Cast_Iron wrote:


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden, third rate
economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become the first nation it is
today.

JNugent wrote:


Hmmm...

(a) People are attacted to agricultural workers but can't stick truckers.

(b) Truckers can/cannot be like agricultural workers.

Hmmmm........


I dunno either. :-)

JNugent wrote:


Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal
work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

Martyn Hodson wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


But if you reduce the tax burden surely you encourage
enterprise, which moves more money around the economy
and thus you still get your tax. I am not an economist,
but AFAIK there are still arguments about high vs low
tax . The rich will always provide you with more
revenue per capita as they're spending and earning more
cash.

That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh really ? That explains why the tax take increased by
nearly 50% when the 60% band was abolished.

It also explains why the top 10% of tax payers are now
paying close to 40% of the overall take compared to just
over 20% at the height of so socially equitable rates of
98%.



But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain
needs, once those needs are met their surplus cash sits in
the bank or wherever they choose to put it.

but that somewhere can include
direct investment in new business
investment in venture capital orgs
investment in banks, building socieites and other financial
services providers
all of which has a varying effect on job and wealth creation


It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and Thatcher
espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any significant degree.

Silk wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to cover this seasonal
work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

If you don't even know the area being discussed your opinion is worthless.
BTW its not seasonal work.

John B

Cast_Iron wrote:
Martyn Hodson wrote:

but that somewhere can include
direct investment in new business
investment in venture capital orgs
investment in banks, building socieites and other financial
services providers
all of which has a varying effect on job and wealth creation

It can, but the "filter down" effect that your alluding to and
Thatcher espoused didn't happen and hasn't happened yet to any
significant degree.

Yes, you never see satellite dishes or designer trainers on council estates,
do you?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:47:41 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



Everyone has certain needs, once those needs are met their
surplus cash its in the bank or wherever they choose to
put it.

This has what to do with the price of eggs ?


greg

If you hadn't snipped it your own contribution you would understand. In
order to refresh your memory I'll repost the relvant bit.

"The rich will always provide you with more revenue per capita as they're
spending and earning more cash."


That doesnt explain your non sequitur about the rich allegedly banking
surplus cash as if its a bad thing.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Silk wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:


That was Thatcher's theory, it didn't work.


Oh, really? In 1979, Britain was a gloomy, strike ridden,
third rate economy. Thatcher dug it out of a hole to become
the first nation it is today.

Was it and it is now better in what way do you think?

Silk wrote:
JNugent wrote:


Are there enough unemplyed workers in the locality to
cover this seasonal work?

Probably, yes. But they are too lazy.

Your evidence for this is?

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


But they don't spend more cash. Everyone has certain needs, once those needs
are met their surplus cash sits in the bank or wherever they choose to put
it.

Mr Considerably Wealthier than Yow might only need a
BMW, but he could decide to buy two Jaguars instead.