Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lots of reports yesterday that Tory spending pledges have equalled Corbyn at the last election. Deficit next year forecast to be £50bn. Anybody think we will cut our cloth to reflect our reduced circumstances post-Brexit? Come the next recession debt will thump through the 100% of GDP barrier.

Yes, but everyone knows that Corbyn would actually intend to meet those pledges whereas everyone knows that Boris is just lying for votes. Or making the Queen lie for him which is a change from lying to her.

I am assuming the lie is in what the additional spending will buy and the speed of the tax cuts.

Would seem strange to take the flak for planning to run a massive deficit and then not do it

If reports of a rift between Johnson and Javid are accurate then that would suggest Johnson does intend to at least go some way to meeting these spending claims. Johnson prioritises whatever keeps him elected over ideology.

Yes, but once he has been elected (with a majority) there is no reason for him to prioritise these things. Once it has become OK to lie then any pre-election promise means nothing at all. In theory, once people realise this, maybe they will stop voting for liars but I'm not holding my breath. If they don't then our future is seemingly to be governed on the whim of the PM as the US is governed on the whim of the president.

The Tories were losing votes due to public spending cuts. If the effect of spending increases isn't visible, they'll continue to lose votes.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lots of reports yesterday that Tory spending pledges have equalled Corbyn at the last election. Deficit next year forecast to be £50bn. Anybody think we will cut our cloth to reflect our reduced circumstances post-Brexit? Come the next recession debt will thump through the 100% of GDP barrier.

Yes, but everyone knows that Corbyn would actually intend to meet those pledges whereas everyone knows that Boris is just lying for votes. Or making the Queen lie for him which is a change from lying to her.

I am assuming the lie is in what the additional spending will buy and the speed of the tax cuts.

Would seem strange to take the flak for planning to run a massive deficit and then not do it

If reports of a rift between Johnson and Javid are accurate then that would suggest Johnson does intend to at least go some way to meeting these spending claims. Johnson prioritises whatever keeps him elected over ideology.

Yes, but once he has been elected (with a majority) there is no reason for him to prioritise these things. Once it has become OK to lie then any pre-election promise means nothing at all. In theory, once people realise this, maybe they will stop voting for liars but I'm not holding my breath. If they don't then our future is seemingly to be governed on the whim of the PM as the US is governed on the whim of the president.

The Tories were losing votes due to public spending cuts. If the effect of spending increases isn't visible, they'll continue to lose votes.

I hope you are right but I think that that sort of logic is probably so 2018.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Now, let's see how that's worked out in Trumplandia...

Out of interest, how do you think that has worked out?

From what I've read, adding to the deficit, whilst giving the biggest percentage tax cuts to the richest. I can appreciate that a massive tax cut in corporation tax would appeal to you.

Although it improved the tax code in some ways, TCJA will (a) have minimal impact on long-term growth; (b) increase disparities in after-tax income by giving the largest relative and absolute tax cuts to high-income households; (c) make most households worse off after taking into account plausible ways of financing the tax cut; (d) make the government’s troublesome long-term fiscal status even worse; (e) make the tax system more complex and more uncertain; (f) make it harder for policymakers to fight future recessions; (g) reduce health insurance coverage, raise health insurance prices, and (h) reduce charitable giving.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... -jobs-act/

TBH the UK corporate tax rate is already pretty competitive - 19% now, dropping to 17% in April next year. I'm more interested in a more competitive UK income tax rate

Re: the US, it was more than just personal tax rates. They had one of the highest corporate rates in the world and some historical oddities in the system that distorted behaviour which needed fixing. In that respect it can be argued the the reforms worked quite well.

As for US personal tax rates, they were tweaked a bit to keep them competitive. I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

Longshot

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

I never get tired of that story.

rick_chasey

Longshot wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

I never get tired of that story.

It's been debunked on here so many times and yet Stevo keeps positing it.

kingstongraham

Longshot wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

I never get tired of that story.

I like the fact it accepts basic income as a prerequisite for the analogy.

Longshot

Rick Chasey wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

I never get tired of that story.

It's been debunked on here so many times and yet Stevo keeps positing it.

It may not be 100% accurate but there's a small grain of truth to it.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I guess the original story of the ten men in a bar was from the US: I find it quite handy to explain the human reaction to higher taxes to people:
https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

I never get tired of that story.

It's been debunked on here so many times and yet Stevo keeps positing it.

I don't recall it being debunked. Actually as a tax professional I know there is a decent bit of home truth in it and have explained and given examples. Problem is, you don't want to hear it because it doesnt fit in with your rather simplistic view on this stuff.

rick_chasey

Sorry, simplistic view? The analogy is somehow not simplistic? Give over.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sorry, simplistic view? The analogy is somehow not simplistic? Give over.

Of course the analogy is simplistic, it's so that people can understand the underlying point.

Debunk away...

rick_chasey

Just go find the last time you mentioned it. Pointless repeating myself, as you'll just post it in six months time anyway.

kingstongraham

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Just go find the last time you mentioned it. Pointless repeating myself, as you'll just post it in six months time anyway.

It's only pointless for you as last time as I demonstrated that you didn't have much of case

Bloody tax amateurs...

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lots of reports yesterday that Tory spending pledges have equalled Corbyn at the last election. Deficit next year forecast to be £50bn. Anybody think we will cut our cloth to reflect our reduced circumstances post-Brexit? Come the next recession debt will thump through the 100% of GDP barrier.

Any currently available iteration of Brexit blows a bigger hole in public finances than BoJo's spending promises, and will require some decent fiscal stimulus to not turn it into a rout, so I think you're p!ssing in the wind with that one.

What problem would a fiscal stimulus be fixing?

Monster slump in aggregate demand.

Not sure why there will be a slump in domestic demand. Exports will take the biggest hit and manufacturers dependent upon imports in their supply chain. Either way the solution is not fiscal stimulus.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

Surely the point is that tax cuts have to benefit the highest payers yet the recipients of the taxes will moan and end up worse off when they kill the golden goose. The beating outside the boozer is of course our old friend the Laffer Curve.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lots of reports yesterday that Tory spending pledges have equalled Corbyn at the last election. Deficit next year forecast to be £50bn. Anybody think we will cut our cloth to reflect our reduced circumstances post-Brexit? Come the next recession debt will thump through the 100% of GDP barrier.

Any currently available iteration of Brexit blows a bigger hole in public finances than BoJo's spending promises, and will require some decent fiscal stimulus to not turn it into a rout, so I think you're p!ssing in the wind with that one.

What problem would a fiscal stimulus be fixing?

Monster slump in aggregate demand.

Not sure why there will be a slump in domestic demand. Exports will take the biggest hit and manufacturers dependent upon imports in their supply chain. Either way the solution is not fiscal stimulus.

Recessions are solved with everyone spending more. Since that’s actually quite tricky, govts ought to step in and do their bit.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

There's no way that's the message. The amount of "tax" given to the "government" went down.

It's about how the distribution of tax CUTS feels unfair to those who don't receive them, and how unfair they really are to the ultra rich and should be more generous.

And it includes an unintentional positive basic income message.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

There's no way that's the message. The amount of "tax" given to the "government" went down.

It's about how the distribution of tax CUTS feels unfair to those who don't receive them, and how unfair they really are to the ultra rich and should be more generous.

And it includes an unintentional positive basic income message.

Yes it is. They objected to the richest guy getting the largest reduction and when he didn't show, they couldn't pay the bill.

One other message in there is that those who pay the most tax benefit the most from tax cuts. Quite right too.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I think the major flaw is the idea that the decrease in taxes comes with no reduction in services.

If you read the analogy, the point is that an attempt to raise taxes can actually decrease tax revenues...

There's no way that's the message. The amount of "tax" given to the "government" went down.

It's about how the distribution of tax CUTS feels unfair to those who don't receive them, and how unfair they really are to the ultra rich and should be more generous.

And it includes an unintentional positive basic income message.

Yes it is. They objected to the richest guy getting the largest reduction and when he didn't show, they couldn't pay the bill.

One other message in there is that those who pay the most tax benefit the most from tax cuts. Quite right too.

Where's the tax hike? It's all about cuts. Nothing about raising taxes. The rich guy seemed happy to go out drinking with the others when he was paying more, so all was good. The trouble started when they reduced his tax.

So in this world where everything is suddenly cheaper, then let's reduce taxes on the richest, but don't expect it to be easy because taxes aren't just about raising revenue.

Fair message I think.

Stevo_666

From the link:
"And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

Relevant part highlighted.

kingstongraham

There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lots of reports yesterday that Tory spending pledges have equalled Corbyn at the last election. Deficit next year forecast to be £50bn. Anybody think we will cut our cloth to reflect our reduced circumstances post-Brexit? Come the next recession debt will thump through the 100% of GDP barrier.

Any currently available iteration of Brexit blows a bigger hole in public finances than BoJo's spending promises, and will require some decent fiscal stimulus to not turn it into a rout, so I think you're p!ssing in the wind with that one.

What problem would a fiscal stimulus be fixing?

Monster slump in aggregate demand.

Not sure why there will be a slump in domestic demand. Exports will take the biggest hit and manufacturers dependent upon imports in their supply chain. Either way the solution is not fiscal stimulus.

Recessions are solved with everyone spending more. Since that’s actually quite tricky, govts ought to step in and do their bit.

GFC was a recession caused by a freezing of the credit markets. Surely the solution was to unfreeze them not for everybody to spend more.

Recessions in the 70s caused by oil price shock...

How about an export led recovery? I am thinking more China end of the spectrum than UK

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.

The problem was not the cut itself but the attitude of those who had a sense of entitlement about getting the benefits. You could call them lefties.

Care is needed when raising taxes as it doesn't always have the desired effect.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

GFC was a recession caused by a freezing of the credit markets. Surely the solution was to unfreeze them not for everybody to spend more.

Recessions in the 70s caused by oil price shock...

How about an export led recovery? I am thinking more China end of the spectrum than UK

I'm less interested in the causes - I imagine this one will be Brexit if it ever happens.

But what actually is a recession? Almost always it's people spending less. Occasionally a massive supply side shock, but then there's not much you can do to rectify those in the timeframe of a recession.

How do you get out of it? By people spending more.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

GFC was a recession caused by a freezing of the credit markets. Surely the solution was to unfreeze them not for everybody to spend more.

Recessions in the 70s caused by oil price shock...

How about an export led recovery? I am thinking more China end of the spectrum than UK

I'm less interested in the causes - I imagine this one will be Brexit if it ever happens.

But what actually is a recession? Almost always it's people spending less. Occasionally a massive supply side shock, but then there's not much you can do to rectify those in the timeframe of a recession.

How do you get out of it? By people spending more.

Surely the cause will lead you to the solution.

Brexit will be the cause of a recession. Surely the solution would be to reverse Brexit?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

GFC was a recession caused by a freezing of the credit markets. Surely the solution was to unfreeze them not for everybody to spend more.

Recessions in the 70s caused by oil price shock...

How about an export led recovery? I am thinking more China end of the spectrum than UK

I'm less interested in the causes - I imagine this one will be Brexit if it ever happens.

But what actually is a recession? Almost always it's people spending less. Occasionally a massive supply side shock, but then there's not much you can do to rectify those in the timeframe of a recession.

How do you get out of it? By people spending more.

Surely the cause will lead you to the solution.

Brexit will be the cause of a recession. Surely the solution would be to reverse Brexit?

Not really. Firstly Brexit isn't a single thing, but a collection of changes to trading relationships (amongst other things). Different sectors will be affected in different ways according to whatever trade agreement is eventually reached. Assuming that it can't be reversed to the exact situation in 2016, it will still be different. Businesses will still need to adapt. More significantly, a large part of the negative impact Brexit has had so far is due to the uncertainty of over the eventual destination. This has caused a lot of businesses and individuals to scale back or postpone spending until there is more certainty. Reversing Brexit would just add to the uncertainty at this point.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

There's nothing in the story to support that. It sounds like the only problem came with the tax reduction. So the moral is, be very careful when cutting taxes.

The problem was not the cut itself but the attitude of those who had a sense of entitlement about getting the benefits. You could call them lefties.

Care is needed when raising taxes as it doesn't always have the desired effect.

But we're agreed there's nothing about raising taxes in the story.

Wouldn't want to move the goalposts, would you?

bradsbeard

Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?

rick_chasey

bradsbeard wrote:

Will somebody just answer the question. Will my Canyon be cheaper after brexit?

Than when?