Cuts and the economy ,an alternative
- 29 May 2013 20:27231441cuts and the economy ,an alternative
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
29 May 2013 20:41231443bring the tax down for the rich???ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 30 May 2013 06:31231471When you are overspending you must cut spending and there is no other sensible thing to do. There are many functions of government that simply should be stopped and there is a lot he is right about - in fact he says a lot of what I keep saying, flat tax.....Blimey he even suggests the £13,000 tax free allowance I have been suggesting. But other measures are also necessary as well such as supply side reforms.
Keith - I have told you before that cutting top rates of tax increases HMRC income. It is a proven fact that you seem not to want to believe. It would also boost growth. There is real-life proof of this as well as computer modelling.
You prefer to punish the rich even if it means fewer jobs and more cuts because of less tax receipts. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
30 May 2013 07:07231475Barryw
we will just have to agree to disagreeALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 30 May 2013 08:05231476So Keith - explain yourself.
Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary we can only interpret what you say as wanting to reduce HMRC income resulting in more spending cuts and damaging growth in order to merely punish the rich. You priorities are just wrong. - 30 May 2013 08:39231478Keith epitomises the Labour Party, they moan about cuts but offer no alternative strategy
- 30 May 2013 09:36231487Starve the beast
""Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending
by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending. The short and medium term effect of the strategy has dramatically increased the United States public debt rather than reduce spending .
[The term "the beast" in this context refers to the American government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare; and does not usually refer to spending on military, law enforcement or prisons."]
"Economic analysis
James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, helped develop the Fiscal Illusion hypothesis: "It's obvious, borrowing allows spending to be made that will yield immediate political payoffs without the incurring of any immediate political cost."
In their book Democracy in Deficit (1977), Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is.
Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."
William Niskanen, chairman emeritus of the libertarian Cato Institute, criticized "starve the beast." If deficits finance 20% of government spending, then citizens perceive government services as discounted. Services that are popular at 20% off the listed price would be less popular at full price. He hypothesized that higher revenues could constrain spending, and found strong statistical support for that conjecture based on data from 1981 to 2005. Another Cato researcher, Michael New, tested Niskanen's model in different time periods and using a more restrictive definition of spending (non-defense discretionary spending) and arrived at a similar conclusion...
Economist Paul Krugman summarized as: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn't any plan, except to regain power."
Historian Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called Starve the Beast "the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history", and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
As is plain to see, we all learn as we go, and so one particular wrinkle in the above of yesteryear has been ironed-out in the 'Starve the Beast' theory as applied to the UK of today: There is little or no unwillingness to cut expenditure on the (mostly) non Tory voter.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 30 May 2013 09:37231488it was the other keith(ukip) that showed us the video with the alternative strategy.
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
30 May 2013 10:24231505one that has holes and although applauded by those followers a lot more discussion requiredALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 30 May 2013 10:28231510howard mcsweeney1 wrote:it was the other keith(ukip) that showed us the video with the alternative strategy.
Exactly, its labour and their sycophants (google it Keith) who have no alternative - 30 May 2013 11:51231526Keith (S) is very confused here.
He refers to what he describes as an alternative strategy while attacking a key element of that strategy and the fact that it is largely what I and the Conservative right have been advocating.
Still no answer to my point in #5 then Keith. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
30 May 2013 12:05231529Not confused,
many economists hold alternative views to yours barryw
and although you have clear views on the way forward other economists have given alternative views
its interesting to note that the debt under the conservatives is rising rather than fallingALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 30 May 2013 12:06231531But Keith, what is YOUR alternative strategy?
- 30 May 2013 13:35231542But Keith... I am not talking about opinion but evidence. We have the evidence in the UK going back to when Mrs T reduced top rates of tax initially to 50p (top rates previously was an appalling 85p on earned income, more on so called unearned). Then again a few years later when it reduced to 40p. In both cases the amount of tax collected from the 10% highest earners increased significantly. Economists do not disagree with this, the figures are clear.
We also had the reduction in tax when the top rate went up to 50p. There is no disagreement here either. The figures speak for themselves.
You may accept Gordon Brown's actions (and inactions) as confirming the same effect. He did not increase the higher rates of tax during 13 years of being in power. Why? because he knew doing so would reduce tax income and damage growth. He only raised higher rates, or proposed to, when he was up against a wall in the dying days of his government as a political trap.
There are also worldwide examples of the same effect.
There there is computer modelling - accepted by economists, the Laffer curve being a famous example of this.
Take as well empirical evidence and common sense. Yes this is more arguable but it does re-enforce the case and provides human behavioral evidence that explains the recorded impact.
So there Keith. This is not to do with differing opinions of economists. This is about what actually happens.
So what evidence do you have to counter that or do you prefer to ignore the facts as established by the evidence? - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
30 May 2013 14:10231546so we have reports coming via radio ga ga then.or should that read blah blah. - 31 May 2013 01:15231602Barry, the Government has to increase tax to pay the interest on the public debt, which goes up all the time.
I'm not even talking about taxes to pay off the actual public debt, but just the interest.
Currently Britain pays about £50 billion a year on interest on the public debt.
As Osborne borrows more every year, the public debt goes up, so too the interest.
The State must increase taxes to pay all unemployment-related benefits owing to the industry closing down production in Britain and transferring it to the Far East.
The State must increase taxes to pay for child benefit to all the children of Eastern Europeans employed by British factories.
And to pay for the benefits of the unemployed Brits who the employers UK will not employ because they employ only other people, either from Eastern Europe working in Dover and Thanet, or in the Far East.
UK employers employing only Eastern Europeans and importing everything else from China and Bangladesh have ruined our economy and are the principal cause for high taxes.
It's as simple as that!
At least UKIP go all the way along the road in recognising this fact.
And I don't think UKIP are friends of bankers bonuses either.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
31 May 2013 13:02231655not so sure on your last sentence alexanderALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 31 May 2013 16:04231677Alexander - one day perhaps you might actually understand what you read. High rates of tax reduce HMRC tax income - that is the whole point!!!!
- 31 May 2013 16:41231678Barry, do you understand what I am actually writing here?
Tax should not be too high, I fully agree with this.
But tax has to be high - and higher - in order to pay £50 billion a year interest on the national debt, and to pay for all the unemployment-related benefits deriving from the way UK businesses have dismantled British economic production.
Pound-shop economy means importing everything from the Far East and paying benefits to unemployed Brits.
We have a pound-shop economy!
No-one seemingly ever told various British governments, starting with M. Thatcher, that their destroy-the-British-economy policies would eventually lead to higher and higher taxes as the economy runs out of money and spirals into unrecoverable debt.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 31 May 2013 17:23231684No, Alexander - the higher rates of tax need cutting to boost growth and HMRC tax revenues. That needs to be alongside more spending cuts as the cuts have been far too little.
High taxes and overspending are the twin problems here that need to be dealt with to make the economy 'take off'.
While the cuts to the higher rates are more than self-funding we need also to cut taxes for the less well off also, this is only right and that does need to be funded by some of the spending cuts. I have said many times that the nil band should be c. £13,000 pa (at the min wage 37 1/2 hr week level). These measures plus supply side reforms will help generate the growth needed to close the deficit gap.