Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

Laugher curve I call it.

Who cares what some neoliberal economic theory says about raising taxes and squeezing growth.

You're grandstanding to zero-effect here, sonny Jim.

Maybe stick to writing about football and religion Dave. Keynes seemed to agree with Laffer. Maybe he's not up to your economic snuff either.

When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied...

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

 

[davek]

Maybe stick to writing about football and religion Dave. Keynes seemed to agree with Laffer. Maybe he's not up to your economic snuff either.

Interesting.

 

[davek]

Democracy in action. No constituency choice, just parachuted in by Starmer:

Starmer allies expected to be lined up to replace string of retiring Labour MPs

Candidacy applications open for safe seats after seven MPs announce retirements with more expected

www.theguardian.com

 

[Goat]

Democracy in action. No constituency choice, just parachuted in by Starmer:

Starmer allies expected to be lined up to replace string of retiring Labour MPs

Candidacy applications open for safe seats after seven MPs announce retirements with more expected

www.theguardian.com

 

[orchard]

Has it been discredited?

I believe so, as stated, because it was heavily distorted by deferment because firms had foreknowledge of the sequence of fiscal events.

 

[Ming the merciless]

I believe so, as stated, because it was heavily distorted by deferment because firms had foreknowledge of the sequence of fiscal events.

We’ve had the theory, let’s see how it works in practice.

 

[orchard]

We’ve had the theory, let’s see how it works in practice.

Well for a start, we were originally discussing Starmer's PAYE pledge, but Bruce is going all corp neo-lib defence shield. I stated my position here on Starmer's/Davek's PAYE 5pc pledge/dream some time ago mate, I think maybe raise it a bit for >120k (C3pc), but 'workers' aren't the problem imo, it's capital and asset accumulation well beyond that that needs addressing. So in short, not fussed in principle about this particular U-turn of Starmer's because it was incorrectly targeting workers, but he does need to get money from firms because the excessive tax burden on workers is crippling the economy.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well for a start, we were originally discussing Starmer's PAYE pledge, but Bruce is going all corp neo-lib defence shield. I stated my position here on Starmer's/Davek's PAYE 5pc pledge/dream some time ago mate, I think maybe raise it a bit for >120k (C3pc), but 'workers' aren't the problem imo, it's capital and asset accumulation well beyond that that needs addressing. So in short, not fussed in principle about this particular U-turn of Starmer's because it was incorrectly targeting workers, but he does need to get money from firms because the excessive tax burden on workers is crippling the economy.

I'm a bit confused then as Laffer directly referenced Brown's raising of the top rate of tax to 50p and how that resulted in lower tax revenues. That's a PAYE tax, isn't it?

I merely asked Dave where the tipping point might be if taxes continue to rise? Two cast iron facts are that we have the highest tax take in 80 years, and the government continues to run a huge deficit. Something doesn't seem right in that picture.

 

[jazzy]

I'm a bit confused then as Laffer directly referenced Brown's raising of the top rate of tax to 50p and how that resulted in lower tax revenues. That's a PAYE tax, isn't it?

I merely asked Dave where the tipping point might be if taxes continue to rise? Two cast iron facts are that we have the highest tax take in 80 years, and the government continues to run a huge deficit. Something doesn't seem right in that picture.

I don't think you've factored in the cost of COVID or the war in Ukraine.

Borrowing has been at an all time high for a reason

 

[Rita_Poon]

lol I notice you haven't answered my question though.

haha 'your' question.

 

[orchard]

I'm a bit confused then as Laffer directly referenced Brown's raising of the top rate of tax to 50p and how that resulted in lower tax revenues. That's a PAYE tax, isn't it?

I merely asked Dave where the tipping point might be if taxes continue to rise? Two cast iron facts are that we have the highest tax take in 80 years, and the government continues to run a huge deficit. Something doesn't seem right in that picture.

I'd advise you to objectively look at the Laffer criticisms if you are going to use it as a premise.

You're right, personal tax is too high (especially in conjunction with the inflation of basic necessities) and as we discussed the other week, we both believe government debt servicing is about to go ballistic too.

What isn't right ? Let's have a look at the PM. His declared worth with Mrs is C650mil. Let's say his is around 220mil. That will generate at least, at 5pc, 11mil and he chose to realise and pay tax on 2.2mil, leaving C8.8 mil of reinvestment asset acquisition, or we can say the equivalent of thirty average UK houses, per year. Passive income. His income tax isn't an issue, nor would an extra 5pc on CGT be likely to damage his lifestyle either. This is why asset prices are increasing rapidly. One thing we could do to solve the problem if we're not redistributing wealth via taxation (Labour and Con's are not) is to remove necessities from the scope of financial speculation, as things that are not to be profited from at the expense of the poor, or asset-less . Housing, utilities, NHS, food, etc., but we won't, because controlling the prices of these are key levers in a capital based planned economy.

 

[mightymoyes]

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'd advise you to objectively look at the Laffer criticisms if you are going to use it as a premise.

You're right, personal tax is too high (especially in conjunction with the inflation of basic necessities) and as we discussed the other week, we both believe government debt servicing is about to go ballistic too.

What isn't right ? Let's have a look at the PM. His declared worth with Mrs is C650mil. Let's say his is around 220mil. That will generate at least, at 5pc, 11mil and he chose to realise and pay tax on 2.2mil, leaving C8.8 mil of reinvestment asset acquisition, or we can say the equivalent of thirty average UK houses, per year. Passive income. His income tax isn't an issue, nor would an extra 5pc on CGT be likely to damage his lifestyle either. This is why asset prices are increasing rapidly. One thing we could do to solve the problem if we're not redistributing wealth via taxation (Labour and Con's are not) is to remove necessities from the scope of financial speculation, as things that are not to be profited from at the expense of the poor, or asset-less . Housing, utilities, NHS, food, etc., but we won't, because controlling the prices of these are key levers in a capital based planned economy.

I do appreciate that and fully get that most of the wealth gains of the last few decades have gone to the 1% and above. I suppose what is difficult with taxing the likes of Sunak, Musk, Bezos et al on their share wealth is that that wealth is paper wealth. We have mechanisms in place to tax assets when they're sold but it's dodgy ground to try and extract anything from assets that haven't yet been sold. Of course, there is much to be said about closing loopholes that mean that the taxes that should be paid are actually paid, and I'd be on board with that.

 

[orchard]

I do appreciate that and fully get that most of the wealth gains of the last few decades have gone to the 1% and above. I suppose what is difficult with taxing the likes of Sunak, Musk, Bezos et al on their share wealth is that that wealth is paper wealth. We have mechanisms in place to tax assets when they're sold but it's dodgy ground to try and extract anything from assets that haven't yet been sold. Of course, there is much to be said about closing loopholes that mean that the taxes that should be paid are actually paid, and I'd be on board with that.

I don't think it's that dodgy to implement taxes on paper-wealth transactions. Paper or otherwise, the assets and profits are generally real.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't think it's that dodgy to implement taxes on paper-wealth transactions. Paper or otherwise, the assets and profits are generally real.

Because, certainly for shares, those changes are pretty uncertain. I mean some folk use Bitcoin as an investment. What would you do? Tax it when it goes up and reimburse people when it crashes? We rightly criticise companies that want to reap the profits and then turn to the state should the poop hit the fan. This idea isn't that much different. When any gains are booked as a result of the asset being sold, sure, tax that, but you can't do so beforehand. As it is, shares are already taxed when they're bought, and again when they're sold.