UK has no alternative to interest rate rises - Hunt

[SirGalahad]

Much easier than all that.
You can use

This one:
View attachment 306009



Or this one,

View attachment 306012


Or this one



View attachment 306015


Or this one



View attachment 306016




Or this one


View attachment 306021

Now this model which you have cut and pasted - is a general overview and intro and it's very limited to the point its only useful as an introduction to the idea that there are flows but as a model of how the economy works- no - it's over simplified. It assumes that every household act in identical ways, where is the central bank? Where is the debt cycle? Where is household borrowing? Or you think lending to households is not important?

Now in this circular model - how does the supply of money increase. You should first look at debt created money, as it seems you are still shouting down the megaphone we have run out of money - how many times must I repeat it that Government finances are not like your personal finances but stupid old tropes don't die out.

 

[SirGalahad]

Anti rich - People who percieve others to have more money and assets (normally without realising the hard work and sacrifices made and as such do not appreciate what it takes to actually become wealthier, this energy in turns become more focused on pulling said person down as opposed to working up to them.

Trickle down - the problem being is if you already have an issue with people being wealthy you will be opposed to this theory already.

Personally as above id rather see cash flow to the hardest working and not the government sending it everywhere other than investing into our people and infrastructure.

Grow the economy, hmm ok but almost every point below comes back to my original point it's not about raising taxes and or interest rates or land tax ie 'lets just tax the rich because they're lucky ****s anyway'. No its about making concessions allowing people to actually make a difference without having their legs and arms nailed to a tax deducting obsessesed team matured from traffic warden mentality. Nearly every point below refers to lowering costs, streamlining and efficiency. Apart from 1 where yes our taxes should go, the rest as i said should be about stimulating growth, you cannot grow a seed without giving it something first, the basic nutrients of life really help.

You got a better idea SirG i am all ears. btw you sound a right grumpy fcker lately whats up with you

1. Invest in Infrastructure: Investing in transportation, utilities, and digital infrastructure can enhance the productivity of the economy. Good infrastructure allows businesses to operate more efficiently, encourages inward investment, and connects different regions of the country, facilitating economic growth.
2. Promote Education and Skills Training: An educated and skilled workforce is crucial for economic growth. Policies can focus on improving education outcomes, providing vocational training, and reskilling workers for industries where there is a high demand for labor.
3. Encourage Innovation and R&D: The UK has world-leading universities and a strong record in certain areas of research and development. Policies that encourage innovation—such as funding for scientific research, tax incentives for R&D, and protection of intellectual property rights—can lead to new businesses, industries, and job creation.
4. Enhance Trade and Investment: The UK can seek to negotiate favorable trade agreements with other countries to expand markets for UK businesses. Attracting foreign direct investment can also bring additional capital, technology, and skills into the country.
5. Regulatory Reform: Reducing unnecessary regulation can lower costs for businesses and encourage entrepreneurship. However, it's also important to maintain regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment.
6. Fiscal Policy: Using government spending and tax policy to stimulate the economy is another strategy. This could involve investing in areas like health, education, and social services, or it could involve tax cuts or reforms to encourage business investment.
7. Monetary Policy: Although the government doesn't directly control monetary policy, the Bank of England can use strategies like interest rate adjustments and quantitative easing to influence economic growth.
8. Addressing Income Inequality: Policies that reduce income inequality can also promote economic growth. When income is more evenly distributed, more people can afford to purchase goods and services, which can stimulate demand and lead to job creation.
9. Sustainable Growth: With the growing concern about climate change, it is increasingly recognized that economic growth strategies need to be sustainable. This could involve investing in renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, and developing industries that are sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research

Trickle-down economic policies are destined to fail, research suggests. David Hope explains why the issue is so controversial.

www.lse.ac.uk

I am grumpy because no matter how much I bloody explain this to people they just are so programmed not to understand how the economy works.

 

[wobs]

1. Sustainable Growth: With the growing concern about climate change, it is increasingly recognized that economic growth strategies need to be sustainable. This could involve investing in renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, and developing industries that are sustainable and environmentally friendly.

There is no model of sustainable growth that includes tax cuts for the rich.
And energy efficiency promotes more growth, so doesn't really come under sustainable growth.

I recommend Doughnut Economics as a good book on the subject of sustainable economics.

 

[festive]

Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research

Trickle-down economic policies are destined to fail, research suggests. David Hope explains why the issue is so controversial.

www.lse.ac.uk

I am grumpy because no matter how much I bloody explain this to people they just are so programmed not to understand how the economy works.

The article argues against the effectiveness of trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the wealthy. Here are some flaws in the argument presented:

1. Limited Scope: Your post primarily focuses on the economic effects of major tax cuts for the rich across five decades in 18 wealthy nations. While this provides some evidence, it doesn't consider the broader context or other factors that could influence economic growth. Economic policies and their outcomes are complex, and it's challenging to attribute all changes to a single factor like tax cuts.
2. Correlation vs. Causation: It suggests that tax cuts for the wealthy have led to the rich getting richer without meaningful effects on unemployment or economic growth. However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Other variables and factors can contribute to changes in income inequality, employment rates, and economic growth. It's difficult to isolate the effects of tax cuts alone.
3. Neglected Benefits: it also overlooks potential positive impacts of tax cuts for the wealthy. By reducing the tax burden on high-income individuals, they have more resources available for investment, entrepreneurship, and job creation. This can stimulate economic activity and potentially lead to job opportunities and higher wages for workers. While your article mentions the argument that tax cuts free up money for the wealthy to invest and hire more workers, it dismisses it without considering the potential benefits.
4. Alternative Policies: it focuses on the ineffectiveness of tax cuts for the rich but doesn't explore alternative policies or solutions to address inequality and stimulate economic growth. It's important to consider a range of economic policies and their potential impacts, including targeted investments in education, infrastructure, and social programs, which can also contribute to economic development and reducing inequality.
5. Political Bias: it acknowledges the polarized and contentious nature of the issue, particularly in the US, but fails to address the potential bias in the research and interpretation of the results. The researchers themselves admit to receiving extreme reactions and criticism, labeling some as socialists and dismissing others as obvious. It's essential to critically evaluate research and consider multiple perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding of complex economic issues.

So you get my points here it's all very well looking for a politically biased opinion to bolster your argument...

Lets not forget also the richer people get the more 'tax efficient' they are able to be. Who really wants to pay 60p in every pound earnt, why should they?

That's fine lets hear your suggestions on how we

A) Kick start the economy
B) Reverse inflation

Lets try and avoid defaulting to lets just 'tax the rich' ie the hard working, as the only solution.

 

[Justin Passing]

Now this model which you have cut and pasted - is a general overview and intro and it's very limited to the point its only useful as an introduction to the idea that there are flows but as a model of how the economy works- no - it's over simplified. It assumes that every household act in identical ways, where is the central bank? Where is the debt cycle? Where is household borrowing? Or you think lending to households is not important?

Now in this circular model - how does the supply of money increase. You should first look at debt created money, as it seems you are still shouting down the megaphone we have run out of money - how many times must I repeat it that Government finances are not like your personal finances but stupid old tropes don't die out.

It's not one - there are several there, at least more detailed that the poster's effort.
Of course there is a never-ending supply of elaborations - even some of the above do include some of what you're whining about.
Nobody is subscribing to the straw-man model you say they are.
So on that basis, you're just a tiresome troll.


"debt created money" - selling debt, leveraging, etc and on and on forever, yeah , we know, so what? Add reserve ratio extension, foreign trade and of course QE.
YOU need to explain.
All we get from you is a sneering pious attitude, because you did O level economics or something, that everyone else in the world is wrong.
You sit and criticise - and misquote in the process. You will never convince anyone of anything doing that, you just come over as full-of-xxx.

The article you referred to is irrelevant to this particular bleating of yours. Look at the title of the actual paper - not the referring bit of junk which misquotes it.
"International Inequalities Institute and King’s College London, analysed the economic effects of major tax cuts for the rich across five decades in 18 wealthy nations."
Nobody is talking about major tax cuts for the rich - even Truss didn't go far.
Trickle down? Do tell us where the referenced article mentions the word "trickle", please? (hint - it doesn't)

You're the one proposing yourself as some sort of expert, so YOU have to do the explaining, and not make mistakes. If you don't, you're just trolling. Like before.
We can make mistakes, we aren't experts - just before you start nit-picking.

You have taken issue with differential tax rates for different types of income, which I pointed out to you many relevant countries use. Do you think you're better at it, than those countries? Are you relying again on some other, irrelevant article? WHY do you think they have it all wrong? You deny my examples of countries, ignore, and reuse silly insults.

You really aren't doing very well.

 

[SirGalahad]

It's not one - there are several there, at least more detailed that the poster's effort.
Of course there is a never-ending supply of elaborations - even some of the above do include some of what you're whining about.
Nobody is subscribing to the straw-man model you say they are.
So on that basis, you're just a tiresome troll.


"debt created money" - selling debt, leveraging, etc and on and on forever, yeah , we know, so what? Add reserve ratio extension, foreign trade and of course QE.
YOU need to explain.
All we get from you is a sneering pious attitude, because you did O level economics or something, that everyone else in the world is wrong.
You sit and criticise - and misquote in the process. You will never convince anyone of anything doing that, you just come over as full-of-xxx.

The article you referred to is irrelevant to this particular bleating of yours. Look at the title of the actual paper - not the referring bit of junk which misquotes it.
"International Inequalities Institute and King’s College London, analysed the economic effects of major tax cuts for the rich across five decades in 18 wealthy nations."
Nobody is talking about major tax cuts for the rich - even Truss didn't go far.
Trickle down? Do tell us where the referenced article mentions the word "trickle", please? (hint - it doesn't)

You're the one proposing yourself as some sort of expert, so YOU have to do the explaining, and not make mistakes. If you don't, you're just trolling. Like before.
We can make mistakes, we aren't experts - just before you start nit-picking.

You have taken issue with differential tax rates for different types of income, which I pointed out to you many relevant countries use. Do you think you're better at it, than those countries? Are you relying again on some other, irrelevant article? WHY do you think they have it all wrong? You deny my examples of countries, ignore, and reuse silly insults.

You really aren't doing very well.

Several what are there?

Answer the point - how do you increase the money supply.

How can I convince you when you won't accept the basic fact that we have debt backed money.

Start from there you dunce.

Are you dumb - the article title for simpletons

Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich: debunking trickle-down economics​

Truss tax cuts - she scrapped them because they were mental. Ideology over everything.

Do tell me where the evidence is for trickle down economics - that is so debunked and busted - so evidence it not from the mail.

SO AGAIN WHERE IS THE F MONEY CREATION IN THE MODEL YOU POSTED YOU DUNCE.

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

 

[SirGalahad]

So tell me how doe the money supply increase - answer that one single question.

 

[SirGalahad]

You have taken issue with differential tax rates for different types of income, which I pointed out to you many relevant countries use. Do you think you're better at it, than those countries? Are you relying again on some other, irrelevant article? WHY do you think they have it all wrong? You deny my examples of countries, ignore, and reuse silly insults.

Tax capital gains the same as income.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2021/twerp_1379_-_advani.pdf

Have a read of that you dunce.

 

[Justin Passing]

I've answered your questions, more than once but you won't read.

Several what are there?

money circulation descriptions. The things you were referring to in the post a couple back.
And you're calling me a dunce?

Now this model which you have cut and pasted

Not "this", those.

This is second time I'm telling you that.

So tell me how doe the money supply increase - answer that one single question.

I gave you several ways the money supply is increases, not that it's relevant to the discussion.
But as I told you, as you're the one professing to be expert, YOU need to explain why you think it is.

I told you how several EU countries treat CGT differently from income tax. All that I looked up, in fact. It seems you're ignorant of that and won't accept the information I gave you or look at the reference I gave. I cited 3 countries, 'Your' article supplies a fourth - Canada.

The LSE article you quoted, you couldn't have read, because you would have found that, as I pointed out, the paper on which it relies does NOT address the title of the short article you quoted. I explained that. In other words your reference is in error, and what it actually addresses is different, it's irrelevant.
That's twice you've got that wrong.

Tax capital gains the same as income.

So you keep saying. And I'm pointing out that you haven't given an example of a country that does that. Or looked into any reasons why any of the 4 examples I gave, don't.
You have presented zero justification for your naive suggestion, or what else would have to change to accommodate it.

Calling someone a dunce doesn't abrogate you from that responsibility.
I am not arguing either way, I am questioning the reasons for your ranting.

Why should I have to write this twice? Because you won't contribute to the forum in a sensible way, because you're a troll.
Reported.

If you care to read the last article you cited, he doesn't present anything to conclude that reducing CGT doesn't increase growth, or decrease unemployment, or anything else. His focus the effect on tax receipts, basically which is very narrow, ignoring socioeconomic and other factors.

He says :
"For now there is not enough breadth of evidence to draw strong conclusions. I would therefore not support the view that the evidence is settled".

He does point out that
"There are theoretical arguments in support of everything from zero rates to high rates of tax on capital."

You will find arguments with clear conclusions for zero rates in:
Anthony B. Atkinson and Joseph E. Stiglitz, “The design of tax structure: Direct versus indirect taxation” (1976) 6:1–2
Journal of Public Economics; Christophe Chamley, “Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with Infinite Lives” (1986) 54:3
Econometrica ; Kenneth L. Judd, “Redistributive taxation in a simple perfect foresight model” (1985) 28:1 Journal of Public Economics.


Your link only illustrates some of the reasons for not ranting, and not calling anyone who asks for explanations of your rants as a dunce..