• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Strikes take 2

Forums New posts
BarnaBlue said:
Any chance of a link to this study?
Click to expand...

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/impact_assessment.zip


You'll find it more comprehensive then your evidence of, "look around you," earlier on in the thread. p50 confirms the decline in GDP as a result. p33 confirms the yield. Combine the two and you'll find that total tax revenues fall as a result. You may also like to consult the following:

Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Mirrlees (1971) ‘Optimal Taxation and Public Production II: Tax Rules’, American Economic Review[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial], 61, 3, 261-78.[/FONT][/FONT]



I'm sure you remember Wilson's aphorism that "a week is a long time in politics." On that basis 20 years sounds like more than a life time.I'm also reminded of a remark by Keynes that he preferred the short term and the medium term since "in the long term we're all dead".
Click to expand...


Keynes actually said, "in the long run, we are all dead." Nevermind though. You'll also note that this is about economics, not politics. The nature of a FTT would mean that GDP is likely to decline more than the 20 year average in the first couple of years, mainly because it would eliminate a number of low margin activities (which is the point of it I assume from those wanting to introduce it). The 20 year average is therefore a better measure of whether it is economically viable. You also didn't respond to my comments on tax incidence.

Why do you want to introduce a tax that will financially impact the users of financial services rather than the banks? Why is the left so obsessed with symbolic gestures, even where the outcome disadvantages the people they claim to help? Is it because ultimately their policies and ideas have been shown not to work and so instead they convince themselves that only good intentions matter?
 
Neil_F said:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/impact_assessment.zip


You'll find it more comprehensive then your evidence of, "look around you," earlier on in the thread. p50 confirms the decline in GDP as a result. p33 confirms the yield. Combine the two and you'll find that total tax revenues fall as a result. You may also like to consult the following:

Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Mirrlees (1971) ‘Optimal Taxation and Public Production II: Tax Rules’, American Economic Review, 61, 3, 261-78.






Keynes actually said, "in the long run, we are all dead." Nevermind though. You'll also note that this is about economics, not politics. The nature of a FTT would mean that GDP is likely to decline more than the 20 year average in the first couple of years, mainly because it would eliminate a number of low margin activities (which is the point of it I assume from those wanting to introduce it). The 20 year average is therefore a better measure of whether it is economically viable. You also didn't respond to my comments on tax incidence.

Why do you want to introduce a tax that will financially impact the users of financial services rather than the banks? Why is the left so obsessed with symbolic gestures, even where the outcome disadvantages the people they claim to help? Is it because ultimately their policies and ideas have been shown not to work and so instead they convince themselves that only good intentions matter?
Click to expand...

The reason we become rather dazed and confused by your references to quotes is they have only relevance to pure economic theory . making a vague refernce to 2 pages in this huge report means nothing . Which paragraph in what context does the whole report actually have to what you would call the real world ?

And to generalise that the left only makes symbolic representations is inane , then state a taxation on finical services (of which you exclude the details of said tax , which is odd given how many you give for your points ) as an example of self affirmation is just as bad . Confirmation bias is a concept that appears to elude you ?
 
osymandus said:
The reason we become rather dazed and confused by your references to quotes is they have only relevance to pure economic theory . making a vague refernce to 2 pages in this huge report means nothing . Which paragraph in what context does the whole report actually have to what you would call the real world ?
Click to expand...

You could read the report for a start. Economics is not an exact science, but fiscal policy can't be isolated from the body of economic theory and experience. The theory and the modelling indicates that a financial transaction tax would reduce GDP and lower tax yields. The tax would also be paid by the users of financial services rather than the banks. The theory was vindicated by Sweden's experience with a FTT, which it later abandoned.

Now policy makers have the choice of taking this into account or ignoring it. Perhaps they think it will be different this time (though there is no evidence for it) or perhaps they just don't care. Maybe they want to destroy certain aspects of financial services? My suspicion is the EU are in favour because it will set a precedent: an EU wide tax where the revenue is collected directly by the EU rather than handed over by national governments. That would be a big political step, and perhaps one policy makers are prepared to accept the economic consequences of. I don't know.

If you want to ignore the body of evidence, fine. I prefer to gather all the available evidence and make a decision accordingly.

And to generalise that the left only makes symbolic representations is inane , then state a taxation on finical services (of which you exclude the details of said tax , which is odd given how many you give for your points ) as an example of self affirmation is just as bad
Click to expand...

This sentence makes no sense.

Confirmation bias is a concept that appears to elude you ?
Click to expand...

Appearances can be deceptive
 
And that neil-f is the point i was searching for .
your arguments are given an supplied as if economics is an exact science. In fact most examples declared as some indisputable fact when their little more then interpretations or at worst guesses . An economist is a reactionary hybred between a mathmatictian and a social historian.

Most of this evidence is hind-site interpretation . So your last quoted reported is simply a huge tomb that your opponents can get lost in rather then actually helping to prove your points ?
 
Last edited:
When your shoes, wallet and jacket are made from animals on the endangered species list you have no need to strike.
 
osymandus said:
And neil-f is the point i was searching for . yourarguments are given an supplied as if economics is an exact science. in fact most examples declared as some indisputable fact. when at best your reactionary hybred between a mathmatictian and a social historian.most of this evidence is hindsite intertation of eventsall . But what is your point of quoting from such a vast text.
Click to expand...
Are you drunk Osy?
 
MK Shrimper said:
No one voted for a coalition. Plenty vote for a strike, and who knows what the unheard voices of the NASUWT feel? You can't automatically judge that they're anti-strike, as I can't say they're pro-strike.

For something so important it baffles me how they can be so apathetic.
Click to expand...

For all I know nationally the abstainers may be all fervently pro-strike but some recent personal local experience of my own on this....
In the 2008 ballot on a strike in local govt there was a turnout of barely 20% with only a fraction of a % more voting for a strike than against. The strike went ahead but was very poorly supported and called off after two days. Where I work the local branch of Unison lost a lot of members after that as going ahead with a strike on such a low level of support was felt by many to be the final straw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services

Zone Advertisers MFF2

Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship


Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top