sign the petition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I can't recall you setting out how many job losses you think acceptable to fund the tuition fee bribe, but if you did, I apologise. Could you please remind me of the figure you gave?

I tend not to read MMM's posts these days. He is incapable of taking part in a debate without becoming abusive. I've taken a look though at your request. I answered the question further up the thread (before he asked it). If tax rates were the only factor that a company would take into account when deciding where to be based and create jobs then he would have a point, but it isn't rendering his point
largely meaningless. As you appear to accept, increasing corporate tax rates would make the UK a less attractive place to operate. It's as simple as that. If you disagree then give for it - make the argument.

---

Sighs. What you are asking for would lead us to the debate we had before.

Your premise is that cutting corp tax leads to rise in public revenues as employers invest in the U.K. My counter is that there is no conclusive evidence (just opinion) that this happens and would suggest that you are leaning far too heavily on the supposed trickle down effect which works in theory but looking around us, struggles to work in the world we see around us. We've done it your way for the last 40 years, with especially low corp tax rises in the last two governments. I don't need an economist to tell me that your way doesn't work when my college is forced into effectively using zero hours contracts for support staff, my daughter's school can't replace the next leaving teacher and I'm walking through a street with multiple more homeless people than 10 years ago.

Your welcome to your views on this, but I disagree with you so let's move on.

Pup, he couldn't give 2 hoots about the people it affects, he just doesn't see that side to the debate, they're invisible to these blinkered tories, it's all about the money....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Sorry but where's the clear evidence that this (impact of corp tax rises impacting on jobs) happens? What stats are you referring to? You referred to a graph or summat that showed it, but I didn't see it. Please re-link and I'll check it out. Ta.

---

Here you go pup, the graph below is known as the accelerator effect when corporation taxes reduce and investment increases, hopefully the reduction to 18% in 2020 will help after Brexit.

Attachment 10169

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm_gm

Here you go pup, the graph below is known as the accelerator effect when corporation taxes reduce and investment increases, hopefully the reduction to 18% in 2020 will help after Brexit.

Attachment 10169

---

Thanks GM. You got a link to where you got this from, source? And contextual commentary from the creator would help as can't make much sense of it on me phone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Thanks GM. You got a link to where you got this from, source? And contextual commentary from the creator would help as can't make much sense of it on me phone.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

Sighs. What you are asking for would lead us to the debate we had before.

Your premise is that cutting corp tax leads to rise in public revenues as employers invest in the U.K. My counter is that there is no conclusive evidence (just opinion) that this happens and would suggest that you are leaning far too heavily on the supposed trickle down effect which works in theory but looking around us, struggles to work in the world we see around us. We've done it your way for the last 40 years, with especially low corp tax rises in the last two governments. I don't need an economist to tell me that your way doesn't work when my college is forced into effectively using zero hours contracts for support staff, my daughter's school can't replace the next leaving teacher and I'm walking through a street with multiple more homeless people than 10 years ago.

Your welcome to your views on this, but I disagree with you so let's move on.

---

How does asking how many list lost jobs you would accept for any given Labour policy risk repeating debates of the past? I understand that you see a rise in corporate taxation as a means to increase public spending, I'm simply curious as to how you think such an increase comes without consequences or how much of a consequence you consider to be worthwhile to achieve the ends you desire.

Businesses generally have a choice about where to do business (and, in consequence, create jobs and pay taxes). If a country increases corporate tax rates, it influences that decision as any increased cost acts as a disincentive to operate in a particular location.

You ask for evidence - the disincentive effect of increasing the cost of operating in a particular location has been in the press for weeks with the likes of Airbus and BMW saying that they will reduce or end their presence in the UK in the event of a no (or, one assumes expensive for business) deal Brexit

That you are concerned about homelessness is not a counter argument to the above. A taxation policy that is likely to cut investment, economic activity and employment levels has to be counter productive, does it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millmoormagic

Pup, he couldn't give 2 hoots about the people it affects, he just doesn't see that side to the debate, they're invisible to these blinkered tories, it's all about the money....

---

And you are as bigoted as great fire in your own way with such foolish comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

How does asking how many list lost jobs you would accept for any given Labour policy risk repeating debates of the past? I understand that you see a rise in corporate taxation as a means to increase public spending, I'm simply curious as to how you think such an increase comes without consequences or how much of a consequence you consider to be worthwhile to achieve the ends you desire.

Businesses generally have a choice about where to do business (and, in consequence, create jobs and pay taxes). If a country increases corporate tax rates, it influences that decision as any increased cost acts as a disincentive to operate in a particular location.

You ask for evidence - the disincentive effect of increasing the cost of operating in a particular location has been in the press for weeks with the likes of Airbus and BMW saying that they will reduce or end their presence in the UK in the event of a no (or, one assumes expensive for business) deal Brexit

That you are concerned about homelessness is not a counter argument to the above. A taxation policy that is likely to cut investment, economic activity and employment levels has to be counter productive, does it not?

---

Your question about jobs being cost by corporation tax rises in order to fund student loan cuts leads to exactly the same debate we had before, and which you seem strangely keen to reopen. In theory, the 'trickle down' effect (on which your theory works - use tax cuts to business in order to create wealth which then 'trickle down' to create jobs, increased tax receipts and in turn public spending, is, in theory, a sound one.

So why doesn't it work in practice? Where is the clear, undisputable evidence from neutral sources that this creates the increases in public tax revenues, and in turn with that, public spending?

See, back to the same argument? You linked to various articles that backed you up, I did the same. We agreed to disagree.

So why do it again?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

And you are as bigoted as great fire in your own way with such foolish comments.

---

Your attempts at fishing are plainly poor, you don't like honesty do you Kerr?