Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 21:57:38 GMT
The idea that tax cuts come for free is the very reason that Trussonomics failed so badly. Tax cuts have to be funded by increased borrowing or reduced spending. Eh? - spending is the only thing that needs to be funded. If you have no spending then there is no funding requirement. C'mon - this is basic economics. Taxes fund spending. Any tax cuts therefore need to be funded by increased borrowing to replace the lost revenue or by spending cuts. That you adherents of Trussonomics fail to grasp this and think of tax cuts as a free lunch goes some way to explaining your failure to get how Truss tanked the economy. lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 23:37:32 GMT
How can she tank the economy when so little was enacted? As pointed out by the OP inflation was already rising and the banksters became aware of the threat of rate hikes as a response to something that was word only. What happened was a panic that lasted a few weeks, which is why rates fell soon after. What she did, or said that she would do, stopped being an issue within or around a month. None of it has significance today, because in reality, nothing happened except panic and fear which caused a blip. What this means now, is that nobody will have the bollocks to tackle the underlining issue, which is why the Tories are so ineffective and why Labour is so shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 31, 2024 6:34:26 GMT
Eh? - spending is the only thing that needs to be funded. If you have no spending then there is no funding requirement. C'mon - this is basic economics. Taxes fund spending. Any tax cuts therefore need to be funded by increased borrowing to replace the lost revenue or by spending cuts. That you adherents of Trussonomics fail to grasp this and think of tax cuts as a free lunch goes some way to explaining your failure to get how Truss tanked the economy. lol But you dont need to keep spending. Lets say your income is short by £8 Billion - you can either put up taxes in the hope that your income rises (not guaranteed) or do less. So to save £8 Billion you decide to close the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Result is no requirement to increase borrowing. Spending is a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 31, 2024 6:44:01 GMT
For the umpteenth time in reply to continued lefty ignorance Tax cuts are not unfunded , tax cuts do not need funding It is government spending that is funded from the nation pot The idea that tax cuts come for free is the very reason that Trussonomics failed so badly. Tax cuts have to be funded by increased borrowing or reduced spending. Not true. The raising of the top rate of tax to 45% (or 50% initially IIRC) was part of a Brown's "scorched earth policy" when he got booted out. He knew it would raise little money (if any) but he also knew that it would be very difficult for the Tories to ever scrap it. It was a political booby trap. Truss was right to try and scrap it. Also Truss wanted slash Corporation Tax which would have kick started growth. Look what it did for Ireland - an amazing transformation. This was one of the reasons to leave the EU. And what did Sunak and Hunt do? They raised CT from 19% to 25%. Absolutely crazy. This is costing the UK every day. Why do you think van der Leyen calls Sunak "dear Rishi". She hated Boris. There are optimum rates for taxes (look at the Laffer curve) and some of our taxes are too high and would raise more money if they were lowered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2024 7:14:21 GMT
Of course Liz Truss did not crash the economy.
Any intelligent person must know that it was all a left wing conspiracy by bankers, stock traders, the left wing Establishment, the EU and the New World Order.
Which is obviously much more likely. After all, we must remain grounded in reality, mustnt we? Tax cuts couldnt possibly have crashed the economy because they are free. No one pays for them. So the parties are clearly missing a trick by not promising to abolish all taxes, since doing so would be cost free.
Such flawless logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 31, 2024 7:27:53 GMT
Also Truss wanted slash Corporation Tax which would have kick started growth. Look what it did for Ireland - an amazing transformation. This was one of the reasons to leave the EU. I can see a small hole in your argument here. Interesting juxtaposition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2024 7:29:20 GMT
None of the responses mentioned the Left, so your childish response only undermines your own intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on May 31, 2024 7:33:53 GMT
The idea our politicians control the B of England, the City and the Economy … is BEYOND ABSURD … and just a figment of LEFTist naivety and MSM-manipulative thinking.
All Market crashes and rises are engineered … often by AI algorithms these days … I bet the WEF/Soros Posse can inject into the System a few of their own … just to pull the UK into the gutter again and again … whenever it pleases their twisted EVIL minds ….
…. Just to shut down more of our essential services … disability centres, libraries, museums, trash our archives, destroy our Social fabric and Life’s little pleasures that make the HELL they create … somehow survivable.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on May 31, 2024 7:40:13 GMT
Of course Liz Truss did not crash the economy. Any intelligent person must know that it was all a left wing conspiracy by bankers, stock traders, the left wing Establishment, the EU and the New World Order. Which is obviously much more likely. After all, we must remain grounded in reality, mustnt we? Tax cuts couldnt possibly have crashed the economy because they are free. No one pays for them. So the parties are clearly missing a trick by not promising to abolish all taxes, since doing so would be cost free. Such flawless logic. You're repeating yourself. The basic difference between what Truss/Kwarteng proposed was that they proposed cutting the 45% income tax rate (cost about £1 billion) and cutting Corporation Tax (which would almost certainly have created growth and wouldn't have needed funding). The really BIG cost was to help people with energy bills - and Sunak also did this - there was no alternative. So you need to explain why the markets threw a wobbly about this but accepted Sunak/Hunt's budget. (Actually they liked Truss's mini budget initially until Sunak and the BoE etc began attacking it). The answer - as so often happens in markets - is "confidence". Nothing was actually implemented so that's the only thing it could be. And confidence was trashed because it became apparent that most of the Treasury, Sunak and the BoE were not on board with the PM. In fact the BoE had been ramping up the sale of govt gilts (of which there are about 1.2 trillion) at knock down prices. So the PM was going in one direction but the BoE and Treasury were going in the opposite direction. This was a deliberate attempt to destabilise the PM/Chancellor. There's no other way to look at it. It's made even more astonishing because the BoE had absolutely no reason to do this. The gilts were simply notional money and could be retained until a better time to sell came - or simply not sold at all. You have to be wifully blind to not see what was going on here. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 31, 2024 7:48:30 GMT
Taxes fund spending. Any tax cuts therefore need to be funded by increased borrowing to replace the lost revenue or by spending cuts. That you adherents of Trussonomics fail to grasp this and think of tax cuts as a free lunch goes some way to explaining your failure to get how Truss tanked the economy. lol But you dont need to keep spending. Lets say your income is short by £8 Billion - you can either put up taxes in the hope that your income rises (not guaranteed) or do less. So to save £8 Billion you decide to close the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Result is no requirement to increase borrowing. Spending is a choice. Socialists love spending other people's money. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 31, 2024 7:50:14 GMT
But you dont need to keep spending. Lets say your income is short by £8 Billion - you can either put up taxes in the hope that your income rises (not guaranteed) or do less. So to save £8 Billion you decide to close the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Result is no requirement to increase borrowing. Spending is a choice. Socialists love spending other people's money. LOL - ain't that the truth...   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2024 7:51:56 GMT
Of course Liz Truss did not crash the economy. Any intelligent person must know that it was all a left wing conspiracy by bankers, stock traders, the left wing Establishment, the EU and the New World Order. Which is obviously much more likely. After all, we must remain grounded in reality, mustnt we? Tax cuts couldnt possibly have crashed the economy because they are free. No one pays for them. So the parties are clearly missing a trick by not promising to abolish all taxes, since doing so would be cost free. Such flawless logic. You're repeating yourself. The basic difference between what Truss/Kwarteng proposed was that they proposed cutting the 45% income tax rate (cost about £1 billion) and cutting Corporation Tax (which would almost certainly have created growth and wouldn't have needed funding). The really BIG cost was to help people with energy bills - and Sunak also did this - there was no alternative. So you need to explain why the markets threw a wobbly about this but accepted Sunak/Hunt's budget. (Actually they liked Truss's mini budget initially until Sunak and the BoE etc began attacking it). The answer - as so often happens in markets - is "confidence". Nothing was actually implemented so that's the only thing it could be. And confidence was trashed because it became apparent that most of the Treasury, Sunak and the BoE were not on board with the PM. In fact the BoE had been ramping up the sale of govt gilts (of which there are about 1.2 trillion) at knock down prices. So the PM was going in one direction but the BoE and Treasury were going in the opposite direction. This was a deliberate attempt to destabilise the PM/Chancellor. There's no other way to look at it. It's made even more astonishing because the BoE had absolutely no reason to do this. The gilts were simply notional money and could be retained until a better time to sell came - or simply not sold at all. You have to be wifully blind to not see what was going on here. It was also an opportunity for the Tories to try and cover their own flaws during Covid, which is still being felt today. Labour obviously can't attack the Tories over that because they wanted even more draconian measures, so it's simpler if they all wrongfully hate on Truss.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 31, 2024 7:52:15 GMT
The idea that tax cuts come for free is the very reason that Trussonomics failed so badly. Tax cuts have to be funded by increased borrowing or reduced spending. Not true. The raising of the top rate of tax to 45% (or 50% initially IIRC) was part of a Brown's "scorched earth policy" when he got booted out. He knew it would raise little money (if any) but he also knew that it would be very difficult for the Tories to ever scrap it. It was a political booby trap. Truss was right to try and scrap it. Also Truss wanted slash Corporation Tax which would have kick started growth. Look what it did for Ireland - an amazing transformation. This was one of the reasons to leave the EU. And what did Sunak and Hunt do? They raised CT from 19% to 25%. Absolutely crazy. This is costing the UK every day. Why do you think van der Leyen calls Sunak "dear Rishi". She hated Boris. There are optimum rates for taxes (look at the Laffer curve) and some of our taxes are too high and would raise more money if they were lowered. The EU love that. Remember "Singapore on Thames" and the worry about this from the EU and their counterparts. What did Rish & co. do, ape the EU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2024 7:55:45 GMT
Of course Liz Truss did not crash the economy. Any intelligent person must know that it was all a left wing conspiracy by bankers, stock traders, the left wing Establishment, the EU and the New World Order. Which is obviously much more likely. After all, we must remain grounded in reality, mustnt we? Tax cuts couldnt possibly have crashed the economy because they are free. No one pays for them. So the parties are clearly missing a trick by not promising to abolish all taxes, since doing so would be cost free. Such flawless logic. You're repeating yourself. The basic difference between what Truss/Kwarteng proposed was that they proposed cutting the 45% income tax rate (cost about £1 billion) and cutting Corporation Tax (which would almost certainly have created growth and wouldn't have needed funding). The really BIG cost was to help people with energy bills - and Sunak also did this - there was no alternative. So you need to explain why the markets threw a wobbly about this but accepted Sunak/Hunt's budget. (Actually they liked Truss's mini budget initially until Sunak and the BoE etc began attacking it). The answer - as so often happens in markets - is "confidence". Nothing was actually implemented so that's the only thing it could be. And confidence was trashed because it became apparent that most of the Treasury, Sunak and the BoE were not on board with the PM. In fact the BoE had been ramping up the sale of govt gilts (of which there are about 1.2 trillion) at knock down prices. So the PM was going in one direction but the BoE and Treasury were going in the opposite direction. This was a deliberate attempt to destabilise the PM/Chancellor. There's no other way to look at it. It's made even more astonishing because the BoE had absolutely no reason to do this. The gilts were simply notional money and could be retained until a better time to sell came - or simply not sold at all. You have to be wifully blind to not see what was going on here. Of course, that makes much more sense. The failure of almost the entire commentariat to see this can only be explained as a left wing conspiracy. Got ya. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2024 7:59:21 GMT
Socialists love spending other people's money. LOL - ain't that the truth... Oh the blessed Maggie. How we all yearn for those halcyon days. I think I might write a column in the Daily Mail about it. |
|
