PM Boris forms a government

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What happens if there is a significant event before then? Will this place allow discussion before then?

Andrew is not in chanrge of any discussions on this forum.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What happens if there is a significant event before then? Will this place allow discussion before then?

Hopefully, sooner rather tnan later. To exclude the subject from being debated from a current affairs forum seems perverse, but we only have ourselves to blame for constantly harking back to the same old circular arguments instead of looking forward to how we make this work.

As far as Boris is concerned, I was really impressed with his performance on Thursday in the House of Commons. I hope the sceptics on here watched that, as it should put many minds at rest in terms of his capabilities.

If you missed it, take a look on the BBC Parliament channel on the BBC i-Player. If you have any concerns about Boris, this may help to assuage them.

The refreshing thing for me was that he was able to convey his plans for moving us forward in terms of matters that have been neglected in recent times, such as police numbers and adult social care.

It should be an interesting Conservative Party Conference this year.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Hopefully, sooner rather tnan later. To exclude the subject from being debated from a current affairs forum seems perverse, but we only have ourselves to blame for constantly harking back to the same old circular arguments instead of looking forward to how we make this work.

As far as Boris is concerned, I was really impressed with his performance on Thursday in the House of Commons. I hope the sceptics on here watched that, as it should put many minds at rest in terms of his capabilities.

If you missed it, take a look on the BBC Parliament channel on the BBC i-Player. If you have any concerns about Boris, this may help to assuage them.

The refreshing thing for me was that he was able to convey his plans for moving us forward in terms of matters that have been neglected in recent times, such as police numbers and adult social care.

It should be an interesting Conservative Party Conference this year.

OB, I salute you!

Regards your "circular arguments" argument, I feel this is a more an issue of moderation than content. If someone just posts to wind people up, the post should be called out. If someone feels they have to respond to an unjust or childish post, then this should be judged in context.

I feel that Johnson should be judged by the same standards that Corbyn is/was. When Labour proposed a number of spending initiatives, they were accused of having a magic money even though (and I may be wrong on this), their proposals were independently costed. So far, Johnson has waved his arms around and promised this, that and the other with no details on how they would be funded. You must apply the same rules here.

As to his plans, so far he has just said things (his) people want to hear. Easy to say but not to do. Let's get more flesh on the bones and see how he reconciles his populist aspirations with the real world implementation.

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Andrew is not in chanrge of any discussions on this forum.

but he does, so far at least, have the ability to express an opinion

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

OB, I salute you!

Regards your "circular arguments" argument, I feel this is a more an issue of moderation than content. If someone just posts to wind people up, the post should be called out. If someone feels they have to respond to an unjust or childish post, then this should be judged in context.

I feel that Johnson should be judged by the same standards that Corbyn is/was. When Labour proposed a number of spending initiatives, they were accused of having a magic money even though (and I may be wrong on this), their proposals were independently costed. So far, Johnson has waved his arms around and promised this, that and the other with no details on how they would be funded. You must apply the same rules here.

As to his plans, so far he has just said things (his) people want to hear. Easy to say but not to do. Let's get more flesh on the bones and see how he reconciles his populist aspirations with the real world

Well, thank you for your unexpected compliment. I shall treasure that, as I think this is a massive one-off!

I don't think the comparison between Johnson and Corbyn as you set out is fair. The reason people criticise Labour spending proposals is that in the past, they have been uncosted, and following criticism on these grounds, they now clarify that they will fund their expenditure by increased taxation and printing money.

When Conservatives have spending plans they always know how they will be funded, and that's why they are not questioned so closely on their spending proposals.Many on the socialist side do not understand that increasing taxes on the rich actually reduces our prosperity.

[jfman]

Except... it’s not actually true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investo.../#3d2a9e9f7c3e

increasing taxes on the rich actually reduces our prosperity

Define "rich"?

Are you talking about wealth, income, or both, and if so, what levels?

Also, you may find this informative

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp

Tax Cuts and the Economy
It's a common belief that reducing marginal tax rates would spur economic growth. The idea is that lower tax rates will give people more after-tax income that could be used to buy more goods and services. This is a demand-side argument to support a tax reduction as an expansionary fiscal stimulus. Further, reduced tax rates could boost saving and investment, which would increase the productive capacity of the economy and productivity.

However, studies have shown that this isn't necessarily true. Data collected over 25 years by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that high income earners spend much less for every tax dollar saved, than low income earners — 86 cents versus 48 cents respectively. Further, a 65-year study by the Congressional Research Service showed that economic growth was not correlated with changes in the top marginal tax and capital gains rate. In other words, economic growth is largely unaffected by how much tax the wealthy pay. Growth is more likely to spur if lower income earners get a tax cut.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Except... it’s not actually true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investo.../#3d2a9e9f7c3e

It's complicated, and as an economist yourself, you will know this.

I will not bore forum readers with arguments about actual and desired investment levels, etc, but what I will say is that if tax reductions are accompanied by the right policies, they will have a favourable impact on the economy.

It has worked for the Conservatives in the UK before and it will do so again.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's complicated, and as an economist yourself, you will know this.

I will not bore forum readers with arguments about actual and desired investment levels, etc, but what I will say is that if tax reductions are accompanied by the right policies, they will have a favouable impact on the economy.

It has worked for the Conservatives in the UK before and it will do so again.

Please do bore us with the detail. Especially any graphs you can find to support it.

I’m not disputing a tax bribe can be politically expedient for a political party - that’s a different point altogether.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Please do bore us with the detail. Especially any graphs you can find to support it.

I’m not disputing a tax bribe can be politically expedient for a political party - that’s a different point altogether.

Recent UK history proves the point - I am not playing that game.

I know that air is breathable and sustains life because I breathe it. I don't have to prove it with scientific detail.

You may wish to, of course, but I can't be arsed with trying to prove what people already know.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Recent UK history proves the point - I am not playing that game.

I know that air is breathable and sustains life because I breathe it. I don't have to prove it with scientific detail.

You may wish to, of course, but I can't be arsed with trying to prove what people already know.

You aren't playing the game of evidencing your own posts?

People don't already know this - like trickle down economics it's an often mentioned little evidenced theory to promote reducing the state and privatising profits as opposed to seeing that reinvested into our communities or infrastructure.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Recent UK history proves the point - I am not playing that game.

I know that air is breathable and sustains life because I breathe it. I don't have to prove it with scientific detail.

You may wish to, of course, but I can't be arsed with trying to prove what people already know.

Do you mean the recent UK history where higher tax rate payers took the bonuses early to avoid the introduction of 50%higher rate, thus spiking the revenue that year and lowering it the following year? (the tax revenue went back up the following years...).

Some people "know" the Earth is flat - doesn’t make it true...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean the recent UK history where higher tax rate payers took the bonuses early to avoid the introduction of 50%higher rate, thus spiking the revenue that year and lowering it the following year? (the tax revenue went back up the following years...).

Some people "know" the Earth is flat - doesn’t make it true...

If the lowest possible rate (0%) maximised total tax payments and the highest possible rate (100%) minimised them then governments would set them all at 0%.
The truth is that the rate that maximises total tax payments is somewhere between 0% and 100%. But to continuously cut taxes won't increase the tax return as logic suggests you will end up charging no tax whatsover!

Anyway, back to previous question - what’s your definition of "rich"?

[denphone]

You will be waiting a long time for him to answer that question so perhaps this might answer your question.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15822595

[Pierre]

Being in the higher tax bracket doesn’t make you rich.

I live from month to month, use my overdraft and have nothing left for savings for myself.

I have a nice house, a nice car ( which is now 9 years old), 2 young kids that I need to save for should they go to Uni or to give them a head start.