Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensions
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.
We’ve* been continuing to deploy capital into the commercial/industrial property space - where we are I am sure others will be as well
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
I doubt this spurious Texas case has the legs to get it to SCOTUS. If it ever did, and SCOTUS were dull enough to overturn enough states for Trump, the USA would very shortly enter Mad Max dystopian nightmare territory.
It is already in Mad Max dystopian nightmare territory. Polls show half the country believes Biden cheated enough to win, including 75% of republicans. Whatever the facts.
Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensions
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.
Yeah, but...all borrowed money, and who are the tenants ready to move into these shiny new buildings?
Office space is a different category and much less attractive (although not as bad as residential BTL).
This is really industrial parks, warehousing and distribution
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
Nothing weird about it.
The GOP wants Trump to lose... but they want his base (who won’t spit details like you did) to think they did their best to get him over the line
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
It seems very odd that people with a history of severe allergic reactions were given the vaccine at all. Surely that's one of the first questions you get asked before any injection?
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.
Yes they probably will.
Perhaps some may ask what the US Supreme Court is for, if not to resolve disputes between individual states along the lines of the constitution?
There is no dispute here between states along the lines of the constitution. It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania awards its Electors that is for Pennsylvania to determine. Texas lack standing to even file this.
I'm not sure that is the case at all.
The US constitution is not much more than a common contract between the states. Texas argues some states have seriously violated that contract in the respect of election law and they are entitled to seek remedy.
If they can;t even argue their case, what's the point of the contract, and the system?
This isn't like telling Rudi Giuliani to go f8ck himself, I don't think. Its on a different level.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.
Can they do that?
Usually that means that the judgement of the lower court stands (SCOTUS is an appeal court). However in this case there is no lower court.
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
No 270 = contingent election = Trump win. I think?
If it happens I will laugh all the way to an anal prolapse.
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
No 270 = contingent election = Trump win. I think?
If it happens I will laugh all the way to an anal prolapse.
If you find civil strife and possibly war funny, yes that would indeed be hilarious.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Quite likely. It's entirely up to Boris, but at no stage will the EU 'end' talks, and probably the UK won't either.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232.
Depends on whether their electors would still count as appointed. If they were, 244 would be short of a majority, and the election would be thrown to the House, voting by state, which Trump would win if it went along party lines (and Pelosi allowed the vote to go ahead in the first place).
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.
Generally, two doses have been shown to be most effective for a fairly wide range of vaccines. It makes sense to focus the trials on a dosing regimen most likely to be successful, particularly when getting enough events to do the assessments can be challenging.
Say they'd gambled on a one dose trial and it came back at 40% effective. Not good enough, but now a second trial is needed to check whether two doses is better and we're well into next year before we know.
You could of course throw more money at the problem (try and recruit double the people and trial one and two doses simultaneously). But even under that scenario (if possible in terms of production. recruitment etc) you could instead have done a double size trial on two dose vaccine and got the results in around half the time.
There are also other factors - a two dose AZN vaccine might still be cheaper (it's under half the price) and maybe quicker to produce two doses than a notional one dose version of the Pfizer vaccine
In short, it would have been a big gamble and likely have delayed vaccine approval and roll out. Of course, if it turns out that one dose would give 70% then it would all have been fine, but we don't know that.
That sounds reasonable. But I wonder now we have some data if it looks like we'd have been better off vaccinating twice as many people with a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine. And if it is therefore wise to look again at how the decision was made not to have a single dose arm of the trial - was enough consideration given to the very substantial advantage (to society, less so to Pfizer) of being able to vaccinate twice as many people? And if it is worth doing such a trial now.
I also wonder if having a double size trial on the 2 dose vaccine would have really have resulted in getting to approval in half the time. And I wonder how much advantage (to society) there is in getting approval a bit quicker - isn't it supply constraints that are the main limiting factor here?
Crikey @DavidL the hotel really does look like a massive gold turd doesn't it? For all I thought it was ugly and wouldn't have built it, I didn't see it before.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.
Can they do that?
Usually that means that the judgement of the lower court stands (SCOTUS is an appeal court). However in this case there is no lower court.
They are the court of first instance here but don't all courts have the right to dismiss frivolous lawsuits that lack standing without a full hearing?
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
A couple of weeks ago I would have said <1%. Now it must be at least 10%. Still think a deal is likely but my confidence is being shaken.
What I think is crystal clear is that the EU's way of doing business is not fit for purpose. Whether it is Brexit, Greece or their own budget the incredible inefficiency and inconvenience of leaving every decision to slightly after the last minute is beyond tiresome. I will be so relieved when they play a lesser role in our future going forward.
Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensions
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.
I've heard that a lot. Mates not having time or able to be choosy what jobs they want, putting in expensive quotes and still being offered the work. I keep getting asked to labour for them, or if i know anybody who will!
I mentioned previously that a number of companies in the building supply chain furloughed all the office staff and seem to be trying to run the entire business with a couple of secretaries.
My relative in the building line tells me that still hasn't changed, in a number of cases
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
Nothing weird about it.
The GOP wants Trump to lose... but they want his base (who won’t spit details like you did) to think they did their best to get him over the line
Trump voters aren't as stupid as many think. They know many GOP people cannot abide their man and after the GA run-offs they won;t be turning out for those people.
The GOP is now hopelessly split. Add 20 million new voters from the amnesty Biden wants and, well, its over for a very long time. 2024? maybe 3024.
Crikey @DavidL the hotel really does look like a massive gold turd doesn't it? For all I thought it was ugly and wouldn't have built it, I didn't see it before.
It's incredible. Last week I was in George Street which is a beautiful street with some stunning buildings and superb squares at both ends. And everywhere you went in the street this turd was shining away at the end of it. What were they thinking?
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Quite likely. It's entirely up to Boris, but at no stage will the EU 'end' talks, and probably the UK won't either.
There's no way Alexander de Pfeffel would miss out on his handbag moment.
Crikey @DavidL the hotel really does look like a massive gold turd doesn't it? For all I thought it was ugly and wouldn't have built it, I didn't see it before.
It's incredible. Last week I was in George Street which is a beautiful street with some stunning buildings and superb squares at both ends. And everywhere you went in the street this turd was shining away at the end of it. What were they thinking?
I think it's rather nice in a funny kind of way. I've seen much worse modern buildings.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
A couple of weeks ago I would have said less than 1%. Now it must be at least 10%. Still think a deal is likely but my confidence is being shaken.
What I think is crystal clear is that the EU's way of doing business is not fit for purpose. Whether it is Brexit, Greece or their own budget the incredible inefficiency and inconvenience of leaving every decision to slightly after the last minute is beyond tiresome. I will be so relieved when they play a lesser role in our future going forward.
Well said.
Plus their stubborn refusal to get the decision makers to actually be in the room together. It is madness when decisions are needed, is there any wonder it takes so long to make any actual decisions?
EDIT: That's funny I had to edit David's post there in order to quote it. I needed to change the less than symbol in less than 1% to the words, because otherwise it was saying I didn't have any characters. The site must let you post the less than symbol in a post but not quote it because its messing up the coding.
Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensions
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.
Yeah, but...all borrowed money, and who are the tenants ready to move into these shiny new buildings?
Office space is a different category and much less attractive (although not as bad as residential BTL).
This is really industrial parks, warehousing and distribution
All the existing industrial parks I call at are full of tumbleweed.
Burgeoning UK construction projects have the aroma of last decade's Spanish building boom about them.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
You can say crap on the internet, you know.
Indeed. Like Texas going blue, heard a thousand times on here from folk of your persuasion.
Now Texas isn;t just voting for Trump. They are suing for Trump.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
You can say crap on the internet, you know.
Indeed. Like Texas going blue, heard a thousand times on here from folk of your persuasion.
Now Texas isn;t just voting for Trump. They are suing for Trump.
Eh? I said you can say the word "crap" on the internet. You don't have to censor it.
Crikey @DavidL the hotel really does look like a massive gold turd doesn't it? For all I thought it was ugly and wouldn't have built it, I didn't see it before.
It's incredible. Last week I was in George Street which is a beautiful street with some stunning buildings and superb squares at both ends. And everywhere you went in the street this turd was shining away at the end of it. What were they thinking?
I genuinely think everyone was blind to it - I know I was. Obviously I thought it looked like a bit of a childish whippy ice cream thing, which wasn't great anyway.
I didn't account for it being so big and elevated though - it seems oddly ubiquitous, visible from unexpected places, like the London Eye, in a way that the old St James Hotel, ugly as it was, wasn't.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
You can say crap on the internet, you know.
He does, and lots of it. I think it was just a typo.
Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensions
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.
Builders in my neighbourhood are run off their feet. Up and down the local streets there are endless skips. People having extensions, new drives, patios, loft conversions. Never seen things so busy building wise.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
Whenever the Scottish nationalists start talking about ‘fairness’, you know someone’s getting shafted. . . . Today a Scottish education gives every child, no matter how rich or poor, the chance to benefit from a system as unimaginative for itself as it is unambitious for its pupils. You can’t say fairer than that.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
What does not appear to be covered is export of chilled processed meat from the RoI to the UK - they get awfully upset if we apply the same conditions they do. Perhaps they'll have to shift all the processing to NI?
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
But its the same principle. If they are willing to accept a trusted trader scheme for NI why not for the rest of the UK? In which case much of the paperwork and bureaucracy that people are worrying about disappears.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
No, it's total bullshit, and will get thrown out like the rest.
Right at home in the Trump camp, of course... https://abc7.com/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-election-results-lawsuit-sues-battleground-states/8609339/ ...Paxton, who has been under indictment since 2015 for felony securities fraud charges, is facing fresh criminal allegations from eight of his top deputies, who said they believe he broke the law by using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is investigating Paxton over those claims, according to the Associated Press....
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
Whenever the Scottish nationalists start talking about ‘fairness’, you know someone’s getting shafted. . . . Today a Scottish education gives every child, no matter how rich or poor, the chance to benefit from a system as unimaginative for itself as it is unambitious for its pupils. You can’t say fairer than that.
Professor Lindsay Paterson was impressively damning on R4 this morning.
One of my pals is wanting to claim ownership of the phrase "scotching opportunity". The willingness of those prats to put the wishes of the likes of the EIS ahead of the interests of Scottish children once again is unforgivable.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.
Yes they probably will.
Perhaps some may ask what the US Supreme Court is for, if not to resolve disputes between individual states along the lines of the constitution?
There is no dispute here between states along the lines of the constitution. It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania awards its Electors that is for Pennsylvania to determine. Texas lack standing to even file this.
I'm not sure that is the case at all.
The US constitution is not much more than a common contract between the states. Texas argues some states have seriously violated that contract in the respect of election law and they are entitled to seek remedy.
If they can;t even argue their case, what's the point of the contract, and the system?
This isn't like telling Rudi Giuliani to go f8ck himself, I don't think. Its on a different level.
They can bring a case; the SC can summarily dismiss it.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
Well, common sense will tell you sometimes you can end up taking in more tax if you reduce a certain tax rate under certain circumstances, and vice versa.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
I wonder what the chances are that we end up with no deal - but at no stage that is officially announced with a walk out, just talks continue until the Christmas period then we get to New Years Eve and haven't reach a deal and it times out automatically?
Much more likely Johnson comes back with a stitch up that infuriates his party and leads to him getting a cr8p deal through with labour votes.
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
Let's say for the sake of argument that we do a Deal, Boris isn't ejected next year, the Conservatives continue to win elections, Trump doesn't remain president, and normal life resumes once enough people have been vaccinated.
Would those outcomes cause you to reconsider your assumptions?
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
Well, common sense will tell you sometimes you can end up taking in more tax if you reduce a certain tax rate under certain circumstances, and vice versa.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Something that goes up and down in economics is normally called a curve. What name would you use for a chart like that instead?
For the first time in absolutely ages I'm hopeful about the possibility of a deal. The EU accepting the UK position on trusted traders opens the door to a wider deal which allows the UK to diverge on standards and regulations but still maintain the ability to import/export with the EU via simple channels.
Whenever the Scottish nationalists start talking about ‘fairness’, you know someone’s getting shafted. . . . Today a Scottish education gives every child, no matter how rich or poor, the chance to benefit from a system as unimaginative for itself as it is unambitious for its pupils. You can’t say fairer than that.
That's a massive step forwards and hopefully such a scheme can be a pilot for a UK/EU version. Now I can see why the government dropped the the NI stuff in he IMB.
We seem to be edging back to where Theresa May had us over a year ago. That's basically what she did, used the NI arrangements to achieve similar objectives for the whole of the UK. God damn the remainer Parliament. They caused so much unnecessary angst.
No, that's a different kind issue. This is essentially a trusted trader scheme which allows approved businesses to bypass customs clearance and tariffs subject to random inspections by customs agents of their warehouses to ensure standards are being met. It's something the UK proposed in 2016 that the EU has refused until now. It's actually a very big win for the UK negotiating team, probably bigger than anything else so far as the EU have agreed to the principle of trusted traders and the terms by which they can operate, which is not something they've been willing to do.
It was always the sanest solution to NI. It is what I advocated when May was still Prime Minister.
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
You could just as well argue that it was the IMB that has prevented compromise until now.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
For a start, it's not a curve; there is no defined mathematical relationship between change in tax rates and tax take. I doubt any such thing is discoverable. What is lowest possible tax rate to raise the maximum overall revenue ? Proponents of the "curve' have never made much effort to answer that question. Work I've seen suggests it might be somewhere around 50% - but no one has really provided any convincing figure.
While it's true (and pretty bloody obvious) that efforts towards tax avoidance will increase as tax rates go up, the implications for total tax take are complicated, and depend on a lot of stuff other than just tax rates.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
Nothing weird about it.
The GOP wants Trump to lose... but they want his base (who won’t spit details like you did) to think they did their best to get him over the line
Trump voters aren't as stupid as many think. They know many GOP people cannot abide their man and after the GA run-offs they won;t be turning out for those people.
The GOP is now hopelessly split. Add 20 million new voters from the amnesty Biden wants and, well, its over for a very long time. 2024? maybe 3024.
Maybe not. But a large proportion of the ones I've seen talking about this & that on the telly over the last few years have come across as pretty dumb. Certainly bottom quartile, probably bottom decile in most cases, although one cannot say for certain without scientific trials. I do accept the strong possibility that those you see on the TV are not wholly representative of the 73m who voted for him, but still.
When you think about the size of his ardent base - maybe 25m? - and all of that Qanon stuff over there, to me this indicates a serious malfunction of the US education system. It might be great at the top end, but it seems to be letting down many of the less well off, and in particular the white working class. People should not be launched into adult life without the capability to mentally ward off very obvious bullshit and manipulation.
For the first time in absolutely ages I'm hopeful about the possibility of a deal. The EU accepting the UK position on trusted traders opens the door to a wider deal which allows the UK to diverge on standards and regulations but still maintain the ability to import/export with the EU via simple channels.
I thought you were disagreeing with me when I said precisely that.
Of course a pessimist might take the view that there isn't going to be a deal so it was important to sort out the Irish border as a stand alone problem.
I think from an EU perspective the trusted trader scheme is great because their semi-manufactured goods exporters can join and accept random inspections rather than huge waiting times at bonded warehouses and the supply chain problems that comes with.
Honestly, this is probably the biggest step forwards for a really good UK/EU trade deal. Hopefully a sign of things to come.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The most careful looking empirical study of the Laffer Curve that I have seen is by Lundberg (2017) - Luxembourg Income Study WP 711. This paper estimates LC peaks for high incomes across OECD countries and finds that the peak rate in the UK is 74%. That is with respect to the total marginal tax rate including NI, VAT etc, for which the maximum rate in the UK is 59% (this appears to abstract from those levels of income where the marginal income tax rate is >45% owing to the withdrawal of allowances). So yes, the Laffer curve is a valid theoretical construct and a useful reminder that people's behaviour reacts to policy changes. However, it appears that taxes in the UK could be increased further on those with high incomes without reducing overall revenues in the long run. On the other hand, France is its the LC peak while Belgium and the Nordic countries are on the wrong side of it.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
No you don't because that is to misunderstand the point of the theory. The whole point of the theory is that total tax take might go up with a tax rise, or go up with a tax cut, depending upon the circumstances. Saying that you need to look at the circumstances doesn't defeat the theory it is the very point of it.
To use an analogy it wouldn't be controversial to say that if you want water to be a liquid then you don't just need automatically increase its temperature: if it is currently a solid then you need to increase its temperature, if it is currently a gas then you need to reduce its temperature. The Laffer Curve is an economic equivalent of that - if you want to increase tax take then don't just automatically increase taxes, you need to figure out the ideal point for taxes depending upon the details and that could be either up or down.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
Well, common sense will tell you sometimes you can end up taking in more tax if you reduce a certain tax rate under certain circumstances, and vice versa.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Something that goes up and down in economics is normally called a curve. What name would you use for a chart like that instead?
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
SCOTUS has already dismissed one PA case, er, dismissively....
Interesting snippet from Alex Norris, shadow health minister, on Sky news. Discussing Gavin Williamsons silly comments about the UK being better than everyone else, and was given on open goal to pile on. He declined to criticise and instead gave a clear patriotic optimistic answer, far more measured and realistic than Williamson, but avoiding the trap of sounding unpatriotic.
Under Corbyn, or probably any Labour leader since Blair, the open goal to mock Williamson would have been taken, which would have been misunderstood by many as mocking the UK.
Little things like this are the way to chip away at a govt that has nothing but fake patriotism and culture wars to offer the country.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Funny you should quote Lennon. Not sure about the other three Beatles but Lennon, I believe, was not at all allergic to the idea of paying tax. If he had been, he certainly would not have become resident or domiciled in the USA. I believe the same is true of Bill Gates, and many, many wealthy people who for some reason prefer to pay tax rahter than, say, live on a rock in the Atlantic.
Laffer is a good example of a statement of the obvious elevated improperly to some kind of law of nature.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
Well, common sense will tell you sometimes you can end up taking in more tax if you reduce a certain tax rate under certain circumstances, and vice versa.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Something that goes up and down in economics is normally called a curve. What name would you use for a chart like that instead?
OK if you prefer: It's not a nice smooth bell-shaped curve defined by a simple or knowable mathematical formula, as many of its simple-minded proponents seem to imagine.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
I don't think that's right. The concept of the Laffer Curve, if used correctly, is a valuable one.
The key point is that the inflection point (beyond which increasing tax rates is counter-productive) depends on the circumstances. In particular, how easy/acceptable is it for taxpayers to modify their behaviour? If it's extremely easy - for example if they can very easily and legally buy an alternative version of a product to avoid a Sales Tax or VAT, or buy it in a different jurisdiction - then the counter-productive rate might kick in at a very low number. If, as in the example you give, the cost and hassle of shifting is considerable and has other downsides, it's going to kick in at a highish number (although over time you might lose tax at the margin as people slowly adapt their behaviour, or simply don't bring their wealth here in the first place).
The facts that the Laffer Curve shape depends on all the circumstances, including anti-avoidance measures and possible changes in behaviour, and that it is hard to measure, don't invalidate the concept. They just mean you need to apply a modicum of sense in using the concept.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Funny you should quote Lennon. Not sure about the other three Beatles but Lennon, I believe, was not at all allergic to the idea of paying tax. If he had been, he certainly would not have become resident or domiciled in the USA. I believe the same is true of Bill Gates, and many, many wealthy people who for some reason prefer to pay tax rahter than, say, live on a rock in the Atlantic.
Laffer is a good example of a statement of the obvious elevated improperly to some kind of law of nature.
Laffer is not a law of nature, it is a law of economics. Like supply and demand.
Taxation doesn't act in a vaccuum, by engaging in taxation people aren't just observed and taxed but they change their behavious as well. In physics you wouldn't exert a force without expecting a reaction so why should anyone do so in economics?
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
Nothing weird about it.
The GOP wants Trump to lose... but they want his base (who won’t spit details like you did) to think they did their best to get him over the line
Trump voters aren't as stupid as many think. They know many GOP people cannot abide their man and after the GA run-offs they won;t be turning out for those people.
The GOP is now hopelessly split. Add 20 million new voters from the amnesty Biden wants and, well, its over for a very long time. 2024? maybe 3024.
Maybe not. But a large proportion of the ones I've seen talking about this & that on the telly over the last few years have come across as pretty dumb. Certainly bottom quartile, probably bottom decile in most cases, although one cannot say for certain without scientific trials. I do accept the strong possibility that those you see on the TV are not wholly representative of the 73m who voted for him, but still.
When you think about the size of his ardent base - maybe 25m? - and all of that Qanon stuff over there, to me this indicates a serious malfunction of the US education system. It might be great at the top end, but it seems to be letting down many of the less well off, and in particular the white working class. People should not be launched into adult life without the capability to mentally ward off very obvious bullshit and manipulation.
The main GOP cheerleader on this site was this week applauding declining educational standards in the US as it was good for GOP future prospects. It should be pretty clear that there is a big link between stupidity and GOP voting, that does not mean there are not many millions of bright GOP voters or many millions of stupid Democrat voters, but the correlation is there.
I just want to randomly observe that Trump got lower than Romney's vote share. Again.
With not major 3rd party voting this time around.
I don't think Trump was that popular.
Trump got 46.8% of the vote which was the fourth highest voteshare for a GOP candidate in the last 30 years after the 47.2% Romney got in 2012 and the 47.9% Bush got in 2000 and the 50.7% Bush got in 2004.
Trump has also got 232 EC votes which was still higher than the 206 EC votes Romney got in 2012.
So basically Trump was the best candidate the GOP have had after the Bushes since Reagan in terms of the EC, though Romney is the best in terms of the popular vote, though of course only the former counts in electing the President
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
So why does the left always want to raise taxes?
Because it`s not all about tax-take - as I said earlier.
Interesting snippet from Alex Norris, shadow health minister, on Sky news. Discussing Gavin Williamsons silly comments about the UK being better than everyone else, and was given on open goal to pile on. He declined to criticise and instead gave a clear patriotic optimistic answer, far more measured and realistic than Williamson, but avoiding the trap of sounding unpatriotic.
Under Corbyn, or probably any Labour leader since Blair, the open goal to mock Williamson would have been taken, which would have been misunderstood by many as mocking the UK.
Little things like this are the way to chip away at a govt that has nothing but fake patriotism and culture wars to offer the country.
Except that nothing could be more fake than Labour's patriotism - the Corbyn years dropped the veil and let us know what they really think, as if it weren't obvious before. Voters can smell when a party and leadership doesn't actually like the country they seek to lead, which is why Blair has been their only majority-winner in the last 46 years.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
But that's the same of all economics, all economic theories are about simplifying reality to show relationships - but economics only works on a detailed level of course if you add in the relevant details. Would you call all economics pointless?
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
The Laffer Curve’s argument - that cutting tax rates can increase the total tax take - is true, but is only persuasive if increasing tax take is your only objective. Those that dislike it are arguing from other things, such as principle and fairness and redistribution etc.
Well, common sense will tell you sometimes you can end up taking in more tax if you reduce a certain tax rate under certain circumstances, and vice versa.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Something that goes up and down in economics is normally called a curve. What name would you use for a chart like that instead?
OK if you prefer: It's not a nice smooth bell-shaped curve defined by a simple or knowable mathematical formula, as many of its simple-minded proponents seem to imagine.
Of course its not. Nothing is.
The curve is real, but the reality of it will depend upon a plethora of factors as I already said. The curve may indeed not have a single peak. We can as I said be on either side of a peak too.
Some people seem to think we should always be on the left hand of the peak. Laffer of course does not mean we are always on the right side of the peak either. We can be on either the left or the right depending upon the circumstances.
For the first time in absolutely ages I'm hopeful about the possibility of a deal. The EU accepting the UK position on trusted traders opens the door to a wider deal which allows the UK to diverge on standards and regulations but still maintain the ability to import/export with the EU via simple channels.
If the EU and the UK can't reach a deal from here, then it will represent a monumental failure of diplomacy. Or of French intransigence.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Funny you should quote Lennon. Not sure about the other three Beatles but Lennon, I believe, was not at all allergic to the idea of paying tax. If he had been, he certainly would not have become resident or domiciled in the USA. I believe the same is true of Bill Gates, and many, many wealthy people who for some reason prefer to pay tax rahter than, say, live on a rock in the Atlantic.
Laffer is a good example of a statement of the obvious elevated improperly to some kind of law of nature.
Interestingly and coincdentally, I have a noneganarian family member who was a lawyer for John Lennon and I think some of the other Beatles too, in London during in late '60s, and tends to dine out on it. He mentioned him at a family party once and said he was generally reliable to work with, if often 'sardonic' about the whole business and various transactions.
I would call it the Laffer Syndrome. Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
So why does the left always want to raise taxes?
Because it`s not all about tax-take - as I said earlier.
But it's always proposed as a way to pay for something, so framed as being entirely about the revenue - this 1% tax rise will raise precisely 5% of the revenue from the previous 20% tax. In every single Labour manifesto I have ever seen.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
I don't think that's right. The concept of the Laffer Curve, if used correctly, is a valuable one.
The key point is that the inflection point (beyond which increasing tax rates is counter-productive) depends on the circumstances. In particular, how easy/acceptable is it for taxpayers to modify their behaviour? If it's extremely easy - for example if they can very easily and legally buy an alternative version of a product to avoid a Sales Tax or VAT, or buy it in a different jurisdiction - then the counter-productive rate might kick in at a very low number. If, as in the example you give, the cost and hassle of shifting is considerable and has other downsides, it's going to kick in at a highish number (although over time you might lose tax at the margin as people slowly adapt their behaviour, or simply don't bring their wealth here in the first place).
The facts that the Laffer Curve shape depends on all the circumstances, including anti-avoidance measures and possible changes in behaviour, and that it is hard to measure, don't invalidate the concept. They just mean you need to apply a modicum of sense in using the concept.
Bingo! That is what I was trying to say when I said it depends upon the circumstances, but I can't put it better than that. Very well said.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
No one ever paid the 98% tax rate, for example, despite quite a few people being eligible for it.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
The Beatles paid most of their earned income at 83% and15% investment income surcharge where applicable when these were the top rates of UK tax.
Which is why John Lennon emigrated to America isn't it?
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Funny you should quote Lennon. Not sure about the other three Beatles but Lennon, I believe, was not at all allergic to the idea of paying tax. If he had been, he certainly would not have become resident or domiciled in the USA. I believe the same is true of Bill Gates, and many, many wealthy people who for some reason prefer to pay tax rahter than, say, live on a rock in the Atlantic.
Laffer is a good example of a statement of the obvious elevated improperly to some kind of law of nature.
Laffer is not a law of nature, it is a law of economics. Like supply and demand.
Taxation doesn't act in a vaccuum, by engaging in taxation people aren't just observed and taxed but they change their behavious as well. In physics you wouldn't exert a force without expecting a reaction so why should anyone do so in economics?
It's not a ******* law of anything! Newton's Law achieves a constant result. The Laffer effect does not. Some chose life in a sunny tax haven, others prefer wet weather and warm beer. The result is therefore not a constant, therefore it is not a law.
Interesting snippet from Alex Norris, shadow health minister, on Sky news. Discussing Gavin Williamsons silly comments about the UK being better than everyone else, and was given on open goal to pile on. He declined to criticise and instead gave a clear patriotic optimistic answer, far more measured and realistic than Williamson, but avoiding the trap of sounding unpatriotic.
Under Corbyn, or probably any Labour leader since Blair, the open goal to mock Williamson would have been taken, which would have been misunderstood by many as mocking the UK.
Little things like this are the way to chip away at a govt that has nothing but fake patriotism and culture wars to offer the country.
Except that nothing could be more fake than Labour's patriotism - the Corbyn years dropped the veil and let us know what they really think, as if it weren't obvious before. Voters can smell when a party and leadership doesn't actually like the country they seek to lead, which is why Blair has been their only majority-winner in the last 46 years.
Generally true but not always. They voted in this lot who have nothing but contempt for the people and are financed by their billionaire Brexit chums who are moving their factories to the continent.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Yes but for some reason some of you lot deny the existence of the Laffer Curve. Tories understand it.
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.
Precisely and you'd be wrong.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.
I've seen it happen first hand, when the 50% rate was introduced it caused a huge rise in senior colleagues inquire about tax planning and avoidance and enter into contractor style service companies so where they were paying a net rate of about 38-39% under PAYE they lowered their overall tax rate to well under 30%. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that those with the most income and wealth also have the means to minimise their taxes when they feel the burden has become too high, whether that is achieved by avoidance or simply leaving the country is up for debate but the negative effect of high rates on total yield is a proven link.
Of course, but you are restating Laffer in a way that is so entirely consistent with common sense and everyday observation that only a fool would think otherwise. Such a theory is of limited assistance though.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
It works on the average, not the granular. Across a decent sized economy such as ours it works even although there are a lot of individual exceptions.
Yes it works in a common sense kind of way but is useless beyond that. Why, for example, do we not all up sticks and head off to the nearest low tax zone? We all have our different reasons, so you have to amend Laffer to the point where you wonder what use it is any way.
Economists always hide a lot behind the ceteris paribus principle but I think that the idea that you can discourage or encourage certain behaviours by improving or reducing the net return through taxation is obvious enough. Governments do need to be aware of the implications of tax increases or decreases on behaviour. A simple example is the way that the real cost of duties was allowed to drop resulting in higher spirits consumption with adverse health consequences.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
And they are.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
As in most economics the principle is sound, the practical difficult and it changes over time. I am not sure that we are fundamentally disagreeing.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).
Comments
* our real estate focused JV
Someone has to go first as see what happens, and it’s a show of mettle and leadership to say, I’ll go first.
This is really industrial parks, warehousing and distribution
The GOP wants Trump to lose... but they want his base (who won’t spit details like you did) to think they did their best to get him over the line
The US constitution is not much more than a common contract between the states. Texas argues some states have seriously violated that contract in the respect of election law and they are entitled to seek remedy.
If they can;t even argue their case, what's the point of the contract, and the system?
This isn't like telling Rudi Giuliani to go f8ck himself, I don't think. Its on a different level.
Usually that means that the judgement of the lower court stands (SCOTUS is an appeal court). However in this case there is no lower court.
Back in the 80s, when the top rate went to 40%, a relative got rid of his tax optimisation lawyers/accountants and moved to a straightforward tax setup - his idea was that he would end up paying a bit more, but that it was worth it in terms of removing restrictions on days resident etc...
https://twitter.com/business/status/1336623983358251008?s=20
He gets ejected next year but the damage will have been done for the country and, more importantly, for the conservatives.
And if it is therefore wise to look again at how the decision was made not to have a single dose arm of the trial - was enough consideration given to the very substantial advantage (to society, less so to Pfizer) of being able to vaccinate twice as many people?
And if it is worth doing such a trial now.
I also wonder if having a double size trial on the 2 dose vaccine would have really have resulted in getting to approval in half the time. And I wonder how much advantage (to society) there is in getting approval a bit quicker - isn't it supply constraints that are the main limiting factor here?
What I think is crystal clear is that the EU's way of doing business is not fit for purpose. Whether it is Brexit, Greece or their own budget the incredible inefficiency and inconvenience of leaving every decision to slightly after the last minute is beyond tiresome. I will be so relieved when they play a lesser role in our future going forward.
I mentioned previously that a number of companies in the building supply chain furloughed all the office staff and seem to be trying to run the entire business with a couple of secretaries.
My relative in the building line tells me that still hasn't changed, in a number of cases
The GOP is now hopelessly split. Add 20 million new voters from the amnesty Biden wants and, well, its over for a very long time. 2024? maybe 3024.
Plus their stubborn refusal to get the decision makers to actually be in the room together. It is madness when decisions are needed, is there any wonder it takes so long to make any actual decisions?
EDIT: That's funny I had to edit David's post there in order to quote it. I needed to change the less than symbol in less than 1% to the words, because otherwise it was saying I didn't have any characters. The site must let you post the less than symbol in a post but not quote it because its messing up the coding.
Burgeoning UK construction projects have the aroma of last decade's Spanish building boom about them.
Now Texas isn;t just voting for Trump. They are suing for Trump.
It's the idea that you can draw some kind of regular curve demonstrating a mathematical connection between taxation and work that is plain bonkers. It's logically floored and doesn't stack up with our everybody experience in which many that take home sod all but work very hard (think charity workers) whilst many who would pay no tax if they did work nevertheless elect not to do so (many varied examples available but just think of retirees and/or the bone idle.)
In short, the Larfer curve only works if you make all the necessary provisos, in which case what's the bloody point of it?
I didn't account for it being so big and elevated though - it seems oddly ubiquitous, visible from unexpected places, like the London Eye, in a way that the old St James Hotel, ugly as it was, wasn't.
The principle of the Laffer Curve is absolutely valid. The details and specifics in real life of course depend upon all the necessary provisos - just as all economics does. Just as all physics and anything else does too.
Professor Lindsay Paterson was impressively damning on R4 this morning.
Right at home in the Trump camp, of course...
https://abc7.com/ken-paxton-texas-attorney-general-election-results-lawsuit-sues-battleground-states/8609339/
...Paxton, who has been under indictment since 2015 for felony securities fraud charges, is facing fresh criminal allegations from eight of his top deputies, who said they believe he broke the law by using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is investigating Paxton over those claims, according to the Associated Press....
Now we've finally gotten here at last via a ludicrously drawn out process. I doubt we would have if it wasn't for the IMB, the IMB forced them to actually compromise - and this was the reasonable, rational, best compromise as we could tell four long years ago.
Professor Lindsay Paterson was impressively damning on R4 this morning.
One of my pals is wanting to claim ownership of the phrase "scotching opportunity". The willingness of those prats to put the wishes of the likes of the EIS ahead of the interests of Scottish children once again is unforgivable.
Common sense will also tell you to describe this as a "curve" is a load of bollocks.
Turns out even those who "imagine there's no money" aren't happy with 98% tax - and if he wasn't nobody else would be either.
Would those outcomes cause you to reconsider your assumptions?
Professor Lindsay Paterson was impressively damning on R4 this morning.
https://twitter.com/rogerlwhite/status/1336599897416622080?s=20
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1336639096261894147?s=20
What is lowest possible tax rate to raise the maximum overall revenue ? Proponents of the "curve' have never made much effort to answer that question. Work I've seen suggests it might be somewhere around 50% - but no one has really provided any convincing figure.
While it's true (and pretty bloody obvious) that efforts towards tax avoidance will increase as tax rates go up, the implications for total tax take are complicated, and depend on a lot of stuff other than just tax rates.
When you think about the size of his ardent base - maybe 25m? - and all of that Qanon stuff over there, to me this indicates a serious malfunction of the US education system. It might be great at the top end, but it seems to be letting down many of the less well off, and in particular the white working class. People should not be launched into adult life without the capability to mentally ward off very obvious bullshit and manipulation.
Of course a pessimist might take the view that there isn't going to be a deal so it was important to sort out the Irish border as a stand alone problem.
Honestly, this is probably the biggest step forwards for a really good UK/EU trade deal. Hopefully a sign of things to come.
So yes, the Laffer curve is a valid theoretical construct and a useful reminder that people's behaviour reacts to policy changes. However, it appears that taxes in the UK could be increased further on those with high incomes without reducing overall revenues in the long run. On the other hand, France is its the LC peak while Belgium and the Nordic countries are on the wrong side of it.
To use an analogy it wouldn't be controversial to say that if you want water to be a liquid then you don't just need automatically increase its temperature: if it is currently a solid then you need to increase its temperature, if it is currently a gas then you need to reduce its temperature. The Laffer Curve is an economic equivalent of that - if you want to increase tax take then don't just automatically increase taxes, you need to figure out the ideal point for taxes depending upon the details and that could be either up or down.
Sometimes cutting taxes results in increased tax take; sometimes it doesn't. No one has explained satisfactorily why.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/pennsylvania-judge-rules-for-trump-campaign-on-deadline-to-cure-ballots/
Under Corbyn, or probably any Labour leader since Blair, the open goal to mock Williamson would have been taken, which would have been misunderstood by many as mocking the UK.
Little things like this are the way to chip away at a govt that has nothing but fake patriotism and culture wars to offer the country.
Laffer is a good example of a statement of the obvious elevated improperly to some kind of law of nature.
It would be stupid (if common) to assume that an increase in IT by 5p in the £1.00, for example, will produce the same additional revenue as the current last 5p does. Behaviours will change and the net increase in revenue will be less. Governments need to be aware of this.
With not major 3rd party voting this time around.
I don't think Trump was that popular.
The key point is that the inflection point (beyond which increasing tax rates is counter-productive) depends on the circumstances. In particular, how easy/acceptable is it for taxpayers to modify their behaviour? If it's extremely easy - for example if they can very easily and legally buy an alternative version of a product to avoid a Sales Tax or VAT, or buy it in a different jurisdiction - then the counter-productive rate might kick in at a very low number. If, as in the example you give, the cost and hassle of shifting is considerable and has other downsides, it's going to kick in at a highish number (although over time you might lose tax at the margin as people slowly adapt their behaviour, or simply don't bring their wealth here in the first place).
The facts that the Laffer Curve shape depends on all the circumstances, including anti-avoidance measures and possible changes in behaviour, and that it is hard to measure, don't invalidate the concept. They just mean you need to apply a modicum of sense in using the concept.
In fact if you work in the Treasury you probably spend a good deal of your time predicting the outcomes of putative taxation changes but the connection between those calculations and Laffer's simplistic theory would be remote to the point of non-existence.
Taxation doesn't act in a vaccuum, by engaging in taxation people aren't just observed and taxed but they change their behavious as well. In physics you wouldn't exert a force without expecting a reaction so why should anyone do so in economics?
Trump has also got 232 EC votes which was still higher than the 206 EC votes Romney got in 2012.
So basically Trump was the best candidate the GOP have had after the Bushes since Reagan in terms of the EC, though Romney is the best in terms of the popular vote, though of course only the former counts in electing the President
The curve is real, but the reality of it will depend upon a plethora of factors as I already said. The curve may indeed not have a single peak. We can as I said be on either side of a peak too.
Some people seem to think we should always be on the left hand of the peak. Laffer of course does not mean we are always on the right side of the peak either. We can be on either the left or the right depending upon the circumstances.
Either way, Asia will be laughing its socks off.
Interestingly and coincdentally, I have a noneganarian family member who was a lawyer for John Lennon and I think some of the other Beatles too, in London during in late '60s, and tends to dine out on it. He mentioned him at a family party once and said he was generally reliable to work with, if often 'sardonic' about the whole business and various transactions.
Laters folks.
What I find interesting about our current position is that there was an assumption that we got "punished" for "excessive" borrowing with longer term bond rates rising making it more expensive to borrow in the future reducing future growth. What we have seen over the last decade, and especially over the last year, is that we in fact had far more leeway in that respect than we could have ever imagined. The reality is that sovereign governments are essentially an oligarchy who can control the market far more than was contemplated by being the only game in town.
Did this make the fairly light austerity of George Osborne wrong? Would we have grown faster with more debt without a significant penalty? I honestly don't know the answer but this year creates many challenges to fiscal hawks and sound money proponents (of which I generally am one).