sign the petition

[millmoormagic]

How does asking the question lead to the same old argument. You support a policy that will disincentivise companies to operate in the UK, so why aren't you willing to say how many job losses you think acceptable to provide funding for another policy that you support? That's all I'm asking. It can't be difficult for you to answer.

You don't seem to have any qualms about having the same argument with gf over and over again.

If the student loan question is too awkward for you, will you answer how many job losses you would be willing to accept for a, say, 50% reduction in the level of homelessness?

I have never mentioned a trickle down effect, but it is obvious and self evident that an active economy with high levels of employment creates wealth for all and both reduces the demands on public spending and generates tax revenues to fund the same. If you don't believe me, look at the plight of the people of Venezuela, who are the latest to 'benefit' from the Socialist dream.

As for the current strategy in the UK not working in practice - what evidence do you have that it doesn't? You can't say with any certainty where the country would be had it adopted a high corporate tax strategy in, say 2010. For the reasons I have set out - and to which you have provided no counter argument at all - there is every reason to believe that we would be in a far worse position than we are now.

Same old argument again Kerr.....i'll ask again,.......

"Presumably you'd accept that even if the rates were higher, they'd still be lower than ALL our competitors, therefore making it the better option nonetheless.....yes or no".

[ragingpup]

You don't seem to have any qualms about having the same argument with gf over and over again.

I'll challenge racial/religious stereotyping and prejudice every time I see it. An economic argument is not the same, and we can agree to disagree. I don't think we should agree to disagree with people who hold views that stereotype or generalise people as Fire and others frequently do. They're welcome to their views but not on my team's/town's footy message board.

[ragingpup]

As for the current strategy in the UK not working in practice - what evidence do you have that it doesn't? You can't say with any certainty where the country would be had it adopted a high corporate tax strategy in, say 2010. For the reasons I have set out - and to which you have provided no counter argument at all - there is every reason to believe that we would be in a far worse position than we are now.

By the same token, what evidence can you provide that we would not be far better off had we not cut corporation tax rates?

[Lolmorgan]

Footy message board correct.By the way have you signed the petition are is it platform for you to show how clever you are in all things.O/P,just sign the petition & let it drop.

[ragingpup]

Same old argument again Kerr.....i'll ask again,.......

"Presumably you'd accept that even if the rates were higher, they'd still be lower than ALL our competitors, therefore making it the better option nonetheless.....yes or no".

I think that Kerr is trying to convince us that he is answering that because our UK geographical circumstances are different. I think that this should be taken into account but to use this to justify cut upon cut to corporation tax with no clear evidence that this influences increases in tax revenues/public spending just isn't acceptable. But it is argued passionately by people with vested interests in economic growth, and with fair points made, but they are far less convincing in supplying evidence for corporation tax as a basis for raising tax revenues....

[millmoormagic]

I think that Kerr is trying to convince us that he is answering that because our UK geographical circumstances are different. I think that this should be taken into account but to use this to justify cut upon cut to corporation tax with no clear evidence that this influences increases in tax revenues/public spending just isn't acceptable. But it is argued passionately by people with vested interests in economic growth, and with fair points made, but they are far less convincing in supplying evidence for corporation tax as a basis for raising tax revenues....

Going by Kerr's logic then, and looking at the list of country's in the way of highest to lowest corporation tax, Hungary should be the most succesful country in Europe, and must be absolutely full of billionaires, and all the people live fantastic lives and want for nothing......

Give me a break Kerr, continue with your waffle, you're alright so stuff everyone else eh...

[ragingpup]

Going by Kerr's logic then, and looking at the list of country's in the way of highest to lowest corporation tax, Hungary should be the most succesful country in Europe, and must be absolutely full of billionaires, and all the people live fantastic lives and want for nothing......

[gm_gm]

Going by Kerr's logic then, and looking at the list of country's in the way of highest to lowest corporation tax, Hungary should be the most succesful country in Europe, and must be absolutely full of billionaires, and all the people live fantastic lives and want for nothing......

Give me a break Kerr, continue with your waffle, you're alright so stuff everyone else eh...

If all the economies were the same in economic demographics, workforce, politically aligned and infrastructure you would have an excellent point.

[gm_gm]

Done a quick look at basic research on the accelerator effect but struggling to see any proven link between cuts in corporation tax (which may or may not influence the accelerator effect) and net increase in public spending. Does the graph suggest there is a link but just in a way that I can't see?

Is it that corporation tax cuts are creating extra wealth within the country, but just that it isn't actually making its way into public funds?

The source and commentary might help here in making the proven link between corporation tax cuts and income boosts for our public services.

Its a thesis based on when is a good time for companies to invest, risk management and potential returns, short terms cuts dont normally inspire long term investment.

[millmoormagic]

I think that Kerr is trying to convince us that he is answering that because our UK geographical circumstances are different. I think that this should be taken into account but to use this to justify cut upon cut to corporation tax with no clear evidence that this influences increases in tax revenues/public spending just isn't acceptable. But it is argued passionately by people with vested interests in economic growth, and with fair points made, but they are far less convincing in supplying evidence for corporation tax as a basis for raising tax revenues....

If all the economies were the same in economic demographics, workforce, politically aligned and infrastructure you would have an excellent point.

ifs, buts, maybes, see pups response to Kerr...