Boris as PM

rick_chasey

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

I don't disagree, but it's nearly 20 years that they say Italy is one to watch...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

So that party members would vote for him. Whether it will ever happen is another matter.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

So that party members would vote for him. Whether it will ever happen is another matter.

I was thinking of Rick (other examples are available) who sees the borrowing as being for things he approves of, not for Boris raising the upper tax rate to £80k

Also surprised he does not see it as a transfer of wealth between generations

rick_chasey

I’m not advocating BoJo’s execution. Not by a long shot, that should be obvious. If I took him to task on everything he suggested that I thought was rubbish I’d run out of patience trying to write it all out.

Though bluntly any counter-cyclical spending is better than none. That’s a low bar however.

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

I don't disagree, but it's nearly 20 years that they say Italy is one to watch...

Plenty of time to build up.

It may well come to a head in the not too distant future (as in a few years time):
https://www.smava.de/european-debt-clock/

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

+1 on both counts.

- Debt for some is OK if it's for what they want to spend money on (usually labelled as investment rather than spending to make it sound better)
- Debt on a national level is simply what we can't afford by taxing. Someone in future will be liable for the extra spending of my generation. How ironic if it's Ricks generation that picks up the tab after saying how great it is to live beyond our means now

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

+1 on both counts.

- Debt for some is OK if it's for what they want to spend money on (usually labelled as investment rather than spending to make it sound better)
- Debt on a national level is simply what we can't afford by taxing. Someone in future will be liable for the extra spending of my generation. How ironic if it's Ricks generation that picks up the tab after saying how great it is to live beyond our means now

By far the biggest increase in debt in recent years was as a result of bank bailouts. Other public spending commitments pale into insignificance compared with that. Were they spending or investment (spending with some hope of return)? And the bailouts are dwarfed again by the debts incurred from the first and second world wars. Should I be upset or pleased that I financially contributed to the overthrow of Nazism? Or the abolition of slavery? And this is on top of paying for the care of the current crop of those who are too old, too young or otherwise unable to support themselves. All this whinging about lumbering debt on future generations - oh won't someone think of the children? - why on earth shouldn't the costs of government spending be spread over more than one generation?
People have been paying for the previous generation's government spending for at least the last 300 years and the country is the better for it.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

So who’s a fan of the war cabinet rhetoric?

Grown men playing soldier.

'Emergency cabinet' didn't test as well.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So who’s a fan of the war cabinet rhetoric?

Grown men playing soldier.

'Emergency cabinet' didn't test as well.

But “war cabinet “ did?

Give me strength.

sungod

johnson is trying to cast himself as churchillian, plays well to the gullible and deluded

i'm sure churchill would've had nothing but contempt for him

kingrollo

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

slowmart

sungod wrote:

johnson is trying to cast himself as churchillian, plays well to the gullible and deluded

i'm sure churchill would've had nothing but contempt for him

I hear Kleenex shares have gone up due to increased sales from the key demographic of Rees Moggs, who think we still have an empire and a gun boat will ensure pesky locals, such as Scots, stay in line.

shortfall

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

The principle of paying one's fair share of tax to support the things you describe above is not in question. The problem most people have is the bit in between it being deducted from your wages and what it actually achieves once it's been through the notoriously inefficient meat grinder of government.

surrey_commuter

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

It is possible to voluntarily pay additional tax - maybe you could take a principled stand and make an appropriate public donation

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

+1 on both counts.

- Debt for some is OK if it's for what they want to spend money on (usually labelled as investment rather than spending to make it sound better)
- Debt on a national level is simply what we can't afford by taxing. Someone in future will be liable for the extra spending of my generation. How ironic if it's Ricks generation that picks up the tab after saying how great it is to live beyond our means now

By far the biggest increase in debt in recent years was as a result of bank bailouts. Other public spending commitments pale into insignificance compared with that. Were they spending or investment (spending with some hope of return)? And the bailouts are dwarfed again by the debts incurred from the first and second world wars. Should I be upset or pleased that I financially contributed to the overthrow of Nazism? Or the abolition of slavery? And this is on top of paying for the care of the current crop of those who are too old, too young or otherwise unable to support themselves. All this whinging about lumbering debt on future generations - oh won't someone think of the children? - why on earth shouldn't the costs of government spending be spread over more than one generation?
People have been paying for the previous generation's government spending for at least the last 300 years and the country is the better for it.

The reference to transfers of wealth between generations is an argument borrowed from the pension debate.

Funny how we are lumbering our kids with debt to pay for the care of those who can not support themselves and not for Boris’s bribe to those earning more than £50k a year.

arthur_scrimshaw

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

Not dead but I don't think this is the real problem or at least the solution to the problem. At least people on payroll are visible and by in large cannot dodge their tax obligation whatever the rate. I don't know but my feeling is that by raising the threshold won't have a massive effect of tax income compared with the loss of revenue due to large scale evasion practiced by many not on PAYE, this is pure anecdotal and based on conversations with many people over the years. I'm not convinced by the 'trickle down theory' though.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

It is possible to voluntarily pay additional tax - maybe you could take a principled stand and make an appropriate public donation

Oddly you can't just give money to HMRC for no reason. You can arrange your tax affairs so that the result is more tax, but there is oddly no legal mechanism to just make a 'charitable tax donation'. We looked at this a few years ago for some pretty esoteric reasons which I won't go into now, but this was the advice we got back from one of the 'Big 4'.

You'd think that HMRC would be quite keen on the idea, given how many people on here say that we should pay more tax - as I would expect them to lead from the front on this rather than expecting others to do it for them.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

+1 on both counts.

- Debt for some is OK if it's for what they want to spend money on (usually labelled as investment rather than spending to make it sound better)
- Debt on a national level is simply what we can't afford by taxing. Someone in future will be liable for the extra spending of my generation. How ironic if it's Ricks generation that picks up the tab after saying how great it is to live beyond our means now

By far the biggest increase in debt in recent years was as a result of bank bailouts. Other public spending commitments pale into insignificance compared with that. Were they spending or investment (spending with some hope of return)? And the bailouts are dwarfed again by the debts incurred from the first and second world wars. Should I be upset or pleased that I financially contributed to the overthrow of Nazism? Or the abolition of slavery? And this is on top of paying for the care of the current crop of those who are too old, too young or otherwise unable to support themselves. All this whinging about lumbering debt on future generations - oh won't someone think of the children? - why on earth shouldn't the costs of government spending be spread over more than one generation?
People have been paying for the previous generation's government spending for at least the last 300 years and the country is the better for it.

The reference to transfers of wealth between generations is an argument borrowed from the pension debate.

Funny how we are lumbering our kids with debt to pay for the care of those who can not support themselves and not for Boris’s bribe to those earning more than £50k a year.

Boris's bribe is fiddling around the edges. None of it comes close to actually reducing the overall debt, just tweaking the rate at which it increases. It's only our increasing gdp that makes it look like the debt has fallen in the past.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not really.

With gilt rates very low I don’t see a strong argument against borrowing, especially if it is applied to supply side investment.

I’m not particularly in agreement with what the EU does re debt and I’ve been quite consistent on that.

So you think you know more than the EU on this?

Also as SC has already pointed out, borrowing rates may not always be this low.

Fyi if you want an EU based real life example of the problems with high national debt, just look at what happened to Greece. Italy will be one to watch for the not too distant future.

German obstinance on debt levels is not economically sound and is widely criticised by economists the world over, and they are the main reason behind that policy.

It wasn’t for nothing it was the German finance ministers who were fighting the battle with the Greeks during the debt crisis.

But, put plainly, if gilt rates are very low, the bar for getting a good return on your borrowing is also very low, so there are plenty of things you can invest in.

I see a lot of this anti-debt rhetoric as a vehicle for a much more ideological objective which is to materially reduce the state, and that’s what I find objectionable about this whole debate.

Debt isn’t bad per se. It’s what you’re paying to have the money vs what you’re doing with it.

Good to see your criticise the current Tory policy, mind.

It genuinely baffles me that people advocating borrowing always do so to invest in infrastructure and/or improve productivity. Why is the extra borrowing to fund cuts in the upper rate of income tax?

+1 on both counts.

- Debt for some is OK if it's for what they want to spend money on (usually labelled as investment rather than spending to make it sound better)
- Debt on a national level is simply what we can't afford by taxing. Someone in future will be liable for the extra spending of my generation. How ironic if it's Ricks generation that picks up the tab after saying how great it is to live beyond our means now

By far the biggest increase in debt in recent years was as a result of bank bailouts. Other public spending commitments pale into insignificance compared with that. Were they spending or investment (spending with some hope of return)? And the bailouts are dwarfed again by the debts incurred from the first and second world wars. Should I be upset or pleased that I financially contributed to the overthrow of Nazism? Or the abolition of slavery? And this is on top of paying for the care of the current crop of those who are too old, too young or otherwise unable to support themselves. All this whinging about lumbering debt on future generations - oh won't someone think of the children? - why on earth shouldn't the costs of government spending be spread over more than one generation?
People have been paying for the previous generation's government spending for at least the last 300 years and the country is the better for it.

The reference to transfers of wealth between generations is an argument borrowed from the pension debate.

Funny how we are lumbering our kids with debt to pay for the care of those who can not support themselves and not for Boris’s bribe to those earning more than £50k a year.

Boris's bribe is fiddling around the edges. None of it comes close to actually reducing the overall debt, just tweaking the rate at which it increases. It's only our increasing gdp that makes it look like the debt has fallen in the past.

His tax bracket fiddling is costed at £9bn and total electoral bribery fiddling at £30bn.

Why are your children not paying for the borrowing on that rather than it being for infrastructure improvements?

surrey_commuter

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

Not dead but I don't think this is the real problem or at least the solution to the problem. At least people on payroll are visible and by in large cannot dodge their tax obligation whatever the rate. I don't know but my feeling is that by raising the threshold won't have a massive effect of tax income compared with the loss of revenue due to large scale evasion practiced by many not on PAYE, this is pure anecdotal and based on conversations with many people over the years. I'm not convinced by the 'trickle down theory' though.

Can you explain why the trickle down theory does not work?

How about the EMA sets up in London and hires a Dutch bloke at £100k. He rents a house at £5k per month so the lovely bloke at Foxtons gets a £1k bonus. He spends that on fags and booze so benefiting his local newsagent and offf licence and the taxman. His kids need to get to (private) school so get a daily taxi. Taxi driver gets more money etc.

Most economic theories are common sense

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

Not dead but I don't think this is the real problem or at least the solution to the problem. At least people on payroll are visible and by in large cannot dodge their tax obligation whatever the rate. I don't know but my feeling is that by raising the threshold won't have a massive effect of tax income compared with the loss of revenue due to large scale evasion practiced by many not on PAYE, this is pure anecdotal and based on conversations with many people over the years. I'm not convinced by the 'trickle down theory' though.

Can you explain why the trickle down theory does not work?

How about the EMA sets up in London and hires a Dutch bloke at £100k. He rents a house at £5k per month so the lovely bloke at Foxtons gets a £1k bonus. He spends that on fags and booze so benefiting his local newsagent and offf licence and the taxman. His kids need to get to (private) school so get a daily taxi. Taxi driver gets more money etc.

Most economic theories are common sense

Aren't you describing the multiplier effect, rather than trickle down?

shirley_basso

I went to fee paying schools my whole life and no-one I know or heard of ever took a daily taxi.

Pross

Shirley Basso wrote:

I went to fee paying schools my whole life and no-one I know or heard of ever took a daily taxi.

Too right, why pay a chauffeur and buy a Bentley if you're going to chuck Tarquin in a black cab?

arthur_scrimshaw

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

kingrollo wrote:

Is the principle that those who can afford to pay more tax do indeed pay more tax dead ?

On a related point it staggers me how many people think they are over taxed in the UK - a did a google on tax burdens for the average earner and the uk came below half way.

It seems a dying school of thought, but paying tax is actually a good thing - it funds our hospitals, road, police force's etc.

Not dead but I don't think this is the real problem or at least the solution to the problem. At least people on payroll are visible and by in large cannot dodge their tax obligation whatever the rate. I don't know but my feeling is that by raising the threshold won't have a massive effect of tax income compared with the loss of revenue due to large scale evasion practiced by many not on PAYE, this is pure anecdotal and based on conversations with many people over the years. I'm not convinced by the 'trickle down theory' though.

Can you explain why the trickle down theory does not work?

How about the EMA sets up in London and hires a Dutch bloke at £100k. He rents a house at £5k per month so the lovely bloke at Foxtons gets a £1k bonus. He spends that on fags and booze so benefiting his local newsagent and offf licence and the taxman. His kids need to get to (private) school so get a daily taxi. Taxi driver gets more money etc.

Most economic theories are common sense

I'm sure I could make up a hypothetical example where it doesn't work, however that's not getting either of us very far.

What I was looking for was actual evidence to convince me, and as the saying goes, common sense isn't that common.

shirley_basso

Pross wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I went to fee paying schools my whole life and no-one I know or heard of ever took a daily taxi.

Too right, why pay a chauffeur and buy a Bentley if you're going to chuck Tarquin in a black cab?

Seriously? I only know one guy called Tarquin, and his dad didn't have a Bentley. Henry's dad did.

rick_chasey

if you're actually looking for the real posh boy (though why is beyond me, as I write this), the boy who gets dropped off in a 15yr old clapped out Subaru legacy estate is the likeliest lad.