Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
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.