Comments on: The second dimension of deficit reduction

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:12:18 +0000

I was looking forward to reading the Litmus publication. Shame I don’t have Twitter or Facebook, as there is no way to get hold of it without one of these two. Ridiculous.

By: Mr. Sensible

Mr. Sensible — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:36:50 +0000

IPP I think that’s ridiculous.

There’s been a lot of debate on that on here, and my view is unchanged.

I agree broadly with what this article says, but I have a problem with replacing air passenger duty with per plain duty; this could create its own problems for passengers in respect of more double booking and all the trouble that causes.

Instead we just need to put the existing duty up.

By: idle pen pusher

idle pen pusher — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:42:26 +0000

Why the hell did I link to the report? Argh. I meant to link to this.

By: idle pen pusher

idle pen pusher — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:06:54 +0000

There's room for raising more tax: by legalising drugs and prostitution.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:58:39 +0000

Sorry, but you are way off beam. So far you have suggested £10 billion of tax increases which gives a 10:160 mix, or 10:75 if you only plan to cut half of the deficit. The reality is that in order to cover 50% of the deficit by tax increases you would either have to put the basic rate of income tax up to 40% or the top rate up to 120%, which doesn’t work.

By: Antonine Wall

Antonine Wall — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:25:40 +0000

a 50:50 cuts/tax approach to reducing the deficit was hawkish enough for that well known cypto communist Margaret Thatcher…

By: Larry Gardiner

Larry Gardiner — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:35 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd: The second dimension of deficit reduction – getting a fair contribution from taxation http://bit.ly/cTrSdZ

By: Albert Dominguez

Albert Dominguez — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:05:54 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd: The second dimension of deficit reduction – getting a fair contribution from taxation http://bit.ly/cTrSdZ