Forum Topic

Thanks, Andy, for confirming my memory. I got made redundant in the early 1990s recession when the US software company I worked for decided that to avoid going bust they didn’t need a development department in both the the UK and US, and, hence, one was going to have to go ... and it wasn't going to be the US one ... and I didn't fancy the alternative jobs they offered. Fortunately, the government was running a "re-skilling" scheme for professionals so I was allowed to claim unemployment benefit to do a PGDip in Telecommunications and Networking at Anglia Polytechnic. Yes, my recollection was that the year I was claiming unemployment benefits counted towards my state pension but thought I'd check.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recessionThe benefits and a fairly generous payoff from the US software house to see through a key project to completion helped keep us going for a year (we were also a two income household). A few weeks after my PGDip graduation I landed a job as a systems manager with NHS Supplies. Unfortunately, the salary didn't meet my expectations for my knowledge and skills level so after 18 months I moved into a financial services organisation performing a similar role. There I managed significant upgrades in their IT infrastructure to support their growth by acquisition strategy. I only go into this detail as I believe based on personal experience:1. Government funded training scheme are an excellent investment;
2. NHS staff in all positions should be paid a sensible, fair salary for their job

Michael Ixer ● 552d

"One piece of evidence in support of Laffer's conclusions is the following. Under the Wilson-Callaghan government of 1974-79 the top rate of tax for earned income was 83% and 98% investment income. Margaret Thatcher immediately reduced the top rate to 60% for both and the tax take increased."She did, but, also from 2019:-"Where has the [oil] money gone?"Tax cuts apparently:-"So where did our billions go? Hawksworth writes: "The logical answer is that the oil money enabled non-oil taxes to be kept lower." In other words: tax cuts. When the North Sea was providing maximum income, Thatcher's chancellor, Nigel Lawson slashed income and other direct taxes, especially for the rich. The top rate of tax came down from 60p in the pound to just 40p by 1988. He also reduced the basic rate of income tax; but the poor wouldn't have seen much of those pounds in their pockets, as, thanks to the Tories, they were paying more VAT.What did Thatcher's grateful children do with their tax cuts? "They used the higher disposable income to bid up house prices," suggests Hawskworth. For a few years, the UK enjoyed a once-in-a-lifetime windfall; and it was pocketed by the rich. The revolution begun by Thatcher and Reagan is often seen as being about competition and extending markets. But that's to focus on the process and overlook the motivation or the result. As the historian of neoliberalism Philip Mirowski argues, what the past 30 years have been about is using the powers of the state to divert more resources to the wealthy. You see that with privatisation: the handing over of our assets at knock-down prices to corporations and supposed "investors", who then skim off the profits. The transformation of the North Sea billions into tax cuts for the wealthy is the same process but at its most squalid."https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund

David Ainsworth ● 553d

"Lessons in the laffer curve are available for those that don’t understand economics."Yes, here they are, Mr Gulliford, from back in 2019, when you were last schooled in it by "The Economist" via Matt Palmer:-""Mr G.:-two words, Laffer curve"Supply-side economists have long used the Laffer curve to justify tax cuts, including Ronald Reagan’s in 1981 and George W. Bush’s in 2001. Both resulted in lower revenues. In December 2017 Mr Trump’s administration cut income taxes across the board, and slashed the corporate-tax rate from 35% to 21%. At the time, Steven Mnuchin, America’s treasury secretary, argued that the plan would “pay for itself” and even “pay down debt”.‬ But the promised revenues have yet to materialise. Federal tax revenues actually fell in 2018. The Congressional Budget Office, a government watchdog, now reckons that the national debt will hit 95% of GDP by 2027, up from 89% two years ago before the tax cuts.America is not the only country that appears to be on the wrong side of Mr Laffer’s curve. A paper published in 2017 by Jacob Lundberg, an economist at Timbro, a Swedish free-market think-tank, estimates Laffer curves for 27 OECD countries. Using data on Sweden’s income distribution and assumptions about how taxpayers respond to different tax rates, Mr Lundberg found that, even though five countries in his sample have top income-tax rates that exceed their revenue-maximising levels, only Sweden could meaningfully boost revenue by cutting tax rates on high-income earners. Most countries, in other words, appear to have set their highest tax rates at or below the optimal rate suggested by the Laffer curve.This may explain why many economists are so critical of Mr Laffer’s supply-side policies. In 2012 the Initiative on Global Markets, a research centre at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, asked a panel of 40 economic experts whether a cut in income-tax rates in America would raise enough revenue to pay for itself in five years. Not one of them agreed. Richard Thaler, winner of last year's Nobel prize in economics, responded simply “That's a Laffer!”.-----------------British Labour MP Ed Miliband said at a party conference that “they used to say a rising tide lifted all boats. Now the rising tide just seems to lift the yachts."

David Ainsworth ● 553d