Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
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.
Reply With Quote