|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 8, 2023 17:52:23 GMT
What massive tax cuts? The reduction in the top rate would have been peanuts and to claim stopping proposed raises that hadn't yet happened is a massive cut is made up fairy tales Hardly peanuts. And there was also the wholly unfunded cut in the base rate, plus cuts in stamp duty and so on, amounting to a substantial unfunded giveaway of £20-£30 billion. And the intended reversal of planned corporation tax rises created a larger fiscal black hole for the future than the markets anticipated, again unfunded. That the markets were spooked and our economy tanked is a matter of public record so your denialism in support of the Truss agenda is merely a sign of your own intellectual ignorance. Theory is one thing. Actual events and proven outcomes cannot be ignored by anyone whose head is not up their arse. Let's pretend a country with no tax where a government decides it might be a nice idea to (for example) offer cooked meals for the elderly but does not have the money to pay for them so needs to organise how to FUND the idea for a trial service . It can borrow the funding , seek donation or it can impose a tax on incomes . If it then decides to reduce/remove the meal tax imposed that does not make the tax reduction unfunded. Far from it The government has to source different methods of funding or reduce/cut the service It's not tax cuts that are unfunded |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 8, 2023 17:54:31 GMT
Hmmm, you have a large chip about grammar schools (generally state education) and consider grammar school pupils to be ''knob heads'' .......... you obviously failed the 11+ You obviously enjoy jumping to negative conclusions about others if they dare to state a few home truths. So says another with chips who considers grammar school pupils 'knob heads' after failing the 11+ |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 8, 2023 18:05:27 GMT
Well a record tax burden certainly has not generated growth - and all you can offer is even higher taxation... Whilst no fan of New Labour, growth was substantially higher in those years than under the Tories since then, in spite of big spending increases as well as tax increases in the form of stealth taxes associated with New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that the Tories have failed to do since then. One obvious lesson to be learned is that austerity tends to impede growth. So more of it to fund tax cuts is highly unlikely to deliver growth. Another is that tax cuts unfunded tend to crash the economy. If you want viable tax cuts you need to relearn one of the vital tenets of thatcherism, ie the notion of sound money, that nothing comes for free and everything needs to be paid for somehow including tax cuts. Because what Magrathea utterly fails to grasp is that funding can be spoken of in two directions. Eg that whilst tax rises might be necessary to fund spending increases, spending cuts might be necessary to fund tax cuts. The latter do not come for free except in the realms of fantasy economics. Tax cuts financed by austerity will not deliver growth. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing is also likely to be economically damaging in a way that undermines growth. So it's a chicken and egg situation. If you want tax cuts without austerity or more borrowing, both of which will hold back growth, then you need growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. So what has to be done is that taxation itself needs to be rejigged, likewise spending, rather than cut, in ways that encourage growth. In other words you somehow need to generate the growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. Unfunded tax cuts will not generate growth. Even Thatcher knew that much. Which is why she started out by redistributing the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation as a means of boosting the economy rather than simply slashing the overall tax burden without saying how it would be paid for. In this crucial area, Truss was no Thatcher, having utterly discarded one of the central tenets of Thatcherism, ie the need for sound money and balanced books. New Labour inherited a growing economy which is why Blair said they would follow Tory policies for two years. 2010 Tories inherited the fallout of the crash a couple of years previously; there' no worthwhile comparison except both parties are shite. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 19:10:05 GMT
Whilst no fan of New Labour, growth was substantially higher in those years than under the Tories since then, in spite of big spending increases as well as tax increases in the form of stealth taxes associated with New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that the Tories have failed to do since then. One obvious lesson to be learned is that austerity tends to impede growth. So more of it to fund tax cuts is highly unlikely to deliver growth. Another is that tax cuts unfunded tend to crash the economy. If you want viable tax cuts you need to relearn one of the vital tenets of thatcherism, ie the notion of sound money, that nothing comes for free and everything needs to be paid for somehow including tax cuts. Because what Magrathea utterly fails to grasp is that funding can be spoken of in two directions. Eg that whilst tax rises might be necessary to fund spending increases, spending cuts might be necessary to fund tax cuts. The latter do not come for free except in the realms of fantasy economics. Tax cuts financed by austerity will not deliver growth. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing is also likely to be economically damaging in a way that undermines growth. So it's a chicken and egg situation. If you want tax cuts without austerity or more borrowing, both of which will hold back growth, then you need growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. So what has to be done is that taxation itself needs to be rejigged, likewise spending, rather than cut, in ways that encourage growth. In other words you somehow need to generate the growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. Unfunded tax cuts will not generate growth. Even Thatcher knew that much. Which is why she started out by redistributing the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation as a means of boosting the economy rather than simply slashing the overall tax burden without saying how it would be paid for. In this crucial area, Truss was no Thatcher, having utterly discarded one of the central tenets of Thatcherism, ie the need for sound money and balanced books. Well as we never had any austerity how it could impede growth is unclear. Since 2010 what we did have were a record tax burden, record borrowing, record debt and record money printing. The idea that we just didnt have enough of all that to give us growth is rather amusing tbh. Yet somehow we also managed to have massive departmental cuts and local government cuts which constituted austerity, in spite of a few such as yourself attempting to deny the very existence of it. These cuts very much did have the effect of impeding growth. After all, growth rates were so very much higher under New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that your lot didn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 19:16:45 GMT
Hardly peanuts. And there was also the wholly unfunded cut in the base rate, plus cuts in stamp duty and so on, amounting to a substantial unfunded giveaway of £20-£30 billion. And the intended reversal of planned corporation tax rises created a larger fiscal black hole for the future than the markets anticipated, again unfunded. That the markets were spooked and our economy tanked is a matter of public record so your denialism in support of the Truss agenda is merely a sign of your own intellectual ignorance. Theory is one thing. Actual events and proven outcomes cannot be ignored by anyone whose head is not up their arse. Let's pretend a country with no tax where a government decides it might be a nice idea to (for example) offer cooked meals for the elderly but does not have the money to pay for them so needs to organise how to FUND the idea for a trial service . It can borrow the funding , seek donation or it can impose a tax on incomes . If it then decides to reduce/remove the meal tax imposed that does not make the tax reduction unfunded. Far from it The government has to source different methods of funding or reduce/cut the service It's not tax cuts that are unfunded The tax cuts would be unfunded unless the services they were paying for were removed to pay for them, or the money was borrowed whilst the services were retained. Either way, withdrawal of taxes would be unfunded without the cancellation of the services they were funding to pay for them. Jesus christ, you lot, your semantic dances on a pinhead do not change reality. Nothing is for free. I do note the concerted effort by a number of you to derail a previously intelligent thread with this nitpicking semantic rubbish. Do you guys have something against intelligent threads or something? And the worst offender who started it all is a frigging mod, no less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 19:18:57 GMT
You obviously enjoy jumping to negative conclusions about others if they dare to state a few home truths. So says another with chips who considers grammar school pupils 'knob heads' after failing the 11+ You are talking shit as usual because I never said such a thing, and as usual are jumping to conclusions with no evidence. The biggest knobhead around here right now seems to be you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 19:27:39 GMT
Whilst no fan of New Labour, growth was substantially higher in those years than under the Tories since then, in spite of big spending increases as well as tax increases in the form of stealth taxes associated with New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that the Tories have failed to do since then. One obvious lesson to be learned is that austerity tends to impede growth. So more of it to fund tax cuts is highly unlikely to deliver growth. Another is that tax cuts unfunded tend to crash the economy. If you want viable tax cuts you need to relearn one of the vital tenets of thatcherism, ie the notion of sound money, that nothing comes for free and everything needs to be paid for somehow including tax cuts. Because what Magrathea utterly fails to grasp is that funding can be spoken of in two directions. Eg that whilst tax rises might be necessary to fund spending increases, spending cuts might be necessary to fund tax cuts. The latter do not come for free except in the realms of fantasy economics. Tax cuts financed by austerity will not deliver growth. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing is also likely to be economically damaging in a way that undermines growth. So it's a chicken and egg situation. If you want tax cuts without austerity or more borrowing, both of which will hold back growth, then you need growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. So what has to be done is that taxation itself needs to be rejigged, likewise spending, rather than cut, in ways that encourage growth. In other words you somehow need to generate the growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. Unfunded tax cuts will not generate growth. Even Thatcher knew that much. Which is why she started out by redistributing the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation as a means of boosting the economy rather than simply slashing the overall tax burden without saying how it would be paid for. In this crucial area, Truss was no Thatcher, having utterly discarded one of the central tenets of Thatcherism, ie the need for sound money and balanced books. New Labour inherited a growing economy which is why Blair said they would follow Tory policies for two years. 2010 Tories inherited the fallout of the crash a couple of years previously; there' no worthwhile comparison except both parties are shite. Well I supported neither so am not going to argue with your premise that both parties are shite. They remain so today. But growth rates under Labour remained impressive until the global crash did it's worst, and Labour only stuck to Tory spending plans for the first two years. By 2010 though we were through the worst and the Tories inherited an impressively growing growth rate, which they rapidly killed off with austerity. You see, as someone who by and large loathes New Labour I am nevertheless open-minded enough to acknowledge facts for what they are. And yes the economic fortunes of the nation were already improving in the final years of the Major government, but growth rates continued to be good ten years into the Labour government, so the Tories cannot be credited for that. Labour itself must have been doing something right, and the rising rate of growth again in 2010 must have been snuffed out early on by something the Tories did. And austerity screams out as the explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 20:30:09 GMT
Tax cuts are free, it is the government's spending that costs money and needs to be funded. If tax cuts can be said to 'cost money', then the government can also be said to be funding society with any relative absence of taxation. This is patently absurd and an inversion of reality. Why does the government collect taxes? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 20:48:02 GMT
Whilst no fan of New Labour, growth was substantially higher in those years than under the Tories since then, in spite of big spending increases as well as tax increases in the form of stealth taxes associated with New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that the Tories have failed to do since then. One obvious lesson to be learned is that austerity tends to impede growth. So more of it to fund tax cuts is highly unlikely to deliver growth. Another is that tax cuts unfunded tend to crash the economy. If you want viable tax cuts you need to relearn one of the vital tenets of thatcherism, ie the notion of sound money, that nothing comes for free and everything needs to be paid for somehow including tax cuts. Because what Magrathea utterly fails to grasp is that funding can be spoken of in two directions. Eg that whilst tax rises might be necessary to fund spending increases, spending cuts might be necessary to fund tax cuts. The latter do not come for free except in the realms of fantasy economics. Tax cuts financed by austerity will not deliver growth. Tax cuts funded by increased borrowing is also likely to be economically damaging in a way that undermines growth. So it's a chicken and egg situation. If you want tax cuts without austerity or more borrowing, both of which will hold back growth, then you need growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. So what has to be done is that taxation itself needs to be rejigged, likewise spending, rather than cut, in ways that encourage growth. In other words you somehow need to generate the growth first to be able to finance the tax cuts. Unfunded tax cuts will not generate growth. Even Thatcher knew that much. Which is why she started out by redistributing the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxation as a means of boosting the economy rather than simply slashing the overall tax burden without saying how it would be paid for. In this crucial area, Truss was no Thatcher, having utterly discarded one of the central tenets of Thatcherism, ie the need for sound money and balanced books. New Labour inherited a growing economy which is why Blair said they would follow Tory policies for two years. 2010 Tories inherited the fallout of the crash a couple of years previously; there' no worthwhile comparison except both parties are shite. New Labour inherited an improved economy that still carried major problems from the 1980s. In short they inherited a load of unpaid bills especially in the NHS and in education. In saying they would initially follow Tory plans, New Labour was making the point not to expect improvements until they knew what the true position of the economy was. NL began to make changes from 1997, firstly by giving control of inflation to the Bank of England thus ending the "boom and bust" method of government control of the economy. Only anti-NL Tory dishonest propaganda has led to people believing NL was "shite". That same propaganda structure that kept that worthless Thatcher in office for 11 years. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 20:51:50 GMT
You obviously enjoy jumping to negative conclusions about others if they dare to state a few home truths. So says another with chips who considers grammar school pupils 'knob heads' after failing the 11+ I didn't fail the 11+. Whether I did or not does not mean I don't know a knob head when I see one. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 8, 2023 21:04:14 GMT
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. Hmmm, you have a large chip about grammar schools (generally state education) and consider grammar school pupils to be ''knob heads'' .......... you obviously failed the 11+ You are a LIAR ^^^ that makes your post worthless. Just a silly post from a poster of silly posts. If you had a thinking brain you would have noticed that I was referring to what "seemed to be" i.e. that's the appearance they give with their immature control of the media. And it never referred to all products of the grammar school system, just the knob heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 22:09:17 GMT
Well as we never had any austerity how it could impede growth is unclear. Since 2010 what we did have were a record tax burden, record borrowing, record debt and record money printing. The idea that we just didnt have enough of all that to give us growth is rather amusing tbh. Yet somehow we also managed to have massive departmental cuts and local government cuts which constituted austerity, in spite of a few such as yourself attempting to deny the very existence of it. These cuts very much did have the effect of impeding growth. After all, growth rates were so very much higher under New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that your lot didn't. Well if we are looking at New Labours record - their growth rates only look good if you exclude the Financial crisis. Yes they did great when they inherited a booming economy - but when a government does not inherit a booming economy and has to comply with EU rules on spending deficits it is a tad harder. Obviously you do not want to compare like with like and I can understand that, but from 2010 there is nothing that the Tories did that a Labour Government would not have done as well. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 9, 2023 8:38:50 GMT
Yet somehow we also managed to have massive departmental cuts and local government cuts which constituted austerity, in spite of a few such as yourself attempting to deny the very existence of it. These cuts very much did have the effect of impeding growth. After all, growth rates were so very much higher under New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that your lot didn't. Well if we are looking at New Labours record - their growth rates only look good if you exclude the Financial crisis. Yes they did great when they inherited a booming economy - but when a government does not inherit a booming economy and has to comply with EU rules on spending deficits it is a tad harder. Obviously you do not want to compare like with like and I can understand that, but from 2010 there is nothing that the Tories did that a Labour Government would not have done as well. Try educating yourself on NL first, THEN YOU MIGHT be able to compare like with like, instead of posting your disgustingly overly biased opinionated posting against NL. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 9, 2023 9:28:59 GMT
Tax cuts are free, it is the government's spending that costs money and needs to be funded. If tax cuts can be said to 'cost money', then the government can also be said to be funding society with any relative absence of taxation. This is patently absurd and an inversion of reality. Why does the government collect taxes? In order to fund spending. It doesn't need to fund a tax cut because a tax cut is not spending |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 9, 2023 20:00:53 GMT
Yet somehow we also managed to have massive departmental cuts and local government cuts which constituted austerity, in spite of a few such as yourself attempting to deny the very existence of it. These cuts very much did have the effect of impeding growth. After all, growth rates were so very much higher under New Labour. So they must have been doing something right that your lot didn't. Well if we are looking at New Labours record - their growth rates only look good if you exclude the Financial crisis. Yes they did great when they inherited a booming economy - but when a government does not inherit a booming economy and has to comply with EU rules on spending deficits it is a tad harder. Obviously you do not want to compare like with like and I can understand that, but from 2010 there is nothing that the Tories did that a Labour Government would not have done as well. Why did the Tories get kicked out if the economy was booming? Is it because only a few years before people lost everything because of Majors ERM vanity project and the Tories fix which involved 17% interest rates? Would that be it? |
|
