Hannan:
Britain, in other words, has all the conditions necessary for a popular anti-tax movement. Not only are levies high and rising; they are being imposed by rulers over whom we have no control. We need our own Tea Party Movement. Who will help me run one?
I must admit, apart from the
cash bar, I do like the sound of this...
Join DANIEL HANNAN MEP at the Brighton Tea Party at 5.30 p.m. this Saturday 27 February at the Best Western Hotel, 143-145 King's Road, Brighton BN1 2PQ
The event will take place on the Conservative Party Spring Forum fringe, but is outside the secure zone, so all members of the public are very welcome to attend. Admission is free. Tea and other refreshments will be available at a small charge. Cash bar.
Daniel, a Council Member of The Freedom Association, says, "you can't tax your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt".
10 comments:
there's a facebook page for the British Tea Party.
The American Right, tea fuelled, is dismissing *any* tax raises as a way to handle the long term deficits, insisting any changes come solely on the spending side. Aside from the general lunacy of this, with an aging population it becomes some kind of special lunacy. That Saint Ronnie raised taxes when necessary doesn't register. In the long run this will turn the US into Californa - unable to pay its debts - given that witht he Senate rules as is, even a relatively small minority will always have a veto.
So roughly the last thing the UK actuially needs is to import this kind of fruitcakery. The deficits will need tackled in the long term, with a mixture of tax and holding spending under growth for a considerable period. An incoming Tory government is acquainted with sabity, even if it looks like it wants to move too fast. I very much doubt it will thank its right wing for such a campaign.
On the other hand, I'm undecided. An effective anti-tax campaign would almost certainly lower my taxes, and screw the UK economy to an extent where my favoured political outcome here might be more likely.
Hannan should be smart enough to learn from the US experience and keep the tin-foil hats and nutters at bay...if he does, he may well tap into the same demographic and emotions that Thatcher did in 1979.
"An effective anti-tax campaign would almost certainly lower my taxes, and screw the UK economy to an extent where my favoured political outcome here might be more likely."
An effective anti-tax campaign, war on the entitlement culture, dismantling of the public-sector/quango empires...would all, in the long-run make the UK (and our part of it)a much stronger economic entity. And a NI standing on its own feet would make it *potentially* a viable partner for the ROI. All you need now is a conservative/libertarian pro-nationalist party to push for it.
O'Neill
The US Tea Party is populism rampant. That is an exceptionally dangerous dragon to try and chase.
To focus solely on the obvious racist or batshit mental bits, like the birthers, is to miss the point. Economically they are incoherent. They rail against tax, but at ther same time would be aghast at touching any of the spending areas that actually might make a significant difference - Social Security, Medicare, Defense.
I'm sure a thoughtful right wing government might find efficiencies in various quangos and the like (equally sure there'll be some rather nasty unintended consequences in any cull) but UK needs to get its financial house in order and a handle on the huge borrowing it needs to do currently. It does not need a bout of anti tax populism making it difficult for a likely Conservative government to do the needful. Though a proper currency crisis might lead to the Uk beign forced into the Euro. Oh go on then, screw my salary, it'll be a laugh.
I think we'll agree to disagree on the results of right wing radicalism in government. Anyhow, Hannan is so far right wing you need a telescope to see him,. Approve of him dissing the NHS on Fox?
Hannan, as pointed out by DC, does have some "eccentric" views on certain matters, including both the nhsand the eu but on this one, he's pretty close to hitting the nail on the head.
Wasteful spending occurs right across the board in realtime and the fact that their own tax revenue would be cut should concentrate minds wonderfully in certain ministeries. Once those savings had been accomplished then a solution on the longerterm debt can be cracked.
O'Neill
You don't need to cut taxes to reduce spending, O'Neill if that is what you are after. What you are proposing is to suck money out of the economy before a recovery has fully taken hold, given that any tax cuts are likely to simply go on repairing household and business balance sheets. While simultaneously doing nothing about the long term deficit that will lead to a crisis in the medium term. And the short medium term at that. O_o
I had you down as moderate right, as opposed to batshit mental right. Hoopefully England is making the same msitake on the Tories.
"You don't need to cut taxes to reduce spending, O'Neill if that is what you are after."
Reducing spending on waste, not spending per se. Reduced govt income, if handled correctly, will concentrate minds wonderfully in the various ministeries on how to produce the same level of service (because if they don't the public will soon vote them out on their ear) more efficiently.
What you are proposing is to suck money out of the economy before a recovery has fully taken hold, given that any tax cuts are likely to simply go on repairing household and business balance sheets
Tax cuts don't suck money out of the economy, they simply re-direct where peoples' income ends up (ie in their own as opposed to the state's pocket). S term if they're used to repair hhold and business bal sheets that is surely not a bad thing for the UK as a whole? Reduces personal indebtedness and possibility of bankrupcy, meaning more disposable income, minus crippling interest and default payments in the long term.
1. The budget for a department is set by the um, Budget, not by tax revenues in. Money can be and will be borrowed for a shortfall. If you want to cut department expenditure, then Osborne simply cuts department budgets. Money saved can be used to pay down the deficit or buy smarties. It's independent of the tax take.
The idea that you make the price of failing to do this a currency collapse and default is batshit mental time.
2. Bush had a small tax cut before he left office. It was nearly all saved, and thus had bad multiplier affects. So you are suggesting taking out money that would definitely be spent and thus subject to multipliers, to money sitting in an account doing nothing. The South had more or less no option to cut spending and found it deflationary, and had to go back for another go, and possible another.
Balance sheets need repaired in the medium to long term, and not all at once otherwise we fall foul of the paradox of thrift. The UK has the luxury of some time and some deficits to help the economy to recovery and mitigate the worst affects of the recession. It should use that advantage. It should equally be having a credible plan to start cutting that debt as a matter of priority in the medium term. "Waste" isn't going to cut it this time. There are big structural problems beyond the huge cyclical drop. The UK simply isn't as rich as it thought it was.
The Republic might come out of this with better medium term growth prospects for all its cuts. But that will be achieved at a devastating price, and huge contractions in GDP and wages. That extra growth will take time to catch up with the huge losses.
The budget for a department is set by the um, Budget, not by tax revenues in.
The overall resources to play with are finite, and tax revenue obviously plays a part in determining the ultimate size of those resources.
So you are suggesting taking out money that would definitely be spent and thus subject to multipliers, to money sitting in an account doing nothing.
Any tax saved at thgis stage is not likely to be disappearing into peoples' or business1 deposit accounts - it'll be paying off borrowing (which on a personal and business level in the UK is approaching dangerous levels). Once they stop paying off debt, then a choice is faced, save or spend. Given the curb on consumption over the last few years, once debt is repaid I'd say that you'd be looking at people leaning towards the latter option.
The Republic might come out of this with better medium term growth prospects for all its cuts. But that will be achieved at a devastating price, and huge contractions in GDP and wages.
If it hadn't made the cuts what would have been the outcome, both short and longer term?
Overall resources are finite, but are constrained by the capacity to borrow, not resources coming in. It remains the allocation in the Budget that determines a departments spending. In any case, since government expenditure must equal revenue from borrowings, and precisely equivalent outcome can be obtained by reducing borrowings rather than cutting revenues. I can't see why you are digging in on this.
Does debts being paid down imply fresh borrowing in the short term? No in the present climate, no. Does it imply any multiplier affects as money gets recycled? No, you've withdrawn credit. If everyone does it at once will it cause us to hit a paradox of thrift situation? Yes, you've replaced government spending with debt reduction. Arguing over whether it will be saved or debts paid down is splitting hairs, and bear in mind there remain more savers than borrowers anyway.
The Republic is in a different situation because despite been in a fiscally healthier position on the way in, the deterioration in the budget was faster and the bond markets more likely to punish them. Basically, they had no choice, though the guarantee and NAMA look like bad ideas.
Post a Comment