Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

All government revenues are the result of taxing citizens. Citizens only have money to be taxed if they are employed in productive money-generating enterprises.

If the laws and regulations of the nation are such that the citizens can’t make money, then the government has no choice but to cut taxes and regulations until private business can flourish again. Otherwise it’s a never ending strangling of business, lower revenues, lower tax takes, and so on in a downward spiral.

I can’t think of any other way out of the problem except enhanced productivity and trade. The government can’t tax what the citizens don’t make. Post-brexit and at the total end of the empire, Britain needs to become something like Singapore or Dubai - a hyper-capitalist free-trade haven.

Of course this will only happen after 10+ years of failure, leading to an erosion of living standards and endless finger pointing and blame. You are already seeing the collapse of the NHS and the FTSE lacking any global relevance.

I tend to think people underestimate the amount of govt investment that happens in our communities which will be neglected if left to private enterprise alone.

There needs to be a balance on taxation as too low can limit the ability of the govt to invest when needed.

Also your point assumes money will fairly transfer from private business to citizens when businesses have lower taxes? I don't think that is necessarily true.

I don't know much about the British tax system so can't say if the announced change is good or bad. The market however appears to be worried.

It is true the government can redistribute funds into investment. It’s also true if the citizens don’t make any money, the government will have little to tax and redistribute.

That’s only true if there is a balanced budget law that said government needs to comply with. The government here in the USA has been redistributing money here for ages that is not tied to taxation.

USA is a special case, with the dominant global reserve currency and military force, we have the special privilege of printing money that everyone needs. The UK hasn't been that since Bretton Woods

I don’t see how this is a privilege. It it nothing short of theft of money from taxpayers. People are saddled with the debt of others before they are even born.

Not a tax expert here.

Singapore has a progressive personal tax system with top personal tax rate of 22% (i have not looked at Dubai).

The UK also has a progressive personal tax system, they just cut their top rate of tax from 45% to 40%

Corporate tax is 17% in Singapore, and 19% in the UK.

Also factor in, Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 12.5% and progressive tax rate up to 40%.

This cut seems meaningful from a market confidence perspective, it is unclear how the UK intends to fund these tax cuts in tandem with energy bailouts. Economists have taken a view that the books do not balance here. The UK has suggested that economic "growth" will solve the problem. In terms of attracting talent and businesses (and now possibly investment) to drive that growth as an alternative to the likes of Singapore or Ireland it seems unlikely.

> The UK has suggested that economic "growth" will solve the problem.

with zero evidence that their tax cuts will have any such consequences.

But plenty of historical evidence that they will not.

What exactly would it take for you to accept that your policy proposals are a failure? Honest question here, because what I see is the UK doing exactly what you are saying they should do, but it's resulting in the general economic destruction of their country.

You mean what they enacted in the last week? I don't think a few days of slightly-reduced taxes is going to move the needle

No, what they've been enacting over the past few decades with the continued move towards privatization and destruction of public services. Like they've been doing what you've suggested for decades now. The 'downward spiral' you call out is because they're following your plans to a T. Cutting taxes and regulation, privatizing industries etc.

So to reiterate my question: At what point would you have to call that off and write off the privatization as a failure? Or would you keep going until you hit absolute rock bottom, then call any upward momentum a success?

The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization" - it's because on average people don't want to work a job where they need to be a saint. Highly skilled doctors and nurses get paid more, get respected more, and have more agency working outside of government-run agencies. Average people who enjoy cushy, do-nothing government jobs love it when government expands, but unfortunately the work product produced is shoddy, net-negative to the economy, and lights money on fire.

The solution is more privatization, not less. The UK needs to do everything it possibly can to help entrepreneurs - let all the Hong Kong exiles in to start new businesses and move their capital in. Free trade agreements with the US but ultimately as many countries as possible.

You can look to Venezuela and Argentina for the alternative.

Right so we've established then that there will never be a point where too much privatization becomes an issue in your argument. If something fails then it's because it wasn't private enough. At least that's what I assume since you continue to fail to answer my question.

And you saying the NHS is a failure because it's not private enough is absurd, because there are plenty of private health institutions throughout the world that don't have this issue. It's almost like the NHS has been slowly being strangled through the way classical privatization works: Remove funding, make it worse over time so that the populace things privatization works better and then gut it and replace.

> The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization"

You're in luck. Current UK government believes in privatisation of public services, massive tax cuts, and funding those tax cuts by massive cuts in public spending.

They've released one mini-budget, and that was so bad they crashed the UK economy. The pound is at the lowest it's been in decades; the Bank of England is taking emergency measures to try to stabilise the economy

Almost everyone describes this as a disaster, and even traditionally right wing fiscal sources are saying we need to adequately fund public services and those need to be paid for by some kind of taxation.

There's a reason you don't hear much about purely private healthcare: where ever it's tried it fails. In England we have private provision of private services, and these serve a very narrow niche where people are either treated for minor things, or treatment is begun and then they're discharged back to the NHS when their money runs out; we also have private provision of NHS services and that fails because they can't provide the service for the money available or because they're just terrible (see countless CQC reports).

When did any politician admit to making a policy error of this magnitude? I find it hard to even think of any examples of a politician admitting they were wrong about something substantial.

What you are saying is the policy of the new prime minister. When it was announced, the pound lost 40% of its value as a result of that.

Her policies are the result of an ideological adherence to Reaganomics trickle down economics instead of any pragmatic economic policy.

I live here and your proposed hyper capitalistic haven sounds like a nightmare. You even preempted any possible failure this type of policy can have for 10 years.

You are experiencing the rot of failing economy in real time. The only solution is useful, productive enterprise - this is how functional, successful societies operate. There could be other paths there, but the most sure bet is to unshackle capital and let it invest freely.

That's what the conservative party has been doing for the past twelve years and of course, it will take ten more years of pain to reap the supposed benefits while the country is falling apart.

I guess the question is, is there any event or outcome that would disprove that this is the best way forward?

You need educated, healthy workers as well. That takes government investment.

The left despises monopolies in business - they constantly hunt it out and pillory businesses that engage in monopoly activity.

The left worships monopolies in education - all education must go through the government and indoctrinate children accordingly.

I am fine with the government investing in education. But the government should give tax money directly to parents to allocate to the schools of their choosing. Otherwise monopoly takes hold

Capitalism isn't working?!? Let's do it harder!

Because we know alternatives work better?

Capitalism, flawed as it is, is the one economic system that helped move billions people out of poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com