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 upper rate of tax, introduced by Gordon Brown on his last spiteful and malicious day in office and set at 50%, was subsequently reduced by the following Conservative government to 45%. It was only ever intended to be an irritant and embarrassment, not a serious part of the economy. It should have been scrapped immediately Gordon was out on his ear.
Except there is plenty of capacity, cut the attractive benefits for adults not in work of around 5m, make work more attractive through lower tax and NI and incentives for capital investment to lift productivity will all get you an economic expansion, that is what the government is doing and is right to do it, the Liberal elite naysayers are completely wrong and have kept the UK in a low growth low aspirations phase for 20+ years. Rather than smugly attack it would be nice if they could at least admit the errors of their ways.
John mate get a grip of yourself, you don't half sound like one of these angry sensibles the author was referring to. Focus on arguments rather than name calling and at least people will think you are decent human being.
There's plenty of spare capacity in the UK labour market, some 1.5m working age people economically inactive.
Abolishing the 45% tax rate won't make any difference to inequality, the very well off will just still be very well off. After all, is there any evidence that Gordon Brown's pre-election gimmick of the 50% tax rate reduced inequality? Thought not.
And I was unimpressed by your unpleasant comments about the author. You must be a very nasty man.
Really. Do you seriously believe there is "plenty of spare capacity in the UK labour market"? It is accepted that there is less capacity now than there has been at any point in the past fifty years. Here is a link to the ONS chart demonstrating this
The 1.5m you refer to (which is in fact 1.2m) is "churn" that is virtually impossible to eliminate in a developed economy. If you are to make such claims at least have the sense and decency to provide accurate data rather than just making up a number that suits your arguement.
Even the buffoons masquerading as PM & Chancellor understand the acute shortage of labour - hence their announcement of increasing immigration - an embarrassing admission for Brexit supporting Kwarteng and one he would very much like not to have made. I even provided some clues of areas where the labour shortages are particularly acute and suggested these as alternative career paths for the author.
I made no statement as to whether the removal of the 45% would reduce inequality materially - my point was that the tax revenues from this would be better spent on the vulnerable and that that was the point of the IMF's statement.
Self evidently you belong to the same school of economic theory as Mr Ashworth Smith - one where the single minded pursuit of tax cuts is the panacea to all economic ills. One would imagine that with such a simple economic theory every country would adopt it. Evidently not - because it's simplistic nonsense.
As to my comments: Ashworth-Smith's journalism is lazy and more interested in scoring cheap points than providing any real insight. In the words of FZ, "he'd make more money as a butcher, so don't waste you're time on me ...'
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.
You should tell Liz that considering she is pursuing keynesianism on steroids. Spending loads and cutting taxes while borrowing it all from the bond market. It's a classic keynesian stimulus. What I am talking about isn't really a keynesian stimulus, it is just improving the productive capacity of the economy via a mixture of reforms and long term capital state investment. That isn't priming the pump, which is what Liz is doing. I would advocate that we need higher taxes to pay for our current govt spending, which is what Rishi accepted. We should boost growth not via tax cuts but by supply side reforms combined with state investments in new housing, new types of energy i.e. nuclear and renewables and new infrastructure combined with subsidised and therefore cheaper public transport connecting up towns and villages across the country.
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.
Such pretentious twaddle.
The upper rate of tax, introduced by Gordon Brown on his last spiteful and malicious day in office and set at 50%, was subsequently reduced by the following Conservative government to 45%. It was only ever intended to be an irritant and embarrassment, not a serious part of the economy. It should have been scrapped immediately Gordon was out on his ear.
Except there is plenty of capacity, cut the attractive benefits for adults not in work of around 5m, make work more attractive through lower tax and NI and incentives for capital investment to lift productivity will all get you an economic expansion, that is what the government is doing and is right to do it, the Liberal elite naysayers are completely wrong and have kept the UK in a low growth low aspirations phase for 20+ years. Rather than smugly attack it would be nice if they could at least admit the errors of their ways.
John mate get a grip of yourself, you don't half sound like one of these angry sensibles the author was referring to. Focus on arguments rather than name calling and at least people will think you are decent human being.
There's plenty of spare capacity in the UK labour market, some 1.5m working age people economically inactive.
Abolishing the 45% tax rate won't make any difference to inequality, the very well off will just still be very well off. After all, is there any evidence that Gordon Brown's pre-election gimmick of the 50% tax rate reduced inequality? Thought not.
And I was unimpressed by your unpleasant comments about the author. You must be a very nasty man.
Really. Do you seriously believe there is "plenty of spare capacity in the UK labour market"? It is accepted that there is less capacity now than there has been at any point in the past fifty years. Here is a link to the ONS chart demonstrating this
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms
The 1.5m you refer to (which is in fact 1.2m) is "churn" that is virtually impossible to eliminate in a developed economy. If you are to make such claims at least have the sense and decency to provide accurate data rather than just making up a number that suits your arguement.
Even the buffoons masquerading as PM & Chancellor understand the acute shortage of labour - hence their announcement of increasing immigration - an embarrassing admission for Brexit supporting Kwarteng and one he would very much like not to have made. I even provided some clues of areas where the labour shortages are particularly acute and suggested these as alternative career paths for the author.
I made no statement as to whether the removal of the 45% would reduce inequality materially - my point was that the tax revenues from this would be better spent on the vulnerable and that that was the point of the IMF's statement.
Self evidently you belong to the same school of economic theory as Mr Ashworth Smith - one where the single minded pursuit of tax cuts is the panacea to all economic ills. One would imagine that with such a simple economic theory every country would adopt it. Evidently not - because it's simplistic nonsense.
As to my comments: Ashworth-Smith's journalism is lazy and more interested in scoring cheap points than providing any real insight. In the words of FZ, "he'd make more money as a butcher, so don't waste you're time on me ...'
I thought his name was Ashworth-Hayes, but bow to your greater knowledge.
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.
Your Keynsian approach only works when there is a significant surplus.
You should tell Liz that considering she is pursuing keynesianism on steroids. Spending loads and cutting taxes while borrowing it all from the bond market. It's a classic keynesian stimulus. What I am talking about isn't really a keynesian stimulus, it is just improving the productive capacity of the economy via a mixture of reforms and long term capital state investment. That isn't priming the pump, which is what Liz is doing. I would advocate that we need higher taxes to pay for our current govt spending, which is what Rishi accepted. We should boost growth not via tax cuts but by supply side reforms combined with state investments in new housing, new types of energy i.e. nuclear and renewables and new infrastructure combined with subsidised and therefore cheaper public transport connecting up towns and villages across the country.