Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

So your reasoning for people (/me) not thinking like the majority of people in this country think, is that HE has stopped teaching people to think critically, and were the ones trapped in groupthink?

My only response is :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Also, keep your opinions of my education to yourself. You dont know me. How unbelievably rude when the vast majority of things being discussed here are highly subjective.

so what did you study and which university did you attend? whats your profession?

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im well aware of the laffer curve, but the rate of tax that causes a decrease in revenue is very much open to debate. Before anyone mentions about the increase in receipts after the decrease in corporation tax, thats because companys deferred profits to take advantage. As for income tax, i call BS on the idea that people will move to avoid paying more tax, people are reluctant to move away from family and friends, and the area in which theyve settled. Thats why when individual US states have increased tax relative to neighbouring states, there isnt some mass exodus.

The laffer curve has its place in economic theory to examine a relationship, but in terms of government and policy, its just an excuse used by politicians to avoid taxing the rich.

Dennis Healey was the Chancellor who promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He raised the top rate of income tax to 83% and other taxes on dividends brought the rate up to 98%. The rich left the country so paid no tax at all. Classic example of the Laffer Curve in action. It's more than just a theory.

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

Much, much more than you will ever know.

You'll have to excuse my scepticism of your claim. If whatever you did is so personal then why did you think it appropriate to ask me what I do, if you share the same? It undermines any argument you might have... The words put up or shut up come to mind.

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

Dennis Healey was the Chancellor who promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. He raised the top rate of income tax to 83% and other taxes on dividends brought the rate up to 98%. The rich left the country so paid no tax at all. Classic example of the Laffer Curve in action. It's more than just a theory.

I never said tax could go indefinitely higher without consequences, but if were taljjng about adding, 5-10pc to the top rate, youre not going to see a mass exodus.

Do you have any sources about the rich leaving the country is response? Ive not read about such a clear cut example before.

ukcarper

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im not saying the baby boomers have taken personal decisions to screw over their own children. But consecutive governments, both lab and con, have failed to invest in future generations. This has happened when the baby boomers are the largest bloc of votes, and they're pandered to by governments and have been for decades. Theyve voted for people offering short term gain, and haven't demanded the same social investment that their own parents did, as evidenced by creation of the NHS, building council housing and clearing slums, the welfare state etc.

What should they have done differently? If you're selling off social housing, replacing it should have been a fairly obvious necessity. Retaining state assets like most advanced economies do, not flogging off to the private sector at every opportunity (i.e. Selling the family silver). Ive mentioned about Norways use of oil revenue to create a sovereign wealth fund while Thatcher spent north sea oil revenue on tax cuts. Speaking of thatcher, back in the 70s and 80s it was clear this country needed to be able to upskill and retrain people, here we are 30 years later and we still don't nvest sufficiently in skills, even with many European neighbours with excellent systems we could have learned from.

Need i go on? Dont get me wrong, hindsight is a great thing, but where are the things the boomers invested in for society that were well intentioned but didnt pan out? I dont see anything like that either. Perhaps it has something to do with the self centred 'no such thing as society' bs of thatcher and her ilk. Lets hope that attitude dies out with the boomers, do we really want to be like the US?!

Have things change Labours vote increased in the last election mainly with young voters and their policies would have done nothing to help younger voters in the long term.

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

so what did you study and which university did you attend? whats your profession?

Its not any of your business, I dont really want to divulge every detail about my life on a public forum. Suffice to say I have a 1st class BSc (i.e. Maths based, not arts) with a research component, a UK top 50 uni. I work in a commercial function that has a chartered professional body (and im working towards chartered)

Take it or leave it thats as much as im willing to share on the matter.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

They typically want to start families before reaching their 50s too. But its okay, if we all wait long enough we can enjoy the final quarter or third of our lives once we inherit. Just gotta slug on a few more decades!

Plenty inherit in their 20s and 30s

But even if you inherit in your 40s and 50s its surely a huge help to you. You can either directly pass it down to your kids while they are in their 20s or you can keep the house and rent it out and give your kids the house in 20 years time + 20 years of rent :T

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Its not any of your business, I dont really want to divulge every detail about my life on a public forum. Suffice to say I have a 1st class BSc (i.e. Maths based, not arts) with a research component, a UK top 50 uni. I work in a commercial function that has a chartered professional body (and im working towards chartered)

Take it or leave it thats as much as im willing to share on the matter.

it matters, as university makes a big difference to a young persons views.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

I never said tax could go indefinitely higher without consequences, but if were taljjng about adding, 5-10pc to the top rate, youre not going to see a mass exodus.

Do you have any sources about the rich leaving the country is response? Ive not read about such a clear cut example before.

Tax avoidance would go up
People would retire sooner
More non working high income People would leave the UK (lots of people have passive income eg pensions shares property)
More incomes would be shifted to capital gains

Also importantly income tax brings in about what £150B a year.
You would need to increase everyones income taxes by 1/3rd just to cover the deficit.
So the 20% band would become 26% and the 40% band would become 53% and the 45% band would become 60%. Of course there will be economic too now that everyone has less money to spend or save.

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

You'll have to excuse my scepticism of your claim. If whatever you did is so personal then why did you think it appropriate to ask me what I do, if you share the same? It undermines any argument you might have... The words put up or shut up come to mind.

I refer you to your answer at #3481.