link You've got to have a symbol, even if the symbol doesn't actually do anything. That sounds very familiar, even on this side of the pond. That last bit sounds very familiar as well. But we've all been told over and over that people don't arrange their affairs to avoid taxes or look for a better tax environment in which to run their businesses.
How dare the evil rich take steps to keep their money! Don't they know they have other people's transport and housing allowances to pay for?! And people on the dole! Won't someone think of the people on the dole!
Non-scientific poll results from The Telegraph's website ------------ Should the 50p tax rate be scrapped? Yes, it is damaging the economy and putting off entrepreneurs 56.19% (8,871 votes) Yes, it is wrong that those who work hard should be penalised so heavily 38.07% (6,010 votes) No, there is no evidence that a higher tax rate harms commerce 0.91% (144 votes) No, the rich should pay their fair share in difficult economic times 4.83% (763 votes) Total Votes: 15,788
So, what's been demonstrated by this? 1. Changes in tax rates change people's behavior; 2. People will pursue virtually any avenue open to them to avoid simply surrendering their money to the government; 3. Tax increases do not necessarily mean revenue increases (i.e. non-linear relationship); 4. "Fairness" will be championed by politicians even when it makes no economic sense (or, indeed, is counterproductive); and, of course, 5. Nothing of value for anyone was accomplished by class warfare-based economic policy. Of course, you could have learned all this in a first year economics textbook.
Well, the solution is simple. Raise taxes on Ward and Sokar until they are dead. That'll stop these threads.
Interesting that you aren't pointing to the much more important reports in the same papers which demonstrate that spending cuts don't lower the deficit...
You're essentially claiming that arithmetic doesn't work. Of course spending cuts lower the deficit. Deficits, by definition, are spending beyond one's intake.
No, you're not playing right! If it doesn't fix the problem completely and in a short time, it merits zero consideration. I'm sure you got that memo.
You're oversimplifying a bit. Some government spending does actually stimulate economic activity, thereby increasing revenues. But as a general principle, you've got the right of it.
6. Close the tax loopholes being used to manipulate this, and #1-5 don't apply. But then, the rich people don't get their way, so that's not going to happen. But it does show an incredible lack of higher reasoning skills not to realize this isn't the Laffer curve, this is same old same old tax dodging purchased by special interest groups.
You are treating economics as accountancy. In the UK (as elsewhere) spending cuts have led to less economic activity than expected, therefore a lower tax take and no change in the deficit.
Neglects that the money didn't exist in the first place and so had to be borrowed, and that it must now be paid back with interest. Economic thinking like yours is how we got trillions in debt. "We can't stop borrowing money! It's how we get a big part of our revenue!"
What I described is what's happening, whether it is convenient for you or not. Spending cuts should be undertaken if needed at the top of the economic cycle, not while you're trying to get a recovery going.
Yeah. the special interest groups being the ones who want to maintain the current system of control through intimidation that is the IRS and others. Of course, I agree that the tax system we have is too ungainly and more geared toward rewarding the connected than actually serving the people's needs (there is a need for government to be funded, after all) but just dismissing your opponents' ideas along class warfare lines only further promotes the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. A reform of the tax system is important but, even more fundamentally, a reform of the way we view government is imperative before we can achieve lasting change.
