The worry is that the economy is going to be in such a state that the Treasury will be calling all the shots
The Treasury has always called the shots!
The worry is that the economy is going to be in such a state that the Treasury will be calling all the shots
But as the Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury, his voice and opinion and direction carry immense weight.The Treasury has always called the shots!
But as the Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury, his voice and opinion and direction carry immense weight.
And it has to be screaming out for about 10pence per litre on fuel - diesel and petrol. With oil prices low at the moment the country should be able to take the hit. Would need an emergency budget of course. And surely Labour/opposition cant be against that as it would help the environment. I suggest on cigs and booze too.The Conversation suggested a one-off tax on the top 50% by wealth as an alternative to many more years of austerity and/or a large national debt. I think I'd be willing to give a small percentage of my net worth to get the economy out of the hole it's currently digging itself into.
The Conversation suggested a one-off tax on the top 50% by wealth as an alternative to many more years of austerity and/or a large national debt. I think I'd be willing to give a small percentage of my net worth to get the economy out of the hole it's currently digging itself into.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? It is for them, but for the country as a whole? It would certainly be the quickest way to pay for all the things we need to pay for.The trouble with that is that it depends on what "wealth" means. It could result in the need for people to take on big debt or sell their house if, for example, they had a large house which they had inherited.
The trouble with that is that it depends on what "wealth" means. It could result in the need for people to take on big debt or sell their house if, for example, they had a large house which they had inherited.
I'd rather they just upped income tax, to be honest.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? It is for them, but for the country as a whole? It would certainly be the quickest way to pay for all the things we need to pay for.
However, I cannot see Boris signing up to it; it would cost the Johnsons a pretty penny.
Back to electricfication, I have to wonder whether HS2 might get dumped, despite the recent green light, to fund it?
HS2 is paid for by future revenues - the annual borrowing it involves is in many ways not really that significant. Electrification of existing lines probably doesn't generate the same amount of future revenue.
A wealth tax certainly has attractions but I concede that it is difficult to assess and manage. Perhaps something like 2% on a primary residence, 5% on pension scheme assets and 20% on liquid assets. Payments could be met by extending the period of mortgages if people can't afford the immediate payment.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? It is for them, but for the country as a whole? It would certainly be the quickest way to pay for all the things we need to pay for.
However, I cannot see Boris signing up to it; it would cost the Johnsons a pretty penny.
Back to electricfication, I have to wonder whether HS2 might get dumped, despite the recent green light, to fund it?
This rather relies on the idea that enough people have enough income to tax.I'd rather they just upped income tax, to be honest.
It's definitely not going to happen, not with the current government, but a capital levy could be less destructive than the economy finding a new equilibrium at a much lower level of aggregate demand than it was at before the crisis. The way to think about it is this: a capital levy brings all the pain of years and years forward to a single point in time, and divides it out evenly. It also permits an overnight transformation from a high-tax economy to a low-tax one. There will also be people arguing to run inflation hot to cut debt, and that is more attractive than a capital levy, but insidious, slow, and grossly unfair by comparison.I’d have to sell my house to pay that. As would many others. Asset prices (property, stocks, bonds) would collapse, which ultimately affects pension funds. It’s not going to happen.
It's definitely not going to happen, not with the current government, but a capital levy could be less destructive than the economy finding a new equilibrium at a much lower level of aggregate demand than it was at before the crisis. The way to think about it is this: a capital levy brings all the pain of years and years forward to a single point in time, and divides it out evenly. It also permits an overnight transformation from a high-tax economy to a low-tax one. There will also be people arguing to run inflation hot to cut debt, and that is more attractive than a capital levy, but insidious, slow, and grossly unfair by comparison.
The cost of market crashes such as you describe is financial and political, but the cost of economic depression is human.
Still, we are not there yet. The government still can, and should, spend its way out of the crisis.
Despite there being an uptick in interest and chatter, there was very little evidence of a return to prowess for electrification in the minds of the keyholders just prior to the onset of the crisis.
The trouble with that is that it depends on what "wealth" means. It could result in the need for people to take on big debt or sell their house if, for example, they had a large house which they had inherited.
I'd rather they just upped income tax, to be honest.
Unfortunately, its the middle classes who pay tax, probably far too much on income tax. The problem is the super rich and big business who avoid taxes altogether, think Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc. They hold 99% of all wealth.
The trouble is that it also taxes income.Your other option is more quantitative easing, which effectively "taxes" people on the value of their wealth by making it less valuable. Also means no need to hit people with an actual bill.
The trouble is that it also taxes income.
It's a trouble because it hits the poorest the hardest.I don't see that as a trouble, rather a necessary evil.
That's the same as running inflation high. Looser monetary policy would need to be a lot looser too, to have that effect. It is also quite difficult to halt when you've decided you've inflated your way out of your debts just enough.Your other option is more quantitative easing, which effectively "taxes" people on the value of their wealth by making it less valuable. Also means no need to hit people with an actual bill.
While I do totally agree with you, it may come down to "which is the lesser of the two evils?" and I suggest that is inflation. However, I do think once again as stated upthread raising excise duty on gasoline, diesel, alcohol and tobacco are absolutely necessary.That's the same as running inflation high. Looser monetary policy would need to be a lot looser too, to have that effect. It is also quite difficult to halt when you've decided you've inflated your way out of your debts just enough.
It is effective, and it may be necessary, but it is totally indescriminate and random in whom it hurts, compared to a capital levy, which can be very precise and targeted.While I do totally agree with you, it may come down to "which is the lesser of the two evils?" and I suggest that is inflation.
Air pollution has drastically decreased around the world as people stay home during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as lockdown restrictions loosen and regular activity resumes, studies are showing not only that emissions will return, but also that greenhouse gas levels continue to increase and global temperatures are still on the rise.