2024 Election thread
Comments
-
-
A reminder that the Laffer curve has only ever been a theory based on two data points. It's embarrassing that people keep quoting it as some sort of deep insight. Horoscopes have more science in them.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
To be fair, they did try it for real, in Oklahoma.
Oh.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/kansas-provides-compelling-evidence-of-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts
Moreover, Kansas revenues plunged, leading to cuts to education and other vital services and downgrades in the state’s bond rating. On June 6, 2017, the legislature terminated what Brownback had termed a “real live experiment” in supply-side tax policy, repealing the business profits exemption and moving income tax rates back toward where they had started. Some conservative analysts and organizations now claim the experiment was contaminated by the state’s failure to reduce spending, coincidental declines in some major Kansas industries, and widespread abuse of the business profits exemption (with large numbers of filers restructuring their businesses solely to benefit from the exemption rather than for any business purpose). These claims are not valid.
Haha, where else have I heard the refrain "It didn't work because it wasn't done properly"?
0 -
Didn't work because they carried on spending on vital services.
I mean it's fair enough to have that philosophy if you understand the inevitable consequences.
0 -
State spending was sharply constrained, falling between the 2012 and 2016 budget years by 5.5 percent on a per-person basis, after adjusting for inflation. Moreover, had the state cut spending more deeply, job creation and economic growth would have slowed even more. To forestall deeper spending cuts, Kansas increased its sales tax to replace some of the lost income tax revenue — a policy choice that many of these same critics frequently claim will boost state economies but didn’t in Kansas’ case.
0 -
You are trying to reason with me. This is pointless because I *believe* it would have worked if they'd spent less.
1 -
Still, I probably ought to thank Stevo for giving me the prompt to rediscover how thoroughly debunked the 'Laffer Curve' is.
0 -
Probably better for the boomers eating all the avocados thread, but the polls on under 35s are doing the rounds, with labour picking up a percentage that wouldn't look out of place in a Putin "election" - 70%, with the Tories at 7%.
0 -
Because they ain't getting elected and manage to keep the news cycle moving on with fresh stupid everyday
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
We have, and I know a fair bit about it given my job. You would rather not believe it and have found an article that happens to agree with your view - there always will be one.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The point is about growth. The US has always had a huge debt pile.
As Jeremy Hunt pointed out recently, it is no coincidence that many of the higher growth nations around the world have relatively lower taxes. EU take note...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More than a theory and the point that Brian misses, it clearly depends where you are on the curve. As many have pointed out, our overall tax burden is at a 70 year high IIRC, so likely we are past the peak. Go figure what tax cuts will do. However we have turned the corner with the recent cuts so let's not allow the lefties to spoil it.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Reminder: the tax rate is still rising, despite the NI cut. You've been had. The 'corner' isn't for a while yet, even under the Tory 'plan'.
0 -
If the plan is working then wtf is the objective?!
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 -
Not for me it hasn't.
Amazing that you can determine the precise point at which an imaginary curve has peaked. Most of the people who have tried to determine empirically what that optimum rate is have come up with a figure somewhat higher than our current rates. And the 2013 cut in the top rate is reckoned to have cost HMRC revenue. You can dispute the article but the Kansas experiment blew a pretty big hole in Laffer's credibility given that he personally endorsed the scheme.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
It'll be interesting if it comes to fruition.
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 -
As someone who's just about to fall out of that demographic. It's totally unsurprising.
0 -
It is about the 50th time you've said it. The number is just a small shift from the 49th, so I've managed to stay on my chair.
0 -
It gets really interesting in 4 years if they decide they don't want Labour either
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I'm reassured that the apparent rise of figures like Andrew Tate doesn't seem to translate into Reform support amongst the young.
I suspect the most likely outcome in 4 years time is even more mass apathy.
0 -
True.
Anyone thinking Labour will be a magic fix is going to be very disappointed. Less shit, less blatantly corrupt but still shit.
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 -
It will only matter if they actually get and vote in numbers though. I hope they do, younger people can’t keep going on about policies designed to benefit oldies if they don’t make their voices count when given the chance. If they want to be considered more they need to become important to politicians chasing their vote.
0 -
When even the Telegraph is laughing at the Toryshambles...
0 -
I think that Labour are supported by ballot-box-stuffing amounts by young people is quite something, regardless of the electoral impact.
We can pass it off as electoral volatility which has increased a lot since 2016 (i.e. they'll be quicker to jump away from labour), but it says so much about the tory legacy of the last 15 years and what under 35s feel about the status quo.
0 -
There's a dedicated thread for this.
0 -
Only if you want to frame it in generational terms, rather than a polling and political challenge which will shape the election, and make it about the legacy and framing of the conservative party, rather than their elderly voters.
You can do the latter and keep it on topic :)
0 -
A voting intention is meaningless if you don't follow through with it and if you don't actually make a vote for change you can't grumble that the status quo remains in favour of those that actually do vote. If your sole priority is getting elected why would you bring in policies that gain favour with those that don't vote in large numbers and that is unpopular with those that do vote? Of course in an ideal world political Parties would be prioritising the future but we don't live in an ideal world.
0 -
sure, it also has different impacts in different regions. 23% of Londoners are between 25 & 35 years old, where they're only 12% in the rest of England.
So for the amateur pollster, looking at the demographic changes in constituencies might point to the likely result - I suspect that is driving the worries about Surrey and the "blue wall" as the cost of living in London drives younger labour voting people people to live further and further out, eventually moving into what are traditionally conservative seats.
0 -
Under 35 is a convenient demarcation point as they are effectively voting for the unknown. Over 35 should remember being under a Labour government.
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
