“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

[gggddjkki]

I don’t remember anxiously waiting for budgets like we have the last few years earlier on in my adulthood. But when you read statements like this (as I have seen in the headlines today) what do you interpret it to mean? What does taxing the wealthy look like to you? Taxing higher earners more? From what point? Higher taxes on industry?

Does anyone think any of this will work?

https://archive.ph/HNKkG

For the love of god! You may think that poster is doing a poor job of hiding that they are a teacher. You are doing a poor job of showing that you don't need a restraining order.

Why do you keep on about it then? You started it, for the love of God let it drop.

Out of interest why do you think she's a teacher? Apologies if I missed that as her posts are very long.

Also, why does it matter?!

Maybe there's a difference between an A level economics teacher and an economist at the Bank of England (ahem). Although it obviously doesnt matter as we aren't deciding UK fiscal policy here on MN.

For the love of God: troll hunting is prohibited in the Talk Guidelines.

I have not reported any of your posts because I think your insanity should be left to stand for all to see, but given the extent to which your persistence with this nonsense is derailing the thread now you need to either:

1. Contact MNHQ and as I said several pages ago I’m happy for them to release the information to you that they can verify I AM NOT A TEACHER because they know my identity and you do not; or

2. If you don’t wish to actually obtain the information verifying that your weird and obsessive posts are absolute nonsense, then keep your weirdness to yourself, stop breaking the Talk Guidelines and stop derailing the thread.

Yes, also shocking. In one of my very first posts on the thread I set out quotes of all of Reeves’ pre-election pledges. She is an absolute joke. She even specifically admitted that the state of the public finances was known before the election (blowing her claim afterwards that there was an unknown “black hole” out of the water) and that messing around with tax rates won’t create growth. I’ve copied and pasted them again here:

Labour's manifesto is, "fully funded and fully costed - no ifs, no ands, no buts… no additional tax rises."

"I have been very clear that every policy we announce, and every line in our manifesto, will be fully costed and fully funded."

“Nothing in our plans requires any additional tax to be increased.”

“We’ve got the Office for Budget Responsibility now… You don’t need to win an election to find out [about the public finances].”

“I don’t believe that fiddling around with tax rates is the best way to grow the economy.”

However, this doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to elect people whose stated policies involve another £130bn per year of borrowing on top of the damage she’s done (and that’s before we even account for bond market reaction, rising interest on the public debt and behavioural impacts which will make that figure orders of magnitude higher in reality).

You are the only one who thinks other people’s professions are relevant to the discussion. You brought this up. You have then persistently made weird conjectures I have a job that I don’t have because you refuse to accept that your fantasies are wrong and you have continued incessantly trying to derail the thread.

You’re the only person who thinks that your weird obsession with teachers is pertinent or that your weird obsession with me is pertinent. You’ve added nothing of worth to the discussions about economics and fiscal policy.

Either ask MNHQ to verify to you that I’m not a teacher and I’ll give them permission to confirm this to you, or focus your energy on addressing your mental health issues.

I also didn’t say I “know” Kemi Badenoch. I said I’ve had the misfortune of having met her and had conversations with her a several times in a business capacity. This was actually before she was the leader of the Conservatives because she’s now fairly irrelevant as leader of the opposition. It was when she was the Minister for DBT when she - supposedly - had some power to do something useful.

And now all they seem to be saying "but.... we forgot about Brexit" in the numbers.

Precisely.

Reeves, the liar, cannot claim she did not know about Brexit - might also be worth looking at her voting record during all the Brexit amendments etc.

It’s the early positioning for setting the scene for a referendum on rejoining the EU if Labour are voted in for a second term.

Entirely plausible - the SNP are evidently intent on rerunning the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ independence referendum.

That’s a trait they have in common - they’re good at division, and getting people at each other’s throats.

They forgot how economics works more likely.

I think they’ve concluded it’s their only chance, the fact that they’ve begun the ground work so early and with such a huge majority is quite concerning as it means they’ve given up on even attempting to convince voters through good Governance.

Well, if Reform’s numbers are anything to go on, the electorate are truly sick of Labour’s sneering attitude, and their manifesto-busting tax hikes - for which they have no mandate.

A second-term looks highly improbable - I wouldn’t offer odds on them seeing out this term tbh.

Difficult to comment on Reform’s policies when even you - an intended voter for them - can’t name any.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

I haven’t “lost touch with Kemi”. I simply had a few business meetings with her in her capacity as DBT Minister.

You have been told multiple times by me and other posters that the economic analyses of Reform’s policies and their impact were they to be implemented have been performed based upon their publicly declared policies on their own website in their most recent manifesto and then the subsequent amendments they’ve made to this with further public announcements more recently (which actually increase the overall cost, with still no proposal on how to pay for them).

I plan to take a couple of days of annual leave in half term to spend with my children and visit family. Not the whole week sadly as I’m rather busy and need to keep some leave for Christmas. Much as these invasive questions about my private life might be fascinating to you given your obsession with me and your strange and deranged theories, other posters on the thread have also made clear to you that your ongoing updates about your fantasies are not relevant to the topic being discussed and asked you to cease this nonsense.

I offered to have MNHQ confirm to you that your delusions are indeed figments of your imagination by allowing them to release information to you verifying that I am not and never have been a teacher. You have not taken up this offer so that you can seek help with your difficulty distinguishing your imaginary world from reality and instead continue to post your delusions here. I think it’s clear that I’m not the only one who is bored of it.