does go straight to the treasury. They then give it back with controls.
Nope, Council tax goes directly to the council's bank account, and this is easy to check.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Your answer just shows how gullible and lazy people are. I doubt if you have researched what happens to the money that you paid into your council's bank account. I expect that you also wore a mask, had the jab and obeyed the lockdown. I din none of those and also haven't paid council tax for 5 years. You might be offended by the above. I am offended by the lazy stupidity of my fellow countrymen who by their stupidity are taking me down with them.
@@johntimbrell I researched it and made sure, but obviously you have not. It goes straight to the council's bank account- you clearly have not checked and all the jibes in your comment not only apply to you but highlight a lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking. You have swallowed nonsense from sov cit websites without questioning it.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu You have not checked where the money goes.after you pay it into the council's bank account. OK! I accept that I may have come to a wrong judgement but I have to trust my research which so far means that I haven't paid council tax for five years. Yo continue to pay yours but guess what? Your money will go to pay for hotel bills of illegal immigrants while some of our fellow countrymen. are homeless. I despair how ignorant my countrymen are. I'm 82 and now with a clean driving record I am being charged £3700 to tax my vehicle. The evil government are taking control and people like you are helping them. Wake up.
@@johntimbrell Are you paying the money saved from council tax towards the homeless of our country, do you use it to dispose of your house hold waste? Sounds like you might be sponging off there rest of your community.
Unless im mistaken, John Major's government ran a surplus at points and didnt cause either deflation or recession by doing so. MMT is a theory with a political underpinning and as such we should be suspicious
Neo liberal economics has a political underpinning and I’m definitely suspicious
@@patrickokeeffe-i7i that's also very true! Not saying that that is better, but I think this guy presents disputed and motivated theory as fact in a (slightly) disingenuous way
Given that infaltion is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, wouldn't the more productive way of tackling it be to increase the amount of "goods" by maximising the productive capacity of the workforce and potential workforce via some form of job guarentee scheme rather than reducing the supply of money by some half baked drive to austerity which necessarily damges public services and impoverishes large numbers of citizens?
Yes and no! The lack of goods isn't necessarily at a national level. The latest inflation spike was cause solely by a global shortage of natural gas following Russia's antics, the price of gas rose and was passed on to products which come from it such as electricity, ammonia, fertiliser, plastics, etc. Gas prices fell back and inflation followed.
Basically I'm saying, as long as the government more or less balances increased public spending with taxation it can ignore inflation as it's more usually caused by external influences. So, as you suggest, there is no reason for austerity quite the opposite in fact; unless you're following a 250 year old theory of economics which is what the majority of politicians learned at Oxford.
If second and third tiers of government rely upon the raising of revenue from society to pay for their programs, then why maintain this model if it doesn't work effectively? Could they remain in place, if this is required to more efficiently deliver programs but be funded by the first/top level of government? Meanwhile, we have many, many services, infrastructure, systems in decline, falling apart etc. that the second and third tiers of government say they can't sustain.
Deflation doesn't affect the timing of decisions to buy demand inelastic goods and services. With demand elastic goods and services it's different and waiting for prices to fall in the January sales, etc, is routine. Maybe we should question more closely this gospel of the economy needing some inflation and ask whose interests it actually serves.
@@fburton8 : if the economy cycles between low-moderate inflation and low-moderate deflation, I don't see the harm. What might be worse is intervening to artificially create and sustain at all times a built in level of inflation.
Exactly! I just cant get my head around this whole 'inflation' trope. I may be being a bit dense here, but it is constantly trotted out to defend one side of the equation that 'creating more money leads to inflation' But how? We are no longer on any gold standard. Talk of inflation may affect people's behaviour and thus become self-fulfilling, but that's not a direct 'economic mechanism', is it?
I was wondering about this, I know its the theory but have we ever had a period of steady deflation to test it in reality? From my own experience I only buy stuff when I need it and couldn't delay my purchases without getting cold or hungry, but I don't have a lot of spare cash and don't buy luxury items so it may be different for wealthy people.
@@andielines Too much money chasing too few goods is what you need to understand. In other words, supply and demand.
@@fburton8 : I'm not sure how free any country is to break with the orthodoxies. I'm querying the orthodoxy from the angle that I'm never shielded from states of inflation that are against my interests but I am blocked from enjoying any periods of deflation during which, I believe, I would feel beneficial effects.
My favorite tax comment: “How much money did you make last year? Send it in.”
Governments that create fiat currency do not need to tax because they need currency but do need to impose taxes to give you they impression that is the only way they extract wealth from you..inflation of the currency supply which reduces its buying power..
Cosa?
Tax guarantees demand for the currency as everyone needs it to pay taxes. The monetary cycle is a bit like the water cycle. You can't stop the process because you don't like evaporation. We want to understand it and harness it. Currently our leaders pretend it doesn't exist - tragically - and whinge about scarcity while pissing in gold plated urinals 😹
It's really quite simple. It works to pay for HS2 and a failed Brexit.
Sooo...taxes reimburse the Governments spending habit? And the Government can write policy so as to engineer which groups or stratas of society are more exposed to various taxes?
Statutory Slavery anyone?
My understanding was money is lent not spent into economy. Picked it up in film showing at Sundance.
New money comes from both govt spending and private bank lending, typically for mortgages. In both cases, the money is numbers typed into a ledger, ie. new money created out of thin air.
Bank of England says the majority of new money is created by private banks. It might be as high as 97%. (It's difficult to tell because they break money down into different types)
REF: Money Creation in the Modern Economy, by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas, of Bank of England’s Monetary Analysis Directorate
What film was it?
After listening to this, I still don't understand what happens to the revenue that is returned to the (first) tier of government through various taxes. The video presents an absolute position, that is, it is only created money that is used to used to fund the programs of (the first tier of) government. Maybe what's not being said is that the first tier of government actually provides revenue (i.e. from the taxes it collects) to partly fund the second level of government (and maybe the third level in cases?).
Not how deflation works.
But on a serious note, how did we as the electorate make our politicians realise we do understand how things work and make them listen so they take it on board we are not mugs anymore
You don't understand how things work. You're the sort of mug that Bozo Murphy is targeting.
By not voting for neoliberals.
You're a mug taking Murphy seriously 😂😂😂😂
@@terryboland3816 you’re in the comments looking for arguments and disparaging Richard, without offering any alternative information. Who’s the mug, pal?
@@GetGwapThisYear You are, because you believe what bozos on UA-cam say rather than studying economics for yourself.
When you say that the government is "the only person that is literally allowed to create money". What is happening when a commercial bank issues debt?
Politicians don't understand or deliberately mislead to suit their neoliberal agenda for big corps and big finance? The latter I'd suggest
Fat fingers?
I think it’s more the former as they don’t seem to understand. They are neoliberal to the core it seems. As it plays into big businesses favour, it’s allowed to perpetuate.
Another great and wise video.
We are fighting the wealthy Right that wants small or no government (except to protect their assets and entitlements).
We, the people, are losing.
But we must fight.
Pretty sure at this point that it's to keep us in our 'place'.
This is nonesene.
This is what we call Reotractive Continuity.
The fact that the Government is running constant deficit, and that its essentially funded with inflation, does NOT mean it should be this way.
This argument is essentially gashligthing people into believeing that this was always the plan.
First of all, this has only really been possible with the change to full FIAT money since the 1970s.
Second, it only is really tolerated while the increases in the standard of living exceeds the cost imposed by inflation.
Third of all, YOU better argue that this is a better system than the alternative.
We do know this:
We are plenty capable of growing our economies without excessive money printing.
Excessive money printing is parasitical behviour. Why?
We dont know when, how much, or why, it is simple done.
We should not be so quick to come to accept it as an acceptable part of our daily life.
"it owns its own bank and is the only
4:23 person who is allowed to literally
4:26 create money "?
“ . . . the central bank only creates 3% of the
24:10 money supply and the correct answer is
24:14 the majority the vast majority 97% of
24:18 the money supply is created by the banks
24:20 when they lend money ”?
Where did you get the 97% figure from?
@@blackbulldog4897 Prof. R A Werner
@@Nhoj737 do you know where he gets the 97% figure from?
If you look at the available figures for the UK it looks more like 45/55 CB/retail banks if you compare ons releases and BoE "Money and Credit Tables".
@@blackbulldog4897 I asked him via twitter: No reply!
Thanks Richard.
Roll on Scottish independence 🏴
thats the ultimate insider knowledge. 99.9999999% of human beings don´t know this.
Why should anyone trust a word you say when your second sentence begins with a number you clearly made up in your head?
Because it's garbage.Only thickos would believe it.
So if the Government wants growth, it must run a deficit and increase the national debt?
Yes, it's called structural deficit financing. It's used when economy is in recession or in need of stimulation.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell Shame Rachel Reeves doesn't understand this, she must of been trained as a monetarist, being a former BoE employee 😅
@@GhostOnTheHalfShellpublic debt is private savings so national debt is never an issue. However, too much Private debt that commercial banks lend can be a big problem. Remember Northern Rock, it looks couldn't borrow short term money got badly burnt and had to be rescued by BoE.
I'm afraid your answer is functionally incorrect. Governments since the 1960s have functionally operated in a global financial system where money creation has been largely outsourced to banks. The vast amount money in circulation globally (global M2) is not cash (2%) but bank credit (95%), the other being central bank reserve credits (3%). Those bank credits are generated by the banks issuing loans, and the volume of the money banks create fluctuates as those loans are issued and repaid. And this process happens independently of central banks and governments. It is controlled and operated offshore in the global financial markets. So, governments have chosen to let this global financial system take over money creation since the late 1960s.
@@CuriousCrow-mp4cx Yes! This!
!!I recently sold some of my long-term position and currently sitting on about 250k, do you think Nvidia is a good buy right now or I have I missed out on a crucial buy period, any good stock recommendation on great performing stocks or Crypto will be appreciated
As a beginner investor, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable.
Ruth Ann Tsakonas is my trade analyst, she has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I managed to grow a nest egg of around 120k to over a Million. I'm especially grateful to Adviser Ruth Ann Tsakonas, for her expertise and exposure to different areas of the market.
I don't really blame people who panic. Lack of
information can be a big hurdle. I've been
making more than $100k passively by just
investing through an advisor, and I don't have
to do much work. Inflation or no inflation, my
finances remain secure. So I really don't blame
people who panic.
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Ruth Ann Tsakonas passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not only effective but also enjoyable.
nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier. How can i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?
Entrepreneurs like me can never get bank loans, the few that can are offered short terms, high interest rates. The UK sucks for entrepreneurs. MIGRATE!
Banks like mortgages because they are less risky than business loans. This is part of what's wrong with our economy. Too much money created for speculative activity in real estate, rather than investment in productive economy. I expect all Neoliberal economies have the same problem. I know Canada has a similar property bubble problem, homes are unaffordable
Pure semantics. Tax and spend or spend and tax. It absolutely IS the same thing.
Poop and eat or eat and poop. It absolutely IS the same thing. Wait...
sounds dumb and maybe you have already done a video on it but, if the government spends 60billion on investing in infrastructure but its just from the overdraft from the bank of england, how will that extra money cause hyper inflation? is is because the money will get to lots of people and because they have more money to spend businesses increase their prices because they know their customers can afford it?
MMT is accurate. Just don't use it as an excuse to let the government spend unconstrained, because that is a big problem too.
I can't help but think all this MMT stuff only really makes sense once people actually believe in it. At the end of the day tax and spend is still the consensus opinion for financial markets so it is truth
It's observable fact, it's how govt fiscal ops work every day. No need for any kind of belief system unless, of course, you are attempting to deny observable reality.
Yes, every sovereign government can create more money. Why are most circumspect in doing so? Because the currency would collapse on world markets, foreign investment would flee, and the IMF would demand that government to cease and desist such practices before they will bail them out. Just because you CAN do something does not mean it is a good idea to do so. Get real.
How do you think govt fiscal ops work on a day to day basis?
What power do you think the IMF has over our sovereign government?
@@blackbulldog4897 None- unless you call them in. As has happened in the past. Then they have a great deal of power- and will not permit other than financial rectitude.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop Correct, the IMF has zero power over the UK govt.
So, why would a govt with it's own fiat, floating currency ever need the IMF for anything at all?
@@blackbulldog4897 Read your history. In 1976 the Labour government called in the IMF, asking for a £3.6B loan. Hang on- that cannot be right! According to Richard, a government cannot run out of money. Our history books must be lying to us, and those of us who lived through it suffering false memories. Or Richard is wrong. You choose...
Japan's debt/gdp ratio is currently 263% and has been over 100% since 2000. UK is currently close to 100%. In 1945 UK debt/gdp was at 250% and by 1963 it was down to 100% and 30% by 2000. Japan isn't booming any more like in the 60's - 80's, but AFAIK they haven't suffered any currency collapse, IMF intervention or investment flight. Everything works well (no potholes, great infrastructure, recovering from Fukushima and around 19 other earthquakes since 2000 as well as the 2008 bank bailouts. So how does Japan manage to get away with that, but nowadays the UK creating some more money s a guarantee of economic collapse?
While I find him deeply annoying because he talks about complex issues as if there are binary choices and answers which only he knows, in this case he is presenting this is both deeply stupid and down right dangerous. The control of monetary policy which he massively oversimplifies is ONE aspect of the whole. What he fails to point out is that tax’s does go to expenditure and interest on the debt that the Bank of England has borrowed. The fact that a seemingly intelligent man believes a country can just print its way out of debt is so unbelievable stupid that I assume he has a business degree and not an economics degree or A level for that matter. The truth of course he is so captured by his left wing views that he will believe anything if it supports his ideology.
Bush done it in the US after 2008 crash, so that's you talking shite.
No advocate of MMT or Keynesian economics thinks "a country can just print its way out of debt" in the way you describe. Why the need for such ludicrous straw man arguments?🙄
@@WarrenPeaceOG sorry are you reply to me as I think we are in agreement or him?
@@WarrenPeaceOG sorry warren I have re-read and assume I am putting forward the argument - ie creating a straw man - while I think he is. I think he is putting this forward hence the arched comment about Scotland and wales but also see his earlier video where he more specifically does so.
I’m sorry Richard but I’m afraid you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about…
Oh…that’s me out.. can’t listen to this guy any longer .. Byeee 🙄🙄🙄😎
Oh my God, Murphy is doubling down on his stupidity. What a bozo 😂😂😂😂😂
Eh? 😮
The only bozo here is the one with ad hominem attacks…explain why his argument is wrong or crawl back under your rock.
@@GodfreyMann This is the fellow who thinks the government can become infinitely wealthy by printing money and that taxes don't fund government services. Sounds like you're just as stupid as him. Go and learn about economics then come back and apologise.
@@terryboland3816 Don't be so disingenuous. You are not as stupid as you pretend to be. Murphy never said or implied the government can become infinitely wealthy by printing money - this is an idiotic straw man. You're a sh!tposting troll