The quantum tax required from the economy is, then, always the balancing figure within the fiscal equation, seeking to find the appropriate compromise between controlling inflation and providing economic stimulus.
All this nuance was lost when focusing upon tax alone, without ever discussing why that tax might not be at an appropriate level given the demand for public services in the country.
The difficulty with Spud’s framing here is that we know we can get two different answers from the electorate.
1) What free gifties would you like?
2) How much tax are you prepared to pay to get them?
This isn’t changed by tax being the thing that pays for those gifties or the balancing figure within the fiscal equation. Humans don’t work that way.
I don’t have any quantums so I’m not bothered about Capt. Potato taxing them.
The problem is that so many people are either working for the state or on welfare payroll’s but still have the vote that they can vote for 1) without the fear of having to pay for 2)
Government employee salaries will be raised to reflect “market conditions” when taxes increase and welfare recipients only pay consumption taxes (not sure about property taxes).
That’s why we’re in this mess, because people can vote for benefits that don’t have to pay for the consequences.
He quite obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of quantum, does he?
Off topic but am I the only one who has been sucked down the rabbit hole of viewing the Post Office Horizon enquiry on YouTube?
Truly jaw-dropping in places when the conniving and incompetence of PO staff at senior levels is on display.
If nothing else, I highly recommend the sessions involving the alleged senior prosecuting lawyer at the Post Office, Jarnail Singh. I defy anyone watching not to say “What The Fuck?” after 15 minutes or so of his bumbling incoherence.
Andrew C: But let’s let the government run the railways again.
A quantum is the smallest quantity that is not no quantity at all. So, using British pocket currency, that’s 1p. If Lord Spudcup is proposing 1p tax, or even 1p tax rate, I’m fine.
@bis.
He doesn’t understand most words he uses, so no great surprise.
@jgh
Quantum ( used as an adjective) will be associated with a phase change. An abrupt change rather than a smooth one. So a quantum tax would be one where there will be a level of taxation where people (presumably taxpayers) radically change their behaviour. Or maybe where tax revenue abruptly falls or rises. I very much doubt that’s what he’s intending to describe. I wsuspect he using it to describe the smooth curve situation.
Although I can imagine he’s be in favour of Schrodinger’s Cat taxation. The tax rate is indeterminate until you open the tax demand.
Far be it from me to come to the tuberous one’s defence, but according to the OED, “quantum” is a) “a small amount”; b) a simple synonym for “quantity”; c) “one’s share”; or d) “a specified amount”. The 1932 Supplement adds the scientific definition.
I would guess that Murph is groping for c) or d). Although I’m more certain that he’s just trying to sound clever.
Sorry Sam, that’s the noun. He’s using the adjective. Sure he could say “The quantum of tax…” As a “look I’m a professor” way of saying amount. But that’s not how he’s used it. And it certainly wouldn’t apply to the situation.
“…is, then, always the balancing figure within the fiscal equation, seeking to find the appropriate compromise between controlling inflation and providing economic stimulus.” That is a complete unknown. Nobody could possibly have the data to determine it. Problem with all fiscal equations. They’re largely meaningless because the values in them are really just guesses.
“Quantum tax”…?
“The tax-Gods do not play dice.”
bloke in spain said:
“I can imagine he’s be in favour of Schrodinger’s Cat taxation. The tax rate is indeterminate until you open the tax demand.”
Oh, that’s good!
A system where the government said the quantum needed next year was £900bn would be interesting.
And if they got to that point a month early, then they stopped collecting and sent the collectors off to work building a reservoir or could take unpaid leave.
1) What free gifties would you like?
2) How much tax are you prepared to pay to get them?
It’s really just a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul gets the gifties but Paul has to pay for them. Paul will vote for it, but Peter is not so keen.
The trick is to persuade the bulk of electorate that they are going to be Pauls. It’s only after the election that they discover they are Peters.
BiS
He quite obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of quantum, does he?
One meaning of ‘quantum’ is “a required or allowed amount, especially an amount of money legally payable”.
JG
The problem is that so many people are either working for the state or on welfare payroll’s [sic] but still have the vote that they can vote for 1) without the fear of having to pay for 2).
Precisely. Which is why a universal franchise + welfare state ultimately = socialism. Most people should lose their vote after 12 months on non-contributory benefits. Additionally, I would like to see an additional vote for business owners and unmortgaged property owners. Undemocratic? Democracy is only a relative, not an absolute good. Like alcohol, you can have too much of it.
Government employee salaries will be raised to reflect “market conditions” when taxes increase and welfare recipients only pay consumption taxes (not sure about property taxes).
The pay of public sector employees should not be ‘benchmarked’ to private sector pay – not least because of the WFH culture, the additional leave entitlement, flexi-time, and the gold-plated pensions…
“The pay of public sector employees should not be ‘benchmarked’ to private sector pay”
Surely it should be benchmarked to productivity, as the private sector is. If the public sector productivity falls, as it has since 2019, then the pay should fall too.
Again Theo you’re using the noun. He’s used it as a modifier for the noun ‘taxation’. As an adjective. Generally used in physics to describe a particle changing states or spin. The quantum part being the energy between the two states is either one or the other with no intermediate levels. So the energy is the quantum (noun) of energy. An indivisible number. A semiconductor is a quantum device because the electron passes from one side to the other without occupying the space in-between. The bit that Einstein didn’t like.
The tax he’s talking about in his equation is most definitely indeterminate. (couldn’t get more indeterminate) But it’s not going to collapse to a determinate state according to its energy level, is it?
In other words to use it as he’s using it, you’d need to posit an indivisible quantum of taxation directly dependent on other factors in the economy. And certainly not a matter of choice.
“The compromise between controlling inflation and providing economic stimulus”. Really? This from the ‘expert’ who insists the incidence of corporate taxes is always, always on the shareholders. This from the man who insists there is no Laffer Curve?
“ He quite obviously doesn’t understand the meaning of quantum, does he?”
There’s no solace in that.
I’ll get my own coat.
BiS
Using a word as a noun/adjective/verb does not change the word’s standard meaning (until dictionaries catch up with usage). So Spud’s usage is not incorrect, particularly if we assume he omitted ‘of’ after ‘quantum’….
Quantum tax…..
Is that like Schrödingers Tax, where it exists or it doesn’t, until you look at it, and may or may not give the expected yield depending on how much you do not observe it?
Like all of Spud’s proposals?
Quantum of Solanum perhaps?
The man’s an ignorant fool, as we all know, but a dangerous one, if he’s ‘teaching’ impressionable young students with his lack of understanding and moronic ideas.
Ed P: «Quantum of Solanum perhaps?»
Outstanding joke 🙂
We can assume nothing Theo, for was it not he who said “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”? No doubt scornfully, as is his general demeanour. Or some other toad?
I stand by my accusation. He used the word in it’s adjectival form. And we have ample prior evidence he rarely if ever understands what he’s writing about.