OK...I've said/written it many times on many sites, blogs etc...but I'll say it yet again.
There's no such thing as an "unfunded tax cut"! Spending needs funding, not spending doesn't need funding. Tax cuts aren't spending. Tax cuts involve not taking money from other people...and that isn't spending in any rational, logical, or meaningful use of the word spending.
The phrase "unfunded tax cuts" was developed and used by the "progressive" MSM to attack any proposal to cut Tax. It was particularly effective against Truss, unfortunately.
The phrase should never ever be used by anyone who is not Left, Progressive or similar.
Please, please "cease and desist"...as should everyone who doesn't want to partake in "Newspeak".
Your position is only true whena budget is being written. For any level of expenditure there has to be income, broadly from either taxation or borrowing.
Burnham cutting rhe tax take means he musr increase borrowing or cut expenditure, neither option is easy. That said, the nugatory cost of this headljne grab (some £400M) is pretty much a rounding error.
I note that our national debt is only growing by £5,170 per second! It's only £3,300,000,000,000. Plenty of room for some more completely unrepayable debt, before the inevitable financial crash happens.
You have to admit this is going to get funny when the journalists get hold of him.
Incidentally you are absolutely right about Starmer's defenestration being well planned and executed.
Clearly Healey was "in on it" from the start, so his being appointed Chancellor is no surprise...but only in retrospect.
Surely there was some inkling about the plot somewhere...but well concealed...or were the MSM also in on it.
In any event obviously Starmer was totally unaware, which shows how detached he really is from actual politics.
I recall Wilson, a brilliant politician but poor PM, disposing of a plot with the words "I know what's going on! I'm going on!"
Outlawing rough sleeping yet meanwhile endless funding and free accommodations for millions of unskilled migrants.
OK...I've said/written it many times on many sites, blogs etc...but I'll say it yet again.
There's no such thing as an "unfunded tax cut"! Spending needs funding, not spending doesn't need funding. Tax cuts aren't spending. Tax cuts involve not taking money from other people...and that isn't spending in any rational, logical, or meaningful use of the word spending.
The phrase "unfunded tax cuts" was developed and used by the "progressive" MSM to attack any proposal to cut Tax. It was particularly effective against Truss, unfortunately.
The phrase should never ever be used by anyone who is not Left, Progressive or similar.
Please, please "cease and desist"...as should everyone who doesn't want to partake in "Newspeak".
Your position is only true whena budget is being written. For any level of expenditure there has to be income, broadly from either taxation or borrowing.
Burnham cutting rhe tax take means he musr increase borrowing or cut expenditure, neither option is easy. That said, the nugatory cost of this headljne grab (some £400M) is pretty much a rounding error.
Yes he must increase borrowing or cut expenditure.
Neither means that tax cuts need funding. It is the spending which needs funding. It is really really simple.
But as he has announced a revenue cut without announcing how that will be balanced the cut is unfunded.
You're arguing semantics, at best. I have an oh my Christ OClock start tomorrow so that's the final word.
Oh, and I was 'enjoying' the discussion.
I note that our national debt is only growing by £5,170 per second! It's only £3,300,000,000,000. Plenty of room for some more completely unrepayable debt, before the inevitable financial crash happens.
As we're borrowing almost all the cash to pay the interest on the national debt we're maxed out.
There is no money and reducing the tax take makes the reckoning inevitable
So...tax until no real growth whatsoever doesn't make the reckoning inevitable?
Ever heard of Proposition 13?