![]() Indeed, the impact of quantitative easing was not mentioned once in the hearing. That data is, again, to March 2020, and we know that the top line has now risen to 100%, aided (no end) by the fall in GDP, but that the real debt figure is well below the headline figure was not discussed. It is claimed to be £2 trillion, but net of quantitative easing it is not: Perhaps the most telling evidence of that is that there was no questioning within the hearing on the scale of the so-called national debt. I am not disputing that each of the three currently or formerly at the IFS might know about tax at a micro level, but macro knowledge appeared to be almost entirely absent from the transcript of the hearing, which I have read. And yet the issue that they were discussing was macroeconomics. So we have one person from a far-right think tank that will not disclose its funding and three other speakers, all of whom have worked for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is a microeconomic think tank that says it does not do macroeconomics. But I did notice something from the notice of the hearing. At one point I intended to watch, but events got in the way. I noted that this hearing was on yesterday. Sending a message to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, as he explores possible options for raising taxes at the autumn budget, experts from four of the country's leading economic thinktanks said any significant tax changes should not be introduced until a sustainable recovery has taken hold. Tax increases will be needed across the board for Britain's highest and lowest earners to bring down record levels of government debt amassed during the coronavirus crisis, leading economists have warned.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |