Any (post 2008) Economists in the house? - Inflation.

[Jacob]

unfortunately simplistic ideological models don’t fit reality.

Actually they do! This is why they are so frantically anxious to persuade you otherwise. Don't believe what they are telling you Robin, it's a lie

....

I know trickle down theory doesn’t work on a macro level, but it certainly works on a local level.

If a multi millionaire moved in to a grade II listed manor and got a local joinery shop to make £100k worth of windows……that joiner would benefit from trickle down.

If a multi millionaire paid tax instead of building himself a palace, those same joiners could have been paid to build council housing better homes for 100s of other people. Perhaps allowing the multimillionaire to have a bigger one with a double garage.
Roll on simplistic pragmatic models!
You use the term "ideological" but in a meaningless sense - it's part of the right wing propaganda you've picked up over the years. Don't believe what they are telling you they just want to hang on to their wealth. "They" are the problem worldwide - worse than any plague.
No coincidence that most "historic" houses have slavery somewhere in their history, in many cases the wealth came entirely from slavery. There is a battle currently over spelling out their colonial history in National Trust and other properties. Conservatives are trying to persuade us that it is "re-writing" history but they are just concerned to suppress the truth.
Trickle down theory does work but the best way to make sure it happens is through taxation. More pull down than trickle down.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200724-colonial-countryside-facing-up-to-britains-murky-past

 

[RobinBHM]

Actually they do! This is why they are so frantically anxious to persuade you otherwise. Don't believe what they are telling you Robin, it's a lie

socialism doesnt work and cant work because of globalisation and the digital age.

the UK doesnt have the power to control global corporations who can move to the lowest tax location.

you might not like it but that the truth.




here is a simple failure of your "simplistic arguments work":



£15 an hour minimum wage

it wont wont benefit the poor because many businesses wont be able to afford to pay the extra, so the poor will lose jobs

those businesses that can pay the extra will pass it on to their customers....so the poor will pay more for stuff



and that just proves simplistic socialist arguments fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.

 

[RobinBHM]

If a multi millionaire paid tax instead of building himself a palace

false choice argument

no, the multi millionaire moved to a different country....it was too high in the UK, Mr Corbyn put taxes up too high.

the joiner got no work

another simplistic socialist argument fallen apart

 

[RobinBHM]

I actually agree trickle down theory is a lie, but its far more complex than you accept.

you need to push yourself to understand the detail instead of relying on socialist utopian dreams

 

[RobinBHM]

If the Grade II listed Manor was bought by public money, throughly renovated to become a well equipped and well run care home a lot more people would benefit for a much longer time. That would be a good ROI.

its a good point

sadly the reality is the conservation officers would refuse it to be converted so the manor would just fall into disrepair

there have been numerous listed manor houses that property developers tried to convert to apratments, but the council refused the conversion or made onerous conditions.

 

[sploo]

socialism doesnt work and cant work because of globalisation and the digital age.

the UK doesnt have the power to control global corporations who can move to the lowest tax location.

Therein lies the problem to solve; prevent corporations from draining money from a country in which they're making a profit (into low tax locations via tax avoidance schemes).

Surely it could be possible for a nation's government to make it illegal for a business to operate in their country whilst that business has assets registered elsewhere for the purposes of tax avoidance? Easier said than done, granted, but perhaps it's a solution that wouldn't require world-wide agreement.

The issue I have is the large corporations benefiting from the services provided in a country via taxation (e.g. roads, healthcare and education for employees, police, fire service etc.) but then siphoning the profit they make out of that country; effectively eating a meal at restaurant and then leaving others to pick up the tab.

I guess my question is: would the likes of Apple or Amazon or Starbucks leave the UK market entirely if they were forced to pay a fair tax rate on the profit they make in the UK? My guess is they would stay - as they'd still be making huge sums of money.

 

[Jacob]

.....

I guess my question is: would the likes of Apple or Amazon or Starbucks leave the UK market entirely if they were forced to pay a fair tax rate on the profit they make in the UK? My guess is they would stay - as they'd still be making huge sums of money.

They'd stay - they couldn't take their customers with them.
Actually Amazon or Starbucks wouldn't be missed there are plenty of others waiting to full their shoes. Is Apple any different? Probably not, there are hardly any places on earth where mobile phones and the internet are not available.

 

[Jacob]

I actually agree trickle down theory is a lie, but its far more complex than you accept.

you need to push yourself to understand the detail instead of relying on socialist utopian dreams

You need to wake up Robin!

 

[sploo]

They'd stay - they can't take their customers with them.
Actually Amazon or Starbucks wouldn't be missed there are plenty of others waiting to full their shoes. Is Apple any different? Probably not, there are hardly any places on earth where mobile phones and the internet are not available.

I think it was Warren Buffett that made the point that investors aren't put off by taxation (in the sense that they'd rather make a million and pay half a mil in tax, than not make anything). The problem with the current international tax system is that large corporations can make that mil and not pay the half a mil in tax; thus leaving everyone else to pick up the bill.

 

[RobinBHM]

You need to wake up Robin!

No its you, it really is you.

 

[RobinBHM]

Therein lies the problem to solve; prevent corporations from draining money from a country in which they're making a profit (into low tax locations via tax avoidance schemes).

Surely it could be possible for a nation's government to make it illegal for a business to operate in their country whilst that business has assets registered elsewhere for the purposes of tax avoidance? Easier said than done, granted, but perhaps it's a solution that wouldn't require world-wide agreement.

The issue I have is the large corporations benefiting from the services provided in a country via taxation (e.g. roads, healthcare and education for employees, police, fire service etc.) but then siphoning the profit they make out of that country; effectively eating a meal at restaurant and then leaving others to pick up the tab.

I guess my question is: would the likes of Apple or Amazon or Starbucks leave the UK market entirely if they were forced to pay a fair tax rate on the profit they make in the UK? My guess is they would stay - as they'd still be making huge sums of money.

the problem is that it is business that carry global power now, not politicians

in fact so powerful that Johnson went to meet Bezos whilst in USA.



It is a major problem to solve, something the socialists like Jacob dont address, nor even recognise.

the money in the UK comes from London -thats where a major part of tax revenue is created, so they call the shots.

its not right, but its what it is.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There are real stresses between dogmatic and pragmatic arguments.

Dogma is usually defined as a belief or set of beliefs that people are EXPECTED to accept. Political dogma tends to define a set of beliefs by reference to moral and ethical considerations which SHOULD drive behaviours, policies and actions.

Pragmatism deals with circumstances as they ACTUALLY are. It would be a happy coincidence were the two were completely aligned - it is surprising they are soetimes even close.

Moral and ethical issues are rightly an important part of policy, but it seems self delusional to assert that pragmatism is somehow aligned to dogma despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Pragmatism is an expression of what DOES work, dogma is that we may PREFER to work.

 

[Jacob]

.......It is a major problem to solve, something the socialists like Jacob dont address, nor even recognise.

.........

Interesting how you've completely inverted the truth.
How would you solve it?

 

[sploo]

the problem is that it is business that carry global power now, not politicians

in fact so powerful that Johnson went to meet Bezos whilst in USA.



It is a major problem to solve, something the socialists like Jacob dont address, nor even recognise.

the money in the UK comes from London -thats where a major part of tax revenue is created, so they call the shots.

its not right, but its what it is.

Indeed. I guess the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Russian businessmen, so that is an extreme example.

Until political leaders are effectively forced by the electorate into not being owned by big business there will be no incentive for them to tackle the problem of wide scale tax avoidance. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[RobinBHM]

Indeed. I guess the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Russian businessmen, so that is an extreme example.

Until political leaders are effectively forced by the electorate into not being owned by big business there will be no incentive for them to tackle the problem of wide scale tax avoidance. I'm not holding my breath.

the UK has a broken political system.

party donations, lobbying, privatised contracts going to mates etc etc enables the wealthy to influence policy
and the govt effectively control the media

its a failure of democracy, but its how things are currently, so any opposition party has to play by the existing rules -which is why no socialist party will win, however good their intentions are.

its grim really.

 

[RobinBHM]

There are real stresses between dogmatic and pragmatic arguments.

Dogma is usually defined as a belief or set of beliefs that people are EXPECTED to accept. Political dogma tends to define a set of beliefs by reference to moral and ethical considerations which SHOULD drive behaviours, policies and actions.

Pragmatism deals with circumstances as they ACTUALLY are. It would be a happy coincidence were the two were completely aligned - it is surprising they are soetimes even close.

Moral and ethical issues are rightly an important part of policy, but it seems self delusional to assert that pragmatism is somehow aligned to dogma despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Pragmatism is an expression of what DOES work, dogma is that we may PREFER to work.

this goes to the heart of the dilemma of politics.

does a politician
1) have policies which would be best for the country
or
2) choose policies that will win elections.

the public may claim they want honest politicians, but they vote for option 2

 

[RobinBHM]

Interesting how you've completely inverted the truth.
How would you solve it?

Labour need to find themselves a Dominic Cummings.

and have one single strategy: win power, win power, win power

and when they are in, ditch their manifesto and start doing what they want -maybe some of your socialist policies like renationalisation.

 

[sploo]

Labour need to find themselves a Dominic Cummings.

and have one single strategy: win power, win power, win power

and when they are in, ditch their manifesto and start doing what they want -maybe some of your socialist policies like renationalisation.

Funnily enough I was having a similar conversation with some very pro-Labour (anti-Starmer) friends recently. My suggestion was that Labour need a Boris; get an entertaining clown in charge, amuse the people, get the votes, then (in theory, probably not in reality) put in place policies to actually help the people. I mean, it's not like your actual policies need to bear any resemblance to your campaign promises these days, so it'd be nothing new.

That said, I suspect if the Sun et al. had even the slightest sniff that your party might be planning something honourable once in power (i.e. not accepting the big business coin) they'd crucify said clown in print and on TV.

 

[Spectric]

All these economic issues could be solved if there was the will to do so, a big problem is that for many motivation is directly linked to wealth and surpasses the need to only have enough to live comfortable and not to excess which is at the expense of others. So apply the law of diminishing returns, rather than just a crude taxation system have one that incentifies companies to more evenly share the profits and have more tax breaks than just 20, 40 & 45%, have a wider range and no tax free allowance but start at 5% and upto £30K it is 15% but above £60K starts to increment slow but sure. Can anyone really justify a wage packet in excess of £300K, if all earnings above this were evenly distributed amongst all other workers pay then poverty would drop drastically.

I may be biased because wealth has never been a big motivator for me, never could understand why someone who has reached the million just goes back to work because they want another, knowledge and achievment have kept me going, and woodwork can really provide the up's and downs and it is a good feeling when you can look at what you have made or done, much better than looking at financial gain.

 

[Jameshow]

Labour need to find themselves a Dominic Cummings.

and have one single strategy: win power, win power, win power

and when they are in, ditch their manifesto and start doing what they want -maybe some of your socialist policies like renationalisation.

They did Alistair Campbell!

They were centerist though so nothing changed.

Cheers James