The Lemon Fool

Sir Keir Starmer: Savings scheme would boost UK's recovery post-Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56101209

BBC wrote:The main policy the Labour leader put forward was a British Recovery Bond. A Labour government would offer people a savings account with the government at a competitive interest rate - similar to the previous National Savings and Investments bonds.

I know this is a silly question for politician's ideas, but are there any details anywhere? I couldn't find many details. Like who would run it (NS&I?), what the interest rate would be, what the tax status would be?

Maybe they could ask NS&I to run the new scheme.

Perhaps to encourage investment, they could offer a monthly prize draw. But in case they prove popular, they may need to limit individual holdings to something like £50,000.

Personally, I don't think the idea will catch on though

Anyway, surely the problem is not savings, it is the very opposite; the need to get the economy moving again and get money into it, spending. A second year economics undergrad would surely know that.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:Anyway, surely the problem is not savings, it is the very opposite; the need to get the economy moving again and get money into it, spending. A second year economics undergrad would surely know that.

Dod

But isn't the idea that we save so that the government can spend .... ("tongue", "cheek")

So the big idea is we invest our hard earned savings into 'recovery bonds' which the government then gifts to zombie companies, indebted businesses without cash flow to keep them alive. So instead of investing in growing companies where the share price goes up, we invest in companies that require continuous bailouts.

I know it sounds uncharitable but I've worked at a zombie company, and a loss making company and know large portions of the UK economy as just not feasible. Its low interest rates and bailouts which are keeping them going.

Of course opposition parties will make political capital always by promising more money.

Dod101 wrote:Anyway, surely the problem is not savings, it is the very opposite; the need to get the economy moving again and get money into it, spending. A second year economics undergrad would surely know that.

Dod

I'm not a first year yet

I know ... have coat and tent and am outside for the next week. And Dobby will iron his hands just for good measure.

I'd suggest that on this occasion it will be construction that leads the recovery? Although as an apprentice economics undergrad I may well be talking diatribe

AiY

Adamski wrote:So the big idea is we invest our hard earned savings into 'recovery bonds' which the government then gifts to zombie companies, indebted businesses without cash flow to keep them alive. So instead of investing in growing companies where the share price goes up, we invest in companies that require continuous bailouts.

I know it sounds uncharitable but I've worked at a zombie company, and a loss making company and know large portions of the UK economy as just not feasible. Its low interest rates and bailouts which are keeping them going.

Of course opposition parties will make political capital always by promising more money.

That takes some doing after our current "socialist" government.

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:April Fools day yet? Since when did any politician of any party know better than the individual how to spend money most effectively? The idea is a complete joke.

RVF

Not quite a complete joke. There are some forms of spending on massive projects which only governments can undertake. And stimulating economies has often been the task taken on by government by various methods - in truth, it is part of the remit of being in government.

However, I am reminded of one sage comment: "Why is it that governments always think they can spend your money better than you can yourself?".

Arb.

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:April Fools day yet? Since when did any politician of any party know better than the individual how to spend money most effectively? The idea is a complete joke.

RVF

I'm by no means an expert in macro economics. I do specialise in tongue in cheek comments which Times reporters can copy and paste at 10pm on a Saturday night when the red wine has run out I hold the reverse view about this situation. Although I hasten to add it's not based on 40 years experience of how to run a countries finances. I sort of feel that any ideas or thoughts which pass the "covid debt" into bonds owned by the population of the UK has some merit. The detail is way above my pay grade

In a sense we've been at war since the pandemic started. Only this time the enemy wasn't others of our own species. I'm interested in your opinion though as it may be that I am being too naïve about this and need a sharp slap around my inexperienced chops . Call it tough economic love

Take care and take it easy on me

AiY

There is a precedent, the War Bonds. As I recall, once they started to prove beneficial to the investor, HMG cashed up.

But why would they need a Bond? They have been printing it by the tens (or hundreds) of billionsand not even bothering to go through the charade of issuing gilts and then buying them in. Those hundreds of billions have NO interest cost.

This has been done by a Conservative government, so just imagine what a Sir Keir government would do? They talk of 'helicopter money' but they would be dropping from Jumbo jets!

scrumpyjack wrote:But why would they need a Bond? They have been printing it by the tens (or hundreds) of billionsand not even bothering to go through the charade of issuing gilts and then buying them in. Those hundreds of billions have NO interest cost.

This has been done by a Conservative government, so just imagine what a Sir Keir government would do? They talk of 'helicopter money' but they would be dropping from Jumbo jets!

Perhaps like Gordon they will go for matching the Tories on spending: i.e.promise to keep to the same pattern of borrowing like mad!

You have to admit, even before Covid, the Tories promising to spent like never before, like Labout in fact. The promises they came up with were quite astonishing for a Tory party.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:However, I am reminded of one sage comment: "Why is it that governments always think they can spend your money better than you can yourself?". Arb.

They can't. But "we" voted them in. Boris announced that £5bn of future budgets on social housing was to be brought forward. That's already having an impact on construction activity. It's getting busy.

Many of the modern homes built under various buy to let and shared ownership and rented schemes are built to very high standards and will allow many who cannot achieve purchase of privately owned homes the opportunity to advance.

I've huge reservations about HS2. But on balance I think it will begin to move some of the wealth away from the capital which is a start. Then we have to think about future power projects.

The opportunities are there. Let's hope we live long enough to look back and criticise the decisions made over the coming years.

AiY

Starmer sets out to make public finances a team sport

Probably repeats much of the op's link. But linked here to satiate my obsessive needs

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Starmer sets out to make public finances a team sport

Probably repeats much of the op's link. But linked here to satiate my obsessive needs

From your link: "the public is now comfortable with a government doing more . . "

What a surprise that the Labour Party would draw that conclusion!

Seems to me this is a little like the old war bonds issued during WW2. Or the "Build America Bonds" that Obama started during the financial crisis of 2008. And isn't that what all of National Savings is about anyway?

Nothing to see here, and certainly nothing to invest in. If the government wants to encourage us to save more, then reduce taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains, and/or increase the amount that can annually be put into an ISA.

Lootman wrote:If the government wants to encourage us to save more, then reduce taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains, and/or increase the amount that can annually be put into an ISA.

I'm not sure they do want us to save more. As long as we save enough to provide for ourselves so we are not a burden to the state in retirement, they want us to spend to generate more employment etc (and suck in imports). Most investing in shares is simply one person buying an existing share from another, so does not increase business investment. Although come to think of it, if more of us invest in successful US and Chinese businesses, eg via SMT, the state will benefit from our profits via CGT, IHT etc etc.

The way for the government to get the economy moving is to make it attractive for businesses to invest, less red tape, better infrastructure, easier to hirer and fire, etc etc. That is better than HMG employing ever more pen pushers.