What an embarrassing , poorly written, ill-considered piece of nonsense this is. You make no mention of the fact that there is no spare capacity in the UK labour market for tax cuts to "soak up" , so any further stimulus is likely to be expressed through greater inflation. Therefore the only justification for "hand-outs" (be they tax or otherwise) would be to support the vulnerable - not to reduce the tax burden on higher earners. That is the IMF's point on inequality. Nor do you mention that any tax break benefit will be negated by higher debt services costs, including for government. You seem to think that you have delivered some great revelation that real yields will be low but conveniently (or due to ignorance/stupidity) omit the fact they would be materially lower were a SENSIBLE policy followed. How delicious the irony that the "bankers" that Truss/Kwarteng attempted to "buy off" are the very people that best exposed the idiocy of these policy, Noting your bio: do people actually pay you to write about a subject on which you know nothing? I believe there are many openings in freight transportation or adult care - you should consider a career change that would deliver value to the UK economy.
The sensibles are right and Liz is wrong. If you want to boost growth then do planning reform, build hundreds of thousands of council houses, abolish right to buy on newly built council houses, invest in new infrastructure, encourage and subsidise insulation and energy efficiency across the country, create tax discounts for investment in labour saving technology etc... Save money by raising the state pension age or abolish the triple lock. Encourage more older people to stay in the labour market. Don't do a sugar rush tax cut and spend billions on an energy bailout at the same time.
What an embarrassing , poorly written, ill-considered piece of nonsense this is. You make no mention of the fact that there is no spare capacity in the UK labour market for tax cuts to "soak up" , so any further stimulus is likely to be expressed through greater inflation. Therefore the only justification for "hand-outs" (be they tax or otherwise) would be to support the vulnerable - not to reduce the tax burden on higher earners. That is the IMF's point on inequality. Nor do you mention that any tax break benefit will be negated by higher debt services costs, including for government. You seem to think that you have delivered some great revelation that real yields will be low but conveniently (or due to ignorance/stupidity) omit the fact they would be materially lower were a SENSIBLE policy followed. How delicious the irony that the "bankers" that Truss/Kwarteng attempted to "buy off" are the very people that best exposed the idiocy of these policy, Noting your bio: do people actually pay you to write about a subject on which you know nothing? I believe there are many openings in freight transportation or adult care - you should consider a career change that would deliver value to the UK economy.
The sensibles are right and Liz is wrong. If you want to boost growth then do planning reform, build hundreds of thousands of council houses, abolish right to buy on newly built council houses, invest in new infrastructure, encourage and subsidise insulation and energy efficiency across the country, create tax discounts for investment in labour saving technology etc... Save money by raising the state pension age or abolish the triple lock. Encourage more older people to stay in the labour market. Don't do a sugar rush tax cut and spend billions on an energy bailout at the same time.