[Nursie]

Wow, this might be the most ideologically driven take I've seen so far. Not even all of the Tory party are this extreme in their interpretation.

> "policies that mainstream pundits disagree with"

That the Bank of England have had to scramble to compensate for by bringing back QE in a limited form, that previous governers of the BoE have spoken out against, that the IMF has spoken out against, that previous heads of the US treasury have spoken against, that conservative peers and MPs have spoken against, that the markets responded to by having a fire sale?

Those are a few mainstream pundits? LOL.

> If you speak to people in the U.K. many would agree that paying less tax is a positive thing, especially during a global cost of living crisis

Very few of those people would be paying less tax under these plans, as the major reduction is for people earning over 150k per annum - and those are the people already best placed to weather the cost of living crisis.

It's not that the wealthiest are also getting tax cuts, it's that virtually nobody else is.

I'm a high earner and I like money, but this is some self-interested bull**** right here

[cbeach]

The BoE made another huge mistake by using QE during a period of temporary global inflation, and during a temporary blip in the value of the pound. QE is the worst possible strategy.

And the IMF has consistently got it wrong about the UK economy. In the past it has actually made public apologies for doing so (IMF head: "do I have to go on my knees?" regarding incorrect warnings on UK economy): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10884632/Do-I-have...

We have to be careful to avoid the Argument from Authority fallacy, using the IMF and BoE reaction to judge government policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

> It's not that the wealthiest are also getting tax cuts, it's that virtually nobody else is.

When the most productive members of society got landed with a 45% tax rate in 2013, it was higher than many G7 nations, and there's no evidence to suggest it actually increased revenue. Have you heard of the Laffer Curve?

[Nursie]

> We have to be careful to avoid the Argument from Authority fallacy

Indeed, but we also have to be careful of writing off numerous opinions from multiple diverse sources in multiple countries, from politicians, economists, bankers and many other roles, as well as the actual actions of the people on the ground that have born out the criticisms, as the ill educated musings of a few 'pundits'.

> When the most productive members of society...

LOL. Seriously? I'm paid in that bracket (or I was until last year when I left the UK, and I'm now paid in that bracket somewhere else) and I don't believe for a second that we're the most productive members of society, we've just figured out ways to get people to pay us a lot. I look around at some of the unutterably useless arseholes that are on similar money and litter the offices of London, particularly in anything adjacent to city finance, and can only laugh at this ridiculous piece of libertarian orthodoxy. Most productive ... most productive at clumsily and innappropriately flirting with the disinterested secretary, most productive at clearing off for a long lunch somewhere new, most productive at looking busy, passing the buck and collecting the cheque, maybe.

Yes I've heard of the laffer curve, no I'm not a particular believer that it's some sort of cast-iron truism, and neither apparently are the people you're defending, who are forecasting the various tax cuts to cost the treasury multiple billions, at least in the short term, until their miracle of growth happens, if it happens. There's a lot of argument about whether (for instance) the continuation of the lower corporation tax rate is even useful for that.

These decisions are a kick in the pants to the people who actually need a tax break, your man on the street that you mentioned above, who would quite like a bit more money in his pocket due to the spiralling cost of living and energy crisis. He could do with a tax break to keep the family going this winter and deal with the higher mortgage payments that will come about because of the further interest rate rises these new changes will necessitate.

But I guess my highly paid contractor friends will get to stick another few tens of thousands in their pension pots instead.

The best thing that can be said about this budget is that it was done at completely the wrong time.

[cbeach]

> we also have to be careful of writing off numerous opinions from multiple diverse sources in multiple countries, from politicians

I fully expect politicians in other countries to HATE the fact that we have a competitive low-tax regime that will attract business and talent. And they'll also hate that we have a devalued currency, which makes our exported goods and services more competitive.

> I don't believe for a second that we're the most productive members of society, we've just figured out ways to get people to pay us a lot

You may well be right about your own situation. We're all different. My employers value what I did and paid me accordingly.

> There's a lot of argument about whether (for instance) the continuation of the lower corporation tax rate is even useful for that.

The case with corporation tax is cut-and-dried. When the Tories reduced it significantly (to 20%), revenue quickly went UP. It took barely any time to prove that we'd moved closer to the revenue-maximising point on the Laffer Curve

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/21/01/468DEAAA000005...

> These decisions are a kick in the pants to the people who actually need a tax break, your man on the street that you mentioned above

I'm losing count of the free cash grants this Tory govt is handing out to help working class people with their energy bills. And now they're using public money to freeze bills. It's unprecedented.

[Nursie]

> I fully expect politicians in other countries

Most of the politicians comments I'm referring to are from British politicians, even within the conservative party. This isn't jealousy, it's marvelling at incompetence.

You still seek to play down both the comments of a range of people from a range of different viewpoints and the actual market movements. And you're doing it in a very disingenuous fashion. You know as well as I do she's come under criticism from her own party, some from those within her party that supported her leadership bid, as well as luminaries from all over the financial world in multiple countries.

> When the Tories reduced it significantly (to 20%), revenue quickly went UP

In an entirely different economic landscape to the spiraling inflationary one we're in today. I'm not sure a cartoonised graph from the daily mail is evidence of anything very much.

> You may well be right about your own situation. We're all different. My employers value what I did and paid me accordingly.

The point is that labelling high earners as the most productive class is a laugh. Far from all of them are. I like to think I earn my money too, but I've seen a lot of people that don't, who find and cling on to these posts though a combination of connections, grift and luck.

> I'm losing count of the free cash grants this Tory govt is handing out to help working class people with their energy bills. ... It's unprecedented.

Yes, that's the point, it's unprecedented, it's fucking awful for ordinary people on average incomes, huge inflation pushing up the prices of everything, interest rate rises making mortgages more expensive, rocketing energy costs (even if they are capped they are historically very high). In the midst of that, these policies make things worse. More expensive mortgages will knock on to the housing market falling, for example. This is not just "idealogically problematic" in some wishy-washy leftie way, it's not just something to be disagreed with because of your particular economic leaning, it's not just targetting the wrong people (though it certainly seems to be doing that) or the politics of envy - it's actually fucking stupid.

[psd1]

The laffer curve is a reasonable hypothesis but your single data point does not prove it. You're cherry-picking.

Your citation is the daily mail. You're scornful of experts, and self-satisfied. You're gammon, aren't you?