I'm not an economist myself (can't stand them generally because they seem to have the answer to everything, but only after it's happened - and are incredibly pompous about it) but check out Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) on Google or wherever. Far too complicated to go into but it basically suggests that (all lifted directly from Wikipedia)

MMT's main tenets are that a government that issues its own fiat money:
Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases;
Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency;
Is only limited in its money creation and purchases by inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment;
Can control demand-pull inflation[5] by taxation and bond issuance, which remove excess money from circulation (although the political will to do so may not always exist);
Does not need to compete with the private sector for scarce savings by issuing bonds.
These tenets challenge the mainstream economics view that government spending is funded by taxes and debt issuance

Because the government can issue its own currency at will, MMT maintains that the level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities by itself. The approach of MMT typically reverses theories of governmental austerity. The policy implications of the two are likewise typically opposed.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

I don't understand your point

7 year old information that is largely irrelevant to the current discussion.

But pleased you are practising your research skills.

*should have been more prepared for it

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

So you would think a drastic change in the % then to the first point. Prove the change then because you have old figures.
The second and third points are not date relevant really are they. They are things that dont need figures as it not really maths is it.
And you wouldn't understand my point would you. It is not fitting for you to agree or attempt to find truths in anyone of a lower intellects suggestions.
Yes I did write that because not being overly intellectual is something I have no shame about.
Now go to the mirror and lick yourself.

For what. How can anyone have known. Burns units crash teams and response have been updated recently because of terror threats. That was a known potential so yes spend and effort on that.
Who was to know that a pandemic was this year.
Lucky it wasnt 20 years ago really as then some numbers would have died. It could have been in 20 years time. Medicine would probably have been available due to advances. No country was ready totally, some maybe more but not by far and this bug takes no prisoners. If we didnt have a flu vaccine it would be less deadly than that, I mean flu kills half millions a year with vaccines.

I wonder how many times you have told posters to “check google “ or “check your facts”? But of course when someone posts facts, if you don’t agree with them, you dismiss them as fake news. We all know you have my strings to your bow than any large Orchestra but you don’t need to be so patronising surely?