And the next prime Minister will be………

MaizieD

Dickens

There was a study, done over a 50-year period ending in 2015, which looked at the premise that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth (in OECD countries).

It's probably available online somewhere because the paper was published by the LSE.

The conclusion was that such tax cuts do not contribute in any meaningful way to growth. That's half a century's worth of data.

Have you got a title for the study? I'd like to have a look at it.

It seems so obvious that the wealthy aren't going to go on a spending spree in the domestic economy just because they've had a tax cut.

... I'll try and find it Maizie. I did have a link to it, but can't find where I stored it, or if it's simply excerpts from the report.

I know it was by Dr Limberg, Lecturer in Public Policy at King’s College.

Perhaps you could remind relatives in the US that there is certainly plenty of support for Mr Trump, and it is entirely possible he will get back into the White House.

They don't need any reminding, Prentice. They share the same feelings as we do. Why would you expect anything different. They are, I would say rightly concerned, about the family back here.

I think the description of Johnson as an addiction applies to Trump and the supporters get a high, simply from supporting the unbelievable.

I think it fills many with dread Grannynanny if you do not mind me shortening your name.
Probably all over the world there would be sighs and groans if he were to be back again.

Perhaps you could remind relatives in the US that there is certainly plenty of support for Mr Trump, and it is entirely possible he will get back into the White House.

Yes, my U.S. cousin mentioned Trump in the same email. She said the thought of him running for election again fills her with dread.

Our AUKAS WhatsApp group is the same GWN. My family in America are a little distracted as my niece is having half her house rebuilt after recent "weather" but they are still stunned. The Australians are trying to send helpful posts - rather as if we were in blitz hit wartime situation.

Listening to a radio programme this morning, a guest said the way the mainly Brexit voters feel about Johnson is like an addiction. Sadly some of them have not reached rock bottom yet. The problem is that someone else's addiction damages those around them.

The Conservative Party need to think hard about their choices of candidate, as electing Mr Johnson is hardly going to unite them.

Grannynannywanny

In the past 24 hrs I’ve had emails from relatives in the US, Canada and Ireland. The general consensus appears to be total disbelief that Boris Johnson’s return could even be considered.

Or as my Irish cousin so eloquently put it “who in their right mind would think of letting that eejit back in number 10 !

Perhaps you could remind relatives in the US that there is certainly plenty of support for Mr Trump, and it is entirely possible he will get back into the White House.

Chocolatelovinggran

And rumour has it that BJ endured some boos on his airline journey.

If true then disgraceful behaviour, but I think this is rumour only.

In the past 24 hrs I’ve had emails from relatives in the US, Canada and Ireland. The general consensus appears to be total disbelief that Boris Johnson’s return could even be considered.

Or as my Irish cousin so eloquently put it “who in their right mind would think of letting that eejit back in number 10 !

The angrier I get, the calmer and more composed! I would have given her a chance to move with the children, for the duration!

I would have booed, or probably just gone and quietly told him what I thought!

Chocolatelovinggran

And rumour has it that BJ endured some boos on his airline journey.

... not surprised. He makes some of us quite nervous. Talking of which, those markets are not entirely convinced either.

From what I can gather - they're a bit worried about what might happen "further down the line" with Mr. Man-of-the-People in charge.

Dickens

There was a study, done over a 50-year period ending in 2015, which looked at the premise that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth (in OECD countries).

It's probably available online somewhere because the paper was published by the LSE.

The conclusion was that such tax cuts do not contribute in any meaningful way to growth. That's half a century's worth of data.

Have you got a title for the study? I'd like to have a look at it.

It seems so obvious that the wealthy aren't going to go on a spending spree in the domestic economy just because they've had a tax cut.

And rumour has it that BJ endured some boos on his airline journey.

Two votes for him Grannygravy - or Larry. He seems a steady set of paws.

My vote goes to this guy

There was a study, done over a 50-year period ending in 2015, which looked at the premise that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth (in OECD countries).

It's probably available online somewhere because the paper was published by the LSE.

The conclusion was that such tax cuts do not contribute in any meaningful way to growth. That's half a century's worth of data.

Dickens

... the study ended in 2015 - I think it was published in 2021. I have trouble remembering dates...

... ignore the above. I'm looking at studies on tax cuts and trickle down and getting into a muddle.

... the study ended in 2015 - I think it was published in 2021. I have trouble remembering dates...

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne

Gransnet is obviously very pro Johnson. I keep getting the awful interview videos of him. No sign of the other two.

I think GN is predominantly anti Mr.Johnson

Sorry GrannyGravy, I mislead you. I had just had one of the middle of the page adverts come up - it's an old interview with Johnson. I didn't mean Gransnetters, but GNHQ.

Dickens

Urmstongran

The markets did for Truss. I think they wield the real power. Makes you wonder why we bother having elections.

But if you embrace the free-market economic model then surely you have to accept their verdict on your economic policies?

And she did embrace it. Rees-Mogg backed an initiative which aimed to encourage people to reduce their use of gas / electricity. This campaign included measures designed to help people save up to £300 a year (apparently), also to help preserve national supplies, so that the gas-fired power plants that produce our electricity could keep running. But she was ideologically opposed to it (allegedly) because she thought it was too "interventionist". In other words, she believes the markets should rule, untrammelled.

Well, they did. And they ruled against her. She can't have it both ways, not if you are a free-marketeer idealogue. Or perhaps she believes in a controlled market which is only relevant when it responds the way you want it to? Or possibly her head was so crammed with ideas from Tufton Street that she didn't quite know what she believed or was supposed to believe and just got completely carried away with her own sense of importance which was heightened by the buzz from those in the party that voted for her? Who knows?

The markets didn't do for Truss - she did it to herself. She didn't comprehend the basics of the ideology she was flogging to the rest of us. Didn't listen to her advisors.

Her former Oxford tutor said, “her most noticeable characteristic is a capacity to shift, unblinkingly, from one fiercely held belief to another”.

Exactly. I love the quote from the tutor. It does seem to sum her up.

MaizieD

^Less taxation DaisyAnne. It would have powered growth and invited investment.^

Unfortunately, Ug, apart from Mad Minford, very few economists would agree with that.

She lowered corporation tax. which, far from being an invitation for investment is usually an invitation for companies to buy back their shares to raise their prices and to hand out more dividends to shareholders, who are not investors, but are speculators. They also tend to be wealthy and don't use the money to spend in the domestic economy, because they don't need to. They tend to either use the money to indulge in more stock market speculation or save, in tax havens if they possibly can.

It's higher CT, with tax allowances on invested money that invites them to invest.

The largest tax cuts went to the wealthiest, who don't have a tendency to spend. The lowest tax cuts went to the poorer people who need every penny they can get to fund the basic necessities of life. They're not going to spend enough to grow the economy, especially when the cost of just existing is rising fast.

It was never going to work...

Agree Maizie

Urmstongran

The markets did for Truss. I think they wield the real power. Makes you wonder why we bother having elections.

But if you embrace the free-market economic model then surely you have to accept their verdict on your economic policies?

And she did embrace it. Rees-Mogg backed an initiative which aimed to encourage people to reduce their use of gas / electricity. This campaign included measures designed to help people save up to £300 a year (apparently), also to help preserve national supplies, so that the gas-fired power plants that produce our electricity could keep running. But she was ideologically opposed to it (allegedly) because she thought it was too "interventionist". In other words, she believes the markets should rule, untrammelled.

Well, they did. And they ruled against her. She can't have it both ways, not if you are a free-marketeer idealogue. Or perhaps she believes in a controlled market which is only relevant when it responds the way you want it to? Or possibly her head was so crammed with ideas from Tufton Street that she didn't quite know what she believed or was supposed to believe and just got completely carried away with her own sense of importance which was heightened by the buzz from those in the party that voted for her? Who knows?

The markets didn't do for Truss - she did it to herself. She didn't comprehend the basics of the ideology she was flogging to the rest of us. Didn't listen to her advisors.

Her former Oxford tutor said, “her most noticeable characteristic is a capacity to shift, unblinkingly, from one fiercely held belief to another”.

May I post a brief humorous comment texted by a friend?
“ Asking who is the current prime minister used to be a test for cognitive capacity.
Now all it tells is if you have checked your phone in the last hour… “

Less taxation DaisyAnne. It would have powered growth and invited investment.

Unfortunately, Ug, apart from Mad Minford, very few economists would agree with that.

She lowered corporation tax. which, far from being an invitation for investment is usually an invitation for companies to buy back their shares to raise their prices and to hand out more dividends to shareholders, who are not investors, but are speculators. They also tend to be wealthy and don't use the money to spend in the domestic economy, because they don't need to. They tend to either use the money to indulge in more stock market speculation or save, in tax havens if they possibly can.

It's higher CT, with tax allowances on invested money that invites them to invest.

The largest tax cuts went to the wealthiest, who don't have a tendency to spend. The lowest tax cuts went to the poorer people who need every penny they can get to fund the basic necessities of life. They're not going to spend enough to grow the economy, especially when the cost of just existing is rising fast.

It was never going to work...