Boris as PM
Comments
-
-
So you can stereotype them, obviously.0
-
-
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.
His wife does not fancy driving in London so she gets a taxi.0 -
Arthur Scrimshaw wrote: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.
I only set the parameters that I did to exclude other variables.
Let me know when you think of a plausible hypothetical example of trickle down not working.
You obviously did not understand my point about economic theories0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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?
I stripped down the example to help Mr Grimshaw0 -
What, the multiplier effect, or trickle down?
I thought trickle down economics was widely derided as nonsense apart from the most partisan ideological takes.
All the evidence suggests the multiplier effect is materially bigger at lower ends of the earnings spectrum.
Buffet is unlikely to change his spending habits if he's given more money, but the local family struggling to make ends meet on the dole probably would.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Arthur Scrimshaw wrote: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.
I only set the parameters that I did to exclude other variables.
Let me know when you think of a plausible hypothetical example of trickle down not working.
You obviously did not understand my point about economic theories
Still dodging my request for evidence, if you are adamant it's working show me, I do have an open mind but like proof not just belief.0 -
Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Arthur Scrimshaw wrote: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.
I only set the parameters that I did to exclude other variables.
Let me know when you think of a plausible hypothetical example of trickle down not working.
You obviously did not understand my point about economic theories
Still dodging my request for evidence, if you are adamant it's working show me, I do have an open mind but like proof not just belief.
Lol - do you really think you are open minded?
As you deny the existence of common sense I really don’t have the inclination to write you a thousand word essay with references.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:What, the multiplier effect, or trickle down?
I thought trickle down economics was widely derided as nonsense apart from the most partisan ideological takes.
All the evidence suggests the multiplier effect is materially bigger at lower ends of the earnings spectrum.
Buffet is unlikely to change his spending habits if he's given more money, but the local family struggling to make ends meet on the dole probably would.
Not sure I believe in the miracle workings of the multiplier effect but agree that if you are handing out fifties give it to the poorest0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Arthur Scrimshaw wrote: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.
I only set the parameters that I did to exclude other variables.
Let me know when you think of a plausible hypothetical example of trickle down not working.
You obviously did not understand my point about economic theories
Still dodging my request for evidence, if you are adamant it's working show me, I do have an open mind but like proof not just belief.
Lol - do you really think you are open minded?
As you deny the existence of common sense I really don’t have the inclination to write you a thousand word essay with references.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What, the multiplier effect, or trickle down?
I thought trickle down economics was widely derided as nonsense apart from the most partisan ideological takes.
All the evidence suggests the multiplier effect is materially bigger at lower ends of the earnings spectrum.
Buffet is unlikely to change his spending habits if he's given more money, but the local family struggling to make ends meet on the dole probably would.
Not sure I believe in the miracle workings of the multiplier effect but agree that if you are handing out fifties give it to the poorest
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the multiplier effect a well known phenomenon and behaves in economics rather like rules behave in physics. It’s something you measure, rather than a theory?
Pretty sure it is.
What you’ve described is basically the GCSE description of the multiplier effect.
If John is paid £100 and spends £90 of it equally with Dave and Tony and saves £10, and then Dave and Tony each spend £36 and save £4 etc etc0 -
"If [a falling pound],isn't the definition of national humiliation, I don't know what is" wrote BoJo in 2008
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... wns-fault/
Today: Pound sinks to 28 month low
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-491564030 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What, the multiplier effect, or trickle down?
I thought trickle down economics was widely derided as nonsense apart from the most partisan ideological takes.
All the evidence suggests the multiplier effect is materially bigger at lower ends of the earnings spectrum.
Buffet is unlikely to change his spending habits if he's given more money, but the local family struggling to make ends meet on the dole probably would.
Not sure I believe in the miracle workings of the multiplier effect but agree that if you are handing out fifties give it to the poorest
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the multiplier effect a well known phenomenon and behaves in economics rather like rules behave in physics. It’s something you measure, rather than a theory?
Pretty sure it is.
What you’ve described is basically the GCSE description of the multiplier effect.
If John is paid £100 and spends £90 of it equally with Dave and Tony and saves £10, and then Dave and Tony each spend £36 and save £4 etc etc
You are wrong - https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... multiplier
In case you don’t have access it describes it as controversial0 -
Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:"If [a falling pound],isn't the definition of national humiliation, I don't know what is" wrote BoJo in 2008
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... wns-fault/
Today: Pound sinks to 28 month low
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49156403
As his editors pointed out, we weren't meant to take any of his writing seriously.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
FTFY.rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:"If [a falling pound],isn't the definition of national humiliation, I don't know what is" wrote BoJo in 2008
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... wns-fault/
Today: Pound sinks to 28 month low
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49156403
As his editors pointed out, we weren't meant to take him seriously.
A bit unfortunate given his current position though.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.
LOL - you brought it up. I don’t believe the State is capable of spending money efficiently and people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible. I do believe in the trickle down effect. The problem is perception as the gap gets wider.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.
LOL - you brought it up. I don’t believe the State is capable of spending money efficiently and people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible. I do believe in the trickle down effect. The problem is perception as the gap gets wider.
Right but the example you gave of trickle down wasn’t that and was a textbook multiplier example, which was why I was confused, and why I still don’t follow your argument.
To be clear, trickle down economics is the idea that giving breaks to the richest in the form of tax or savings breaks incentivises those who have proven they can accumulate wealth well to use their extra money to use their nouse to invest more e.g. set up another business that employs loadsa people etc.
Right?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What, the multiplier effect, or trickle down?
I thought trickle down economics was widely derided as nonsense apart from the most partisan ideological takes.
All the evidence suggests the multiplier effect is materially bigger at lower ends of the earnings spectrum.
Buffet is unlikely to change his spending habits if he's given more money, but the local family struggling to make ends meet on the dole probably would.
Not sure I believe in the miracle workings of the multiplier effect but agree that if you are handing out fifties give it to the poorest
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the multiplier effect a well known phenomenon and behaves in economics rather like rules behave in physics. It’s something you measure, rather than a theory?
Pretty sure it is.
What you’ve described is basically the GCSE description of the multiplier effect.
If John is paid £100 and spends £90 of it equally with Dave and Tony and saves £10, and then Dave and Tony each spend £36 and save £4 etc etc
You are wrong - https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... multiplier
In case you don’t have access it describes it as controversial
Some discussion of Keynesian multipliers here.
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/keyn ... icism/7806
TL;DR - Far too simplistic.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.
LOL - you brought it up. I don’t believe the State is capable of spending money efficiently and people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible. I do believe in the trickle down effect. The problem is perception as the gap gets wider.
Maybe not, but individuals spending may be even more inefficient - see the American health system, for example - never mind whether the outcomes are equitable or not . And efficiency is only an intermediate goal in that allows the saved money to be spent on something else either by the government or individuals. It doesn't provide any benefit in itself.
Secondly, while governments may procure these services inefficiently some are simply impractical to achieve in any other way.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:"If [a falling pound],isn't the definition of national humiliation, I don't know what is" wrote BoJo in 2008
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/ ... wns-fault/
Today: Pound sinks to 28 month low
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49156403
As his editors pointed out, we weren't meant to take any of his writing seriously.
The pound’s performance against the dollar since Johnson declared that “the people who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts”0 -
rjsterry wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.
LOL - you brought it up. I don’t believe the State is capable of spending money efficiently and people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible. I do believe in the trickle down effect. The problem is perception as the gap gets wider.
Maybe not, but individuals spending may be even more inefficient - see the American health system, for example - never mind whether the outcomes are equitable or not . And efficiency is only an intermediate goal in that allows the saved money to be spent on something else either by the government or individuals. It doesn't provide any benefit in itself.
Secondly, while governments may procure these services inefficiently some are simply impractical to achieve in any other way.
To clarify I believe in a small State not no State.0 -
-
Will come as no surprise the fx monkeys who are doing well on cable over the past two years are the shops with decent EM pedigree.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Fair.
I understood it as read.
What’s your argument against it then? Since you brought the whole thing up in the first place.
LOL - you brought it up. I don’t believe the State is capable of spending money efficiently and people should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible. I do believe in the trickle down effect. The problem is perception as the gap gets wider.
Right but the example you gave of trickle down wasn’t that and was a textbook multiplier example, which was why I was confused, and why I still don’t follow your argument.
To be clear, trickle down economics is the idea that giving breaks to the richest in the form of tax or savings breaks incentivises those who have proven they can accumulate wealth well to use their extra money to use their nouse to invest more e.g. set up another business that employs loadsa people etc.
Right?
That is one policy option. To me the trickle down effect is that economic growth benefits everybody. One way of achieving that is to target the wealth creators.
Again my example was deliberately simplistic.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Will come as no surprise the fx monkeys who are doing well on cable over the past two years are the shops with decent EM pedigree.
Translation please.0 -
Cable is GBP/USD.
It’s performing like an emerging market currency and has been for some time so those who have good expertise in emerging markets are doing well applying their experience to trading cable.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Cable is GBP/USD.
It’s performing like an emerging market currency and has been for some time so those who have good expertise in emerging markets are doing well applying their experience to trading cable.
Thank you.0 -
It's reflective of the no deal probability that is being priced in as I'm sure you're aware.Rick Chasey wrote:Only the second worst performing currencies in the world currently
It's interesting that you trot this 'worst performing currency' line out almost every time Sterling has a hard time, but are strangely quiet when it is rising - which of course it has done on several occasions in the last couple of years or so, for example:
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=2Y"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
