Truss vs Sunak - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15249703
To clarify, the Truss tax cut is obviously *supply-side* / 'trickle-down', all over again, the rewarding of the rich for being rich.


noemon wrote:



For example, the one that underpins that pompous statement from the IMF which rejects any move that is likely to “increase inequality”. It is absolutely necessary - if we are to come to grips with what is causing our problems - to understand that there are very different kinds of inequality.



viewtopic.php?p=15249240#p15249240



The Telegraph here is having to equivocate over the meaning of the word 'inequality', in an attempt to dodge the charge of 'inequality' from the tax cut.
By Rich
#15250887
Kwasi Kwarteng's gone!

:lol: Call me a sheeple and a blind follower of the globalists and the Libral Media, but I have to say I don't feel Liz's special financial operation is going that well.
User avatar
By noemon
#15250902
ckaihatsu wrote:To clarify, the Truss tax cut is obviously *supply-side* / 'trickle-down', all over again, the rewarding of the rich for being rich.


No it isn't, for the reasons already explained quite adequately. But I am certainly not expecting a broken record like yourself to ever attempt to understand the logic behind it because you are not involved with the British tax system and totally unaware of what people in this country do to avoid the threshold of the higher tax rate. Since literally nobody is paying that threshold and is instead funneling their money to ISA's, SIPP's and ltd companies, the higher tax bracket is effectively redundant and quite worthless as a tax collection mechanism. It is not collecting anything. Reducing it would collect more money for the state and benefits as it would encourage more people to swap their affairs and declare more of their income for income tax.

The Telegraph here is having to equivocate over the meaning of the word 'inequality', in an attempt to dodge the charge of 'inequality' from the tax cut.


No it doesn't, the article is quite shameless in saying that inequality will happen, openly and publicly.

article wrote:Inequality is what happens when the economy and the society grow and move on. It is one of the prices we pay for freedom.


Regardless of your virtue-signalling which appears to be the only thing people are capable today, it is quite evident that there are much larger forces at play here.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15250908
ckaihatsu wrote:
To clarify, the Truss tax cut is obviously *supply-side* / 'trickle-down', all over again, the rewarding of the rich for being rich.



noemon wrote:
No it isn't, for the reasons already explained quite adequately. But I am certainly not expecting a broken record like yourself to ever attempt to understand the logic behind it because you are not involved with the British tax system and totally unaware of what people in this country do to avoid the threshold of the higher tax rate. Since literally nobody is paying that threshold and is instead funneling their money to ISA's, SIPP's and ltd companies, the higher tax bracket is effectively redundant and quite worthless as a tax collection mechanism. It is not collecting anything. Reducing it would collect more money for the state and benefits as it would encourage more people to swap their affairs and declare more of their income for income tax.



If it *isn't* supply-side / trickle-down, then why is the tax cut *increasing inequality*, per your admittance:


ckaihatsu wrote:
The Telegraph here is having to equivocate over the meaning of the word 'inequality', in an attempt to dodge the charge of 'inequality' from the tax cut.



noemon wrote:
No it doesn't, the article is quite shameless in saying that inequality will happen, openly and publicly.



The Telegraph wrote:
Inequality is what happens when the economy and the society grow and move on. It is one of the prices we pay for freedom.



noemon wrote:
Regardless of your virtue-signalling which appears to be the only thing people are capable today, it is quite evident that there are much larger forces at play here.



Whatever that's supposed to mean, the *substance* / issues are above.
User avatar
By noemon
#15250927
Dude there is zero substance in your posts.

You just want to virtue signal that you are against inequality.

Its boring and tired.

Janet’s inequality claim is not the same as mine. For Janet’s I simply pointed out that you misinterpreted Janet and called her a hypocrite when she is clearly not and as shown she is quite shameless about it.
By Rich
#15250935
Reduction of the top rate of income tax to 40% might be OK if it was combined with increases in capital gains and corporation tax, the removal of the single person rebate on council tax and the replacement of the bands with linear scaling and a reduction in national insurance. As it was this was a deeply reactionary budget.
By pugsville
#15250986
Is there even the the bare minimum of thought and planning in the conservative party economic polices beyond thought bubble of the week?

Any leadership? Cabinet solidarity? Any discussion of policy before announcement?

The public is expected believe that the previous chancellor was just some rogue agent and any mistakes were his alone? What *IS* the point of PM and Cabinet if policy isn't discussed and agreed on? Isn't it massive failure of leadership and governance by both the PM and cabinet ?

The new chancellor has come out today and sharply contradicted the Prime Ministers answers in parliament just a few days ago.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15250987
pugsville wrote:Is there even the the bare minimum of thought and planning in the conservative party economic polices beyond thought bubble of the week?

Any leadership? Cabinet solidarity? Any discussion of policy before announcement?

The public is expected believe that the previous chancellor was just some rogue agent and any mistakes were his alone? What *IS* the point of PM and Cabinet if policy isn't discussed and agreed on? Isn't it massive failure of leadership and governance by both the PM and cabinet ?

The new chancellor has come out today and sharply contradicted the Prime Ministers answers in parliament just a few days ago.

The Tory Party is not what it once was, @pugsville. Back in the 1980s, the Tories were evil bastards, but their leaders were political giants. Thatcher bestrode the world stage like a colossus for an entire decade. And there were about half a dozen people in her cabinet who could have taken her place without embarrassing themselves. Nobody can accuse Liz Truss of being a 'colossus'. Not, indeed, anyone in the Tory Party whatsoever these days. They're still just as evil as they once were, but now they are evil mediocrities. Lol.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15250990
Potemkin wrote:The Tory Party is not what it once was, @pugsville. Back in the 1980s, the Tories were evil bastards, but their leaders were political giants. Thatcher bestrode the world stage like a colossus for an entire decade. And there were about half a dozen people in her cabinet who could have taken her place without embarrassing themselves. Nobody can accuse Liz Truss of being a 'colossus'. Not, indeed, anyone in the Tory Party whatsoever these days. They're still just as evil as they once were, but now they are evil mediocrities. Lol.


Wow, that was a harsh critique precioso.

But the evil part is the most consistent. Haha.
By Rich
#15251000
Potemkin wrote:The Tory Party is not what it once was, @pugsville. Back in the 1980s, the Tories were evil bastards, but their leaders were political giants. Thatcher bestrode the world stage like a colossus for an entire decade.

While i agree that the Americanisation of our politics has had a detrimental effect on our politics, I remember the Lady who was for U-Turning. I remember the Caesium Lady. Truss is very much following in the steps of Thatcher. Thatcher got into power by promising tax cuts. By the spring of 1980 she had done a complete U turn and was aggressively raising taxes. She raised taxes to their highest levels in decades. Truss has just done her U-turn quicker.

I also remember Thatcher the woman who was determined not to defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic. In fact she was not only determined not to defend British sovereignty, she was determined to slash the Navy so as no successor to her could defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic. But when the inevitable happened and the Argentinians took their cue and advanced their campaign against British sovereignty, she was humiliated in the House of Commons and had to U-turn.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15251002
Rich wrote:While i agree that the Americanisation of our politics has had a detrimental effect on our politics, I remember the Lady who was for U-Turning. I remember the Caesium Lady. Truss is very much following in the steps of Thatcher. Thatcher got into power by promising tax cuts. By the spring of 1980 she had done a complete U turn and was aggressively raising taxes. She raised taxes to their highest levels in decades. Truss has just done her U-turn quicker.

I also remember Thatcher the woman who was determined not to defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic. In fact she was not only determined not to defend British sovereignty, she was determined to slash the Navy so as no successor to her could defend British sovereignty in the South Atlantic. But when the inevitable happened and the Argentinians took their cue and advanced their campaign against British sovereignty, she was humiliated in the House of Commons and had to U-turn.


The point one has to acknowledge Rich? Is never trust a British politician that U-turns too much. Lol.

My answer is the British navy needs to stay away from imperialism. All of the UK needs to fold it up. It is not bringing any good thing to the British budget. It is in free fall at the moment and unless the British start addressing the issues of high unemployment in the UK and badly paid work even for an educated workforce? You will have problems.
User avatar
By noemon
#15251018
Tainari88 wrote:The point one has to acknowledge Rich? Is never trust a British politician that U-turns too much. Lol.

My answer is the British navy needs to stay away from imperialism. All of the UK needs to fold it up. It is not bringing any good thing to the British budget. It is in free fall at the moment and unless the British start addressing the issues of high unemployment in the UK and badly paid work even for an educated workforce? You will have problems.


The problems in the UK is that we have -(minus) unemployment and as such supply cannot match demand. The UK has 2.8% unemployment without accounting for structural unemployment which is the part of the workforce whose skills cannot be matched to jobs. A healthy unemployment rate is 5-6%, we are at 2% which means that by taking account structural unemployment we are at -(minus) unemployment rate.

We have millions of job vacancies and no people to fill them up though we do have 5 million people on the dole who refuse to work and are accounted as "employed" for they are supposedly "actively looking for work"

Supply failing to match demand has caused a deflationary cycle and wages to double. The UK has always had high wages and now they have shot up in the sky. A pot-washer is now charging £15 an hour. Almost double than 2,3 years ago. And still noone can find them.

Your assessment is not just wrong but it is the exact opposite that is the problem, we have no unemployment, extremely high wages, as a consequence extremely high taxes and lots of successful companies are going under because they cannot provide their products and services due to no staff available.

The UK needs more immigrants as a matter of life and death at this point and tax-cuts for companies.

The immigrants need to come first to allow companies to operate at full capacity and the tax cuts are required for companies to expand.

The British economy is quite solid, but it has gone out of sync(supply & demand), due to Brexit, covid and Putin's war. Brexit aggravating things massively due to the loss of the European labor market.

What it does not need is more taxes and less immigrants.

I think this is probably the first time in history when both the public and the markets are demanding more taxes, wtf? No sane person in the history of humanity has asked their Kings and Queens to increase taxes. The markets demand higher taxes because they want to make sure governments can pay the higher interest rates. The left and the unassuming public want higher taxes because they erroneously believe that this will increase benefits, failing to understand that benefits are a luxury that goes first when an economy goes into a recession.

All in all we have a chorus of idiots and their handlers going hand in hand, but you know who the loser will be don't you?

It will be all those people whom you all pretend to care for their equality that will be impoverished.

At the end of the day if the state is insolvent, benefits and social care will be the first to go.

And the state will become insolvent for it has entered the wage deflation spiral, wages going up, inflation going up higher eradicating the wins from extra wages, and eradicating the wins of extra taxes for government as the extra money are funneled into higher interest rates.

The deflationary cycle is totally and utterly destructive. It needs to be broken instead of subsuming ourselves under it which is what the markets, Labour and half the Tory party are demanding.

Truss & Kwasi have rightly identified it so and they are being bombarded by the left, their own party, by the papers and by the markets to take the opposite action.

It's surreal.
By Istanbuller
#15251024
Deflation is a good thing, @noemon. Liz did the right thing with tax cutting. That is how it should be. However, the international conjecture led by the US's interventionist policies upset the balance of world economy. It is the reason why tax cutting does not work in short-term.
User avatar
By noemon
#15251025
My bad, we are at a wage-price inflationary spiral, not deflationary spiral.

Deflation is good in moderation indeed.

Truss did well but that is all ancient history now as the Blob has taken over this country.
By Istanbuller
#15251028
I didn't expect that can have a long shot. Britain doesn't have a libertarian culture. Tories are economically leftist. It is the same story with Democratic Party of the US. They try to solve inflation problem with more inflationary policies. Comical.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#15251052
Potemkin wrote:The Tory Party is not what it once was, @pugsville


I read an opinion piece back when Corbyn was leader of Labour saying that our political parties were sending their second teams out to bat (cricket metaphor). I think we're down to our 3rd and 4th teams now.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15251056
noemon wrote:The UK has always had high wages

With 25% of the population set to be living in relative poverty next year?

The UK is a low-wage, low-skill, low-productivity economy. This should come as no surprise as for the last 30 years there have been few incentives for companies to increase wages and almost nothing to prevent them from lowering them.


:lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#15251062
ingliz wrote:With 25% of the population set to be living in relative poverty next year?


Benefits are not wages. The entire article is about the non-working population on benefits and as such irrelevant to the very real fact that wages have significantly increased. But as you are discovering, wage increases cause more inflation, eradicating these wins as I previously said.

The UK is a low-wage, low-skill, low-productivity economy. This should come as no surprise as for the last 30 years there have been few incentives for companies to increase wages and almost nothing to prevent them from lowering them.


The British economy has had very low unemployment rates(below 6%) for many decades actually with minor shortlived spikes during crises(up to 8.5-10%). That is the greatest incentive for wages to grow, whether they grow in real terms compared to inflation that is another matter, they rarely do, anywhere.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15251063
noemon wrote:The entire article is about non-working population and as such irrelevant

Wrong!

42% of people on Universal Credit are in employment.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 11

Since there is no new argument, evidence, or rebut[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

There is no logical way for everyone to know that […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]