You gather wrong
|
|
Yeah no, that's what I meant. AIUI, that's self-contradictory.
Not raising taxes means no more funds; no more funds means no increased expenditure; no increased expenditure means continued (WTF does he mean, "no return to"?) austerity. Like, "without raising taxes or making spending cuts"?!? Isn't the problem that spending is far too fucking low compared to what it needs to be, so to escape austerity he must increase spending? So what I had understood was that he has to either raise taxes or continue austerity; no to both is logically impossible. (Or, OK: Borrow money? But then that's just deferring the increased taxes to the future, so feels like a bit of a fib for marketing.) But yeah yeah, I'll go read your linky-blah now. (Even though it is Sky News.) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi |
|
Yeah, I noticed, so thanks.
(Google found it anyway.) Naah, didn't change my mind much -- I still think he's gonna hafta raise taxes. Perhaps not all that big a problem, though: A) People will be understanding, especially if he does it the right way around. B) The right way to do it is to start by reversing the tax breaks the Tories gave their (ultra-)rich cronies. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi |
|
"I'm not raising taxes, I'm cancelling a giveaway to the rich" is a hard argument politically
But only because the press will be all over it, much more so than when the giveaway was passed. -- Drew |