Starmer's vision quest

[Psamathe]

Or when taxation os quietly "offset" through under-the-table deals

Reeves promised oil industry ‘quid pro quo’ over windfall tax in private meeting
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a fossil fuel company the industry would receive a “quid pro quo” in return for higher taxes on its windfall profits, it can be revealed.

In a meeting with the Norwegian state energy company Equinor on 27 August, Reeves suggested that the government’s carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) subsidies were a payoff for oil firms being hit with a higher tax rate.

No way to operate public finances.

Ian

 

[Stevo 666]

Well she isn't. She's never lived in the UK. She lives in South Africa. Her business Sygnia is in South Africa and she lives in Cape Town. The article is utter baloney. They have a UK branch which filed accounts indicating company assets of around 2 million. She is a South African Billionaire.

So why is she saying she needs to leave the UK. It is either because she is tax resident here and needs to change that, or because she is about to become tax resident based on number of days here and needs to avoid it. Either way, we lose out.

And any thoughts on the staff she has let go as a result?

Also you need to distinguish between the individual and the company.

 

[Stevo 666]

@Stevo 666, the devil's accountant. I'm guessing his mother insists on calling him Stephan and makes sure he changes his underpants every Sunday. She knows the trickle down effect is real.

Great counter argument. Keep your fingers in your ears, Bobz 😉

 

[BoldonLad]

True, but I think it would be tricky to claim he's not an experienced economist.

This is a more balanced view, but it doesn't dispel the suggestion that the Laffer Curve is (at best) simplistic bollox. All it says is that 0% or 100% taxes won't work. Well, durr.

Experienced - maybe

Reliable - not so sure (about ANY economist)

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Well, I guess he's almost up to @Ian_H's level of distinction in economics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Let's just say he's not a fan of gravity-related trickling.

I used to argue on BR that most people (general public, not forum members) do not understand basic economics. I am exactly of the opinion of Stiglitz. I was trying to explain this to someone the other day who believed in 'trickle down' nonsense. I put it that if it works then why do we have far more billionaires and millionaires than 20 years ago yet we also have the huge wealth inequality and massive disparity in earnings and living standards between the wealthiest and even 'middle earners'? The idea that the wealthiest share this wealth, or that it creates a bigger pot, or even finds its way further down the chain is rubbish. The wealthiest hoard their wealth and just earn massive interest of it which lines their pockets. When they do spend they spend on mega high value luxury items which again just gets circulated around the top 0.0000001% (figure used for effect) of the economy. The only way for their wealth to 'trickle down' is to tax them massively on it and then put this back into the public purse.

 

[briantrumpet]

Experienced - maybe

Reliable - not so sure (about ANY economist)

'The economy' has a reliable habit of doing weird things, not least because it reflects what people do, and people is weird.

But given he's got a Nobel Prize, and has had a pretty glittering career otherwise, that economist probably has better credentials than anyone on here, even Mr H.

 

[briantrumpet]

I used to argue on BR that most people (general public, not forum members) do not understand basic economics. I am exactly of the opinion of Stiglitz. I was trying to explain this to someone the other day who believed in 'trickle down' nonsense. I put it that if it works then why do we have far more billionaires and millionaires than 20 years ago yet we also have the huge wealth inequality and massive disparity in earnings and living standards between the wealthiest and even 'middle earners'? The idea that the wealthiest share this wealth, or that it creates a bigger pot, or even finds its way further down the chain is rubbish. The wealthiest hoard their wealth and just earn massive interest of it which lines their pockets. When they do spend they spend on mega high value luxury items which again just gets circulated around the top 0.0000001% (figure used for effect) of the economy. The only way for their wealth to 'trickle down' is to tax them massively on it and then put this back into the public purse.

Some people celebrated saying that they'd put their Truss tax cut bonanza into turning their central heating up. Not sure that that was going to trickle down anywhere.

 

[BoldonLad]

'The economy' has a reliable habit of doing weird things, not least because it reflects what people do, and people is weird.

But given he's got a Nobel Prize, and has had a pretty glittering career otherwise, that economist probably has better credentials than anyone on here, even Mr H.

That is a very lame excuse, worthy of a weather forecaster.

 

[briantrumpet]

That is a very lame excuse, worthy of a weather forecaster.

At least the chaos theory that is unavoidable in weather forecasting (as is implicit in the science of turbulence) doesn't involve people's illogical psychological tendencies as well. If you need evidence of that, poor people voting for Trump thinking he'd make them better off, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a prime example.)

 

[BoldonLad]

At least the chaos theory that is unavoidable in weather forecasting (as is implicit in the science of turbulence) doesn't involve people's illogical psychological tendencies as well. If you need evidence of that, poor people voting for Trump thinking he'd make them better off, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is a prime example.)

a) the bolded bit supports my premise that Economics is mostly witchcraft

b) theory, is, just that, theory, it is not a law of the universe

 

[C R]

b) theory, is, joy that, theory, it is not a law of the universe

That's manifestly incorrect. Relativity is the theory that describes how gravity and motion works. Newton's laws are corollaries of that theory for everyday physical conditions.

 

[BoldonLad]

That's manifestly incorrect. Relativity is the theory that describes how gravity and motion works. Newton's laws are corollaries of that theory for everyday physical conditions.

If you say so, I still believe Economists are snake oil sales persons.

 

[Ian H]

A writer in the Economist the other day claimed that the joy of economics was that it couldn't be reduced to laws. The perverse complexity of human behaviour stymied that.

 

[C R]

If you say so, I still believe Economists are snake oil sales persons.

One thing doesn't preclude the other.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

If you say so, I still believe Economists are snake oil sales persons.

I think there is a lot of ego associated with it. A lot of economists like to present it as all being very complicated and not comprehensible to the likes of the general masses, to both preserve their position, and to give them some kind of cover when they get it wrong.