Saving why are the govermnet so annoyed by us saving money?

Belfast

Why are the government saying that we are saving too much money?
I thought saving money in the bank would mean the bank have more money to loan to business.
On a 10 to 1 reserve ration banks have 10 Euro to loan for every Euro on deposit.

Victor

If people are saving, they aren't spending, therefore businesses aren't selling and employing. therefore, they and their employees aren't earning and spending themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this Keynesianism or consumerism? Because Keynesian policies were arguably dominant in most OECD countries post WWII, yet they are clearly not all experiencing the same kinds of crises.

Also, before we go blaming Keynesianism for everything, I would be very interested to see the relationship between changes in savings rates and changes in real wages. I would guess that the movement of the two factors would be correlated.

Honestly, using Keynesianism and/or liberalism as a stick to beat everything you don't like with is a rather lazy approach to political economy.

antoobrien

Belfast wrote: »

Why are the government saying that we are saving too much money?
I thought saving money in the bank would mean the bank have more money to loan to business.
On a 10 to 1 reserve ration banks have 10 Euro to loan for every Euro on deposit.

In theory you're right the more savings in the bank the more capital to loan, but the capital the banks have isn't all savings either.

As I see it there's a problem of perception.

There's a perception that all we're doing is paying down loans (incl credit cards) and saving most of the excess income we have. If this is true (and it will be for some if press reporting of personal finance is to believed), then there's very little spare cash to spend and savings is a natural best option for these people (because they want some breathing space next month).

I don't know how many people are in this situation, the surveys that the press quote are always vague about figures (as opposed to mortgage arrears where they can clearly state that there are 90k people 3 months behind in payments).

Then there's the other side of the coin, where you have people in good jobs that are just plain nervous and have stopped spending their remaining discretionary income at the end of the week/month. There are the people the government are concerned are saving too much. Do they have a need to save, no, why are they saving, they don't know. but they're not spending - which creates a problem because a significant portion of the tax base are consumption based taxes.

Tipp Man

Pretty simple answer with Permabear has alluded to

The governments want people to act as they do, spend every penny you have and then borrow some more.

Completly irrational way to act

Triangla

They want us to spend our money to drive business and tax revenue.

Makes their job in rescuing the economy much easier then.

Hardly going to happen when they keep reducing incomes via taxes, stealth taxes, levies and charges.

Noticing too that most things in the CPI figures that have anything to do with a government body is increasing in price.

People have less money so spend less shocker!

gerryo777

Feast or famine?
There's a happy medium required in order to keep an economy functioning correctly.

Tazz T

Someone has money to save????

ardmacha

It would be better if people saved more in the good times and saved less in the bad times, smoothing out the fluctuations in the economy. This would be rational and responsible behaviour.

Instead, in the boom not only did people not save and spent everything, but many of them spent next years income as well by borrowing.

Currently the basic problem is uncertainty, if it becomes clear that the Euro area is under control then some people will start spending more.

gbee

Strange, really, but consistent with the policies outlined in this thread, when broke the first thing the finance company wants is your savings.

The first question out of social welfare is your savings ~ it's almost impossible to get them to understand that I have none.

So I'm a model citizen then so. ?

GSF

Tazz T wrote: »

Someone has money to save????

There is loads of savings in Ireland but a lot is with non Irish owned banks because of the uncertainty re the euro & default, etc. Plus rates were better with Rabobank, Nationwide UK, etc

gurramok

Spending by the citizen is a govt's way of loading that citizen with private debt. Hey the economy is doing great with all these people spending borrowed money!

If the citizen spent money(non-mortgage) from income and savings without getting into debt, things would be alot better. Ask the Germans!

Tora Bora

Government is no longer annoyed, at our pesky savings habit. They have figured exactly what to do about it. They decided that they would legalize, the act of stealing, so that they could raid private sector pensions savings, each year for 4 year.
Michael Noonan helps himself to 0.6% of our hard earned pension savings each year for four years:mad::mad:

Debtocracy

Belfast wrote: »

Why are the government saying that we are saving too much money?
I thought saving money in the bank would mean the bank have more money to loan to business.
On a 10 to 1 reserve ration banks have 10 Euro to loan for every Euro on deposit.

Spending is good because it injects debt-free money into the economy. I'm sure a struggling business would rather that customers spend 30,000 extra in their business than receive 30,000 extra in the form of a bank loan. The circulation of money through spending is the only non-destructive way to unwind the debt. Investment by banks ultimately increases the long-term debt burden on the economy.

An individual spending when they do not have sufficient savings (i.e. credit-based spending) is a different issue and will obviously increase the debt burden.

Dannyboy83

http://www.rabodirect.ie/blog/the-outlook-for-2012/default.aspx?type=tcm30-120652

"Consumers here in Ireland and almost everywhere else pulled in their horns and began paying off debts. What economists call the savings rate, which really measures savings together with debt repayment, surged to record highs as people put money aside for a rainy day and repaid mortgages and other debt at record rates. Perhaps the most telling statistic about the Irish economy is that people borrowed a net €30bn in 2008 and repaid a net €10bn in 2011. The €40bn gap between those two figures explains why businesses, shops, restaurants, hotels and airlines are all struggling to stay afloat at the moment."

.

Manach

In uncertain times, the perceived value of saving increases. In that having a small nest egg outside the government remit (as per the 0.6% raid) would have a higher cost benefit than most short term consumer products.

gurramok

On a personal level, i know people who have paid of debts in lieu of spending. Basically they took out easy to get loans in the good times and now pay them off instead of using that money to consume.

Think it was a few years ago before the crash that Ireland had the highest private debt per capita in Europe, something like 400bn plus?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here I have to disagree. Consumerism is a social phenomenon with economic consequences; you seem to be arguing that Keynesianism is an economic phenomenon with social consequences.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I understand that there are structural and cultural factors that influence savings. But this is still dancing around the issue of whether or not declining real incomes - which are not universal, but rather country specific - are correlated with savings rates.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? Because your posting history on these matters suggests that any socio-economic woe faced by Western society is somehow due to Keynesian policies. I understand that neoliberal economics leaves little room for factors such as culture and societal influences , but I think that you are far too quick to point to Keynesianism as the root of all evil, without accounting for the wide variance in the implementation and outcomes of these policies across countries, or the social and cultural norms that shape economic policymaking and consumer behavior.

Take Ireland for example: are Ireland's problems really due to adherence to Keynesianism or is this really down to gombeenism, which is a socially and culturally specific approach to political economy? Given past threads on the subject, I would suspect you would agree with the latter, which is why I don't understand why you are insisting on the former.

Chuck Stone

My understanding of Keynesian economics is that the state should intervene to stop an economy over heating and then intervene when it cools too much i.e. counter-cyclical intervention to mitigate the boom and bust business cycle.

'We' did the opposite here. We threw petrol on the fire when the construction sector boomed and then contracted spending when the arse fell out of the construction sector.

This observation, if accurate, suggests that the current predicament in this country came about because Keynesian counter-cyclical economic measures were not enacted.

SupaNova

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This observation, if accurate, suggests that the current predicament in this country came about because Keynesian counter-cyclical economic measures were not enacted.

That assumes if counter-cyclical economic policies were enacted they would work.

Chuck Stone

SupaNova wrote: »

That assumes if counter-cyclical economic policies were enacted they would work.

Seems to be working in Germany.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ART6

Tora Bora wrote: »

Government is no longer annoyed, at our pesky savings habit. They have figured exactly what to do about it. They decided that they would legalize, the act of stealing, so that they could raid private sector pensions savings, each year for 4 year.
Michael Noonan helps himself to 0.6% of our hard earned pension savings each year for four years:mad::mad:

But not, I note, to his.

andrew

The idea that saving can be a bad thing is called the paradox of thrift, an idea popularised, as has been mentioned, by Keynes.

If one person saves, that's good for the economy. They save their money, which means banks have more money, which means a greater supply of savings with which businesses can invest. One would think, then, that if everyone saved that things would be better right? Sometimes, this might not be the case. The logic is that everyone saving reduces demand, which means businesses have less income, which means people have less income, which means the overall level of saving falls. It's like in a football match, if one person stands up, they get a better view. But if everyone stands up, then everyone's view of the match gets worse.

As permabear has mentioned, there are a few criticisms of the idea. One is rooted in the assumption that savings equals investment, and an associated concept called Say's law. It's common to assume in economics that savings equals investment, because, well, it usually does. Banks are most of the time keen to lend (and businesses keen to borrow) money which they receive as deposits; the supply of deposits creates a supply of loanable funds, which by itself kinda creates demand for loans. A bit like how the supply of iPhones creates a demand for those iPhones. This is called Say's law; supply creates it's own demand. And so the idea that savings could be somehow bad is criticised on the basis that such savings are always subsequently invested, leading to no net loss for the economy.

The counter to this is that we're in an unusual situation right now, in which Say's law doesn't apply to loanable funds. Says law implies that supply will create it's own demand, and that if not enough is demanded, that prices will fall until supply again equals demand. But the 'price' of loanable funds can't fall any further; interest rates are already at 0, and yet demand for funds just isn't there. In addition, banks simply aren't lending out the money they receive as deposits because they're trying to build up cash reserves. Both banks and business right now are minimising debt as opposed to maximising profit, and so the relationship between saving and investment is broken. You've got a situation in which the more people save, the more money they're basically just giving to banks to hoard; they may as well be putting it under their mattress. Meanwhile, demand is reduced, and business see incomes fall.

There's also some Austrian criticism too. I'd be lying if I said I fully understood it as explained in the Wiki page there. If it relies on prices not being sticky, well then the reply to that would be 'yes they are.'

SupaNova

The Austrian criticism is based around Say's law which you gave a good summary of. The relationship between savings and investment is broken when increasing the supply of loanable funds is done artificially, i.e. increasing the supply of loanable funds without an increase in actual savings. So you have Say's law in action, but in a very unnatural and distortionary manner. According to Austrian theory the relationship isn't broken because people are saving too much now, but is broken as an inevitable consequence of meddling with interest rates and artificial credit expansion.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that's not Keynesian economics and I think you know it. Keynes advocated increased government saving during booms and increased spending/borrowing during recessions. Without the first, the second doesn't apply.

Government policy during the bubble was contrary to Keynesian economics. Government policy now is also not an ideal fit into the theory. Essentially, government policy is based on thr mistaken assumption that a consumerist society is the key to unlimited economic growth, an idea that grew up in America because they too refused to impose Keynesian controls on their economy, preferring neo classical laissez fair policies.

But of course who cares if you are right or wrong, this skewed view has gained immense currency in this forum and I see that lots of your accolytes have jumped to thank your criticism of keynesian theory without even checking to see if it is true.

johnnyskeleton

southsiderosie wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this Keynesianism or consumerism? Because Keynesian policies were arguably dominant in most OECD countries post WWII, yet they are clearly not all experiencing the same kinds of crises.

Also, before we go blaming Keynesianism for everything, I would be very interested to see the relationship between changes in savings rates and changes in real wages. I would guess that the movement of the two factors would be correlated.

Honestly, using Keynesianism and/or liberalism as a stick to beat everything you don't like with is a rather lazy approach to political economy.[/Quote]

Keynesian economics fell out of favour during the regan thather era and have not been followed since. If they were, high growth would have set alarm bells off in the us and uk. Of course, Germany did exercise something closer to keynesian economics also for political reasons they are probably a bad example.

SupaNova

Here is a decent article criticizing Keynes theory and Krugman's claim that Keynes has been proved right. The article discusses whether counter cyclical policy would prevent booms and bust, and the author dissects an article by Krugman claiming Keynes has been proved right.
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=12828

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Governments explicitly incentivize and encourage consumerism not for social reasons but for economic ones. Obama has encouraged Americans to go out and spend to boost the economy. The Irish government stated that the recent Irish increase in DIRT tax was designed to discourage saving and incentivize spending. Like it or not, these are Keynesian approaches.[/quote]

so how do you explain the increasein vat? Surely by your logic the increase of vat is designed to discourage spending and incentivise saving, or at least neutralise the effects of dirt increases. I would suggest that increasing dirt is a means of obtaining more tax income in a manner that has relatively little impact on peoples behaviour. Likewise with vat, they simply think they can get away with it. Increased dirt has not significantly impacted the propensity to save in my view.

Also, you treat keynesian economics as though it postulates that any spending is good so large social welfare or civil service pay is good. But the suggestion by Keynes was more by way of example than actual prescription. Keynes also emphasised that investment be made in projects with the greatest likely return.

So most advocates of keynesian econonomics would argue for increased government saving during the bubble (eg using increased stamp duty to pay down debt or to put in reserve) which would then permit a road building project or other infrastructural projects to take place.

No economic theory, that I can see, advocated tax breaks to increase house buying, using the net gain in tax to spend on increased current expenditure and then when it all goes wrong borrow money to bail out the banks and keep current spendig high. None of these things fit into Keynesian theory or any other common theory for that matter. But these policies are immensely popular with the voters and are also thr short term reactions of a country in trouble.

johnnyskeleton

SupaNova wrote: »

Here is a decent article criticizing Keynes theory and Krugman's claim that Keynes has been proved right:
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=12828

There is valid criticism of krugman in that he wishes to implement half of the theory without the other necessary half. But I can't accept the premise that governmet capital projects discourage other projects. I would have thought t is almost beyond argument that proper infrastructural investment will have strong long term secondary returns. Didn't read the rest of the article because it was far too rhetorical for me and based on partisan us politics.

pacquiao

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

so how do you explain the increasein vat? Surely by your logic the increase of vat is designed to discourage spending and incentivise saving, or at least neutralise the effects of dirt increases. I would suggest that increasing dirt is a means of obtaining more tax income in a manner that has relatively little impact on peoples behaviour. Likewise with vat, they simply think they can get away with it. Increased dirt has not significantly impacted the propensity to save in my view.

Also, you treat keynesian economics as though it postulates that any spending is good so large social welfare or civil service pay is good. But the suggestion by Keynes was more by way of example than actual prescription. Keynes also emphasised that investment be made in projects with the greatest likely return.

So most advocates of keynesian econonomics would argue for increased government saving during the bubble (eg using increased stamp duty to pay down debt or to put in reserve) which would then permit a road building project or other infrastructural projects to take place.

No economic theory, that I can see, advocated tax breaks to increase house buying, using the net gain in tax to spend on increased current expenditure and then when it all goes wrong borrow money to bail out the banks and keep current spendig high. None of these things fit into Keynesian theory or any other common theory for that matter. But these policies are immensely popular with the voters and are also thr short term reactions of a country in trouble.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not? But,America doesn't have to borrow anything. I mention America here as you don't seem to be talking about any country in particular.

SupaNova

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But I can't accept the premise that governmet capital projects discourage other projects.

It is not that Government projects discourage other projects, it is that they prevent them from taking place. If government decides to pass a bill for 1 trillion in stimulus, it has to bid for resources and labor away from the private sector. There is no disagreement between schools on this, only the Keynesians make the case that the private sector is not making full use of resources and labor and point to statistics like the output gap to try and make their case.

I would have thought t is almost beyond argument that proper infrastructural investment will have strong long term secondary returns.

I don't disagree, but see little hope of stimulus being used wisely, or maybe according to Keynes it doesn't have to, just pay people to dig holes and fill them up again.

andrew

SupaNova wrote: »

The Austrian criticism is based around Say's law which you gave a good summary of. The relationship between savings and investment is broken when increasing the supply of loanable funds is done artificially, i.e. increasing the supply of loanable funds without an increase in actual savings. So you have Say's law in action, but in a very unnatural and distortionary manner. According to Austrian theory the relationship isn't broken because people are saving too much now, but is broken as an inevitable consequence of meddling with interest rates and artificial credit expansion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As in, I understand that interest rates are 'artificially' low, but if still no investment or loans occur at this low interest rate, then none would occur if the interest rate was higher. So the relationship is broken because of banks don't want to lend and companies don't want to borrow in spite of low interest rates which have been 'meddled with'.

southsiderosie

SupaNova wrote: »

Here is a decent article criticizing Keynes theory and Krugman's claim that Keynes has been proved right:
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=12828

Please don't just post links without giving us some summarization of the content, thanks.

SSR

skelliser

The golden geese of this resession; PS pay; millionaire property developers and politicians pay and expenses need to be protected at all costs and aim to come out of this as unscathed as possible.

The rest of us get screwed.

That is the theory of economics in ireland.

The thing is none of it is working. Austerity doesnt work, they may have gotten away with it in the 80's but people are more savy now.

You need only look at pathetic numbers that have registered for the household tax.
This gov wont last the year.

SupaNova

andrew wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. As in, I understand that interest rates are 'artificially' low, but if still no investment or loans occur at this low interest rate, then none would occur if the interest rate was higher. So the relationship is broken because of banks don't want to lend and companies don't want to borrow in spite of low interest rates which have been 'meddled with'.

Yes there would be even less borrowing if interest rates were higher, but the lack of lending and reducing of debt levels is part of the return to normality and the process of eventually fixing the relationship between savings and investment.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your response speaks exactly to my point about neo-liberals (and yes I mean in the academic post 60s sense) not paying enough attention to culture: do you think that government is the reason why consumerism thrives in the US? Government is not the sole (or I would argue, even the foremost) institution in American society that influences individual behavior.

The government also encourages Americans to eat less and exercise more, and we've seen how that has worked out.

Permabear wrote: »

Again, it depends very much on the country and its circumstances. As I've said above, higher incomes are sometimes correlated with higher savings rates, but in the case of Ireland over the past few years, savings rates have gone up markedly as disposable incomes have declined — macroeconomic uncertainty producing a "hoarding" instinct. Factors such as economic growth rates, interest rates, tax rates, demographic composition, welfare supports, dependency ratios, mandatory saving schemes, fiscal policy, tax incentives, and the trade balance can all play roles in influencing the savings rate.

Yes I understand that. There are a host of factors that can play into savings rates (and rates of consumption). But your analyses consistently bring this back to Keynesianism - and a rather warped view of Keynesianism at that.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you seem incapable of acknowledging broader structural changes in the economy, or the role of culture independent of the government, or a host of other factors which do not support a neo-liberal analysis.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, your posting history speaks for itself.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. But most of these works when they mentioned society did so in the abstract sense, whereas there are clearly concrete and weighty historical and cultural factors which are place specific that affect political economy.

There is not one kind of capitalism - hence the enormous literature on Varieties of capitalism. This is what makes all of the handwringing over 'Keynesian" policies so aggravating: there is more that one way to skin a cat, and run an economy. Keynesian policy has just become a byword for "capitalist system that neo-liberals don't like", and that approach glosses over the fact that there is tremendous variance within these sets of countries, not all of which are in crisis right now.

Farmer Pudsey

The government need to cop themselves on any gobshi## knows that it is confidence is the problem. We are told that there is 80 billion in saving in this country and 80 billion in debt. Anybody with commonsence would know that the people who have the 80 billion in savings are different from the people with the 80 billion in debt and that is why they have it and they are not going to spend it so that politicians and high paid civil servants (judges+ consultants) and protected industrys ( doctors+solicitors) can keep on having a good time

This is not a high brow discussion in BULL it is reality the banks want people who cannot pay there mortages to stop sending there kids to private schools,(o my god) to shop in ALDI (god forbid)to reduce there health cover (this is totally off the wall) maybe not to change their Range Rover or BMW this year ( we're a Stalinist State).

Poor old Ronan might have to give up his private jet ( what will Rosanna do for a spin abroad). There is a problem with debt in this country but thinking that we can get savers to spend when the big guy still want to live the champagne livestyle somebody would want to smell the coffee.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Just forget about Keynesian economics - we cant properly implement it now that we no longer have control of the currency we use.

All we can do is increase taxation during a boom and decrease it during a recession.
And we cant even do that with the deficit.

The only positive growth option now is to slim down spending and do it following the formula for an expansionary fiscal contraction. Its possible and has been done before - Ireland is one of the countries that implemented this strategy successfully in the past.

Peanut

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They might argue that, but in such a case, it wouldn't appear to be an argument based on Keynesianism then, at least not in the classical sense.

At least that's how some would see it, such as expressed in this CNN Money article, "How Obama got Keynes wrong"

He (Keynes) clearly did not advocate long-term spending in excess of revenues, since that causes structural deficits.

It seems fairly obvious that the problem we had (and Greece etc.) was not so much due to policy but populism. Any economic system will fail under the same circumstances where political agendas are allowed to take so much precedence over the longer-term wellbeing of the state.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because you are only describing what is happening during a crisis, which is only half of the story. But you can't damn one side without addressing the other. One of the core tenets of Keynesianism is counter-cyclical spending. But what most countries that are in trouble engaged in was constant, out of control spending. That is why it is so frustrating to see the term 'Keynesian policies' bandied about to describe Ireland and the US - better examples would be Germany and Chile. The NPR quote you cites highlights this: Keynes believed that government spending was meant to be temporary until the economy got back on track. As someone else has pointed out, this is exactly what Germany did - and not only that, but while the Club Med countries were spending away, they enacted painful reforms to reduce government spending on welfare (Hartz IV). Germany has also engaged in mass wage restraint, largely by cooperation with trade unions - this in sharp contrast to benchmarking, the CPA and other nonsense policies that the Irish government has trotted out over the last decade.

Permabear wrote: »

Again, these are just unwarranted and, at this point, faintly ridiculous attacks. I've frequently acknowledged structural issues when talking about economic matters — and I often write about cultural issues as well. So I'll ask you to retract your statement that I'm "incapable of acknowledging" such factors.

Some examples please? I'm taking these accusations about my "posting history" quite seriously since they come from someone who is now a moderator of this forum.

I'm not using "Keynesian policy" as a byword for anything other than Keynesian policy — and I believe that I'm familiar enough with economic history to know what Keynesian policy actually is.

The thread asks "why is the government so annoyed by people saving money' when they should be out priming the pump so to speak. Your reply was because of the legacy of Keynes. But Keynes didn't advocate spending in both bad times and in the 'boomiest' of the boom times. I don't disagree that pushing spending in bad times is Keynesian, but I think linking that to the Irish situation is inaccurate - the government has been encouraging people to spend for the last decade, regardless of the economic situation. I am not sure what you call this, but it is certainly not Keynesianism!

The words "Keynesian', 'statist', 'socialist' - and for that matter, 'libertarian' - are generally bandied about in this forum with little consideration as to what they actually mean, or how the use of these terms has been warped to suit particular political agendas. Case in point:

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK, so is the government socialist? Keynesian? Or, perhaps more plausibly, grabbing at straws and trying to do anything to make it look like they are addressing the crisis? Ireland, perhaps more than any other Western democracy, is profoundly non-ideological when it comes to government policies - governments in power simply do whatever then need to do to maintain support. Hence Bertie could say "we are all socialists now" even as he presided over one of the most unregulated financial sectors in Europe.

Technically, every OECD country is a capitalist country - but there are, as I mentioned 'varieties of capitalism'. Yet, based on the comments that have consistently appeared in this forum, if you are wielding a neo-liberal hammer, everything looks like a nail (statist/socialist/Keynesian); the variance between countries which provide social safety nets, are market-oriented to a significant degree, and where services like education and health care are heavily, if not fully driven by government spending and policy, is significant. For the record, I find the "gaaaaaahhhh! LIBERTARIANS!" type comments to be just as aggravating as the "gaaaah KEYNESIANIANS!" type comments, and I think I have been pretty consistent on both of these points.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

foxyboxer

The golden rule is to save a minimum 10% of what you earn.
(you should save more if you can)

The theory goes that you then 'live' off the remaining 90%.

The problem is that people don't save and 'live' off 110% of what they earn.
(living beyond your means)

If that is the case and you are in debt, then it would be lovely to see a policy which states that if you are in debt, then creditors can only go after 30% of a debtors finances.

So for example if Johnny is on the dole and he owes money then he can only pay 30% for every dole payment he receives to servide his debt.

Creditors would be obliged to have Johnny sell off any material goods and have it come off the principal, but they cannot touch 70% of his income.

If he has multiple creditors then the 30% is divided up amongst them.

Johnny simply has to learn to live off the 70%. Hey life sucks.

This 30% rule could also apply on an sovereign scale and the 10% saving rule but that's just fantasy.

Remember: Money is a simple concept made complex by idiots.