I certainly hope Boris will have Javid as Chancellor.
Based on the start of QT, Truss would be way out of her depth.
Javid looks a good bet at 7-4 for chancellor now I think ?
Boris is 1-5 vs Hunt, so you're basically punting that the rumour is true at 5-4ish.
Seeing as Javid was the last man standing whose votes could be used tactically to knock Gove out (Boris' main threat) and keep Hunt in, also the fact he's got great office of state experience and would be Britain's first Asian chancellor makes the rumour more likely to be true than not. I think the Truss rumour probably started as she was Boris' proposer but she doesn't have the gravitas needed. Remainer Hammond also going must be a racing certainty.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
If it were proven to your satisfaction that a strict moderation policy helped, rather than harmed, their bottom line, would you be in favour?
Yes. Though I don't think it would be proven. Twitter relies on controversy to drive traffic. Removing the controversy will result in fewer impressions/clicks and lower advertising revenue.
Except Twitter don't remove controversy and by occasionally banning people they can even egg on the controversy, only to soon unban people afterwards.
Its like trying to get a pan as hot as possible without letting the contents boil over.
There's no reason to suggest they don't know exactly what they're doing.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
While the Right have no concept of what levels of taxation the Laffer Curve is effective at.
Yes there's a lot of good evidence actually.
Look at Corporation Tax. Its been cut continuously by this government yet is now drawing in more revenues than it was getting before they were elected. Funny that ...
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
Boris has been coming up with some impressive policy announcements. Have they been carefully crafted in a smoke filled room, or like the bus-modelling nonsense did they just trip off his forked tongue?
The smoke filled room was traditionally only caused by tobacco...
Twitter will attach a special label to tweets by major political figures if their content violates the site’s rules but the deleting them is not in the public interest, the company said Thursday.
Tweets affected by the new measure will remain on the site, but will not appear in searches or be recommended to users through any of Twitter’s algorithmic channels. When they do appear in a user’s timeline, they will be hidden behind an interstitial reading: “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Users can then click through to view the tweet if they desire.
An elected politician should be able to say what they want and the voters judge them accordingly
I think the issue is that other peoples' tweets were being taken down for violating Twitter's terms of service, but famous people (i.e. Trump) weren't been held to the same rules.
This, of course, is a halfway house that satisfies no-one. The tweets are still there (which they wouldn't be if you or I tweeted them), but they're being somewhat hidden.
Twitter is, of course, free to have whatever Terms of Service they like. Their site, their rules. Perhaps the best way around this would be to have a machine learning algorithm that checked (without human intervension) if a tweet breached Terms of Service. And if it did, it told the Tweeter, your Tweet was not published for the following reason, please change it and resubmit.
Surely the issue is that the terms of service are a stupid policy that harm shareholder value by excluding half of the population. Twitter makes money from controversy, the ToS seem designed to reduce that and turn it into a liberal echo chamber. It's a shareholder/fiduciary duty issue, rather than a first amendment one IMO, the board are acting against the interests of the shareholders and serving their own liberal agenda.
Surely this increases the controversy around Twitter, and so makes Twitter more valuable. What shareholders wouldn't like it? Most right-wingers don't promote neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.
Except perhaps the circumstance where the alternative is Boris Johnson. We may find out this autumn.
Quite. If the choice is no deal with Boris or remain/2nd referendum with Corbyn then I'm afraid it will have to be Corbyn.
Evidence that Corbyn will support such a move? He seems mighty reluctant to do so.
I think he will be forced to by the weight of opinion within the party were an election to be called. Labour could not go into an election promising to implement the WDA and there are no other Brexit options available.
My CLP, which is 80%+ pro-Remain, voted tonight to reject the motion going round CLPs instructing the leadership to back Remain, in favour of just supporting a referendum with Remain option - the majority view was to trust the leadership and accept a "Harold Wilson" free vote if that's what seemed best; the minority felt we needed to take a firm position and fight Brexit. 45 minutes of very good-humoured debate. Corbyn retains membership backing IMO, though there's a lot of frustration that the compromise position isn't being championed properly.
If it were proven to your satisfaction that a strict moderation policy helped, rather than harmed, their bottom line, would you be in favour?
Yes. Though I don't think it would be proven. Twitter relies on controversy to drive traffic. Removing the controversy will result in fewer impressions/clicks and lower advertising revenue.
Except Twitter don't remove controversy and by occasionally banning people they can even egg on the controversy, only to soon unban people afterwards.
Its like trying to get a pan as hot as possible without letting the contents boil over.
There's no reason to suggest they don't know exactly what they're doing.
Yes there is, Twitter has extremely poor margins.
I meant in the context of banning people who violate their TOS (even temporarily).
I don't think their margins are due to TOS violation bans. And if advertisers walked away if Twitter didn't have TOS then their margins could be even worse.
They talk as if it is both the most important thing in the world ... and also something which will be barely noticed
That's actually a really good point. The details or obstacles are unimportant, and yet the concept itself is of deathly importance. It is essential for democracy, but not if it is not done in the particular way they want apparently. Belief is all that matters, concern is simply fearmongering.
And yet the strangest thing is as you describe, that any idea of difficulties (even if they can be overcome) is scoffed at, even though we need to get out so badly it is literally described as do or die.
Bizarre. They've turned me right off Brexit, these Brexiteers - they couldn't take yes for an answer, they had to go for more. And no, arseholes like Dominic Grieve (with his latest wheeze the mask seems to be slipping a bit, and erudition does not stop someone being an arsehole) trying to derail from the other side does not excuse them.
Former Ed Miliband adviser Ayesha Hasarika on QT says she expects a general election soon as the hung Parliament will not vote for a Boris government and it would be a de facto second referendum, hard Brexit with Boris or EUref2
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
While the Right have no concept of what levels of taxation the Laffer Curve is effective at.
Yes there's a lot of good evidence actually.
Look at Corporation Tax. Its been cut continuously by this government yet is now drawing in more revenues than it was getting before they were elected. Funny that ...
Yes, because more people have incorporated to dodge other taxes.
Pizza is a vastly overrated foodstuff, generally. Very good simple stone baked Italian pizzas are a joy, sure, but not worth frothing about. Essentially it’s posh cheese on toast, a snack. There are better things to do with a gastronomic life than seek it out.
I would walk over hot coals for a fresh buffalo mozzarella, eaten fresh on its own.
You can see the buffalo herds just south of Paestum, which is stunning and worth a visit even if no food were available.
Goodness, no!
It needs a succulent beef tomato and a hint of fresh basil, otherwise the texture palls
Not if you eat the real thing. It is a bit gamey not the bland stuff you get here.
And San Marzano tomatoes grown in the sun and so tasting of tomato not water.
Regardless - if you are interested in classical architecture and history, Paestum is a must see.
I doubt it. Clarke is very popular in the constituency and has a large personal vote. But it is also a Conservative stronghold and the Lib Dems have done atrociously in the constituency in the recent past including at the last local elections in 2017. The only hold one seat in the whole county council and that is Beeston. It is certainly not fertile ground for them in spite of Clarke's personal standing.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Ah yes, the Keynes Perversion. I must introduce you to Socialist Worker friends of similar mind.
Does anyone know whether Corbo is pro, or anti, Scots independence?
Corbo is anti but only because he can use SNP and Scottish Labour MPs to override a Tory majority in England and become PM if needed and for a similar reason he opposes Welsh independence because of the inbuilt Labour majority there.
Northern Ireland he is less bothered about losing to Irish reunification as he is close to Sinn Fein but they never take their seats unlike the DUP who do and are currently propping up the Tories.
Are you still backing the clown to be PM?
I am still backing Boris, yes absolutely, though clowns often have the last laugh
The competitive media environment should logically speaking lead to a profit-maximising level of internal controversy on media platforms, if we think markets work. Actually, it appears that the profit-maximising level of internal controversy in modern media does not need to be very high. You can have lots of Team A partisans as long as many of them generate content about Team B. Probably the most profitable set-up for Twitter would be to split off a Red Twitter from a Blue Twitter and let socialists and Republicans hang out on the one, segregated from the Democrats and Tories on the other.
Twitter will attach a special label to tweets by major political figures if their content violates the site’s rules but the deleting them is not in the public interest, the company said Thursday.
Tweets affected by the new measure will remain on the site, but will not appear in searches or be recommended to users through any of Twitter’s algorithmic channels. When they do appear in a user’s timeline, they will be hidden behind an interstitial reading: “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Users can then click through to view the tweet if they desire.
An elected politician should be able to say what they want and the voters judge them accordingly
I think the issue is that other peoples' tweets were being taken down for violating Twitter's terms of service, but famous people (i.e. Trump) weren't been held to the same rules.
This, of course, is a halfway house that satisfies no-one. The tweets are still there (which they wouldn't be if you or I tweeted them), but they're being somewhat hidden.
Twitter is, of course, free to have whatever Terms of Service they like. Their site, their rules. Perhaps the best way around this would be to have a machine learning algorithm that checked (without human intervension) if a tweet breached Terms of Service. And if it did, it told the Tweeter, your Tweet was not published for the following reason, please change it and resubmit.
Utilities are regulated. Twitter is a utility in my view.
I don't agree that Twitter is a utility. But ignoring that for a second:
Should elected officials' tweets be held to different standards to regular peoples'
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Twitter will attach a special label to tweets by major political figures if their content violates the site’s rules but the deleting them is not in the public interest, the company said Thursday.
Tweets affected by the new measure will remain on the site, but will not appear in searches or be recommended to users through any of Twitter’s algorithmic channels. When they do appear in a user’s timeline, they will be hidden behind an interstitial reading: “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Users can then click through to view the tweet if they desire.
An elected politician should be able to say what they want and the voters judge them accordingly
I think the issue is that other peoples' tweets were being taken down for violating Twitter's terms of service, but famous people (i.e. Trump) weren't been held to the same rules.
This, of course, is a halfway house that satisfies no-one. The tweets are still there (which they wouldn't be if you or I tweeted them), but they're being somewhat hidden.
Twitter is, of course, free to have whatever Terms of Service they like. Their site, their rules. Perhaps the best way around this would be to have a machine learning algorithm that checked (without human intervension) if a tweet breached Terms of Service. And if it did, it told the Tweeter, your Tweet was not published for the following reason, please change it and resubmit.
Surely the issue is that the terms of service are a stupid policy that harm shareholder value by excluding half of the population. Twitter makes money from controversy, the ToS seem designed to reduce that and turn it into a liberal echo chamber. It's a shareholder/fiduciary duty issue, rather than a first amendment one IMO, the board are acting against the interests of the shareholders and serving their own liberal agenda.
Well that's there problem, isn't it? If they kill off what makes Twitter work they end up irrelevant and dead.
It certainly shouldn't be solved by the government intervening.
Twitter will attach a special label to tweets by major political figures if their content violates the site’s rules but the deleting them is not in the public interest, the company said Thursday.
Tweets affected by the new measure will remain on the site, but will not appear in searches or be recommended to users through any of Twitter’s algorithmic channels. When they do appear in a user’s timeline, they will be hidden behind an interstitial reading: “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Users can then click through to view the tweet if they desire.
An elected politician should be able to say what they want and the voters judge them accordingly
I think the issue is that other peoples' tweets were being taken down for violating Twitter's terms of service, but famous people (i.e. Trump) weren't been held to the same rules.
This, of course, is a halfway house that satisfies no-one. The tweets are still there (which they wouldn't be if you or I tweeted them), but they're being somewhat hidden.
Twitter is, of course, free to have whatever Terms of Service they like. Their site, their rules. Perhaps the best way around this would be to have a machine learning algorithm that checked (without human intervension) if a tweet breached Terms of Service. And if it did, it told the Tweeter, your Tweet was not published for the following reason, please change it and resubmit.
Utilities are regulated. Twitter is a utility in my view.
I don't agree that Twitter is a utility. But ignoring that for a second:
Should elected officials' tweets be held to different standards to regular peoples'
Surely this increases the controversy around Twitter, and so makes Twitter more valuable. What shareholders wouldn't like it? Most right-wingers don't promote neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.
That's the problem though, the liberals that run Twitter seem happy to label half of the population as Nazis or something along those lines, this creates a sugar rush, but in the longer term excluding half of the population will mean less traffic and lower ad yields. That's for a business which is already on the back foot for both measures having turned a profit on the back of the views/click through created by Trump.
In a likely Boris v Corbyn v Swinson general election only one of those is going to end up PM and it will almost certainly be Boris with a mandate for Brexit.
The real question may well end up being whether Corbyn can hold off Swinson and the LDs for second place, at least in voteshare I think the LDs could overtake Labour if Labour continues like this
How about Johnson vs Labour leader not Corbyn?
And what will Johnson be seeking from his FTA, and what will he offer the EU in return?
Would Johnson beat McDonnell?
Think McD is underrated. Smart guy whatever one thinks of his politics.
Agree entirely. Will make a good chancellor if he gets the chance. May even win over some businesses as well.
I'm sure the three businesses that survive his purges will be very impressed!
Twitter will attach a special label to tweets by major political figures if their content violates the site’s rules but the deleting them is not in the public interest, the company said Thursday.
Tweets affected by the new measure will remain on the site, but will not appear in searches or be recommended to users through any of Twitter’s algorithmic channels. When they do appear in a user’s timeline, they will be hidden behind an interstitial reading: “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Users can then click through to view the tweet if they desire.
An elected politician should be able to say what they want and the voters judge them accordingly
I think the issue is that other peoples' tweets were being taken down for violating Twitter's terms of service, but famous people (i.e. Trump) weren't been held to the same rules.
This, of course, is a halfway house that satisfies no-one. The tweets are still there (which they wouldn't be if you or I tweeted them), but they're being somewhat hidden.
Twitter is, of course, free to have whatever Terms of Service they like. Their site, their rules. Perhaps the best way around this would be to have a machine learning algorithm that checked (without human intervension) if a tweet breached Terms of Service. And if it did, it told the Tweeter, your Tweet was not published for the following reason, please change it and resubmit.
Surely the issue is that the terms of service are a stupid policy that harm shareholder value by excluding half of the population. Twitter makes money from controversy, the ToS seem designed to reduce that and turn it into a liberal echo chamber. It's a shareholder/fiduciary duty issue, rather than a first amendment one IMO, the board are acting against the interests of the shareholders and serving their own liberal agenda.
Well that's there problem, isn't it? If they kill off what makes Twitter work they end up irrelevant and dead.
It certainly shouldn't be solved by the government intervening.
Yes, I'm definitely not in favour of government regulation of private media. It's a one way ticket to state sponsored propaganda.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Ah yes, the Keynes Perversion. I must introduce you to Socialist Worker friends of similar mind.
As the French say, never mind whether it works in practice, does it work in theory!
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
Does anyone expect a boost for the Tories in the polls when their new leader is finally chosen? I think they probably will get one, although it may be relatively small.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Which is much better. Why exactly should anyone have to pay tens of thousands (now hundreds of thousands in many cases) for the Government to 'stamp' a transaction that is none of their damned business? A £100 flat rate should be quite sufficient.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
It's a tiny bit more complicated than that.
If the UK government cuts taxes and increases spending, then the economy will grow. (Yay!) Simply aggregate demand will rise, and people have more money in their pocket, either because the government is paying them or because it is taxing them less.
But from a growth perspective, this is a one-off benefit. The next year, unless the tax take is slashed again, the compare is of the higher base of demand. (Which is one of the reasons why the US economy is decelerating right now.)
But the deficit is not a one off. Cutting taxes and increasing spending makes a hole that recurs year after year.
Furthermore, expansionary budgets tend to result in worse economic imbalances. If you give everyone more money to spend in one go, then as the productive capability of the economy has not changed, the bulk of the increased demand will go on imports.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
It's a tiny bit more complicated than that.
If the UK government cuts taxes and increases spending, then the economy will grow. (Yay!) Simply aggregate demand will rise, and people have more money in their pocket, either because the government is paying them or because it is taxing them less.
But from a growth perspective, this is a one-off benefit. The next year, unless the tax take is slashed again, the compare is of the higher base of demand. (Which is one of the reasons why the US economy is decelerating right now.)
But the deficit is not a one off. Cutting taxes and increasing spending makes a hole that recurs year after year.
Furthermore, expansionary budgets tend to result in worse economic imbalances. If you give everyone more money to spend in one go, then as the productive capability of the economy has not changed, the bulk of the increased demand will go on imports.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Doesn't that mean lowering or eliminating it at lower prices and raising at the top end? The government did this and it has been fairly successful.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Doesn't that mean lowering or eliminating it at lower prices and raising at the top end? The government did this and it has been fairly successful.
I paid £8k In stamp duty. I felt like I had my arm sawn off. After only a yes for so my wife is looking at other properties!
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
So Boris is promising tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts for the struggling, no stamp duty, 20 000 new police officers, more nurses, teachers and doctors, more spending on everything under the sun. After Brexit, we'll all be employees of the State, and paying no tax. Remind me who is the Marxist?
It is the tax cuts that will grow the economy to raise the revenues to pay for the promises
Lefties still haven't heard of the Laffer Curve. Probably never will.
It's a tiny bit more complicated than that.
If the UK government cuts taxes and increases spending, then the economy will grow. (Yay!) Simply aggregate demand will rise, and people have more money in their pocket, either because the government is paying them or because it is taxing them less.
But from a growth perspective, this is a one-off benefit. The next year, unless the tax take is slashed again, the compare is of the higher base of demand. (Which is one of the reasons why the US economy is decelerating right now.)
But the deficit is not a one off. Cutting taxes and increasing spending makes a hole that recurs year after year.
Furthermore, expansionary budgets tend to result in worse economic imbalances. If you give everyone more money to spend in one go, then as the productive capability of the economy has not changed, the bulk of the increased demand will go on imports.
What you are, I think, saying is cutting taxes is not a panacea. Nor is increasing spending. And both together, which is the "Boris Plan" is a bit reckless.
Does anyone expect a boost for the Tories in the polls when their new leader is finally chosen? I think they probably will get one, although it may be relatively small.
Yes, me. Unless they go for a GE quickly though, it will be moot. The fundamentals haven't changed.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Doesn't that mean lowering or eliminating it at lower prices and raising at the top end? The government did this and it has been fairly successful.
Most people want to have a home they can retire to. After all, the aim of a mortgage is that you will have paid it off in 25/30 years and by the time you're old you will own your own home.
Stamp duty penalises those who move frequently for work and encourages people to stay where they are as long as they can. A small increase in tax revenues for a massive hit to the economy by making skilled workers far less mobile.
To me it's an insane tax, far more insane than inheritance tax (which, after all, is only levied after you're gone).
Does anyone know whether Corbo is pro, or anti, Scots independence?
He’s never really been all that clear. Sometimes he is almost neutral, while at other times he comes over full-on Better Together. Never *publicly* supported it.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Laffer Curve in action.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Doesn't that mean lowering or eliminating it at lower prices and raising at the top end? The government did this and it has been fairly successful.
Most people want to have a home they can retire to. After all, the aim of a mortgage is that you will have paid it off in 25/30 years and by the time you're old you will own your own home.
Stamp duty penalises those who move frequently for work and encourages people to stay where they are as long as they can. A small increase in tax revenues for a massive hit to the economy by making skilled workers far less mobile.
To me it's an insane tax, far more insane than inheritance tax (which, after all, is only levied after you're gone).
Which is fair enough. You then have to explain where the lost revenue is to be compensated for. Cut spending? Boris is promising a splurge. Higher other taxes? No, he's promising cuts. Increase the tax-paying base? No, they want to make immigration more difficult. Therefore, I presume, the Tory Party is the "deficit denier" Party. A huge increase in the PSBR. What was the point of 9 years of austerity?
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Laffer Curve in action.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
Just because we don't have infallible perfect knowledge as to know where it peaks doesn't make it untrue.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
It also discourages people trading down, thus making the market less efficient.
Doesn't that mean lowering or eliminating it at lower prices and raising at the top end? The government did this and it has been fairly successful.
Most people want to have a home they can retire to. After all, the aim of a mortgage is that you will have paid it off in 25/30 years and by the time you're old you will own your own home.
Stamp duty penalises those who move frequently for work and encourages people to stay where they are as long as they can. A small increase in tax revenues for a massive hit to the economy by making skilled workers far less mobile.
To me it's an insane tax, far more insane than inheritance tax (which, after all, is only levied after you're gone).
Which is fair enough. You then have to explain where the lost revenue is to be compensated for. Cut spending? Boris is promising a splurge. Higher other taxes? No, he's promising cuts. Increase the tax-paying base? No, they want to make immigration more difficult. Therefore, I presume, the Tory Party is the "deficit denier" Party. A huge increase in the PSBR. What was the point of 9 years of austerity?
We won't be spending billions a year to the EU and in control of our own destiny we can grow our nation.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Laffer Curve in action.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
Just because we don't have infallible perfect knowledge as to know where it peaks doesn't make it untrue.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The economic modellers are pretty certain they have a ballpark on that - iirc something like 48% for the UK upper rate. Not a lot of difference +- 5% around that though.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
It has a marginal benefit as you can borrow an increased house price but not the stamp duty
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
Laffer Curve in action.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
Just because we don't have infallible perfect knowledge as to know where it peaks doesn't make it untrue.
Empirical evidence does though.
I thought its existence wasn’t in question. Only the shape was?
Indeed and empirical evidence demonstrates it is a real effect. As demonstrated by corporation tax take being higher now than it was a decade ago despite a lower percentage rate.
And that's without thinking about the other tax takes that are higher too as a consequence.
Great: just what we need. Another house price surge followed by a crash.
Do the Tories ever think that an economy can be something more than people buying and selling overpriced terraced houses to each other ?
Morons.
As true as that all is, the more surprising thing is how narrow and unimaginative a tax cut that is. If he really wants to make tax cuts (and I think it’s on balance unwise), he’d be better off chopping income tax. What happened to that plan?
Anyone who wants to buy a house hates stamp duty. Nice populist move from Boris - more please!
Price goes up to reflect the lower duty.., (although you can finance against house value not tax)
Stamp duty is dead money up front.
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
Don’t misunderstand me: I think it’s a bad tax that’s been poorly implemented.
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Stamp duty has a depressive effect on house prices. Moving to reduce or eliminate it won't have the desired outcome of increasing home ownership.
Laffer Curve: neoliberal mumbo-jumbo; a curve with no scale and no definition... no one can say where it peaks.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
Just because we don't have infallible perfect knowledge as to know where it peaks doesn't make it untrue.
Empirical evidence does though.
I thought its existence wasn’t in question. Only the shape was?
Of course. One needs to keep the argument very simple when debating with those who believe cut taxes leads to automatically increased revenue under any and all conditions.
Of course. One needs to keep the argument very simple when debating with those who believe cut taxes leads to automatically increased revenue under any and all conditions.
Thankfully I don't think anybody here said that and neither does the theory.
Indeed and empirical evidence demonstrates it is a real effect. As demonstrated by corporation tax take being higher now than it was a decade ago despite a lower percentage rate.
And that's without thinking about the other tax takes that are higher too as a consequence.
Indeed and empirical evidence demonstrates it is a real effect. As demonstrated by corporation tax take being higher now than it was a decade ago despite a lower percentage rate.
And that's without thinking about the other tax takes that are higher too as a consequence.
Explain Kansas State finances 2012- present.
No one said it was in the same place for each country.
@RobD Apologies. Am trying to argue with someone who apparently believes cutting taxes automatically and inevitably leads to higher revenues. Best to keep it simple.
@RobD Apologies. Am trying to argue with someone who apparently believes cutting taxes automatically and inevitably leads to higher revenues. Best to keep it simple.
Isn’t their argument that the rate should be set at the peak?
Indeed and empirical evidence demonstrates it is a real effect. As demonstrated by corporation tax take being higher now than it was a decade ago despite a lower percentage rate.
And that's without thinking about the other tax takes that are higher too as a consequence.
Explain Kansas State finances 2012- present.
A failed extreme experiment that included cutting tax rates to 0% for many with a mammoth loophole.
Last I checked the Laffer Curve doesn't advise either a 0% tax rate or a 100% one.
@RobD Apologies. Am trying to argue with someone who apparently believes cutting taxes automatically and inevitably leads to higher revenues. Best to keep it simple.
"I don't think anybody here said that and neither does the theory."
@RobD Apologies. Am trying to argue with someone who apparently believes cutting taxes automatically and inevitably leads to higher revenues. Best to keep it simple.
Isn’t their argument that the rate should be set at the peak?
Of course, you can be to the left of the peak or the right of the peak.
Setting the tax rate at 0% like in Kansas will put you well to the left of the peak!
Does anyone expect a boost for the Tories in the polls when their new leader is finally chosen? I think they probably will get one, although it may be relatively small.
Yes, me. Unless they go for a GE quickly though, it will be moot. The fundamentals haven't changed.
I agree. On the one hand it's difficult to believe the Tories would want to have an election this year, but at the same time it seems quite likely.
"I’m delighted that the Welsh Government has been able to support such innovative and high quality projects in north Wales through our funding support schemes," said the Minister has he handed the dosh over.
Hard to say.
Is the Lab/Lib Welsh Government more failing than Grayling? Or is it just anti-Welsh, actively seeking to pauperise Wales still further and destroy what little the Welsh have?
Bernie getting a good reception, on my quick flick through anyway... I put that down to young people being noisy and turning up though rather than anything too substantial.
Biden's trying to do this laundry list of little policies thing, which firstly doesn't help in this big chaotic thing where you need strong, memorable lines, and secondly he's clearly having a hard time remembering what the policies are.
Comments
Look at Corporation Tax. Its been cut continuously by this government yet is now drawing in more revenues than it was getting before they were elected. Funny that ...
I don't think their margins are due to TOS violation bans. And if advertisers walked away if Twitter didn't have TOS then their margins could be even worse.
And yet the strangest thing is as you describe, that any idea of difficulties (even if they can be overcome) is scoffed at, even though we need to get out so badly it is literally described as do or die.
Bizarre. They've turned me right off Brexit, these Brexiteers - they couldn't take yes for an answer, they had to go for more. And no, arseholes like Dominic Grieve (with his latest wheeze the mask seems to be slipping a bit, and erudition does not stop someone being an arsehole) trying to derail from the other side does not excuse them.
Including yours truly!
And San Marzano tomatoes grown in the sun and so tasting of tomato not water.
Regardless - if you are interested in classical architecture and history, Paestum is a must see.
Should elected officials' tweets be held to different standards to regular peoples'
Because that's the situation right now.
It certainly shouldn't be solved by the government intervening.
That’s got to add another 10% to his poll lead , lol
Easier wins in Wigan, Stalybridge & Hyde and Denton & Reddish.
If I made the right calculations, 9 CLPs is the threshold to force an open selection.
It may not bode well for Lucy Powell in Central though.
With Merkel ill it seems and nearing the end of her tenure somebody needs to stand up to the French
Plus it penalises people who move more frequently, eg for work. Is moving for work or other reasons something we should seek to be punishing?
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-job-hotly-fought-over-with-belfastborn-mp-tipped-to-replace-karen-bradley-in-boris-johnson-cabinet-38247770.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/06/henry-hill-hunt-pulls-foreign-office-support-to-sturgeons-separatist-excursions.html
https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1144373007110025216
But (a) the Laffer curve refers to income taxes not transaction taxes and (b) prices will go up as stamp duty falls
My biggest issue is the impact on labour mobility
Mansfield Independent Forum 227
Lab 177
Con 71
UKIP 56
Ward was Lab in 2019, Ind in 2015, Lab in 2011
If the UK government cuts taxes and increases spending, then the economy will grow. (Yay!) Simply aggregate demand will rise, and people have more money in their pocket, either because the government is paying them or because it is taxing them less.
But from a growth perspective, this is a one-off benefit. The next year, unless the tax take is slashed again, the compare is of the higher base of demand. (Which is one of the reasons why the US economy is decelerating right now.)
But the deficit is not a one off. Cutting taxes and increasing spending makes a hole that recurs year after year.
Furthermore, expansionary budgets tend to result in worse economic imbalances. If you give everyone more money to spend in one go, then as the productive capability of the economy has not changed, the bulk of the increased demand will go on imports.
From a revenue perspective, they killed volume with the last rise so revenues tanked
https://twitter.com/PatrickBenjam/status/1144205936971735041
In fairness I think Gazza has probably abused some of the other non marijuana drugs as well.
A bigger economy yields more tax year-on-year.
Tax cuts don't deliver more money all in one go.
https://twitter.com/jonlansman/status/1144283796918996992
Stamp duty penalises those who move frequently for work and encourages people to stay where they are as long as they can. A small increase in tax revenues for a massive hit to the economy by making skilled workers far less mobile.
To me it's an insane tax, far more insane than inheritance tax (which, after all, is only levied after you're gone).
He might be interested in Scottish affairs if they became independent. If it’s not a foreign policy issue he’s not really bothered.
I never realized trashing trade with your biggest export market could deliver so many goodies.
I’m still waiting to see which other country in the world has decided to take this course of action .
And we wait and we wait ........
Not sure having convicted fraudster Conrad Black in your corner is the best thing.
The contention that tax take at a 100% tax rate is zero is not true since it's perfectly possible to envision a society where all the proceeds of labour and investment go to the state and every citizen's needs are fully met by the state (not a society I'd recommend but theoretically possible).
You then have to explain where the lost revenue is to be compensated for. Cut spending? Boris is promising a splurge. Higher other taxes? No, he's promising cuts. Increase the tax-paying base? No, they want to make immigration more difficult.
Therefore, I presume, the Tory Party is the "deficit denier" Party. A huge increase in the PSBR. What was the point of 9 years of austerity?
And that's without thinking about the other tax takes that are higher too as a consequence.
Apologies. Am trying to argue with someone who apparently believes cutting taxes automatically and inevitably leads to higher revenues. Best to keep it simple.
Last I checked the Laffer Curve doesn't advise either a 0% tax rate or a 100% one.
Setting the tax rate at 0% like in Kansas will put you well to the left of the peak!
He was pardoned!
By Trump.......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/27/seven-investors-apply-to-put-gavin-woodhouse-firms-into-administration
"I’m delighted that the Welsh Government has been able to support such innovative and high quality projects in north Wales through our funding support schemes," said the Minister has he handed the dosh over.
Hard to say.
Is the Lab/Lib Welsh Government more failing than Grayling? Or is it just anti-Welsh, actively seeking to pauperise Wales still further and destroy what little the Welsh have?
Kamala Harris winning by keeping it kind-of snappy and not looking too mad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/factcheck-democratic-debate.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
So far, mostly telling the truth.....