(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 01:57pm on 11/04/2005
On the other hand, I might note that the question you asked isn't necessarily the question that you appear to think you might have asked.
[parent entry] [link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 03:09pm on 11/04/2005
So what is your take on the question? I note that you approve of 'lower taxes' as a manifesto aim. This surprised me. I could say that this was a valid manifesto aim but one with which I disagree (starting from here and reading into it what the Tories think). Aaah therein lies the point. Lower taxes for the poor is a manifesto aim of which I approve therefore I did not answer the question accurately. A reduction in indirect taxes (which have a disproporationate impact on those on lower incomes) would be good too, especially coupled with an increase in taxation for those on higher incomes.

Assumptions are great!
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 03:14pm on 11/04/2005
I approve of lower taxes, however I approve of improved services more…

Similarly I approve of cleaner hospitals, but approve of healthier ones more, etc, etc, etc…
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 03:21pm on 11/04/2005
But as a manifesto aim, surely then you would put improved services over lower taxes and not approve of the lower taxes? Or I am importing too many other things into my scenarios? Or at least more other things than you are. I disapprove of 'lower taxes' in the sense I take the Tories to mean it because that goes hand in hand with worse services AFAICS. This affected how I answered the question!
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 03:33pm on 11/04/2005
OTOH, I might believe that it was possible to improve services and reduce cost.

Also, the government might wish to pursude other funding options (rapine, pillage and murder was a traditional one at one point. Sponsorship might be plausible, or voluntary donation).

And yet again, there is an argument that with lower taxes we'll attract more peeople/companies with high earnings and end up taking in more taxation. I don't personally think our taxes are that high, but I'm not an economist.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com at 05:33pm on 11/04/2005
OTOH, I might believe that it was possible to improve services and reduce cost.

Eg. by dismantling expensive things not on the list. One could interpret "lower taxes and improve police and hospitals" as a mealy-mouthed way of saying "abandon our military and roads"...
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] lockymclean.livejournal.com at 02:52pm on 13/04/2005
A recent economic survey of European multinational companies showed that tax was a bigger barrier to pan-European trade than language barriers. The same survey showed that more than half of non-UK-based European companies choose English law and English jurisdiction for their standard contract terms.

I don't dispute that our taxes are lower than other EU contries - what galls me is that Labour have lied so much about raising them in the first place.
[link] [parent] [reply]

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
1
26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31