Err, yes, as we’ve been saying

The main result is not, intuitively, surprising: but it is not a question that has been commonly posed, nor this well answered before. The result is that tax cuts are least likely to generate benefits when targeted to the top 10% of households; and most likely to generate benefits when targeted to the bottom 90% – or as in figure 5, the bottom 50%.

So increasing the personal allowance is a great way to cut taxes then. Strange that Ritchie so opposes it, isn’t it?

4 thoughts on “Err, yes, as we’ve been saying”

  1. They may have differing gradients, buy all those paths were downward sloping. So tax cuts produce jobs, FULL STOP.

  2. From his latest post:

    “Tax avoidance is not as prevalent in the UK as most like to think.”

  3. Matthew L:

    What the actual fuck???

    He didn’t follow it up with “…but it is a huge problem in Scotland which is why Wee Jimmy Krankie needs a special tax adviser…”

  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Richie says:
    “Start with income tax, which is the most avoided tax. Here the capacity to avoid has to be linked to the amount of income a person has. If there is no money left over at the end of the week there is rarely capacity for tax avoidance.”

    I’m reading that as “The only good Brit is a skint Brit” and presuming this is a policy aim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *