LSE/KCL Paper on tax cuts for the rich and wealth inequality
#21
(12-23-2020, 02:28 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:03 PM)Protheroe Wrote:

The paper is very narrow in its focus on the "already wealthiest", rather than the newly wealthy or entrepreneurs where the incentives provided by lower tax are concentrated.

It also ignores the fact that the "already wealthiest" often give away substantial amounts of money, just not to the state.

And I don't have any problem with inequality. It's entirely necessary for markets to exist and thrive.


Markets are more important than people. At least you admit I suppose. Your value system is so utterly alien to me.

Nothing to say on the fact that lower taxes and regulation have no (zero, none, silch) effect on economic performance? This is a separate point to the one about inequality and rather puts the sword to your assertion that lower tax and regulation provides incentives and creates "newly wealthy" people no?

Your point about rich people giving away their money is entirely anecdotal and I shall apply Hitchen's razor. Besides, if they didn't horde wealth like jealous dragons, we as a society wouldn't need so much charity in the first place.

Who said markets are more important than people FFS? The fact that markets have lifted billions out of absolute poverty is clearly lost on you then.

The contention that lower taxes and regulation have no effect on economic performance is as ludicrous as suggesting higher taxes and more regulation don't provide a drag.

And I'm just laughing at your last point, you bitter envious thing you. Merry Christmas.
Reply
#22
(12-23-2020, 02:36 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Concede what point? Those three right wing economists advocated for the mechanisms of supply side economics and were central to their implementation in the US and UK. Supply side economics and trickle down economics are different names for the exact same thing. Are you seriously this thick?

<sigh> I thought you might be conceding the point that the Left had an incorrect perception of supply side economics, but clearly you're not.

Ah well. Christmas greetings from Tier 2.
Reply
#23
(12-23-2020, 02:42 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:36 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: Concede what point? Those three right wing economists advocated for the mechanisms of supply side economics and were central to their implementation in the US and UK. Supply side economics and trickle down economics are different names for the exact same thing. Are you seriously this thick?

<sigh> I thought you might be conceding the point that the Left had an incorrect perception of supply side economics, but clearly you're not.

Ah well. Christmas greetings from Tier 2.

I would agree that there are parts of the left that don't understand the premise of supply side economics, much as there are parts of the right that don't accept the very valid criticisms from the left on the concept of supply side economics, or even accept the very valid criticisms from other parts of the right on supply side economics.

That is entirely irrelevant to what I'm on about though so why would I care? My point is just because it's got a different name doesn't mean it isn't the same thing because trickle down economics and supply side economics are the exact same thing.
Reply
#24
(12-23-2020, 02:40 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:28 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:03 PM)Protheroe Wrote:

Who said markets are more important than people FFS? The fact that markets have lifted billions out of absolute poverty is clearly lost on you then.

The contention that lower taxes and regulation have no effect on economic performance is as ludicrous as suggesting higher taxes and more regulation don't provide a drag.

And I'm just laughing at your last point, you bitter envious thing you. Merry Christmas.

Hmmmmn who's opinion shall I believe? Supremely qualified academics and lecturers at renowned universities Dr David Hope and Dr Julian Limberg or professional Internet arsehole Protheroe. It IS a toughie...

Feel free to laugh. The 280,000 homeless in the UK and 4.2 million children living in poverty aren't laughing. Are they bitter, envious things? I'm sure you think they should all just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I don't want anything for MYSELF so I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be envious of.

You don't live in the real world and I'm not sure you ever have.
Reply
#25
(12-23-2020, 02:55 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: I don't want anything for MYSELF so I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be envious of. 

You don't live in the real world and I'm not sure you ever have.

Chammy, the concept of "I'm doing fine, thanks, I just wish the same could be said for quite a few others" is hardly complicated, but it can be a difficult one for some to grasp.

Hagley is a real place, by the way - it's just in a different tier time zone. On final approach you have to remember to set your watch back to 1950.

Merry Christmas.
Reply
#26
(12-23-2020, 02:55 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: who's opinion shall I believe? Supremely qualified academics and lecturers at renowned universities Dr David Hope and Dr Julian Limberg or professional Internet arsehole Protheroe.

The opinion doesn't matter. The research is based wholly on the 1% richest, which ignores the incentive effects of tax cuts for the newly rich, aspiring rich and entreprenuers.

I'm sorry for being an arsehole and pointing that out, but very well qualified academics are capable of disingenuous and meaningless research.
Reply
#27
(12-24-2020, 11:08 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:55 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: who's opinion shall I believe? Supremely qualified academics and lecturers at renowned universities Dr David Hope and Dr Julian Limberg or professional Internet arsehole Protheroe.

The opinion doesn't matter. The research is based wholly on the 1% richest, which ignores the incentive effects of tax cuts for the newly rich, aspiring rich and entreprenuers.

I'm sorry for being an arsehole and pointing that out, but very well qualified academics are capable of disingenuous and meaningless research.

ChamonixBaggie, I have long-stopped debating with this guy as there is no point. He does not believe in evidence-based policy. He has a set of beliefs (like much of the ERG) that are like a religion. Once he is confronted with arguments that defeat him (not hard to do), he sets up a strawman or "plays the man" so to speak. There is no point trying to convince him as he always has an answer for everything. The sad thing is, is that his views are incredibly powerful and are backed by serious money (IEA for example). You are better off not bothering to engage with it. The only way you can defeat these ultra libertarians is by having a credible Labour government and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Whenever there is an economic crisis, the right play the immigration card and it usually wins.

It is now important that the Labour Party try to play the Tories at their own game. The Tory's did a magnificent job of blaming the Global Financial Crisis on the Labour Party. It was cynical and disingenuous. The Labour Party now need to adopt a similar disingenuous strategy: "The Tories create Death and Debt". It's bullshit, but I guess that's politics.
Reply
#28
(12-26-2020, 04:44 PM)Logic1 Wrote:
(12-24-2020, 11:08 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 02:55 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: who's opinion shall I believe? Supremely qualified academics and lecturers at renowned universities Dr David Hope and Dr Julian Limberg or professional Internet arsehole Protheroe.

The opinion doesn't matter. The research is based wholly on the 1% richest, which ignores the incentive effects of tax cuts for the newly rich, aspiring rich and entreprenuers.

I'm sorry for being an arsehole and pointing that out, but very well qualified academics are capable of disingenuous and meaningless research.

ChamonixBaggie, I have long-stopped debating with this guy as there is no point. He does not believe in evidence-based policy. He has a set of beliefs (like much of the ERG) that are like a religion. Once he is confronted with arguments that defeat him (not hard to do), he sets up a strawman or "plays the man" so to speak. There is no point trying to convince him as he always has an answer for everything. The sad thing is, is that his views are incredibly powerful and are backed by serious money (IEA for example). You are better off not bothering to engage with it. The only way you can defeat these ultra libertarians is by having a credible Labour government and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Whenever there is an economic crisis, the right play the immigration card and it usually wins.

It is now important that the Labour Party try to play the Tories at their own game. The Tory's did a magnificent job of blaming the Global Financial Crisis on the Labour Party. It was cynical and disingenuous. The Labour Party now need to adopt a similar disingenuous strategy: "The Tories create Death and Debt". It's bullshit, but I guess that's politics.

He worships at the alter of Steve Baker.
Reply
#29
(12-26-2020, 04:44 PM)Logic1 Wrote: having a credible Labour government and that isn't going to happen anytime soon

Crikey, I agree with Logic.

(12-26-2020, 06:07 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: He worships at the alter of Steve Baker.

You appear to have a fixation about this. I happen to believe he speaks a lot of sense. Particularly about the concept of sound money, of which you have don't appear to have an opinion.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}