Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
It is very hard not to believe that this supposed support for JRM is not the sort of redistributive wealth policy that Tories are not supposed to approve of. Are people really that easily parted with their hard earned?
I have been for lunch today with Granny and Granpa Fox. She has been a lifelong Tory member, and Grandpa more recently a kipper. I manged to keep the subject off Politics and Brexit until pudding, when they both came out for Mogg. This surprised me a bit as Granny Fox is a true loyalist and never opposes a sitting leader, and Grandpa Fox hates public school toffs.
Following on from my Isle of Wight Uncle, who came out for Mogg on Facebook with his first ever political post a few weeks back, I think there really is sometbing to this Moggmentum. I think that he will get to the final 2 via the MPs, then win in the party vote, particularly with the over Seventies. I bought earlier at 28, so not topping up at these prices, but neither am I laying.
Note: I do generally poorly on leadership contests though. They are tough contests to assess, as members are different to activists and different again to voters.
Mogg might do well with the Conservative membership for not dissimilar reasons for why Corbyn did well with the Labour membership.
But, he would have to want it, and find 80-100 MPs to support him first.
The Guardian have a hatchet job on JRM today so the left seem to fear him. I'm not sure but he is a top class debater and incredibly sharp. He'd be different from the bland politicians we're used to.
I don't fear him. He's a wild card - no idea how he would do in a GE. In office - his purity of vision would swiftly meet reality. He'd either be a disaster or massively disappoint his supporters.
Can't see Tory MPs going for him anyway. And he strikes me as someone who would rather hold govt to account (which he is good at) than actually run things.
I think the mistake the Catalan nationalists have made is promising UDI the day after the election. I suspect there are quite a number of people who support independence that might think that's just a bit drastic.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
"Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total"
And that basic misunderstanding is why socialism destroys countries.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
"Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total"
And that basic misunderstanding is why socialism destroys countries.
How well do you think unfettered free-markets are working for the Western ecomony right now?
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
"Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total"
And that basic misunderstanding is why socialism destroys countries.
How well do you think unfettered free-markets are working for the Western economy right now?
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Speaking to my folks, albeit briefly as Brexit is increasingly a rift between generations in our family, the enthusiasm for JRM was partly a desire to safeguard Brexit via a true believer, and partly nostalgia for simpler times. My mother compared him to MacMillan (in her eyes quite a compliment), though In suspect him to be more Anthony Eden.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Perhaps, but if you look at the recent data in this country, then lower income tax rates improve tax takes.
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Speaking to my folks, albeit briefly as Brexit is increasingly a rift between generations in our family, the enthusiasm for JRM was partly a desire to safeguard Brexit via a true believer, and partly nostalgia for simpler times. My mother compared him to MacMillan (in her eyes quite a compliment), though In suspect him to be more Anthony Eden.
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Speaking to my folks, albeit briefly as Brexit is increasingly a rift between generations in our family, the enthusiasm for JRM was partly a desire to safeguard Brexit via a true believer, and partly nostalgia for simpler times. My mother compared him to MacMillan (in her eyes quite a compliment), though In suspect him to be more Anthony Eden.
I thought Alec Douglas-Home was the better comparison....
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Speaking to my folks, albeit briefly as Brexit is increasingly a rift between generations in our family, the enthusiasm for JRM was partly a desire to safeguard Brexit via a true believer, and partly nostalgia for simpler times. My mother compared him to MacMillan (in her eyes quite a compliment), though In suspect him to be more Anthony Eden.
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Perhaps, but if you look at the recent data in this country, then lower income tax rates improve tax takes.
Lower Corporation Tax rates have led to lower CT tax take:
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP = £47.0bn 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP = £44.4bn
Yes -- by economic growth increasing the tax take and reducing benefits payments. Austerity makes things worse.
If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
Yes, too good to be true, a bit like people who claim that cutting tax rates somehow results in increased tax revenues.
Do you seriously not understand why this happens? Not only do lower taxes help to stimulate the economy, many are in control of how much they take as wage income. They vote with their feet when taxes are cut.
People can go through all these sorts of contortions to explain how increased spending could theoretically lead to a lower deficit, too.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Perhaps, but if you look at the recent data in this country, then lower income tax rates improve tax takes.
Lower Corporation Tax rates have led to lower CT tax take:
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP = £47.0bn 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP = £44.4bn
Incidentally, I think a real and undiscussed problem with the current corp tax rates is that they have removed the differentiation between SMEs and big corps.
The Jacob Rees-Mogg surge means something. I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean that Sixtus is going to grow up in Downing Street.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Speaking to my folks, albeit briefly as Brexit is increasingly a rift between generations in our family, the enthusiasm for JRM was partly a desire to safeguard Brexit via a true believer, and partly nostalgia for simpler times. My mother compared him to MacMillan (in her eyes quite a compliment), though In suspect him to be more Anthony Eden.
The Guardian have a hatchet job on JRM today so the left seem to fear him. I'm not sure but he is a top class debater and incredibly sharp. He'd be different from the bland politicians we're used to.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Perhaps, but if you look at the recent data in this country, then lower income tax rates improve tax takes.
Lower Corporation Tax rates have led to lower CT tax take:
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP = £47.0bn 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP = £44.4bn
Incidentally, I think a real and undiscussed problem with the current corp tax rates is that they have removed the differentiation between SMEs and big corps.
Ok, with income taxes the only rate recent change has been the reduction of the 50% additional rate to 45% ("we're all in it together"). Here's the effect, which clearly shows lowering tax rates did not improve tax take:
Year Top rate Income tax take %GDP 2010 50% 9.79% 2011 50% 9.85% 2012 50% 9.61% 2013 45% 9.24% 2014 45% 9.19% 2015 45% 9.20% 2016 45% 9.33%
Incidentally, re your point about SMEs, the Labour manifesto pledged "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small pro ts rate of corporation tax."
When you have a President who compares himself to Jupiter, dispenses with press conferences because journalists are too stupid to understand his profound thoughts, and loses his chief general, that's unsurprising.
He's also had several cabinet ministers resign and broken his election promises.
If Donald Trump had a record like that we'd never hear the end of it.
But as they say, every President of the Fifth Republic has been worse than his predecessor.
Didn't he get rid of his cabinet ministers because they'd historically fiddled their expenses? I would have thought that would be something we would praise a leader for, whether Trump, May or Macron.
French politicians historically fiddling their expenses ?
That must have been a stunning revelation to Macron.
Strangely he didn't mind the support of said politicians when he needed it to get elected.
Next to some the possible tory candidates being mentioned (JRM, BoJo, Patel, Leadsome, Gove etc.), Corbyn and Cable begin to look like actual grown-up politicians.
Come on Tories, surely you can do better than that?!
I like the Moggstar & would like to see him as PM, however to persuade those doubters on this site, perhaps a cabinet job of substance to see how he performs if ever given the chance.
I got on Mogg at 40s after his 2nd QT performance after the GE. He's the only Tory popular with people who aren't Tories. Must stand a chance. Although I do think he'd be a disaster.
Comments
But, he would have to want it, and find 80-100 MPs to support him first.
It worries me what mental burdens they had to carry their whole lives in silence.
In office - his purity of vision would swiftly meet reality. He'd either be a disaster or massively disappoint his supporters.
Can't see Tory MPs going for him anyway. And he strikes me as someone who would rather hold govt to account (which he is good at) than actually run things.
I think the mistake the Catalan nationalists have made is promising UDI the day after the election. I suspect there are quite a number of people who support independence that might think that's just a bit drastic.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
"Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total"
And that basic misunderstanding is why socialism destroys countries.
The real significance of the phenomenon is, I think, that the Conservative rank and file are deeply out of love with Boris Johnson at the moment. So they're latching onto the nearest approximation.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Non sequitur.
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP = £47.0bn
2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP = £44.4bn
Source ukpublicrevenue.co.uk (from OBR)
http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/downloadsrs_ukgr.php?codes=CN445&units=b&group=&fy=2017
Incidentally, I think a real and undiscussed problem with the current corp tax rates is that they have removed the differentiation between SMEs and big corps.
Year Top rate Income tax take %GDP
2010 50% 9.79%
2011 50% 9.85%
2012 50% 9.61%
2013 45% 9.24%
2014 45% 9.19%
2015 45% 9.20%
2016 45% 9.33%
Incidentally, re your point about SMEs, the Labour manifesto pledged "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small pro ts rate of corporation tax."
That must have been a stunning revelation to Macron.
Strangely he didn't mind the support of said politicians when he needed it to get elected.
Come on Tories, surely you can do better than that?!
It seems to get raised here on a regular basis despite the inconvenient facts not supporting it.