The guardian article I twaddle on about in my lunch yesterday as was a bit cold to go out.
The debt figures can be quite distorted, under new labour things that would have been debt were put on to liability so could hide the real debt, this pre dated new labour but labour increased under the golden rule shift which had effect of shifting debt to liability.
The coalitions use quite a lot of propaganda on benefits for working age people there is also under coalition lots of transfer payments to support asset prices, although this also occurred under new labour. Transfer payments in effect through interest rates manipulation.
Many of the transfers the state makes are outside tax and spend and tend to get ignored. Insurance has value, and distortions have a cost if the state agrees to insure something it can cost some thing else even if never uses insurance.
Media fixate on transfer payments to the poorest people, but most transfers are not to the poorest. They focus on tax and spend, debt, government can also make transfers through legislation, in straight mock taxation, like the bag charge, a fixed charge by law spending is mandated through government, sure they may give a choice but this would be like having to pay a tax and then being given a list of different things to spend it on. The electricity mock tax where a charge put on then mandated to be spent on something else. This is effectively tax and spend that does not appear on tax and spend figures. Government put the charge on, government set what has to be spent on.
Subsidizing many better of people through asset insurance, interest rate manipulation, of houses market etc if left to own personal endeavours many people currently wealthy would have been wiped out finically yet the last 2 governments decided to insure private assets, assets are now entitled to benefits it would seem.
I remember reading about how in London people on housing benefits are getting moved out of some areas even if lived there for generations. As argument being that they could no afford to live in the areas. Yet part of the reason is due to government’s policy of inflating house prices the government’s manipulation. This is taking money from poorer renter in London owners of London property. It’s a transfer payment, rent being a function of house price even if long lags.
So to be “perverse” you could argue that part of the housing benefit that is paid to Londoner is compensation for the government manipulated the market and creating this extra cost above what the true market rate would be.
An alternative view for fun.
Millionaires claiming lunch money in parliament on all sides labour Tory, lib Dem, claiming the country is broke and yet claiming free lunch when they can affords to buy their own, when claiming the country can not afford benefits, It’s an entitlement culture for Mps. Of course they would argue its because they are worth it but of course someone may claim this about them self. The index they may use is compared to foreign countries. You could of course argue to be perverse British Mps are overpaid if used an index of say state pension or job seekers and compared this to some European countries where multiples of other state benefits would be less than the uk Mps.
More sillyness.
Mps may also claim they are worth tax payers money because responsibility? What responsibility is this? With out accountability can there be responsibility, MPs are protected from accountability finically, legally and physically in a way that few other jobs are. Many poor people are on a zero hour contract and can be sacked for no fault up to 2 years. Mps have a 5 year contracts with a pay of even if complete failure also legally protected from costs and losses through their actions even if what may be consider negligent in other sectors.
The other argument is that mps are paid on what they do or how hard they work? Well this is not the argument used for the poor people, as its what the market may pay.
Someone could work hard and paid legal minimum wage etc.
Mps will also claim that the independent body looks at there benefits and pay why the increase. They choose an independent body to so this, most people can not choose and independent body to use the criteria that mps body uses.
Indeed if an independent body looked at benefits they would likely say they are too low as some international bodies have.
In short what appears to happen is that governments transfer payments to poor are in straight, and then compared to an artificially created market rate one the government often influenced.
Benefits for the better of done through non cash, more subtle harder to measure, legal changes etc.
The media only understand the straight cash and spend figures internationally these are used for comparisons. Even basic things that are spend like pfi can get around the figures. The transfer in wealth from the markets being manipulated also property in compared to market rate have effectively transferred wealth.
The most simple is tax and spend, then shadow taxation in effect through legal requirements, then interest rate, insurance etc.
Still get tradionial things that are transfers of wealth from artificially created economic rents mandated through legislation which has effect of transferring wealth to people performing certain function or providing services that would be paid less in relation to the market.
If value is going to the poorer people may be in easily accessible units money etc that goes through tax and spend, value transferred to better or tends to be less accessible less transparent.
Although this is a guardian article so would not expect a great deal of rigour. Even in the economist etc mainly uses accessible and straight forward frames mainly or did when I read it before the pay wall got to big. A bias to figures that are accessible, the problem is if bias occurs in respect to accessible then can shift things from accessible to inaccessible and get largely ignored.
Things that don’t know need to be estimated or weighted or get distortions to metrics.
State propaganda silliness ?
The propaganda we seem to get on “state TV “ -) in respect to benefits and poor etc. I always think could make an alternative programs like benefit street could apply to mps, banks, lawyers, doctors any street, where could find “economic rent” cost to society, relativism
To be silly if just look at the cost of benefits if say a doctor was paid 10 percent more than the market rate, and then he would be more of cost than job seeker. Yes the doctor may contribute but is paid for that, this is an independent in respect to over payment in theory, as in theory the overpayment would be above what it took to get someone to do the job.
People notices unemployed people because think all money waste, if see doctors, even paid by the government so out the same source of benefits and they get overpaid above what the market rate may be, then waste money. But also banker, through subizidty to their industry, or a lawyer or accountant through government supported protection uncompetitive practices is also a tax on society in effect.
The government manipulation of assets has meant large shifts in value from some groups to others, this is akin to tax and spend it the state law makers taking from one group through another yet this is hard to estimate and harder slightly harder to grasp.
The current main parties are using quite propaganda against the poorer the young etc some people may say. Could equally be used against others its who controls the this more than any object truth in some peoples view, I did not vote in the referendum but may be was a missed opportunity for a new type of government. The concerns of labour /conservative being superficial may be need a new more democratic system a more representative system etc I don’t know really.
The market rate in respect to government is used more often in respect to the poor and weaker groups, the market rate is often a false one created in part governments this is almost never acknowledged smoke and mirrors are things better or is it an asset bubble don’t know really.