the budget

swears

swears

preppy-kei
vimothy said:
That isn't what I was saying. My point was that regardless of individual tax rates, every state is suffering from the fall-out of the financial crisis.
Click to expand...

Of course, but if you'd have had higher taxes and less borrowing to begin with we'd have more of a cushion to fall back on.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
If we didn't have such a large deficit going into the crisis, our situation would be much improved. I don't know if you can extrapolate from that (undoubted) fact the correct taxation (or spending, for that matter) regime for the UK. I'm not even sure how much revenue this tax rate will generate, but as I said, we'd still be in the shit.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy said:
Anyone who wants to, basically: private investors, institutional investors, international investors, sovereign wealth funds...
Click to expand...

In other words, probably a large number of lending/investing partners? So it's unlikely that a single financial or corporate entity would be able to tell the UK to jump, and receive the response "How high?", by dint of being our creditor to the tune of multi-billions?
 
J

jtg

???
DannyL said:
How the hell is it class warfare when the percentage of people earning this amount is so small? That's absolute rubbish.
Click to expand...
Why does the size of the class of people matter? You seem to be suggesting that because they're a minority, it's OK to victimize high earners. The point is, it's a *big* increase in tax (10%, £15k+/yr) that makes a *big* statement politically, but the actual revenue it's bringing in is very modest. It's quite clearly been done for political purposes, to make a point -- "gesture politics", as crackerjack put it. Punishing rich people is the message -- Labour are trying to catch the wave of anti-banker, anti-greed sentiment -- and that's class warfare. Perhaps you agree with going after the rich, or perhaps you don't think that successful people deserve to be taxed so much more than anybody else, but they're clearly sending a message by oppressively taxing a certain class of earners.

DannyL said:
As for this estimate - why that figure? How was it worked out so quickly? Can you provide me with any assurance that this isn't just a random figure plucked out of someone's arse?
Click to expand...
The £7bn is, I believe, the government's own figure -- it should be pretty accurate, since they know how many people earn £150k+, and it's simple arithmetic to work out how much they get from 50% of those incomes. The £800m loss figure is speculative, yes, based on the idea that a certain number of high earners will leave the country because it taxes them oppressively, which isn't factored into the Budget's forecast. This will happen to some degree, without a doubt. The estimate given is 25,000 people leaving. When the rate was predicted tog o up to 45%, both CEBR (the source for these figures) and the IFS made predictions that agreed with each other, and these figures for 50% are extrapolated from those reports:

http://www.cebr.com/Resources/CEBR/Impact of the 50 per cent tax rate.pdf
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
josef k. said:
It strikes me that this budget could conceivably deepen the British recession.
Click to expand...

I think that is highly likely.

In other words, probably a large number of lending/investing partners? So it's unlikely that a single financial or corporate entity would be able to tell the UK to jump, and receive the response "How high?", by dint of being our creditor to the tune of multi-billions?
Click to expand...

Creditors have a definite interest at stake (cf. Chimerica). But investors aren't setting government policy. Investors want to be paid back at given times. Do that and don't devalue the currency and they're happy. On the other hand, aid is often conditional, but I think that the IMF has had a change of heart recently, so if it comes to that, we're unlikely to get the usual regime.

So could the govt be borrowing money from the very same banks it's just recently bailed out?

I hope they geet a very preferential rate.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but government bonds are a fixed income investment, and they're already at what is basically a risk free rate.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
On supply-side economics, the Laffer curve is obviously true at some level of taxation, but that's a very mundane observation. I think Greg Mankiw did some empirical research on it and, IIRC, found that if you reduce taxes -- surprise, surprise -- government revenue tends to go down.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
josef k. said:
Pressure to call an election can surely now only grow, as the media turns on New Labour.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the kid gloves treatment they've been getting the last few years?

You'll have to bide your time, old boy. The prospects of an election this side of next year are nil. Unless you can concoct a scenario in which 30 die-hard Blairites vote against the budget.

Inicdientally, why do people think this might deepen the recession? I can see the argument that some of the super-rich might leave, but we've already established this is a smll numbr of people, so you must be referring to other aspects of the budget.

Which ones?

edit: This looks like th beginnings of wisdom.

The climbdown came as Stephen Byers, a former cabinet minister, called on Brown to scrap ID cards and the replacement of the Trident missile programme because of the recession, warning that it would be a "fraud on the electorate" if all the parties were not open about cutbacks needed to balance Britain's books. His words reflect a growing divide in cabinet over whether ministers should now admit that specific major programmes will have to be axed after the election, with the business secretary, Peter Mandelson, pushing for what would be a major change of strategy and Brown resisting.

Byers has long supported both identity cards and the nuclear deterrent but said he could not justify to vulnerable constituents the respective £5bn and £70bn bills when basic public services were threatened by the economic crisis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
"Which ones?"

The spending cuts. Since the economic crisis is a crisis of demand, reducing government spending can only increase it.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
vimothy said:
"Which ones?"

The spending cuts. Since the economic crisis is a crisis of demand, reducing government spending can only increase it.
Click to expand...

I love the credit crunch (notwithstanding mass unemployment, including my own). It's even making a Keynesian out of Vimothy.;)

Have any speciific spending cuts been announced yet?
I thought these were all yet to come.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Pity it's not making Keynesians out of our government.

On Friday The Guardian had Vince Cable saying he'd identified cuts of £3bn from health and education spending for 2010-11. TBH, I've not been following the story in any depth. I'm spending all my time reading about these motherfucking torturing cunts.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
vimothy said:
Pity it's not making Keynesians out of our government.

On Friday The Guardian had Vince Cable saying he'd identified cuts of £3bn from health and education spending for 2010-11. TBH, I've not been following the story in any depth. I'm spending all my time reading about these motherfucking torturing cunts.
Click to expand...

Are you gonna stick something up about that?

Seems inconceivable to me that top legal wonks could end up in jail over this. But the Yanks are so much better at holding powerful crooks to account than we are, so it's possible.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Yeah, sure.

Phillipe Sands' VF article, "The Green Light" (and book "Torture Team") is the definitive account of the policy making process:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805

Jane Mayer's article "The secret history of America's "extraordinary rendition" program" is essential:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

As are Mark Danner's twin articles in NYRB, reviewing the ICRC Report to the CIA:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614

Lawyers can be prosecuted (Bybee, Yoo, etc) for giving advice that enables war crimes. I don't think individual agents or intelligence officers should be prosecuted, because it's clear that all the pressure came from the top. Rumsfeld and Feith are the people responsible. That said, the CIA didn't follow the guidelines given in the OLC memos, and, as Nuremberg shows, the good faith defence is not sufficient. But still, this one's on Feith and Rumsfeld.
 
V

viktorvaughn

Well-known member
Guy in the guardian writes

the wealthiest taxpayers will still be contributing to the public purse at a 10% lower rate than for nine of Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in office

this is interesting - didn't know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top