Shouting at the IPPR

\”Furthermore, a tax-cutting strategy also weakens the UK’s already precarious tax base and totally ignores the underlying drivers of low pay, including the falling share of GDP going to workers (especially those at the lower end of company pay scales).\”

That is, of course, a hugely enjoyable argument.

For the falling wages component of the labour share of income is due to rises in employers NI. Tax rises that is. And the falling labour share of income is offset by the rise in VAT in the taxes minus subsidies part. A rise in taxes that is.

So, the falling share of wages in GDP is because of rising taxes in GDP. And you then suggest that cutting taxes is a bad idea because wages are falling as a percentage of GDP?

Most, most amusing.

Do come back to us when you can count to five without taking your mittens off.

They\’re ignorant fuckers over at the IPPR aren\’t they?

5 comments on “Shouting at the IPPR

  1. Makes me think of the famous sketch with Cleese, Barker and Corbett in height order.

    Cleese – Tax
    Barker – Profit
    Corbett – Labour

    Cleese has got taller and so Corbett has shrunk.

    Only Barker remains the same size.

  2. My comment was:

    “Amen Tim…. Let’s see how long facts take to permeate the leftist bubble of ignorant righteous indignation…”

    Wonder if that will get past the mod…?

  3. This is what I shouted at them:

    So raising the tax threshold to £12K would cost £24b. That’s quite a bit considering that the total tax receipts for income tax and NI is around £255b. Would 10% really be lost just due to raising the limit a bit from £8k to £12k? Seriously? Sounds like you’ve worked out one side but not the other side of the equation. How much would be saved by not having to pay out tax credits, not having to pay civil servants to move money around. How much better would the economy be with people using the extra money on stuff in the local economy rather than taken from their hands and spent keeping diversity officers employed.

  4. “How much would be saved …..?”etc

    How much? You’re the one shouting, how much?

    Have you thought about it, saddo?

    Y’know, since you reckon n that

  5. I’m not the one with all the resources of a think tank to do all the research. I’m in a full time job with little time to do all the maths. If a well funded think thank that can afford to give a living wage can’t pay to do the research for both sides of the equation then its a piss poor think tank. It just highlights that its argument is all show and no substance.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>