You can start a compnay without starting a business. You can start a business without starting a company.

Yes the story of Joseph is one of the most complex and deeply layered stories in the Bible. The business of the seven years of plenty, followed by the seven years of famine makes an ancient and indelible case.

The years of plenty are rendered meaningless if society collapses and millions die during the years of famine.

Whoever the author of the story was, his condemnation of short-term thinking still resonates all these thousands of years later. Some truths never change.

Of course tax cuts forever is patent nonsense; just as forever increasing taxes is. (I thought I made that perfectly obvious, but apparently you missed it.)

So why then do we ONLY hear constant bleatings for tax cuts? Why is it that most right wing commentators frame tax cuts as the magic formula for winning elections, turbo-charged economic growth, and wonderful happiness all through the land ever after? (And why no political aspirants who plainly propose to increase taxes in order that the country runs better?)

Any populist drop kick can promise tax cuts, it takes no skill, leadership or vision. Just the willingness to appeal to people’s basest sense of self-interest. But it is inherently a self-limiting formula. At some point it stops working. Then what do you dummies do for a slogan?

captcha: bridge totaled
Where ?

Happy to agree. I’ll even go as far as to state he most likely disappointed those on the Left as much as those on the Right by steering a steady ship rather than responding to the different criticisms. He was brave in as much as he wouldn’t bow to pressure to change from the course that was set. Not all would agree that that was right but credit to him for doing so.,

However, I think he painted himself into a corner with his refusal to consider changes to taxation when he could have done so without rocking the boat.

FWIW, I don’t see WFF as tax cuts either.

Thanks for your reply. Ironically, I think your comments support the view that Labour took the “don’t rock the boat” strategy and largely went with the current. I do agree with your comments about capital gains tax although it does open up a pandoras box.

I’ve commented before about the 39% rate – it may be a good idea in terms of a progressive tax system but it’s impractical and inefficient when company rates are being cut to 30%. As to your other point, if govt spending is not increasing as a % of GDP (everything else being equal), there’s no argument against adjusting the thresholds.

It’s difficult to argue with the belief that Cullen was against tax rates on ideological grounds, more than economic ones.

The 39% bracket was a good idea and signaled in the ’99 campaign. Bracket creep is a marginal argument.Anyone who shifts up a bracket has more money in their pocket and tying it to CPI is a red herring for a whole lot of reasons I can’t be bothered going into…

Billy – arrgg and you knows what I was doing too, m’arty…

Yes it is.

I don’t know if you’re a religious chap. I’m not, but I know the bible. There’s a story in there that you’ve most likely heard of about Joseph interpreting the dreams of the Pharaoh. Skinny cows and fat cows? The point being that it is really stupid for an economy to eat all the good times and then have everyone starve during the next famine. That’s what Cullen did, ran surpluses, paid back debt, got the public sector functioning again and generally acted like a finance minister that believed that government has a role to play in promoting freedom and prosperity in the long term.

You say he is ideologically opposed to tax cuts, which really is spin. Or rather, a sort of reverse projection, whereby the right assumes that because they have a ideological “belief in tax cuts”, that the left must be polar opposites. I’m sure someone as smart as you can identify the name of that particular logical error.

What Cullen has an objection to is the belief that tax cuts are a cure all panacea to any given economic circumstance. When put that bluntly, it sounds stupid, but that’s what the right has been preaching for many years now.

Gov’t running a surplus because the economy is running flat out? Taxes are too high! Pay it back!

Economy slows down? Must need a tax cut to stimulate growth!

Wage growth not happening? Tax cuts will increase after tax pay!

Cullen simply rejects this flatulence and goes with a more non stupid idea that for everything there is a season, and that fiscal policy is a useful tool in more than one direction. One that needs taxes to sometimes rise as well as fall. It will be interesting to see if the right will be prepared to raise taxes to pay back the debt we will be taking on to weather the coming storm, once that storm passes. I doubt it, but live in hope. It’s a deeply conservative idea that they used to understand very well, till they got the supply side jesus religion.

I think you make a couple of valid points.

However equally valid are two factors you haven’t mentioned.

1. The increase in Government spending as a % of GDP having similar effects as to those you describe.

2. The fact that average % of tax paid actually increased for two reasons. One, the addition of the 39% marginal rate for the top bracket (“rich pricks”). Two inflation leading to tax creep as people received higher salaries but paid a higher marginal rate and average rate (especially those around the $60K mark).

Addressing either of these would have allowed for scope in tax cuts. That Labour chose not to address either of these lead to considerable resentment, particularly among the chattering classes