Re: You have to larf

She wasn't planning to GIVE it to those being slugged the highest marginal income tax rate, just slug them less.

Problem with that line is that it isnt just those paying the highest income tax marginal rate that invest their money in industry, everyone does that now via their pension fund and it is far from clear that those paying at the highest income tax marginal rate would in fact invest more in industry if their higher income tax marginal rate was reduced.

IMO it was actually just another political bribed, to get more of the Tory party membership to vote for her instead of Sunak with a rather transparent claim that it would boost the economy with no real evidence that it actually would boost the economy.

They weren't talking about govt investment, they were claiming that those paying the highest marginal income tax rate would do that and yes, that is very arguable indeed. And they weren't saying that they would invest in industry, JUST boost the economy.

Not god, just what now completely dominates any modern first world economy.

In reality the "market" is often you and me with our own investments including our pension funds.

Then you have misunderstood the reason why the markets have reacted. It was about her spend and borrow socialist culture she embraced resulting in a black hole in the public's purse. Hence my reference to the magic money tree the politicians you support thinks exist.

What, your misunderstanding? Probably from your envy and hatred towards the well-heeled.

It is perhaps ironic that even the IMF conceded that Truss's policies would result in economic growth.

You're falling behind (some) modern economic thinking:

LSE has always been a hot bed of Marxist theory, disproved over and over again in practice.

And yet Hayek wrote Road to Serfdom while on the faculty there.

I didn't say its members all *had* to be Marxists. Hayek seems to have understood Marxism rather than accepted it.

And I bet his book wasn't reviewed by the LSE.

It wasn't well received by some there. But Hayek was a *lecturer* there, for nearly twenty years.

She wanted to reduce taxation for the best off in the land. To be paid for by increased borrowing.

Of course I realise you think there is no need for taxation of any sort. If you actually think at all.

Sort of, some of tax cuts would have increased borrowing, as would her profligate spending plans.

My realisation is you can't think, or if you do, then do so badly like conflating reduced taxes with subsidies.

Yer - right. You want me to stoop to your level?