-
I think, to follow your anology, the reasoning is that in helping those 5 members of your household you benefit the household. They stop suffering (which costs you money anyway - benefits) and contribute to household expenses (buying stuff and paying taxes).
-
With interest rates astonishingly low,
(I was paying 15% interest on my mortgage back in 90/91 due to the Lawson 'Boom'),
a competent Chancellor could explain that the multiplier of Government spending,
with a tax take on each transaction, slowly grows the economy, and (non-ZHC minimum wage) employment is cheaper for the Country than unemployment.
But if you are ideologically opposed to Public spending,
and, believe in 'market solutions' for every sector of the economy,
except strangely HS2,
why build anything?
You are reading a single comment by @yoshy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Fintan
mespilus
@yoshy
I guess it doesn't help that it seems counter intuitive that when the country is in debt, you need to spend more money to help getting out of that debt. Tbh I struggle to understand it, but I understand clearly that cutting local funding, services etc is NOT going to make the country a better place. I think the broad electorate understand that too: a lot of people voted out of the EU to free up some of the countrys money, but convincing everyone that spending more is the way to go is tough.
The way I tried to explain it to my dad was if I was the head of a 20 person household and I was in debt (but there was no urgent requirement to pay that debt back) and 5 of the 20 people in the house were suffering badly, I would borrow more to provide the means for them to progress out of that suffering.