WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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.

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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).

TrèsDifficile said:

Stocky said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Nigelb said:

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.

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

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

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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.

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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).

I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.

Stocky said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Stocky said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Nigelb said:

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, I get you, the LP never says "we want to spend more money on X and to pay for it we will spend less money on Y".

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1336646987526119425

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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.

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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).

I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.

Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

"98% of Traders" is quite possibly more than "98% of Trade". Presumably the bigger ones will be in, the smallest not.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1336639096261894147?s=20

True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

SouthamObserver said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

"98% of Traders" is quite possibly more than "98% of Trade". Presumably the bigger ones will be in, the smallest not.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1336639096261894147?s=20

True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

It depends how you define traders. It could include an awful lot of self-employed people, for example, who currently do, say, building work cross-border.

MaxPB said:

Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...

More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.

MaxPB said:

Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...

More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

"98% of Traders" is quite possibly more than "98% of Trade". Presumably the bigger ones will be in, the smallest not.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1336639096261894147?s=20

True. Although it might also be determined by sector/type of product, in which case 98% of traders might equally be a lot less than 98% of trade. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

It depends how you define traders. It could include an awful lot of self-employed people, for example, who currently do, say, building work cross-border.

Does it matter?

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.

It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.

I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?

logical_song said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...

More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.

It is the best news on Brexit we have had so far, it is remarkable that so little is being made of it.

Goes to prove the IMB has done its job. Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise but there we go, we are where we are now. Hopefully that means over the next week they're willing to do so on other issues too.

If good sensible solutions like Trusted Trader schemes are adopted going forwards then we can put this behind us and move forward as friendly neighbours.

" Shouldn't have taken four years to get the EU to compromise"
Doesn't it take two to compromise?

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.

I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.

I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?

Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer telling Boris he must secure a Deal as he promised, if he does Labour will vote in the national interest

Very disappointed. Starmer genuinely has confirmed he is not up to the job. Abstain, free vote, anything but whipping for Johnson's omnishambles.

Starmer really has little choice but to support a deal otherwise he is de facto backing no deal

Furthermore Labour would not gain red wall seats by sitting on the fence

Prime Minister Jacob Rees Mogg can turn to Starmer and correctly state. "I am a Conservative and I did not vote for this deal, it was a disaster. You (Starmer) voted FOR this disastrous deal. This is your deal, this is a Labour deal. This is not a Conservative Brexit, it is a Labour Brexit and this is why it has gone so badly wrong".

No idea how Rees Mogg becomes PM but sometimes you have to decide, and in a vote of this importance abstaining is not an option

Because Johnson will have sold the ERG down the river. They will demand Johnson's two-faced head!

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.

It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.

Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it

Carnyx said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Boris has obviously been hit by a dictionary open on the page with 'delphic' in it. I've counted him using it 4 times so far today in separate questions having never heard its use before.

That is really worrying - for all sides. It implies he's subconsciously channelling the Pythia, the priestess of the Oracle at Delphi. Who was a past mistress (so to speak) at saying one thing while the hearers believed they were hearing something completely different and which they desperately wanted to hear. And when it (often) went to shite onlookers could say, 'Well, she told you!'

Pythia was a beauty who would whisper in a trance, similarly in fact to some of my extensive posts on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Don't know about beauty - some traditions have her as an aged crone (meybe just at different times). But she didn't look like a hayrick in a suit (not that I am any better).

For my part I obviously resemble a male version of the young Pythia, clearly, but when she had moved to North London.

I still find it worrying that Mr J is using that expression ... who's going to be the Croesus and the Themistocles de nos jours?

Surely Chris Croesus Huhne gets that role in the panto for as long as he wants it?

Is there an allusion I am missing, please?

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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.

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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).

I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.

Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?

No. If we look back in time over the past century we can see time and again what happens when the deficit and debt gets out of control. Not just to third world nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe or pre-war nations like Germany but even only a decade ago in Greece etc

Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.

Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336628609574985728?s=20

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

The Irish seem to have got exactly what they wanted.

I think 15 customs agents in a WeWork is a pretty good deal for the acceptance of a trusted trader scheme. A very good compromise by both parties.

Sounds as if Gove has done an excellent job in these negotiations

Big_G_NorthWales said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What on earth is Chris Bryant upto during PMQs today? Repeated vocal ticking offs by the Speaker.

It’s been a bad PMQs for labour. What is that about 8 in a row now, Johnson has won. Since Boris raised his game Captain Nasal can’t land anything on him.

Boris was confident today and Starmer is just not cutting it

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

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.

So that explains the last 3 months... what explains the other 3.75 years?

The ERG and the DUP

The Trusted Trader scheme that has been adopted was an idea strongly supported by the ERG though and opposed by the EU.

Now (thanks I would suggest to the IMB) we see the EU finally, belatedly and four years after the ERG have come around to accept the idea.

That's what compromise is about though. Just as Boris has now belatedly accepted that there will, after all, be paperwork involved in trading between GB and NI, and there will be EU observers in NI to ensure that the paperwork is done properly.

But the point is that the EU has also accepted that the paperwork can be minimised by a trusted trader scheme which is something they were refusing to do until now. Both parties compromised and we have a really positive outcome.

Yes, both parties have compromised to find a deal that is acceptable to both. Which is rather different from Philip_Thompson's insinuation that the EU have caved in to the UK's demands with no quid pro quo thanks to the IMB.

They have accepted our suggestion of Trusted Trader Schemes.

Given our suggestion is the one being used I think its fair to say they've moved more but if you disagree then feel free to say why.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/08/boris-johnson-goods-from-northern-ireland-to-gb-wont-be-checked-brexit

“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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.

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MaxPB said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1336599609490223104?s=20

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).

I am still a fiscal hawk (but not during a pandemic, over the long term) - we have had leeway but only because we were taking the problem seriously. Whether we would have had leeway had we not taken the issue seriously, like Greece in the prior decade, then we could have been in an entirely different situation now.

Maybe, but would you agree with me that the evidence is more mixed and less convincing than we once assumed?

No. If we look back in time over the past century we can see time and again what happens when the deficit and debt gets out of control. Not just to third world nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe or pre-war nations like Germany but even only a decade ago in Greece etc

Being dovish on this is the easy soporific answer. It allows people to make no tough choices, to try and get whatever they want without paying for it and eternal vigilance is needed against that because that way lies catastrophic system failure.

Finally there always needs to be ammunition in the tank available for when crisis hits - whether it be the financial crisis or Covid19 or as-yet-unforseen-future-problem27.

This is why the Laffer curve discussion brought this to mind. It is obvious at the extremes that these things are true but it is less obvious that they apply short of the extremes. And borrowing enough money to fight a medium sized war is pretty extreme by any normal standard. I am also nervous about the QE policies. Twice now we have used quite a lot of QE to get ourselves out of a hole. The cost of doing so is...not obvious. Is it one of these things that will be ok until it isn't? Maybe.

MaxPB said:

Amazing that the usual suspects who can't wait to tell us how the UK will give in are ignoring this great news of the EU accepting the UK demand on the trusted trader scheme. Nowhere to be seen. Iirc this is a scheme that was championed by the ERG back in 2017 and the same people said it was completely unrealistic and would never be accepted by the EU etc...

More than anything else I do hope that those same idiots will just shut the fuck up on how the UK will simply give in on all points and accept that this is a negotiation where both the UK and EU will have to compromise on their currently held positions if a deal is to be achieved. The EU made a huge compromise on the trusted trader scheme today and it might pave the way for a really good, positive deal for both sides of this negotiation.