Budget

[carmanmemoranda]

I don't know what everyone's moaning about. Yes we pay a fair bit in tax but come on, that's rewarded with excellent public services and infrastructure.

Oh wait ...

Exactly. It's costing more to restore than was saved by cuts.

But looked good tax wise at the time.

Paying for it now, as most people knew would have to happen.

Fptp politics isn't the best system for us.

 

[JohnD]

Honestly I've never seen anyone able to say things he knows are false, but with utter confidence and not a trace of guilt or shame.

Yes you have.

Brexit 350 Million Lie

• JohnD
• 28 Jun 2016

 

[mitch66]

How

Yes you have.

Brexit 350 Million Lie

• JohnD
• 28 Jun 2016

How much did we send the EU?

 

[Ollyfp]

employers are, in effect, having to pay for two people for every one person they employ.

Bang on!

 

[pete01]

Yes. Under the current arrangement, with taxes being hosed at the millions of dole-drawers and foreigners, employers are, in effect, having to pay for two people for every one person they employ. No wonder other economies have eclipsed ours.

If I was PM, 10 million or more foreigners would get moved out of the country rapidly and all the doleys would then be moved into the jobs vacated. All the country's other problems would be solved as a result of this. The benefits system is the root of all this evil.

You've got my vote.

 

[Ollyfp]

Hey now, less of the dog!!!!!!

Lol. Maybe parrots!

 

[Ollyfp]

2027 I just read?

My bad. Wishful thinking! Lol

 

[Ollyfp]

Lazy Dail Mail punching down nonsense.


I have a very disabled family member, if you had any idea how hard it is get PIP you might not post such nonsense.

I agree there is some issue with PIP in relation to Autism spectrum and ADHD, but that doesn’t mean there are millions of people living off disability bebefits


I suggest you re evaluate your narrow mindedness…..the real scroungers in this country are the millionaires

Basically, we agree regarding PIP, but the idea that millionaire business owners are scroungers is for the birds. Many years ago, Colman's Mustard built homes and schools for their employees and their families. Essentially, this is still happening, but it's through taxation.

 

[Koolpc]

Lol. Maybe parrots!

Woof!

 

[Koolpc]

Basically, we agree regarding PIP, but the idea that millionaire business owners are scroungers is for the birds. Many years ago, Colman's Mustard built homes and schools for their employees and their families. Essentially, this is still happening, but it's through taxation.

Yea, one side of the street was French, the other was English...

 

[Ollyfp]

Yea, one side of the street was French, the other was English...

Very good. Don't give up the day job. Lol.

 

[blup]

Wine importer on the Vine show just , he’s moving to France, Droning on about something called the Laffer curve, which means the secret to increasing tax revenue is to decrease taxes. That may well work for wine, but it can’t possibly be the basis for a budget.

 

[JohnD]

Wine importer on the Vine show just , he’s moving to France, Droning on about something called the Laffer curve, which means the secret to increasing tax revenue is to decrease taxes. That may well work for wine, but it can’t possibly be the basis for a budget.

Because nobody knows any of the numbers of the Laffer curve, they don't know where the top is, or which side of the top they are, or whether tax revenues would go up or down if they were increased or decreased by any particular amount.

It is a purely notonal concept.

If you choose to assume any particular point on the curve, you can assume what the outcome would be. Assume a different point, and the outcome would be different.

A funny thing, people who are prosperous and don't want to pay tax always make their argument with their assumption that they are on the right-hand side of the curve. Strangely, they have no evidence to support that assumption.


(Edited)

 

[blup]

Because nobody knows any of the numbers of the Laffer curve, they don't know where the top is, or which side of the top they are, or whether tax revenues would go up or down if they were increased or decreased by any particular amount.

It is a purely notonal concept.

If you choose to assume any particular point on the curve, you can assume what the outcome would be. Assume a different point, and the outcome would be different.

A funny thing, people who are prosperous and don't want to pay tax always make their argument with their assumption that they are on the left-hand side of the curve. Strangely, they have no evidence to support that assumption.

It’s seems to be a spurious (dodgy at best) justification for lowering taxes

 

[JohnD]

It’s seems to be a spurious (dodgy at best) justification for lowering taxes

They're just trying it on.