|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 1, 2024 6:32:02 GMT
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. You must get your information from other sources than I do - Guardian and BBC for example. Others are far more balanced in their criticism of Truss. Looking at it from a different angle though, the basic fact is that the Tory party wanted to get rid of Boris and they wanted to install Sunak in his place. The problem that they had was that, while the parliamentary party wanted Sunak, the Tory membership did NOT - and they installed Truss instead. Of course the people who run the Tory party were incandescent and decided to get rid of her., which proved quite easy because she had made a lot of enemies in the Treasury and the OBR (and the BoE). It's actually very difficult for a PM with different ideas to implement them against civil service opposition, which is what Truss found out. She was in too much of a hurry. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2024 6:42:41 GMT
LOL - ain't that the truth...   The Problem with Tax Cuts for the wealthy is you eventually run out of any form Public Services or Infrastructure, and end up like Sudan.All The Best You do? - I was thinking more like Singapore which has consistently had twice the growth rate of the UK.. But I bow to the economic expertise of you Socialists with your decades record of Economic competence - how is North Korea doing by the way? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 1, 2024 6:59:06 GMT
The Problem with Tax Cuts for the wealthy is you eventually run out of any form Public Services or Infrastructure, and end up like Sudan.All The Best You do? - I was thinking more like Singapore which has consistently had twice the growth rate of the UK.. But I bow to the economic expertise of you Socialists with your decades record of Economic competence - how is North Korea doing by the way? Well the 'great lady' used the countries oil wealth with which to float her pathetic corner shop ideology, and then in her final year sold it off meaning that no other government, or anyone else, would get the full financial benefit from OUR oil wealth. Her Toryism used up OUR wealth for her failed right-wing ideology. How well is the UK doing after being dominated by Tory governments since 1951? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2024 7:16:07 GMT
You do? - I was thinking more like Singapore which has consistently had twice the growth rate of the UK.. But I bow to the economic expertise of you Socialists with your decades record of Economic competence - how is North Korea doing by the way? Well the 'great lady' used the countries oil wealth with which to float her pathetic corner shop ideology, and then in her final year sold it off meaning that no other government, or anyone else, would get the full financial benefit from OUR oil wealth. Her Toryism used up OUR wealth for her failed right-wing ideology. How well is the UK doing after being dominated by Tory governments since 1951? are you sure you want to go there? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2024 10:53:52 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 You don't seem to realise (even in your post you agree)that you agree that it is spending that requires funding , spending is voluntary and can be cut/adjusted at will (subject to whether it can be afforded from income) Tax cuts do not need funding They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2024 10:57:31 GMT
You don't seem to realise (even in your post you agree)that you agree that it is spending that requires funding , spending is voluntary and can be cut/adjusted at will (subject to whether it can be afforded from income) Tax cuts do not need funding They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2024 11:17:50 GMT
They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) I have heard of the Laffer Curve many times, always trumpeted by the wealthy to justify tax cuts for themselves. But the point at which tax rates are so high that less taxes rather than more are raised is most broadly estimated to be about 70%. Above that rate tax rises result in less tax being raised. Below that rate they result in more being raised. As you know tax rates are well below that level, so cutting them further for higher earners is likely to cost more than it raises. I do however tend to think that earned incomes are overtaxed in this country, whilst unearned incomes and wealth in the form of assets, including property are undertaxed. So I would not, as I once might have, advocate higher top rates of income tax, but would happily advocate across the board reductions in income taxes. This would have to include large increases in the basic rate and higher rate tax thresholds, perhaps the abolition of the 45p rate and ideally also the abolition of National Insurance. Just two tax rates, 20p and 40p. But for this to be feasible without the kind of devastating cuts that would cause our nation immense damage, the burden would have to be shifted towards higher taxes on wealth assets and unearned incomes of certain kinds. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 1, 2024 12:06:11 GMT
You do? - I was thinking more like Singapore which has consistently had twice the growth rate of the UK.. But I bow to the economic expertise of you Socialists with your decades record of Economic competence - how is North Korea doing by the way? Well the 'great lady' used the countries oil wealth with which to float her pathetic corner shop ideology, and then in her final year sold it off meaning that no other government, or anyone else, would get the full financial benefit from OUR oil wealth. Her Toryism used up OUR wealth for her failed right-wing ideology. How well is the UK doing after being dominated by Tory governments since 1951? That's another new one from a ignorant lefty who probably has no clue how to balance their personal bank statement - let alone a commercial enterprise, Corner shops are ''pathetic'' . |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 1, 2024 12:10:42 GMT
You don't seem to realise (even in your post you agree)that you agree that it is spending that requires funding , spending is voluntary and can be cut/adjusted at will (subject to whether it can be afforded from income) Tax cuts do not need funding They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. There's no semantics from me Tax cuts do not need funding Only spending requires funding and should be affordable within the confines of the national pot and reduced if required , there is no necessity to increase borrowing |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 1, 2024 12:15:14 GMT
No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) I have heard of the Laffer Curve many times, always trumpeted by the wealthy to justify tax cuts for themselves. But the point at which tax rates are so high that less taxes rather than more are raised is most broadly estimated to be about 70%. Above that rate tax rises result in less tax being raised. Below that rate they result in more being raised. As you know tax rates are well below that level, so cutting them further for higher earners is likely to cost more than it raises. I do however tend to think that earned incomes are overtaxed in this country, whilst unearned incomes and wealth in the form of assets, including property are undertaxed. So I would not, as I once might have, advocate higher top rates of income tax, but would happily advocate across the board reductions in income taxes. This would have to include large increases in the basic rate and higher rate tax thresholds, perhaps the abolition of the 45p rate and ideally also the abolition of National Insurance. Just two tax rates, 20p and 40p. But for this to be feasible without the kind of devastating cuts that would cause our nation immense damage, the burden would have to be shifted towards higher taxes on wealth assets and unearned incomes of certain kinds. To look for untaxed income one only has to look at the untaxed income of the millions of welfare handout spongers (OAP pensions are already taxable) Treat them like normal working taxpayers in the interests of fairness Tax them on their handout packages at income tax rates above the personal allowance |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 1, 2024 20:30:09 GMT
They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) The Laffer Curve has been discredited more time than Boris Johnson. Trickle Down DOES NOT WORK - it has NEVER WORKED. Even that bastion of socialism the NYT has ran articles on it. In 50 years, across 20+ economies there is not one single shred of evidence that Laffer Curve economics works. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2024 21:34:51 GMT
No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) The Laffer Curve has been discredited more time than Boris Johnson. Trickle Down DOES NOT WORK - it has NEVER WORKED. Even that bastion of socialism the NYT has ran articles on it. In 50 years, across 20+ economies there is not one single shred of evidence that Laffer Curve economics works. All The Best What absolute twaddle - the concept that the level of taxation affects behavior is the cornerstone of much of our taxation system ffs.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 1, 2024 21:38:14 GMT
No - that is not always the case. Somebody earlier pointed out the Laffer Curve to you - tax cuts can pay for themselves (which we have seen numerous times over the years) I have heard of the Laffer Curve many times, always trumpeted by the wealthy to justify tax cuts for themselves. But the point at which tax rates are so high that less taxes rather than more are raised is most broadly estimated to be about 70%. Above that rate tax rises result in less tax being raised. Below that rate they result in more being raised. As you know tax rates are well below that level, so cutting them further for higher earners is likely to cost more than it raises. I do however tend to think that earned incomes are overtaxed in this country, whilst unearned incomes and wealth in the form of assets, including property are undertaxed. So I would not, as I once might have, advocate higher top rates of income tax, but would happily advocate across the board reductions in income taxes. This would have to include large increases in the basic rate and higher rate tax thresholds, perhaps the abolition of the 45p rate and ideally also the abolition of National Insurance. Just two tax rates, 20p and 40p. But for this to be feasible without the kind of devastating cuts that would cause our nation immense damage, the burden would have to be shifted towards higher taxes on wealth assets and unearned incomes of certain kinds. You would struggle to tax wealth and unearned income to the level that the receipts would replace that collected by earned income. Countries around the globe have tried and failed with that idea - wealth is simply too portable in the modern economy. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 1, 2024 22:50:44 GMT
The Laffer Curve has been discredited more time than Boris Johnson. Trickle Down DOES NOT WORK - it has NEVER WORKED. Even that bastion of socialism the NYT has ran articles on it. In 50 years, across 20+ economies there is not one single shred of evidence that Laffer Curve economics works. All The Best What absolute twaddle - the concept that the level of taxation affects behavior is the cornerstone of much of our taxation system ffs. Oh fuck me. Go do the research. Yes, Taxation affect Behaviour - no one is denying that. However, the Laffer Curse was supposed to show that lower taxation, especially of the wealthy, stimulates the economy to the betterment of all - the core concept of Trickle Down. Data for 50 years, from 20 ne0-liberal economic countries was collected, collated and analysed. Lower Taxes, especially on the wealthy, benefits one group, and ONLY one group - the wealth. There is not one single shred of credible evidence that Trickle-Down works... ..end of. Forget the Trussonomics bollocks, forget the Blue-Rinse Bandwagon, look at the REAL DATA. It does not work, the Laffer Curve is bunkum - a solution plucked from cherry-picked data, to a problem that never really existed. The rich are NOT over-taxed. They are grossly UNDER-taxed. All The Best |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2024 5:42:04 GMT
They do in the sense that to make them affordable without increasing borrowing, state spending has to be cut. This is not a cost free exercise as the last 14 years have shown. Tax cuts thus do somehow have to be funded either b y economic growth or spending cuts. And too much of the latter will often do immense damage to the economy, as we have seen. Playing with semantics is risible. Tax cuts don't come for free. There's no semantics from me Tax cuts do not need funding Only spending requires funding and should be affordable within the confines of the national pot and reduced if required , there is no necessity to increase borrowing There is if you wish to maintain public spending whilst cutting taxes. Of course tax cuts need funding either via spending cuts or borrowing increases. |
|
