Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…322323325327328…501

Comments

  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Eh? Not sure I understand what you're asking.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,532
    kingstonian said:

    Eh? Not sure I understand what you're asking.

    You stated that there are sufficient funds, but the use of them is ineffective. That means you must feel something or some area falls short, and should benefit from more effective spending. Where should this more effective spending take place? Or are you arguing that everything from pensions to NHS could be improved by efficiencies?
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    edited November 2019
    rjsterry said:

    kingstonian said:

    On the basis of those numbers you're right, it would be an obvious trade-off to make.

    One big issue with the tax system is the salary level at which 40% kicks in, which hasn't by any stretch of the imagination kept up with wage growth. I've no issue with a 45% or 50% rate, but the point at which 25% becomes 40% should be raised IMO.

    Wage growth has barely kept up with inflation over the last 10 years. If the thresholds were to raise that's just dumping more tax on the top earners and giving Joe Average the idea that they shouldn't be contributing that much.
    After inflation wages are still below 2008.

    And you wonder why the discussion has become about how to divy the pie up over growing the pie.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,532
    kingstonian said:

    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.

    In which case, I disagree. I doubt efficiency savings will have much impact on the payment of pensions, and that is a big chunk of the budget.
  • Longshot
    Longshot Posts: 940
    TheBlueBean said:

    kingstonian said:

    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.

    In which case, I disagree. I doubt efficiency savings will have much impact on the payment of pensions, and that is a big chunk of the budget.
    True. If one were really devious, there would seem to a double saving available if the NHS geriatric departments were underfunded even more for a few years.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,760
    kingstonian said:

    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.

    This has been the position of every government as far back as I can remember (during the election). Then it unexpectedly becomes difficult to find them once they are in power, without having unexpected side effects.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBlueBean said:

    kingstonian said:

    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.

    In which case, I disagree. I doubt efficiency savings will have much impact on the payment of pensions, and that is a big chunk of the budget.
    could efficiency be seen as targeting resources at those who need it? and expand the definition wider and scrap the triple lock
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    Just for clarity, are you in the "efficiency savings" camp or believe that everything's fine as it is?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    rjsterry said:

    Just for clarity, are you in the "efficiency savings" camp or believe that everything's fine as it is?

    We're not that far off balancing the books so the gap is bridge able with a bit of time and effort, but as Rick has said repeatedly (and I think you agreed) we can borrow loads more without problems, so why tax more? Just borrow the extra...easy peasy when you have that view of national finances.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    So you think things are more or less OK or what? I genuinely can't tell from that answer. What gap are you referring to?

    It's rather beside the point what Rick or I think about borrowing; all parties have committed to significantly increase borrowing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    edited November 2019
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    Why not? As a sovereign state with our own currency we can literally print money

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    I'd be impressed if you can quote where someone has said this.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    You’re not answering the Q?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    I'd be impressed if you can quote where someone has said this.
    Pretty sure it is only Steveo and I who think this country has borrowed too much
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    I'd be impressed if you can quote where someone has said this.
    Just have a look at what Rick has said about debt at the country level.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    You’re not answering the Q?
    You need to answer your own question. I've already told you where the money is coming from. I don't think we need more: if you think we need more, you tell us.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,605
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    I'd be impressed if you can quote where someone has said this.
    Pretty sure it is only Steveo and I who think this country has borrowed too much
    Economic literacy is at a premium it would seem.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    You’re not answering the Q?
    You need to answer your own question. I've already told you where the money is coming from. I don't think we need more: if you think we need more, you tell us.
    You haven’t really understood what I mean. Never mind.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    longshot said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Lower tax burden = less incentive to tax plan. So the feeling and subjectivity does come into it. See my previous comments on the reaction to Labour increasing the top income tax rate to 50%.

    Also given the complexity of tax affairs of many in question, if you're already in a jurisdiction where rates are competitive compared to other countries then there is less opportunity.

    This, absolutely. There is little point in raising taxes against the most wealthy as they can afford to employ people and methods to mitigate it.

    Taxing the tall bit of the bell curve a little bit more is way more effective than trying punitive increases against the top end.

    More than that, taxing the most wealthy and larger corporates can be counterproductive as it can cause them to invest in business ventures elsewhere and so pay their taxes elsewhere - it is this set of people and companies who tend to have the choice.
    I think this is overplayed and there is the rather more obvious point that there are plenty of things which are most effectively paid for by the state as you cannot trust market forces to adequately allocate resources, and the well off can literally afford to pay more than others. The money has to come from somewhere. So where is it going to come from, Stevo? There comes a point where there is no optimal solution so the solution will be political. So who do you want to have the burden? Those who have more, or those who have less?

    Sounds rather obvious but to illustrate with a hypothetical example; the lifestyle of someone who has $2bn and who has $20bn is not going to be materially different at all. They both have more money than they could spend.

    The person on £12,000 however, will notice £500 difference. The person on £500,000 probably won't.

    I love the way you start with the assumption that more money has to be raised and then go on to treat is as fact in your question to me. I don't agree with your assumption so your question is pointless.
    No it’s not “more money needs to be raised”. It’s a fundament question - where will the money come from to pay for state run affairs and services? I’m not comparing it to now. I’m saying, fundamentally, the money will come from somewhere, so where would you get it from?

    Are you now suggesting running no tax and borrowing it all?
    It's already coming from numerous sources - over £623 billion of tax revenue in the last tax year.

    If you want to know who's paying it there are plenty of breakdowns available on the internet.

    That's a lot of money.

    But as you have asserted before, there is no downside to a country borrowing so if you think we need more then why not just borrow it?
    I'd be impressed if you can quote where someone has said this.
    Pretty sure it is only Steveo and I who think this country has borrowed too much
    Sure. As I said, I think that's as much down to preconceptions that borrowing is somehow morally inferior as it is to a detailed analysis of the figures. There's also a vast gulf between suggesting that maybe we can borrow some more without the sky falling in and saying we can borrow absolutely any amount without consequence.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    I am arrogant enough to argue with mainstream economists and arguing against the harm of debt is not exactly unheard of.

    Yes it is manageable at the moment but we have not fixed the roof when the sun is shining and we will start the next storm with 80%+ of debt in the tank which means we could be heading over 100%. Now consider that we would need a doubling or tripling of gilt rates to get to long term trend and you can see how our borrowing costs could surpass £100bn a year.

    But that does not matter as the solution will be to borrow more
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    edited November 2019
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    I am arrogant enough to argue with mainstream economists and arguing against the harm of debt is not exactly unheard of.

    Yes it is manageable at the moment but we have not fixed the roof when the sun is shining and we will start the next storm with 80%+ of debt in the tank which means we could be heading over 100%. Now consider that we would need a doubling or tripling of gilt rates to get to long term trend and you can see how our borrowing costs could surpass £100bn a year.
    Putting aside whether you think it's good or bad, why is 100% of GDP significant beyond it being a nice round number? Looking at a list of debt to GDP by country, doesn't suggest that a really low ratio brings any benefits. Guatemala is down at 25% and Afghanistan at 7%.

    I assume you didn't limit yourself to <1x salary when you bought your home 😉
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,158
    longshot said:

    TheBlueBean said:

    kingstonian said:

    Ah, got it - thanks. Your final point - efficiencies could be gained across much of what government funds are spent on today.

    In which case, I disagree. I doubt efficiency savings will have much impact on the payment of pensions, and that is a big chunk of the budget.
    True. If one were really devious, there would seem to a double saving available if the NHS geriatric departments were underfunded even more for a few years.
    I've made that point a few times before. We arguably spend too much on prolonging natural lifespan even when the benefit is questionable but no prospective Government is going to mention that in a manifesto given that those nearing the end of their life are most likely to vote.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    I am arrogant enough to argue with mainstream economists and arguing against the harm of debt is not exactly unheard of.

    Yes it is manageable at the moment but we have not fixed the roof when the sun is shining and we will start the next storm with 80%+ of debt in the tank which means we could be heading over 100%. Now consider that we would need a doubling or tripling of gilt rates to get to long term trend and you can see how our borrowing costs could surpass £100bn a year.
    Putting aside whether you think it's good or bad, why is 100% of GDP significant beyond it being a nice round number? Looking at a list of debt to GDP by country, doesn't suggest that a really low ratio brings any benefits. Guatemala is down at 25% and Afghanistan at 7%.

    I assume you didn't limit yourself to <1x salary when you bought your home 😉</p>
    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    rick_chasey said:

    Look at what most mainstream economists are suggesting; it’s all variants on loosening the strings on borrowing; mainly for capital investment as opposed to consumption which makes sense for all sorts of reasons.

    I am arrogant enough to argue with mainstream economists and arguing against the harm of debt is not exactly unheard of.

    Yes it is manageable at the moment but we have not fixed the roof when the sun is shining and we will start the next storm with 80%+ of debt in the tank which means we could be heading over 100%. Now consider that we would need a doubling or tripling of gilt rates to get to long term trend and you can see how our borrowing costs could surpass £100bn a year.
    Putting aside whether you think it's good or bad, why is 100% of GDP significant beyond it being a nice round number? Looking at a list of debt to GDP by country, doesn't suggest that a really low ratio brings any benefits. Guatemala is down at 25% and Afghanistan at 7%.

    I assume you didn't limit yourself to <1x salary when you bought your home 😉</p>
    Why ask about the 100% and not why I think the £100bn is bad?

    Guatemala and Afghanistan prove my point that borrowing is good, look at the state of their economies.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,091
    There are plenty of successful economies with low ratios and vice versa. Here's the list I was looking at.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-national-debt/

    I can't see any particular relationship at a glance, but convince me.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,648
    AFAIk there is no consensus on what impact high levels of debt are on economies.

    _

Categories