Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

General Election 2017









JC Footy Genius

JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
soistes said:
I'm not convinced:

a) that so many of the highest earners would actually leave under a system with slightly higher corporation and income tax (in both cases the Labour proposals are for tax rates which are no higher, and in many cases lower, than many other successful industrialised countries who don't seem to have a problem with mass exodus of higher earners)

b) that the highest earners are necessarily always the "highest contributors"

c) that even if some of them did go, the country would actually be significantly worse off - it would help the net migration figures after all, and enable us perhaps to recruit in their place a few more useful doctors and scientists from abroad without breaching the net migration figures.

and finally - I think the economic risk of losing significant businesses (or parts of businesses) which move to other countries because of Brexit (because they can't get the skills here any more, or because they need - like financial service companies - to be within the EU, or because they don't want to pay tariffs on their supply chains), is massively higher than the economic risk of a few oligarchs and rich parasites leaving because they can't facing a few more percentage points of tax to contribute to a decent society with good health and social care and public infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Labour would increase taxes to their highest level since the aftermath of the Second World War but would still not raise enough money to pay for its spending pledges, an independent assessment of the party’s manifesto has concluded.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Jeremy Corbyn’s party would saddle individuals and businesses with at least £41 billion of new taxes while cutting the deficit more slowly. The think tank suggested that Labour had an £11 billion shortfall in its tax and spending plans, in part because the party had made “factual” errors in calculating its tax package.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...d-be-highest-since-second-world-war-dftx8s0bf
 










S

soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,643
Brighton
JC Footy Genius said:
Labour would increase taxes to their highest level since the aftermath of the Second World War but would still not raise enough money to pay for its spending pledges, an independent assessment of the party’s manifesto has concluded.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Jeremy Corbyn’s party would saddle individuals and businesses with at least £41 billion of new taxes while cutting the deficit more slowly. The think tank suggested that Labour had an £11 billion shortfall in its tax and spending plans, in part because the party had made “factual” errors in calculating its tax package.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...d-be-highest-since-second-world-war-dftx8s0bf
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read the IFS analysis. The IFS have a lot of good micro-economists, but as many competent economists have pointed out, their current analysis of the party manifestos does not, for some reason, take account of the macro-economic impacts of the different spending and borrowing plans, and as a result their critique of the Labour manifesto is deeply flawed - see, to take one accessible example, the work of Simon Wren-Lewis (economics professor at Oxford) who very much does understand macro-economics:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/growth-will-be-lower-if-conservatives.html
 






JC Footy Genius

JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
soistes said:
Yes, I've read the IFS analysis. The IFS have a lot of good micro-economists, but as many competent economists have pointed out, their current analysis of the party manifestos does not, for some reason, take account of the macro-economic impacts of the different spending and borrowing plans, and as a result their critique of the Labour manifesto is deeply flawed - see, to take one accessible example, the work of Simon Wren-Lewis (economics professor at Oxford) who very much does understand macro-economics:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/growth-will-be-lower-if-conservatives.html
Click to expand...

That's quite a glaring omission (if true) from a respected institution often used by Jezza to attack the government at PMQ's. Is the IFS critique of the Tory manifesto equally floored then?

Btw competent economist successfully predicting things = oxymoron (sorry cheap shot).
 
Last edited:


N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
soistes said:
Yes, I've read the IFS analysis. The IFS have a lot of good micro-economists, but as many competent economists have pointed out, their current analysis of the party manifestos does not, for some reason, take account of the macro-economic impacts of the different spending and borrowing plans, and as a result their critique of the Labour manifesto is deeply flawed - see, to take one accessible example, the work of Simon Wren-Lewis (economics professor at Oxford) who very much does understand macro-economics:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/growth-will-be-lower-if-conservatives.html
Click to expand...

I agree that extra public investment should stimulate the economy and therefore the tax take. The link you have posted is
not however an impartial economic analysis but an opinion piece full of unsubstantiated assumptions about interest rates, impacts of immigration and the relative Brexit negotiating skills of different politicians.
 






S

soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,643
Brighton
JC Footy Genius said:
That's quite a glaring omission (if true) from a respected institution often used by Jezza to attack the government at PMQ's. Is the IFS critique of the Tory manifesto equally floored then?

Btw competent economist predicting things = oxymoron (sorry cheap shot).
Click to expand...

I agree - and lots of people in the economics world were slightly surprised by the IFS conclusions this time, for this reason - and yes, in so far as they haven't taken fully into account the kind of macro-impacts that Wren-Lewis talks about, then their analysis of the Tory manifesto would also be affected (but the error would be bigger in the case of the Labour manifesto, as the Labour policy approach relies more on stimulating investment spending through deficit financing.
I don't disagree with your criticism of economists either (and I am one), as the economics profession hasn't covered itself in glory in recent years. Nevertheless, there is a degree of economic illiteracy in the debate at the moment, and the fallacy, propagated massively in the Thatcher years, that you can (and should) apply the same principles of running a household or family budget, to running the economy of the country seems to be re-emerging (with all this stuff about there not being a 'magic money tree'). I know you won't like it, because it's in the Guardian, but this bloke (a Cambridge economist this time) is 'on the money' (sorry) as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-money-british-voters-economy-britain-welfare
 


S

soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,643
Brighton
Neville's Breakfast said:
I agree that extra public investment should stimulate the economy and therefore the tax take. The link you have posted is
not however an impartial economic analysis but an opinion piece full of unsubstantiated assumptions about interest rates, impacts of immigration and the relative Brexit negotiating skills of different politicians.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a blog (opinion piece) rather than an academic research paper, but I cited it simply because it contains a relatively accessible (to non-economists) critique of the recent IFS analysis of the party manifestos, which as many economists have noted fails adequately to take account of the macro-economic effects of public spending on growth rates, and doesn't therefore warrant the excessively negative conclusions about the Labour manifesto which was given in the piece from the Times cited by another poster.
 








Two Professors

Two Professors

Two Mad Professors
Jul 13, 2009
7,617
Multicultural Brum
soistes said:
I'm not convinced:

a) that so many of the highest earners would actually leave under a system with slightly higher corporation and income tax (in both cases the Labour proposals are for tax rates which are no higher, and in many cases lower, than many other successful industrialised countries who don't seem to have a problem with mass exodus of higher earners)

b) that the highest earners are necessarily always the "highest contributors"

c) that even if some of them did go, the country would actually be significantly worse off - it would help the net migration figures after all, and enable us perhaps to recruit in their place a few more useful doctors and scientists from abroad without breaching the net migration figures.

and finally - I think the economic risk of losing significant businesses (or parts of businesses) which move to other countries because of Brexit (because they can't get the skills here any more, or because they need - like financial service companies - to be within the EU, or because they don't want to pay tariffs on their supply chains), is massively higher than the economic risk of a few oligarchs and rich parasites leaving because they can't facing a few more percentage points of tax to contribute to a decent society with good health and social care and public infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Why do you think there are so many French high earners in London?
 




N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
soistes said:
Yes, it's a blog (opinion piece) rather than an academic research paper, but I cited it simply because it contains a relatively accessible (to non-economists) critique of the recent IFS analysis of the party manifestos, which as many economists have noted fails adequately to take account of the macro-economic effects of public spending on growth rates, and doesn't therefore warrant the excessively negative conclusions about the Labour manifesto which was given in the piece from the Times cited by another poster.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's a valid criticism and comes back to the economic argument against public spending cuts whether in real or absolute terms.
 






Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
soistes said:
At 62, I'm probably older than some of them, as it happens. I doubt I'll really have nightmares but, yes, there is something about that red-faced, finger-jabbing, "let me tell you...." mode from fat bald right-wing white men (of any age), that I find slightly scary, if I'm honest.

As far as my own perspective evolving with age is concerned, if anything, my views are rather more left-wing than when I was younger (and I wasn't exactly right of centre then).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that you're different from what you claim to fear. You've shown that you're perfectly able to make all too-quick assumptions about people you've never met and group people together into cliched little boxes based on the smallest of evidence, taken out of context (has the one who asked about IRA terrorism served in N.Ireland? Lost a loved one?) and a readiness to dismiss the things that they consider to be important questions because it doesn't fit with your political outlook.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here