|
Post by Orac on May 20, 2024 15:44:39 GMT
So the Tories are leading their election campaign with a promise of future tax cuts. How many of you want tax cuts? Tax cuts funded by freezes in tax thresholds actually result in lower paid people like me paying more tax to fund tax cuts for the better off. Just a small point here. Tax cuts don't need to be funded by anyone. Public spending is what makes funding necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2024 15:58:54 GMT
Tax cuts funded by freezes in tax thresholds actually result in lower paid people like me paying more tax to fund tax cuts for the better off. Just a small point here. Tax cuts don't need to be funded by anyone. Public spending is what makes funding necessary. You derailed an entire thread with this nonsense before elsewhere. Taxes fund things. Tax cuts have to be paid for either by more borrowing or cuts in the things being funded - or as in the case of threshold freezes more taxes somewhere else. They are not free. If they were we could simply abolish all taxes and we'd all be better off. Your argument represents the triumph of blinkered and purblind ideology over hard reality and simple common sense. And it fools no one with a functioning brain who is not wearing ideological goggles.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 20, 2024 16:07:28 GMT
Just a small point here. Tax cuts don't need to be funded by anyone. Public spending is what makes funding necessary. You derailed an entire thread with this nonsense before elsewhere. Taxes fund things. Tax cuts have to be paid for either by more borrowing or cuts in the things being funded - or as in the case of threshold freezes more taxes somewhere else. They are not free. If they were we could simply abolish all taxes and we'd all be better off. Your argument represents the triumph of blinkered and purblind ideology over hard reality and simple common sense. And it fools no one with a functioning brain who is not wearing ideological goggles. Well, whatever way you want to model it, it's worth bearing in mind that it's the spending ,rather than the tax cuts, that create a need for taxation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2024 16:34:41 GMT
You derailed an entire thread with this nonsense before elsewhere. Taxes fund things. Tax cuts have to be paid for either by more borrowing or cuts in the things being funded - or as in the case of threshold freezes more taxes somewhere else. They are not free. If they were we could simply abolish all taxes and we'd all be better off. Your argument represents the triumph of blinkered and purblind ideology over hard reality and simple common sense. And it fools no one with a functioning brain who is not wearing ideological goggles. Well, whatever way you want to model it, it's worth bearing in mind that it's the spending ,rather than the tax cuts, that create a need for taxation. Well yes, taxes are necessary to fund spending. So any tax cuts not funded by economic growth must come at the cost of either funding cuts somewhere, increased borrowing, or tax rises for somebody else. And freezing thresholds to bring in more revenue to fund headline rate cuts is effectively raising taxes on the low paid to make tax cuts for the better off financially viable. As someone who is paying more tax so those a lot better off than me can pay less, lets just say that I am unpersuaded by the virtues of such a policy.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on May 20, 2024 18:21:18 GMT
I'd love to know what some think can be cut and how to make tax cuts possible www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/Spending Functions March 2025
Pensions £217.2 billion Health Care £224 billion Education £108.5 billion Defence £61.6 billion Welfare £157.8 billion Protection £44.2 billion Transportation £43.4 billion Gen. Government £24.4 billion Other Spending £207 billion Interest £67.3 billion Total £1,155.9 billionAnd that's £ 16.9B more than the £ 1,139B expected to be raised in taxes
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 20, 2024 18:45:28 GMT
It was. But the NHS of today is a shameful mess compared to a decade ago. Still broadly comparable with our peers except the USA which of course is much worse. The point stands that if we want a decent health and social service then we can't have the low taxes some Tories demand. I must have missed that, yes I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 20, 2024 18:48:00 GMT
What else could they spend it on? Stupid schemes to send migrants to Rwanda. Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. Well fair enough. but hopefully we wont see that.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 20, 2024 18:49:34 GMT
You derailed an entire thread with this nonsense before elsewhere. Taxes fund things. Tax cuts have to be paid for either by more borrowing or cuts in the things being funded - or as in the case of threshold freezes more taxes somewhere else. They are not free. If they were we could simply abolish all taxes and we'd all be better off. Your argument represents the triumph of blinkered and purblind ideology over hard reality and simple common sense. And it fools no one with a functioning brain who is not wearing ideological goggles. Well, whatever way you want to model it, it's worth bearing in mind that it's the spending ,rather than the tax cuts, that create a need for taxation. Super.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 20, 2024 18:57:37 GMT
I'd love to know what some think can be cut and how to make tax cuts possible www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/Spending Functions March 2025
Pensions £217.2 billion Health Care £224 billion Education £108.5 billion Defence £61.6 billion Welfare £157.8 billion Protection £44.2 billion Transportation £43.4 billion Gen. Government £24.4 billion Other Spending £207 billion Interest £67.3 billion Total £1,155.9 billionAnd that's £ 16.9B more than the £ 1,139B expected to be raised in taxes I'd wonder if some sensible investment from government might revive the economy and generate more tax income. For instance if they lowered interest rates but raised taxes this would not effect the amount of money left in peoples pockets (Apart from the bankers) but would put the money into public services rather than luxury yachts. Or if the government built houses and rented them so the income went to government instead of investors. Then maybe investors would look around for places to invest, rather than easy money from selling property.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on May 20, 2024 23:52:08 GMT
If they (actually the BoE controls this) lowered interest rates the £ would immediately fall causing inflation which would hurt the poorest most. Worse the government wouldn't be able to raise money to cover the deficit so would have to make immediate expenditure cuts which again would hurt the poorest most.
Government spend to stimulate economy packages have a very poor track record. Best to give economic stability which provides an environment in whuch private investors will invest to create jobs and taxable revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 7:42:54 GMT
I'd love to know what some think can be cut and how to make tax cuts possible www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/Spending Functions March 2025
Pensions £217.2 billion Health Care £224 billion Education £108.5 billion Defence £61.6 billion Welfare £157.8 billion Protection £44.2 billion Transportation £43.4 billion Gen. Government £24.4 billion Other Spending £207 billion Interest £67.3 billion Total £1,155.9 billionAnd that's £ 16.9B more than the £ 1,139B expected to be raised in taxes Or if the government built houses and rented them so the income went to government instead of investors. Hypothetically this could work - and has worked in practice in the past. The government takes over the role of landowner. However, in the current climate it's clear that any house-building would be swamped by the establishment's other policy of flooding the country with homeless people from abroad. You would probably only get lukewarm support because people now know that, when houses are built, they are not intended for them or their children. More broadly, all attempts to help the poor are usurped by this policy.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 21, 2024 7:58:47 GMT
If they (actually the BoE controls this) lowered interest rates the £ would immediately fall causing inflation which would hurt the poorest most. Worse the government wouldn't be able to raise money to cover the deficit so would have to make immediate expenditure cuts which again would hurt the poorest most. Government spend to stimulate economy packages have a very poor track record. Best to give economic stability which provides an environment in which private investors will invest to create jobs and taxable revenue. I didn't see any significant increase in the pounds value as interest rates rose in 2023. The idea that inward investment depends on interest rates is mistaken. Investors want a strong economy with a good customer base. Inflation is normally an indication of a strong economy, but not on this occasion. Raising interest rates to stop inflation caused by foreign fuel prices is counter intuitive.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 21, 2024 8:10:43 GMT
Or if the government built houses and rented them so the income went to government instead of investors. Hypothetically this could work - and has worked in practice in the past. The government takes over the role of landowner. However, in the current climate it's clear that any house-building would be swamped by the establishment's other policy of flooding the country with homeless people from abroad. You would probably only get lukewarm support because people now know that, when houses are built, they are not intended for them or their children. More broadly, all attempts to help the poor are usurped by this policy. Agreed, I think we would need to see both happening. Question is how, at the moment the government is dependent on an ever growing GDP to offset the cost of an aging population, many of whom can afford to retire early because of house prices. A perfect storm you might say. Can we increase productivity with AI and automation, that might be one solution. The other is to increase tax on those already here to cover the gap. If we lower house prices and increase tax that would dramatically swing the wealth gap back towards the middle ground. Not popular with Tory supporters, but with Labour coming in who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2024 8:22:40 GMT
Hypothetically this could work - and has worked in practice in the past. The government takes over the role of landowner. However, in the current climate it's clear that any house-building would be swamped by the establishment's other policy of flooding the country with homeless people from abroad. You would probably only get lukewarm support because people now know that, when houses are built, they are not intended for them or their children. More broadly, all attempts to help the poor are usurped by this policy. Agreed, I think we would need to see both happening. Question is how, at the moment the government is dependent on an ever growing GDP to offset the cost of an aging population, many of whom can afford to retire early because of house prices. A perfect storm you might say. Can we increase productivity with AI and automation, that might be one solution. The other is to increase tax on those already here to cover the gap. If we lower house prices and increase tax that would dramatically swing the wealth gap back towards the middle ground. Not popular with Tory supporters, but with Labour coming in who knows. We have lowering specific productivity - which means this 'offset aging population' thing is really not happening, This is not surprising considering the number of new arrivals who are delivering food, selling vapes or crowding out public services to the point of unusability.. We would be far better of with a reduced population that isn't over-crowded. This would correct quickly as reproduction fashions and the economics of family change.. The only thing that importing 'unskilled labour' achieves is to reduce wages and increase the relative power of the state vs the individual. It also makes sensible social policy impossible
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 21, 2024 9:43:32 GMT
Agreed, I think we would need to see both happening. Question is how, at the moment the government is dependent on an ever growing GDP to offset the cost of an aging population, many of whom can afford to retire early because of house prices. A perfect storm you might say. Can we increase productivity with AI and automation, that might be one solution. The other is to increase tax on those already here to cover the gap. If we lower house prices and increase tax that would dramatically swing the wealth gap back towards the middle ground. Not popular with Tory supporters, but with Labour coming in who knows. We have lowering specific productivity - which means this 'offset aging population' thing is really not happening, This is not surprising considering the number of new arrivals who are delivering food, selling vapes or crowding out public services to the point of unusability.. We would be far better of with a reduced population that isn't over-crowded. This would correct quickly as reproduction fashions and the economics of family change.. The only thing that importing 'unskilled labour' achieves is to reduce wages and increase the relative power of the state vs the individual. It also makes sensible social policy impossible We are both against further immigration, but we must address the need for more tax money each year. As you see below we are spending a huge amount of our NHS budget on the over 80's And more that 25% of the population is retired not working. 14% children. 4% with disabilities That leaves only 57% available to work. If we stop immigration without taking appropriate action we will quickly see a huge gap grow between tax take and the costs shown above.
|
|