Jump to content
Adblockers - please click ×
blandy

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Or "spending", as it's also called. 

No.  Tax is not spending.  It is withdrawing resources from selected groups of people on fhe basis of (for example) income, wealth, location, or consumption choices.

Spending is allocating resources.

In the special case of being a currency issuer, one is not dependent on the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peterms said:

No.  Tax is not spending.  It is withdrawing resources from selected groups of people on fhe basis of (for example) income, wealth, location, or consumption choices.

Spending is allocating resources.

In the special case of being a currency issuer, one is not dependent on the other.

Yes. "Redistribution" which is what I commented about is taking from ( taxing) one area ( e.g. Income of citizens) and giving to ( spending on ) another area ( e.g. Benefits or schools ). Government "Redistribution" as you put it involves tax and spend. To say otherwise is fantasy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redistribution doesn't need to involve any spending.  It could for example take the form of differential taxation.

But your point shows that you are locked in the idea that spending must be funded by taxation.  It needn't, and it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, peterms said:

Redistribution doesn't need to involve any spending.  It could for example take the form of differential taxation.

But your point shows that you are locked in the idea that spending must be funded by taxation.  It needn't, and it isn't.

No it doesn't. Go back to my first reply: 

Well, it is... Not the sole source, but one of them.

Tax revenues are one of the sources of money for gov't spending.  You said "tax doesn't fund government spending" and that is just untrue and what I pointed out to be untrue  it doesn't make me locked in to anything  it makes you wrong :P

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, peterms said:

...you are locked in the idea that spending must be funded by taxation.  It needn't, and it isn't.

Have you just let the SNP's strategy for Indyref2 out of the bag? 

You (Peter) are right in that spending can be funded from other sources, namely borrowing and debt or through QE, effectively robbing savers of the value of their savings. 

Tax is probably the more sustainable and fairer option. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, peterms said:

Redistribution doesn't need to involve any spending.  It could for example take the form of differential taxation.

But your point shows that you are locked in the idea that spending must be funded by taxation.  It needn't, and it isn't.

In basic economic models you might set T = G (tax = government spending) but obviously many governments borrow money by issuing bonds in order to 'spend' in addition to the revenues they collect through taxes. 

The biggest problem with tax, in particular income and corporation tax is that they are both totally out of step in a world where you can hide both income and profits fairly easily (especially profits). 

Edited by Dr_Pangloss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

In basic economic models you might set T = G (tax = government spending) but obviously many governments borrow money by issuing bonds in order to 'spend' in addition to the revenues they collect through taxes. 

The biggest problem with tax, in particular income and corporation tax is that they are both totally out of step in a world where you can hide both income and profits fairly easily (especially profits). 

I think somewhere wires have got crossed.

Even in today's world, revenue raised through taxation and duties makes up the largest part of Government spending. So when Peter wrote

20 hours ago, peterms said:

NI doesn't fund healthcare.  Tax doesn't fund government spending.  It's just told that way to make it more palatable, or understandable, or maybe acceptable.

I felt obliged to point out that Tax is "Well, it does. Not the sole source [of Gov't spending], but one of them." since then people have made many accurate comments about how various mechanisms allow Government to spend or redistribute money. Unfortunately there's still a bit of a claim of "The idea that spending comes from tax is a fiction" which is misreprepresentative. Government spending comes from Government revenue sources, money creation and bonds etc. Governement's main revenue source is taxation. They could choose not to issue bonds or not to do quantative easing, they could choose do raise no taxes. but as PMS says choosing to raise no taxes would be a massive problem. In the world we live in, taxes make up the main part of government revenues and thus are the main source for government spending. Arguments made by everyone from the extreme left to the right of politics here and abroad revolve around Tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax fairness, public services and all the rest. If there were no link between tax and governement spending, why would anyone from Jeremy Corbyn to Theresa May to George Osborne give a damn about raising money via Taxation NI and so on? There are debates about the levels Corporations or Individuals should pay, but none say "Google, Apple, Vodafone...there's no need for them to pay any tax, tax doesn't fund the education of people they employ and benefit from, tax doesn't pay for the roads the Government built that they use to move their goods, no, there's no need to charge them any tax"

Quote

Tax revenue sources 2013/14

Type of tax Revenue £ million
Income Tax 156,898
NICs 107,690
VAT 104,718
Corporation  Tax 39,274
Fuel duties 26,881
Alcohol taxes 19,986
Stamp Duty Land 9,273
Capital Gains 3,908
Inheritance tax 3,402
Shares 3,108
Insurance premium tax 3,014
Air passenger duty 3,013
Betting + gaming 2,098
Landfill Tax 1,189
Petroleum Revenue tax 1,118
Climate Change levy 1,068
Tax Credits -2,743
Total HMRC receipts 489,850
other Gov’t revenue (interest, asset purchase) 101,000
Total Central gov’t revenue (ANBV) £590,544 Public sector finances at ONS (less detailed)

from here

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2017 at 23:46, peterms said:

Redistribution doesn't need to involve any spending. 

But it definitely involves taking money from one person, at gunpoint if necessary, and giving it to someone else. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Have I wandered into the conspiracy thread?

The conspiracy thread was stolen by the government and hidden in Area 51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LES, the pro London rag par excellence is a terrible newspaper but he will undoubtedly make it even worse.

Edited by Dr_Pangloss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Osborne taking his 100th job since being sacked as Chancellor....appointed editor of the Evening Standard!:lol:

He seems as qualified for the job as he was for Chancellor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going to edit the paper 4 days a week, apparently, as well as one day a week at Blackrock. Constituents ought to have the power to call for a byelection. He's basically just announced he'll keep being paid, but he's not doing his MP work for the next 3 years.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely he'll just resign as an MP at this point?

If not, he's certainly reaping the rewards of failing to get their 'right to recall' passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

He's going to edit the paper 4 days a week, apparently, as well as one day a week at Blackrock. Constituents ought to have the power to call for a byelection. He's basically just announced he'll keep being paid, but he's not doing his MP work for the next 3 years.

I would say it's a serious conflict of interests and should not be allowed.

He can campaign for the Tories under the cover of a Newspaper.  If there are by-elections or whatever then this can't be, can it ?

Which letters get published,  how things are to be twisted always in their favour.  If they are going to try and run the press and they have no opposition in the Commons then I ask,  is this really the democracy we should be proud of ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian has an unnamed minister suggesting it's a platform for Osbourne to launch his campaign to be Mayor of London in 2020. 

It's worth noting that due to boundary changes, his seat won't even exist at the next GE so his constituents won't even get a chance to kick him out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Surely he'll just resign as an MP at this point?

Not according to Osborne quoted in the Torygraph where it also quotes Lebedev saying:

Quote

George is London through and through...

I'm sure that kind of backing will please the residents of Knutsford, Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â