Funding the Future

We’re repeatedly told that raising taxes on extreme wealth will drive billionaires and millionaires out of the UK and that the economy will collapse as a result. That story is economic mythology. In this video, I explain why the very wealthy are not as “highly mobile” as politicians claim, why money doesn’t “disappear” when someone changes residency, why businesses and jobs don’t pack up with the owner, and why a modest fall in sterling would not be the catastrophe we’re warned about. The conclusion is simple: we should design tax policy around justice and economic need, and not fear and bluff.

At our live event in Cambridge on 28 February I started the event by looking at political economy from 1759 to date. What I made clear was that Adam Smith talked about an economy of care and that’s what we need to be doing now. 

Today Rachel Reeves gave her Spring Statement, take a listen to my comments on what she said on BBC 2 with Jeremy Vine

Rachel Reeves will present the Spring Statement as if she's delivering stability. The Office for Budget Responsibility will offer forecasts. Markets will be reassured. But the economics will be wrong. In this video, I explain why fiscal rules, headroom, and the household budget myth are political theatre, not economic reality. Governments that issue their own currency are not revenue-constrained; they are resource-constrained. If Britain wants growth, resilience, and functioning public services, we need investment, redistribution, and the politics of care, and not stability theatre designed to please bond markets. This is Funding the Future economics.

Most people think tax pays for government spending. It doesn’t. In a modern monetary economy, governments that issue their own currency spend first and tax later. In this video, I explain the six real purposes of tax: ratifying the currency controlling inflation redistributing income and wealth repricing harmful activity strengthening democracy organising the economy for public purpose Understanding this changes everything about austerity, social security, inequality and public services. If we want a politics of care instead of a politics of fear, we need an honest debate about tax.

A clear challenge to the household myth about government money and why that story sticks. An explanation of how private saving, government deficits and accounting logic connect. Exploration of the psychology that makes good economics feel wrong. A call for politics focused on care, clearer narratives, and persistent repetition to counter harmful austerity ideas.

People ask whether modern monetary theory is “just theory”. I think that’s the wrong question. The real test is practical: does the UK actually operate as a modern money economy? In this video, I walk through the plumbing: Parliament authorises spending, the Treasury instructs the Bank of England, payments are settled through reserves, and only later do taxes and gilts come into play. That sequence matters because it tells us something uncomfortable but vital: austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity. I also set out the real constraints: not “running out of money”, but real resources: - labour, - energy, - materials, - skills, and - technology  and that inflation and climate limits should guide policy. If we get the ordering right, we can finally have the debate we should have had all along: what do we need, do we have the capacity, and how do we manage inflation fairly?

A clear breakdown of how money is actually created and why that misunderstanding shapes bad policy. Short explanations cover banks creating deposits through lending, the central bank enabling government spending, and why taxes reclaim money rather than fund it. The conversation connects money mechanics to limits on public services and argues for reframing politics around resources and care.

In 2023, the BBC admitted that comparing government finances to a household budget is “dangerous territory” that can mislead audiences. And yet we still hear that myth every day. Its own impartiality review said household budget analogies are wrong. So why do they keep talking about them? Why? Because the myth is politically useful. It limits debate, justifies cuts to public services and social security, and presents ideology as arithmetic. In this video, I unpack what the BBC admitted, why the myth survives, and how we challenge it. Fiscal policy is about choices, as the BBC knows. It's time the BBC started making better ones when talking about that fact.

Can capitalism still organise society for the common good? That was the question I put to John Christensen. What we discovered is that the answer lies not in abstract theory but in practical experience. Mutuals, co-operatives and democratic institutions already shape our lives. The Nationwide building society, the Co-op, mutual insurers, some energy suppliers, pension funds and some phone providers prove that another way of organising the economy exists. In this video, we discuss why shareholder capitalism has produced monopolies, failing utilities and democratic erosion, and why cooperation may be the basis of a politics of care. If capitalism is failing, the question is not whether change will come, but how.