Raspberry Pi chairman signals manufacturing will move abroad

[Tabbykatze]

If we did no deal brexit, would the government really cut corporation tax? The government is about to lose a ton of money over trade, reducing corporation tax seems like a bad idea.

[Smudger]

If we did no deal brexit, would the government really cut corporation tax? The government is about to lose a ton of money over trade, reducing corporation tax seems like a bad idea.

Yes, in order to make us a low tax, low-regulation tax haven. The fact that for normal people this would mean low-welfare and no-NHS doesn't matter for those pushing it.

[aidanjt]

Yes, in order to make us a low tax, low-regulation tax haven. The fact that for normal people this would mean low-welfare and no-NHS doesn't matter for those pushing it.

Lowering tax rates and regulatory burden doesn't automatically mean reduction of public services, if the reduction corresponds to a significant increase in business and employment, you can actually get higher revenues and reduced service demand from the reductions. I'm not saying that there's a high likelihood of that happening, economic predictions is pretty much super high stakes gambling, since the economy is an incredibly dynamic entity encompassing millions of people and countless moving parts, including that of other economies across the world. But, I'm just saying that the Laffer curve is a thing.

[Smudger]

Lowering tax rates and regulatory burden doesn't automatically mean reduction of public services, if the reduction corresponds to a significant increase in business and employment, you can actually get higher revenues and reduced service demand from the reductions. I'm not saying that there's a high likelihood of that happening, economic predictions is pretty much super high stakes gambling, since the economy is an incredibly dynamic entity encompassing millions of people and countless moving parts, including that of other economies across the world. But, I'm just saying that the Laffer curve is a thing.

Has that ever happened anywhere? Is there a low-tax, low regulation state that has good public services?

Edit: I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a country that uses this model successfully...

[Corky34]

I'm guessing defining what "good public services" even means would be tricky, good compared to what, are privately run/owned public services still public services, is it even service.

[TeePee]

Has that ever happened anywhere? Is there a low-tax, low regulation state that has good public services?

Edit: I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a country that uses this model successfully...

I don't know about public services, but low taxes certainly saved Ireland's economy...

[spacein_vader]

Has that ever happened anywhere? Is there a low-tax, low regulation state that has good public services?

Edit: I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a country that uses this model successfully...

Monaco?

[gagaga]

Has that ever happened anywhere? Is there a low-tax, low regulation state that has good public services?

Edit: I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a country that uses this model successfully...

The definition of good public services depends on which side of the political fence you sit on. For the right it means small, mininimal, efficient - only provide what is needed (and the view of that differs between UK (Conservatives=NHS is good) and USA (public healthcare=bad) and provide it well. For the left it 'good' for public services means wide-reaching, comprehensive, good but with little reference to cost (as their principle if the state should provide as much as it can, not as little).

This is important here. We could, of course, have the government (ie, as proxy for the less than 50% net taxpayers, ie about 25% of the population) pay for a state-funded national fibre network, but the problem is that would be horrendously expensive and people don't want to pay for it. True example: my street was looking at fibre as much of the street has bad VDSL with some (including me) on Virgin. Government vouchers would cover the cost, but each house was asked to guarantee £500 in case some of the vouchers didn't get awarded. 7 agreed, 14 did not. This is on a street where the cheapest house is worth over a million quid and most work from home in some capacity and £500 is not in any way material to them.

And so we're at the core of us Brits - we all want left wing public services (ie comprehensive) but at a right wing price (IE minimal).

If you're interested in a place where a nationwide fibre network has been attempted, read up on Australia (clue: it's not going well).

[Saracen999]

The biggest problem with a national fibre network is that known as opportunity cost. Every pound raised in tax only gets spent once (yes, I know about multipier effects) so if you spend it on A, it's no longer available to spend on B.

And if A is national fibre, B can be the NHS, housing provision, adult mental services, adequate non-hospital provision for the elderly, education, transport infrastructure, policing and crime prevention, defence, anti-terror and cyber, and so on.


So .... ask the public if they want tax rises specifically restricted to national fibre and my bet is most would say no way.

So then ask them, which "opportunity cost" they want the billions taken from to pay for it? NHS? Social housing? How many fewer police officers or nurses do we want, just for national fibre? Good luck with that. I would certainly vote 'no' to a publicly-funded fibre network. I don't need 90% of the speed or bandwidth I already have.

[aidanjt]

I don't know about public services, but low taxes certainly saved Ireland's economy...

Yup. Our public services aren't in a great state, but that's not for lack of spending, just lack of competent/honest spending that actually filters down to the frontlines.