ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Sorry, you are correct, there is something wrong in there.I'll not say any more but you might want to take offline with SP-T or one of the other posters coming from your angle to ensure consistent messaging
Sorry, you are correct, there is something wrong in there.I'll not say any more but you might want to take offline with SP-T or one of the other posters coming from your angle to ensure consistent messaging
Yes, I think she has said as much. Bigger personal allowances would work for more people. Her target audience tough is a small group of people who have given Truss their support in exchange for a say in manipulating things their wayI just worry that 'lower taxation' in Truss' head means 'lower corporate taxation' not 'bigger personal allowances'.
I’ve always been an advocate of this, it’s a very simple way for lower earners to keep more of what they earn. In fairness, it was the lib dems who pushed this onto the Tory’s and they’ve stayed with it. Just look at the tax free personal allowance now compared with 2010. Increasing it further now would be a good policy IMHO.
Moving the tax burden up is the way to go. But raising the IT threshold to average income would create the mother of all holes in the budget. How would it be financed?One thing that might help address the coming storm might be tax cuts. But rather than those proposed by Truss, raising the tax threshold to the average wage, or mean wage, which ever is higher, so that anyone earning less than £25,971, pays no income tax. That would put more money where it is needed and stimulate consumer spending which will stimulate the private sector.
Problem solved!
Moving the tax burden up is the way to go. But raising the IT threshold to average income would create the mother of all holes in the budget. How would it be financed?
The hole in the budget will be financed from where the money is issued? Sorry, I don't understand.From where the money is issued.
Yes, that is a serious flaw. What we need to go alongside raising the personal allowance is guaranteeing everyone who wants one, a well paid jobThe snag being for the poor who pay no income tax *now*, so get no personal change in their income. And they are generally the most poor, and hardest hit.
Government issues currency, pay for it from there, the same way government spends money into existence every day. No functional need for a hole.The hole in the budget will be financed from where the money is issued? Sorry, I don't understand.
Doesn't sound like a solution, more a series of new problems. Do you remember the previous outcome of BoE getting excessively happy with the magic money printing press?Government issues currency, pay for it from there, the same way government spends money into existence every day.
You can always PM me happy to have a chat, I've not got any axes to grind and I'm neutral in terms of taking any and all theories at face value. I do get the impression a lot of people accept the theory of how the economy works that favours their policy choices, whereas I prefer the ones that describe the reality, and then frame our policy choices around it. It might not give a better (theoretical) outcome than the most favourable theory suggests, but in practice it will lead to policies that actually work.Sorry, you are correct, there is something wrong in there.
I suspect you've missed about 10,000 posts on various threads if you don't know the answer yetThe hole in the budget will be financed from where the money is issued? Sorry, I don't understand.
Oh dear you're asking for trouble now.Doesn't sound like a solution, more a series of new problems. Do you remember the previous outcome of BoE getting excessively happy with the magic money printing press?
Doesn't sound like a solution, more a series of new problems. Do you remember happened the last time the BoE got excessively happy with the magic money printing press?
We’ll seeOh dear you're asking for trouble now.
We live in sour times, but that doesn't ring a bell. A misunderstanding?I find this very strange, on another thread you said that you had a contrary opinion to the observation that tax does not fund our government spending, you chose not to discuss your contrary opinion there, and we don’t want to revive that discussion here, but this thread is the perfect place for you to argue for the monetarist case that tax is functional in funding our government spending.
Yes, there p may have been a misunderstanding on another thread, To be clear on this thread I was referring to where you said, “sorry, I don’t understand” when I referred to where funding is created and the role of tax that follows from that observationDoesn't ring a bell. A misunderstanding?
Yes, that is a serious flaw. What we need to go alongside raising the personal allowance is guaranteeing everyone who wants one, a well paid job
It is in not a deflection, you have not stated a position yet.Didn't relaise that was the post that you meant. But true dat, as I didn't understand.
I find deflection very strange. Do you remember the outcome of BoE getting excessively happy with the magic money printing press post gfc/2008?