Political Crossfire Forums

[Jajo]

bury wrote: Reason wrote: Quote: i disagree with that completely and i can pretty comfortably say the majority of the public is with me on that.

The majority of the British public also believe in imprisonment without trial for 90 days (3 months), and probably a lot longer going by how big the majority is. The vast majority of the Australian population supported ID cards before people argued against it's illiberality.....then they swung completely the other way.

The same must be done for government spending.

Quote: Cameron can pledge to slowdown the rate of spending and cut waste but that's all.

No, he must make the case for less government otherwise it will continue to grow and we will sink further into tyranny.

Quote: if the Cameron vows to cut funding to public services they will LOSE the next election and i thought the conservatives were tired of losing.

Not if he makes the case clearly. One does not need to follow polls to be elected (though that's an option), one can also win the debate and change the polls. It's called having principles and aiming for a better, brighter, freer future.

it would take a leader with super human abilities of persuasion to convince the public that cutting public services is a good idea (because it isn't)

the Conservatives need to attract new voters, a lot of new voters and their not going to get those votes with an ultra-rightwing agenda. infact they'd probably lose a lot of the moderate conservative votes and do even worse that last time.

Rubish do the Tories need 'alot' of new voters they just need them in the right place.

Labour - 9,562,122
Tory - 8,772,598
Difference = 789,524

that is not alot of voters (and yes that i a simple way of looking at it and yes i know we use first past to post but it shows it was still a close race) it is very close to the number UKIP got.....

[Pebble]

Could someone provide some actual figures (projections) for why cutting taxes and spending would help the economy?

[Robin Hood]

There are a million arguments: how much work do people do with 100% tax? (none) So can we assume that people work more the lower the tax - effectively the higher their wages - yes. What happens when a budget deficit occurs? The government borrows, when it borrows it s*cks up private investment - the type that makes money avaliable to start up companies. This further reduces long term growth.

THe simple fact, also, is that productivity rises much faster int he private sector then the public, increase it as a percentage of the economy, and you have faster gwoing productivity.

[Sparse1]

Reason wrote:
Well they will choose how to spend their money, their money will thus be more valuable to them.

No, if you have more money then each unit is, by definition, less valuable to you.

Reason wrote:
Thus they will work more to make more of it.

Why??? Surely it is logical that the less money you have then the more you will want to work?? You are also presuming that most people are paid by the hour; they aren't, they are salaried (particularly in higher income backets).

Reason wrote:
Also there will be more in the private sector, generally, the sector that gives us long term economic growth.

It won't be our Private Sector though, it would just ramp up the Balance of Payments deficit as more imports come in. The only way this could possibly benefit the British economy is either massive external tariffs (resulting in huge inflation and everybody being worse off), if companies can then slash wages so that they can compete internationally, or if Capitalist economics suddenly vanishes into thin air, and people stop trying to maximise economic value.

Reason wrote: There are a million arguments: how much work do people do with 100% tax? (none) So can we assume that people work more the lower the tax - effectively the higher their wages - yes.

That is only a logical argument if you are saying that faced with a 0% tax rate people would then work 24 hours a day. There is an equilibrium point where people are either not willing to work any more hours, the net-benefit of more work makes it not viable, or non-economic pressures make more work not viable - you aren't dealing with standard Demand & Supply curves. You are also completely ignoring inflation, international competition and social factors.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: No, if you have more money then each unit is, by definition, less valuable to you.

By definition? It could be much more valuable.....if I'm going to die immdeiately, and treatment cost $10,000, but have $9000, the money isuseless, if I have another $1000 then the money is extremely useful.

There is no such definition, you are trying to define what is valuable to people through objective measurements....
Quote:
Why??? Surely it is logical that the less money you have then the more you will want to work?? You are also presuming that most people are paid by the hour; they aren't, they are salaried (particularly in higher income backets).


If I offer you $1 to go for a 10km run, would you? If I offered you $1 million, would you? An income tax lowers income. It is the same as if wages were lower.
Quote:
It won't be our Private Sector though, it would just ramp up the Balance of Payments deficit as more imports come in.

And? Anyway, alot of the money would be used for private investement and the like. If it was spent on imports then money would be more valuable to people as they would gain more from it, thus making them want to earn more.

Quote: The only way this could possibly benefit the British economy is either massive external tariffs

That would never benefit the British economy....
Quote:
if companies can then slash wages so that they can compete internationally

Which they could do, if the workers accepted it. Then the prices of the goods would fall, so the real amount that workers would be paid would increase, and the balance of payments deficit would become a surplus - everybody in Britian wins. It's what Ireland ahs been doing for a while now, and has gone from practically third world farm economy to having a higher GDP per capita than Britian.

Quote: There is an equilibrium point where people are either not willing to work any more hours, the net-benefit of more work makes it not viable, or non-economic pressures make more work not viable - you aren't dealing with standard Demand & Supply curves. You are also completely ignoring inflation, international competition and social factors.

This is unsubstantiated. First, since not all people in the UK are full time employed, we can assume that if labour costs decreased more people would be employed. Second, it is not just about turning up to work, but working hard and caring. Striving to do one's job very well. There may be other factors, but these one's make a difference, and the existence of other factors does not negate them.

[Sparse1]

Reason wrote:
There is no such definition, you are trying to define what is valuable to people through objective measurements....

The principle that if there is more of something available then the value of it falls is perhaps the most basic concept in Economics. If there is more money available to be spent then it's value falls thus meaning that the 'price' of goods in currency terms, rises - this is called inflation.

Reason wrote:
If I offer you $1 to go for a 10km run, would you? If I offered you $1 million, would you?


If I needed the $1 then yes I would, and your $1 million point is irrelevent. The point is more that if I offer you 1$ to go for a 10km run, would you?? If I offered you $1.20, would you?? There is a point where you wouldn't!!!!!!

Reason wrote:
Anyway, alot of the money would be used for private investement and the like.

So you want dramatically increased interest rates too??? Or are we just presuming that everyone will suddenly decide to invest in the city rather than buy the best value material objects that they can. Perhaps we are presuming that people are all fairly well off in the first place.

Reason wrote:
If it was spent on imports then money would be more valuable to people as they would gain more from it, thus making them want to earn more .

Draw a Demand curve and a Supply curve on the same axis. Trace up an increase demand and see what happens to prices. Paying more for the same goods means that the 'value' of money has fallen..

Quote:
Which they could do, if the workers accepted it. Then the prices of the goods would fall, so the real amount that workers would be paid would increase, and the balance of payments deficit would become a surplus - everybody in Britian wins.

That is the complete opposite to your entire argument.

Quote:
This is unsubstantiated.

Capitalist economics is unsubstantiated????

Quote: First, since not all people in the UK are full time employed, we can assume that if labour costs decreased more people would be employed.

Why are labour costs being reduced??? Your argument was that, "money would be more valuable to people as they would gain more from it". If you just want to enable companies to lower costs then there are far simpler ways of doing it.

Quote:
Second, it is not just about turning up to work, but working hard and caring. Striving to do one's job very well.

What does that have to do with anything??? If people hate their jobs, then how is a government led tax cut going to make a difference??? It'll just make them hate the government less!!!

I don't know what job you do, but if you are rewarded for doing it well then you are very lucky.




Much of a country's tax burden is automatically factored into wages, price levels and the standard of living, because it alters base demand. Any increase in the disposable income will lead to inflation that will account for much of that increase. Any short term economic benefits from tax cuts would rapidly exhaust themselves, unless coupled with a very real incentive to invest money (which would in turn reduce demand).

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
The principle that if there is more of something available then the value of it falls is perhaps the most basic concept in Economics. If there is more money available to be spent then it's value falls thus meaning that the 'price' of goods in currency terms, rises - this is called inflation.

A point which is entirely irrelevant to this: No, if you have more money then each unit is, by definition, less valuable to you.


As you are (in italics) talking about one person and the value of an increase in their money to them, with the obvious point that if money increases without a concurrent increase in supply of goods and services all we have is inflation.
Quote:
If I needed the $1 then yes I would, and your $1 million point is irrelevent. The point is more that if I offer you 1$ to go for a 10km run, would you?? If I offered you $1.20, would you?? There is a point where you wouldn't!!!!!!

I'd be more likely to, if that is then spread across the economy and all transactions then we can see that high tax means less work.

Quote: So you want dramatically increased interest rates too

I never said that..
Quote:
Or are we just presuming that everyone will suddenly decide to invest in the city rather than buy the best value material objects that they can. Perhaps we are presuming that people are all fairly well off in the first place.

People will buy whatever will rbing them the most utility. WHat that is we can't be sure, but we can sure that for a fair amount of people it will be investment.
Quote:
Draw a Demand curve and a Supply curve on the same axis. Trace up an increase demand and see what happens to prices. Paying more for the same goods means that the 'value' of money has fallen..

Of course an increase in the money supply is liekly to lead to inflation. I'm not talking about an increase in the money supply, however, I talking about the owners keeping their money, as oppsoed to most of the supply being held by the state. Sure the prices of stuff that people want might rise if people have the freedom to buy what they want, but at least they are maximizing utility by making their own decisions.

Quote: Why are labour costs being reduced??? Your argument was that, "money would be more valuable to people as they would gain more from it". If you just want to enable companies to lower costs then there are far simpler ways of doing it.

I think not taking a percentage of what they willingly pay their employees is pretty simple. Live and let live.

Quote: If people hate their jobs, then how is a government led tax cut going to make a difference???

Well, it will make their job worth more to them. Thus they will strive harder to keep it, and to get promotion. Most people don't hate their jobs, however.

Quote: It'll just make them hate the government less!!!

So we shouldn't stop the government stealing people's money because if we do then the people will hate the government less?
Quote:
Much of a country's tax burden is automatically factored into wages, price levels and the standard of living, because it alters base demand. Any increase in the disposable income will lead to inflation that will account for much of that increase. Any short term economic benefits from tax cuts would rapidly exhaust themselves, unless coupled with a very real incentive to invest money (which would in turn reduce demand).

People have a real incentive to invest money, for the benefit of themselves. Tax on investements (including income taxes) badly damages this incentive.