https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/uks-liz-truss-pledges-tax-cutting-future-in-speech-plagued-by-protest.html
UK’s Liz Truss pledges tax-cutting future in landmark speech plagued by protest and political infighting
British Prime Minister Liz Truss on Wednesday that cutting taxes was “the right thing to do morally and economically.”
Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, Truss doubled down on a series of debt-funded economic reforms that have sparked in-party fighting and market turmoil.
“We must level up our country in a Conservative way,” she said.
It's not often to see a politician so stubbornly cling to a policy that is wildly unpopular with both the public and their own party.
The tax cuts Liz proposed would give the largest benefits to those earning over $150,000 pounds. This, understandably, was massively unpopular, and the value of the pound took a historic plunge as a direct result of concerns around this policy. Those tax cuts ended up being scrubbed from the final bill, yet she insists on promoting them.
Can anyone shed some light into her thinking?
05 Oct 22
@vivify saidIt’s not just globally unpopular it’s patently idiotic, it’s ideological dogma trumping reality.
It's not often to see a politician so stubbornly cling to a policy that is both wildly unpopular with the public and their own party.
The tax cuts Liz proposed would give the largest benefits to those earning over $150,000 pounds. This, understandably, was massively unpopular, and the value of the pound took a historic plunge as a direct result of concerns around this pol ...[text shortened]... e final bill, yet she insists on promoting them.
Can anyone shed some light into her thinking?
The problem with having to appeal to the party members of any party is that your singing to the wings rather than the main body of the audience. In this case the traditional fiscal conservative wing which sees low taxation as the hallmark of any conservative leadership. Sunak was honest about the insanity of cutting taxes at a time of massive public spending demands which only leaves borrowing to make up the shortfall and he got soundly rejected by the membership.
05 Oct 22
@vivify saidThe problem is a imprecise definition of "earning" or "profits" I think.
I
Can anyone shed some light into her thinking?
So of course it is agreed on in capitalism, hat a company needs to make a profit (definition here: achieved income - cost).
It is also agreed that if companies make more money than they use for the production and have hope that they could sell more if the made more, will invest some of the profit to make more product. So these companies enable other companies to seel their ware and they will probably employ more people.
This (admittedly very crude) scenario says: Don't take away too much of that profit, otherwise companies won't invest.
Now with persons it is roughly the same: As long as I can just pay my bills, I can't invest. If I have leftover money (after paying all necessities) I will buy more things (making producesr and service providers happe) or I will think of a good idea and invest (in the hope of more profit).
The BIG question is now: Who wil invest how much in ow secure investments?
"save investment": I know that I won't lose the money, but profits might be low [all others also know alos that it is save]).
"high risk investment" I don't know if it succeeds 8adn there is a considerbla chance of failure, but if it succeeds the profits are big [at least to begin with]
market wisdom: all wildly succesful enterproses began as "high-risk" investments.
So the ideais: If I leave a lot of money with the very rich, they can distribute their money in a lot of "high risk" investments, will be succesful anyway in some and just shrug their shoulders on those they lose.
So: let the rich keep their money, that the whole economy suceeds.
However: even very rich people really want safety +high profits, so they actually try not to shrug their shoulder if an investment tanks, but charge it to the txes (the state should carry the risk) ...
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
05 Oct 22
@vivify saidhave you ever heard of a working person complain about a tax cut?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/uks-liz-truss-pledges-tax-cutting-future-in-speech-plagued-by-protest.html
UK’s Liz Truss pledges tax-cutting future in landmark speech plagued by protest and political infighting
British Prime Minister Liz Truss on Wednesday that cutting taxes was “the right thing to do morally and economically.”
Speaking at the Conservat ...[text shortened]... ighting and market turmoil.
“We must level up our country in a Conservative way,” she said.
05 Oct 22
@vivify saidThis reminds me of Thatcher's infamous 'Poll Tax.'
It's not often to see a politician so stubbornly cling to a policy that is wildly unpopular with both the public and their own party.
The tax cuts Liz proposed would give the largest benefits to those earning over $150,000 pounds. This, understandably, was massively unpopular, and the value of the pound took a historic plunge as a direct result of concerns around this pol ...[text shortened]... e final bill, yet she insists on promoting them.
Can anyone shed some light into her thinking?
Insights into her thinking? Truss was badly advised. Some idiot-savant economist no doubt put this theoretical fly into her ear, without regard to 'user acceptance.'
In America, this would be roundly denounced as a rehash of the infamous "trickle down theory" of economics: let the rich get richer and the economy will be fine. Who gives a damn about the poor and the middle classes.
05 Oct 22
@mott-the-hoople saidThose tax cuts were going to be funded by cutting important social programs and public services.
have you ever heard of a working person complain about a tax cut?
Working people who rely on such services would be right to complain...especially if those tax cuts benefit the rich far more than everyone else.
05 Oct 22
@moonbus saidOver and over I've heard that conservatives in the UK are not like the conservatives in America. That claim seems to be less true as time goes on, especially post Brexit, and since Boris became PM.
This reminds me of Thatcher's infamous 'Poll Tax.'
Insights into her thinking? Truss was badly advised. Some idiot-savant economist no doubt put this theoretical fly into her ear, without regard to 'user acceptance.'
In America, this would be roundly denounced as a rehash of the infamous "trickle down theory" of economics: let the rich get richer and the economy will be fine. Who gives a damn about the poor and the middle classes.
05 Oct 22
@vivify saidLoony mad nutter.
It's not often to see a politician so stubbornly cling to a policy that is wildly unpopular with both the public and their own party.
The tax cuts Liz proposed would give the largest benefits to those earning over $150,000 pounds. This, understandably, was massively unpopular, and the value of the pound took a historic plunge as a direct result of concerns around this pol ...[text shortened]... e final bill, yet she insists on promoting them.
Can anyone shed some light into her thinking?