|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 22:49:47 GMT
Well they promised no return to austerity and the markets certainly seemed to believe the tax cuts were unfunded, thereby necessitating more borrowing, and reacted accordingly. And what they tended to believe is a little bit more credible that whatever little old you might choose to think. Fact is to put in place such massive tax cuts without explaining how they were to be paid for whilst promising no return to austerity was clearly disastrous. There was every appearance of them being unfunded. The big issue for the markets was the open ended energy bill support program - which is precisely why Hunt scrapped it as soon as he got through the door and replaced it with the restricted help we have now. Hence the Labour Party complaining that the present support is not enough. The question now is, is it enough? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 22:51:17 GMT
[ You are wasting everyone's time dancing on the head of a pin for no useful purpose. If spending that is being funded by taxation ceases to be because of cuts in the funding source, which is being replaced by a massive increase in borrowing The only point i have made in the discussion is that it is spending that is funded by taxation, and therefore , it is spending rather than tax cuts that need to be funded and can become unfunded I thought this would be relatively uncontroversial, but it seems I have hit a hot vein of strong feelings. I beg to differ, you knew it would annoy and that's why you pushed it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 22:58:18 GMT
That is a different argument and indeed the only alternative to funding massive tax cuts by massive borrowing increases would be by massive spending cuts. Well there were no massive tax cuts. There was the abolishing of the 45% rate which brought in trivial amounts, the main area of lost potential revenue was stopping the NI increase which had not even been started. As the NI increase was opposed by the Labour Party and TUC as being a 'tax on jobs' I would have thought that would be a policy you supported? There was also the cut in the basic rate and massive cuts in corporation tax, now reversed. The total bill came to tens of billions with no explanation of where the money to make up for such a shortfall was going to be coming from. The entire package was certainly massive enough to spook the markets, however modest you seem to regard it. It's a good job you weren't in charge because you'd have gone even further and done even more damage by the sounds of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 23:04:38 GMT
Well they promised no return to austerity and the markets certainly seemed to believe the tax cuts were unfunded, thereby necessitating more borrowing, and reacted accordingly. And what they tended to believe is a little bit more credible that whatever little old you might choose to think. Fact is to put in place such massive tax cuts without explaining how they were to be paid for whilst promising no return to austerity was clearly disastrous. There was every appearance of them being unfunded. The big issue for the markets was the open ended energy bill support program - which is precisely why Hunt scrapped it as soon as he got through the door and replaced it with the restricted help we have now. Hence the Labour Party complaining that the present support is not enough. Such support was promised well before Truss took over. It did not spook the markets. The Truss/Kwarteng budget with its unfunded tax cuts did that, and the promise to go even further as quickly as possible simply added more fuel to market concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 7, 2023 23:10:09 GMT
Well there were no massive tax cuts. There was the abolishing of the 45% rate which brought in trivial amounts, the main area of lost potential revenue was stopping the NI increase which had not even been started. As the NI increase was opposed by the Labour Party and TUC as being a 'tax on jobs' I would have thought that would be a policy you supported? There was also the cut in the basic rate and massive cuts in corporation tax, now reversed. The total bill came to tens of billions with no explanation of where the money to make up for such a shortfall was going to be coming from. The entire package was certainly massive enough to spook the markets, however modest you seem to regard it. It's a good job you weren't in charge because you'd have gone even further and done even more damage by the sounds of it. LOL - any tax 'cuts' amounted to around £20 billion - the energy support package came in at £150 Billion or even higher. Have a guess which one spooked the markets..  |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 8, 2023 6:27:37 GMT
That is seriously sad because NL is the only government I have known to look at the needs across most of the political spectrum. IMO both the left and the right of politics play a see saw game of politics which inevitably ends in division and the circular politics that have failed this country since 1951. As feelings are learnt, I forgive you  What is seriously sad is that none of the mainstream parties have run this country even adequately since 1945.....and before. Politics in this and many other countries needs a good kick up the arse.....several times. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 8:09:47 GMT
There was also the cut in the basic rate and massive cuts in corporation tax, now reversed. The total bill came to tens of billions with no explanation of where the money to make up for such a shortfall was going to be coming from. The entire package was certainly massive enough to spook the markets, however modest you seem to regard it. It's a good job you weren't in charge because you'd have gone even further and done even more damage by the sounds of it. LOL - any tax 'cuts' amounted to around £20 billion - the energy support package came in at £150 Billion or even higher. Have a guess which one spooked the markets.. The unnecessary straw that broke the Camel's back ? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 8:17:25 GMT
LOL - any tax 'cuts' amounted to around £20 billion - the energy support package came in at £150 Billion or even higher. Have a guess which one spooked the markets.. The unnecessary straw that broke the Camel's back ? depends on whether you consider growth necessary or not.. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 8, 2023 8:18:59 GMT
The big issue for the markets was the open ended energy bill support program - which is precisely why Hunt scrapped it as soon as he got through the door and replaced it with the restricted help we have now. Hence the Labour Party complaining that the present support is not enough. Such support was promised well before Truss took over. It did not spook the markets. The Truss/Kwarteng budget with its unfunded tax cuts did that, and the promise to go even further as quickly as possible simply added more fuel to market concerns. It went down like a lead balloon when they announced bringing back huge pay bonuses to bankers, why would you reward bankers in times of a cost of living crisis? Then to rub salt in to the wound Kwarteng and the bankers throw a champagne big lavish celebratory bash, and behind his back were chuckling 'Kwarteng the useful idiot, we didn't even ask for big bonuses', that's why Truss and Kwarteng had to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 8:28:13 GMT
That is seriously sad because NL is the only government I have known to look at the needs across most of the political spectrum. IMO both the left and the right of politics play a see saw game of politics which inevitably ends in division and the circular politics that have failed this country since 1951. As feelings are learnt, I forgive you What is seriously sad is that none of the mainstream parties have run this country even adequately since 1945.....and before. Politics in this and many other countries needs a good kick up the arse.....several times. A dose of socialism under Attlee was a well earned necessity, even if he did take it too far. The idea that others would have come up with a perfect answer to the well earned needs of the population is pure conjecture. Despite the excessive anti-NL propaganda there is no question that NL was a breath of fresh air in politics, and but for the international financial meltdown that hit all Western economies from the outside, NL would never have lost the 2010 election. I put the majority of blame for UK political weakness on the media. For me it seems as though it is run by a lot of immature smart mouthed grammar school knob-heads more interested in 'my side must win' instead of the country must win. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 8:29:47 GMT
The unnecessary straw that broke the Camel's back ? depends on whether you consider growth necessary or not.. It seems the markets didn't like the approach to growth that was on offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 8:31:39 GMT
depends on whether you consider growth necessary or not.. It seems the markets didn't like the approach to growth that was on offer. They are not keen on the current high tax, high spending, low growth, low productivity model either. Nothing will change with more of the same. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 8:33:51 GMT
It seems the markets didn't like the approach to growth that was on offer. They are not keen on the current high tax, high spending, low growth, low productivity model either. Nothing will change with more of the same. Maybe, but the apparently the markets need the right changes to be made. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 8, 2023 8:52:22 GMT
Magrathea is spot on. It is government spending which needs funding. Tax funds government spending. If the government, e.g. civil service, was smaller and spending smaller, those taxes could be lower and people would have more of their own money to spend. People should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible, in my view. Reductions in taxation need to be funded That's incorrect. Spending needs to be funded, tax cuts are (more or less) free. You can't spend with no funding - ie spending needs to be funded to be spending. I bring this up because it occurs to me this inverted language could be the result of an upside down world view in which the government and civil service are considered to be funding the rest of society by not taxing them |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 8, 2023 9:01:02 GMT
They are not keen on the current high tax, high spending, low growth, low productivity model either. Nothing will change with more of the same. Maybe, but the apparently the markets need the right changes to be made. The right changes would be to sort out British politics, sort out commerce and industry and educate people to have a work and honesty ethic. |
|
