Best Of

550 jobs to go at National Trust.

They are blaming employers NI rise.

In the farming world there was always a special pity for the "National Trust Tenant" farming for a landlord who was clueless as to how to manage its own property.

Not just clueless but clueless and unwilling to listen because their incorrect knowledge was correct no matter how many people tried to correct it

A friend is exiting the charitable sector - her career so far has been watching utterly clueless fools with 6 figure salaries playing with charities like 4 year olds with Big Lego. The people who get hurt often are those who the charities are supposed to help. And the actual workers in the charities.

I know a few people working for charities who have said very much the same thing. It can provide a very cushy job for those at the top.

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.

If its so obvious and not useful, why have we got so many awful cliff-edges in our tax system?

Why do so many get shocked that people don't want to work when facing an effective 100% tax rate?

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Needs to be labelled more like a Bourne novel:

The Laffer Uncertainty
The Laffer Dilemma

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.

You may find it obvious that reducing taxes induces more work to be done but unfortunately many do not.

That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.

I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.

Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.

You may find it obvious that reducing taxes induces more work to be done but unfortunately many do not.

That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.

I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.

Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.

The sweet spot probably varies over time, plus a wide number of factors.

I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.

It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”

It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth

I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach

If Jenrick takes over I think the Tories could regain the lead in the polls.

With a Reform copy act? Maybe... I think the Tories would do better attacking Reform than agreeing with them. Pound them for their fantasy spending plans.

The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.

If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.

Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.

Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.

Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.

You may find it obvious that reducing taxes induces more work to be done but unfortunately many do not.

That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.

I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.

Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.