The shortfall in social care funding is approx 6billion p.a. rising to 8billion over the next 5 years. So yes, 100 billion for HS2 would pay for many years of fully funded social care.
No, it wouldn’t. Look at the maths again. Who calculated this £6 Bn shortfall, and on what basis? What is the shortfall covering? An increase in standards or the difference between what local authorities can pay per resident now and what the care homes need to charge for current levels of care?
You (I think it was you) also stated that people’s own assets shouldn’t be used to fund care, so subtract that from your starting point. You should also define whether your estimates cover just the people currently in care homes or people receiving care visits in their own homes too, and what your assumptions are for the growth in older people needing care in future years. If you are going to attempt economic arguments you have to define your inputs clearly.
Of course corp tax receipts are rising because the economy grows!
That’s what ‘inflation adjusted’ meant.
Also, Govt halted the tax cut to 17% by your argument, they have deliberately cut their own tax revenues.... but why stop at 17% why not 5% your argument is we 'll get even more in!!!
That was not my argument. There is an optimum level for CT that brings in maximum revenue. Higher is not always better. If it were, every country would be charging 50% CT. It’s not a linear scale where lower rates = more revenue. If you think you know better than the economists at the Treasury, though, by all means go and offer them your services. Do report back.