Comments by "Greg Greg" (@SlowhandGreg) on "Jeremy Hunt's economic plan 'is completely WRONG' | Former Brexit Party MEP Ben Habib" video.

The gilt market nearly collapsed we have >100% debt to gdp with zero signs of growth Your typical tax cut costs the treasury and doesn't stimulate the economy for example the Banker tax cut in the April budget of 8 billion will generate around 2.4 billion in additional taxation so a net loss of5.6 billion to the treasury
8
He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about You can't cut taxes we have a debt to gdp ratio of > 100% and the people buying Gilts think the Brexit Ultra's are talking out of their arse over growth Before anyone starts banging on about Labour here are some facts 2010 gdp ratio 62% 2019 gdp ratio 92% due to the Cameron corporate tax cuts which didn't stimulate growth and went straight on the uk credit card 2023 we have less people in full time employment than in 2019 the economy has shrunk in real terms since then accounting for inflation economists predict it should be +10% which = around 80 billion in lost tax revenues if we where still in the single market and had FOM
3
@mn5499 from the ONS UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022, equivalent to 101.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) It's due to peak at 106 in 2023
2
You can't cut taxes we have a debt to gdp ratio of > 100% and the people buying Gilts think the Brexit Ultra's are talking out of their arse over growth Before anyone starts banging on about Labour here are some facts 2010 gdp ratio 62% 2019 gdp ratio 92% due to the Cameron corporate tax cuts which didn't stimulate growth and went straight on the uk credit card 2023 we have less people in full time employment than in 2019 the economy has shrunk in real terms since then accounting for inflation economists predict it should be +10% which = around 80 billion in lost tax revenues if we where still in the single market and had FOM
2
@mn5499 mine are from the Office for Budgetry Responsibility and are the ones quoted in the financial papers
1
@mn5499 do what you want it makes no odds the Tories have screwed up the economy that badly no one will lend them extra for thier brain dead tax cut guff
1
@mn5499 the main problem was the. Tories ran up the debt to pay for tax cuts. 2010 it was 62% by 2019 it was 92% During the Blair years we had +25% growth in average wages Cameron /May - 3% Current clown car bunch God knows Saying no one could do better is churlish could anyone have done as bad?
1
@mn5499 the economic data shows following Brown's plan would have lead to 15% increase in growth and wages from 2010 to 2019 what we had was Austerity pulling well over 100 billion out of the economy at a time it needed stimulating flatlinig the economy into now its second decade of Tory stagnation. Every £1 spent by the government has an economic multiplier as it goes into the economy it starts a cycle of tax spend and increased economic activity resulting in the overall cost to the Treasury in the case of Austerity of 20p in the £1 I'm not interested in the red team blue team I just care about my pay packet and services supply side economics aka Thatcherism doesn't work as an economist we have half a decade of data proving it and debunking the low tax myth. You don't get growth and you do get low wages and an ever widening pay gap.
1
@mn5499 who spun you the yarn the Treasury gets more when taxes are low? The nock off point is somewhere round 60-65% on top rate income tax and 45% on corporate tax The reason you have corporate tax at around 30% is to encourage investment in the businesses dynamic growth and high tech businesses continously reinvest they never pay corporation taxes that leaves the cash cows to lumber on they don't have much growth and there is zero reason to give them a tax break in fact by doing so the stop investing ways in ways to improve productivity and pull more and more money out of the businesses in stock buy back and shareholder dividends. Politically I'm as moderate as they come in my lifetime we've had a couple of left wing governments in Wilson and Callaghn with Blaire being the Centerist of centerists Thatcher and Cameron both signed up to supply side economics as does Sunak now Supply Side just doesn't work Thatcher got away with it by asset stripping and oil money to fund tax cuts Cameron tried Austerity and tax cuts plus deregulation where he could and completely stagnated the economy which is why income and sales taxes are at record levels. Corporate tax take as a proportion of overall taxes has fallen since the Thatcher era.
1
@mn5499 he's from the Chicago school everything they pushed with neoliberalism has been debunked by over half a decade of data Read Paul Krugman - Arguing with Zombies There's a couple of podcasts on political economics you should try by Origin Story Neoliberalism : Everything's for sale Centerism : Stuck in the Middle with You As i pointed out Thatcher got Neliberal economics to work on the back of asset stripping Oil and Globalisation When Cameron/ May tried it we had a decade of stagnation and worse just to keep it from going into recession they allowed a rampant unregulated gig economy to emerge creating millions of low paid jobs wich resulted in millions of EU low paid migrants. Truss as part of her so called growth plan was going to open the floodgates to migrant workers from the Indian sub continent We have nothing to sell off Globalisation is going into reverse and the bulk of the Gammons don't want mass migration so how the feck can you run a low tax economy when reducing the state means reducing the services that the workers in the low wage economy you've created depend on them?
1
@mn5499 and Krugman got a Nobel prize in economics and he says its bollox There's no data that shows this if you drop corporate tax as the US did in 2017 and we did in 2015 it just goes onto public debt neither tax giveaways created squat both stored up future inflationary pressures. Aside from that you're not going to get away with mass immigration to get supply side any where near working
1
@mn5499 no there isn't I presume your a millionaire Quote "Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment. Quote Start with the economy. Over the course of the neoliberal era, economies around the world have become more and more unequal. In the United States, the wealthiest 1 percent took home about 8.5 percent of the national income in 1976. After a generation of neoliberal policies, in 2014 they captured more than 20 percent of national income. In Britain, the top 1 percent captured more than 14 percent of national income—more than double the amount they took home in the late 1970s. The story is the same in Australia: The top 1 percent took about 5 percent of national income in the 1970s and doubled that to 10 percent by the late 2000s. As the rich get richer, wages have been stagnant for workers since the late 1970s. Between 1979 and 2008, 100 percent of income growth in the U.S. went to the top 10 percent of Americans. The bottom 90 percent actually saw a decline in their income.
1
@mn5499 he's a Libertarian the answer to everything is tax cuts and a smaller state Krugman debunked every part of his work with decades of real data The partial quote I showed you was of a complete study of 50 years of Neoliberal Supply side economic policy. Responsibile for the Asian financial crash and the 2008 Banking crisis due to overzealous deregulation Responsibile for lowering wages for low and stagnating wages for the middle class Responsibile for the increase in corporate Oligoplies suppressing competition increasing prices for normal consumers. And now responsible for the second decade in a row of the UK stagflation Its a completely and utterly failed economic philosophy with the receipts to prove it
1
@mn5499 1 out of 100 economists tells you that tax cuts are the economic nirvana, we have an accumulated 50 years of data showing that the 1 is wrong yet your belief system in Libertarian ideals are so strong you block it out. The Chicago school has been debunked on again and again dunked on multiple times and shown its wrong yet still it rises like a zombie why because it suits large corporations and the ultra wealthy who pedal this shyte, they pour billions into think tanks and academics to get a foothold of legitimacy it's no different to the pro smoking lobby or the anti climate change crew. Vested interests spinning you a half believable yarn that tries to cloak itself in legitimacy. The only low tax models that even half work are propped up by oil money and are as corrupt as fk aka The Saudis Russia etc Go listen to Neoliberalism Everything's for sale to understand why any of it even gets a smidgen of traction its junk economics at its worst
1
@mn5499 Given you've been banging on about Sowell's figures I went an looked at the iconic birth of NeoLiberalism the Reagan Era. The first thing is Reagan's big tax cuts in 1981 didn't create more revenue and were quickly followed by tax hikes in 82 83 84 and 87 Inflation at the time was running at over 10% with interest rates reaching their peak in August 81 at 20.5%. The Reagan era also saw a huge increase in the US deficit to pay for both the tax cuts and the expansion of defence spending. Both tax cuts and government spending have what's called an economic multiplier in relation to tax cuts that's regarded by Fed Committee for budgeting to return around 20 cents in the Dollar. The economic multiplier for spending varies infrastructure projects will in general pay for themselves and the huge cash injection into defence spending and the economy coupled with a reduction in interest rates where key factors in US economic growth. So Sowell's 2+2 = tax cut still doesn't work
1
@mn5499 I read the rationale behind his general thesis and checked the Regan era numbers The issue is if you pump 1 trillion into an economy you'll get tax growth no matter what you do with tax rates and bands, Reagan just kicked the can down the road Same as Cameron in 2015 and Trump 2017 all ran up huge deficits pumping money into the economy. Deregulation lead to the Asian crash then the Global crash in 2008 If you look at the Trump tax cuts it generated a huge Sugar high for the stock market and he ended up doubling the Federal debt again by pumping money into the economy we see now the Nasdaq 33% down on its inflated high and inflation biting into the US economy. Biden is pumping 3/4 of a Trillion into it to transition from fossil this will again start the tax spend merry-go-round. I admire you for your zeal but tax cuts dont do what Sowell says its a far more complex picture and the one thing we know for certain is if you pump money into an economy it starts a merry-go-round of tax and spend good old Keynsian theory at its finest. Its also worth noting that the US is a collaboration of 50 differing state economies and has a huge amount of oil and gas production. You also need to disconect from the 70's/80's the higher tax rates in the US and UK where insane the data I've seen shows a reversal at round 60% if your a higher rate payer 50 + NI is around the cealing for the uk With round 100% debt to gdp in the uk the gilt market isn't going to loan you money for tax cuts that return pennies in the pound as Truss found out Lastly I'll get round to reading Sowell in full at some stage but I've been through stuff on the Chicago school before it was way too thin on its macroeconomic cause and effect and has been widely debunked by Krugman and others Finally Libertarian neoliberalism is a complete dead end its focus on self rather than community has multiple downsides even apart from the burgeoning wealth gap or the minimum wage economy and associated poverty and corporate capture plus oligopoly
1
Wind is the cheapest on the grid by a huge margin why wouldn't you expand that 1st onshore has a lead time of 1/2 years nuclear is around 7 as is fossil exploration
1