难道我是唯一一个对丽兹经济学和英国未来感到乐观和振奋的人吗？
Am I the only person that is optimistic and upbeat about the Lizz-economics and the future of UK
译文简介
我听了新任财政大臣发表的整个预算演讲。
正文翻译
Am I the only person that is optimistic and upbeat about the Lizz-economics and the future of UK
难道我是唯一一个对丽兹经济学和英国未来感到乐观和振奋的人吗？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
I personally think focusing on growth is the right direction UK should take. UK should champion more on free enterprises, wealth creation and break away from previous economic doctrine ( high tax, high benefits, high regulation and low growth). Tax is too high in the UK, too much red tapes, not enough productivity growth, too many idlers on benefits.
我听了新任财政大臣发表的整个预算演讲。我实际上认为，鉴于我们所处的环境，他们采取了正确的方法。我们已经离开了欧盟，我们需要收获英国脱欧的好处，制定我们自己的经济路线。我认为，英国脱欧的全部意义在于摆脱欧盟的经济正统，使英国经济成为一个低税率、低监管和更加外向的经济体（例如，更加关注与亚洲和美国的贸易关系）。英国将成为泰晤士河上的新加坡。利兹-特拉斯和她的团队正在实现这一目标。
我个人认为专注于增长是英国应该采取的正确方向。英国应该更多地倡导自由企业，创造财富，摆脱以往的经济理论（高税收、高福利、高监管和低增长）。英国的税率太高了，有太多的繁文缛节，生产力增长不够，有太多的闲人在领取福利。
I am so far happy with Lizz Truss at least she is being brave and show leaderships to take UK in a new direction. I honestly don't think the new budget and UK economic prospects are half as bad as people are suggesting.
随着亚洲经济（即中国）的快速崛起，英国正在失去其竞争力的优势。尽管预算案最乍看起来很糟糕，但这可能是这个国家需要的一剂强心针，让经济开始行动。没有短期的痛苦，就没有大量的收益。
到目前为止，我对利兹-特拉斯感到满意，至少她在勇敢地展示领导力，把英国带向一个新的方向。老实说，我不认为新的预算和英国的经济前景有人们所说的一半那么糟糕。
I personally think focusing on growth is the right direction UK should take.
This is fairly uncontroversial, everyone thinks we should focus on growth. The question is, is focused tax cuts on the higher earning threshold of the economy going to create that growth, and are the costs worth it? Most financial people right now seem fairly baffled as to where this 2.5% growth is going to come from.
There is a way to deficit spend into growth, but this just doesn't seem to be it. More direct investment, focused tax cuts on the majority of low-middle earners, VAT cut - any of these would be better.
“我个人认为专注于增长是英国应该采取的正确方向。”
这有什么好说的，每个人都认为我们应该专注于增长。问题是，对经济中的高收入人群集中减税是否能创造增长，其代价是否值得？现在大多数金融人士似乎对2.5%的增长从何而来感到相当困惑。
确实有方法可以将赤字支出转化为增长，但似乎并不是目前采取的办法。更多的直接投资，集中对大多数中低收入者减税，削减增值税--采取任何这些都会更好。
Trickle down economics doesn’t have the best evidence, exactly.
确实，涓滴经济学并没有证明自己是最好的的证据。
Low earners don’t innovate. They are vital to maintaining the infrastructure of the economy. If you want high growth and innovation you need to focus on mid to high earners. This has the negative effect of leading to higher inequality unfortunately.
低收入者不会创新。他们对维持经济的基础设施至关重要。如果你想要高增长和创新，你需要关注中高收入者。不幸的是，这有导致更大的不平等的负面效果。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
So tell me with unemployment at record lows and even stricter rules on immigration where are you going to get all the workforce for the growth they predict?
On top of that show me one example where tax cuts have led to a general economic growth aof a country? Usually the sext fiew profit but as with trickle down economics only 1% get it.
On top of that the gouverment on one side is fighting inflation by i creasing interest rates and on the other its fueling Inflation via tax cuts. Do you see how these two policies are head to head? And how future generations will be screwed by the larger gouvemrnet debt
那么，请告诉我，在失业率达到历史最低点，甚至对移民有更严格的规定的情况下，你打算从哪里获得所有的劳动力来实现他们预测的增长？
除此之外，请告诉我一个减税导致了一个国家普遍经济增长的例子？通常情况下，被政策选中的人都会获利，但就像涓滴经济学一样，只有1%的人得到了好处。
此外，政府一方面通过提高利率来对抗通货膨胀，另一方面又通过减税来助长通货膨胀。你知道这两种政策有多么矛盾吗？更别提未来的几代人将如何被更大的政府债务所坑害。
Where have tax cuts lead to economic growth? Ronald Reagan?
减税导致了经济增长的例子？罗纳德-里根？
That worked great have a quick look at economic costs vs economic gains here
Overwall it was still the rich who mostly profited with very little benefit for lower population and further tied the hands of future gouverment with even more debt on the balance sheet. You can try again
他的政策“非常有效”，请点击此处看一下他的政策下经济成本与经济收益之间的关系。
总的来说还是富人获利最多，低层人口受益甚少，而且进一步束缚了未来政府的手脚，资产负债表上的债务更多。你可以再试试别的例子
Ireland - Celtic Tiger?
那，凯尔特之虎--爱尔兰？
and then came 2008
然后就是2008年经济危机
If the stricter rules on immigration are something like this:
'we need certain skills, if you have them you're in, heck we might even pony up a settling in bonus. While if you turn up illegally and/or legally with nothing to contribute, we can't afford you so you have to go'.
That might do it for the employment element.
如果更严格的移民规则是这样的：
我们需要某些技能，如果你有这些技能，你就可以加入，我们甚至可以给你一笔定居奖金。而如果你是非法和/或合法入境的，并且没有任何贡献，那我们负担不起你，所以你必须离开。
这可能对就业是正向的影响。
Yeah but that generally lowers overall immigration. I am not from uk and many of my friends have chosen to go somewhere else after brexit. More hoops to jump through more likely people will go to a more attractive place so either way immigration will be lower.
是的，但这普遍降低了整体移民数量。我不是来自英国，我的许多朋友在英国脱欧后选择去别的地方。如果有更多的障碍需要跳过，人们更有可能去一个更有吸引力的地方，所以无论如何，移民都会降低。
Net migration has stayed at all time highs of approximately 300K. Where is this stricter immigration you are talking about? I am a member of an EU country and it took me 30 min to fill out an online form to get settled status to remain indefinitely. Which country that’s worth going has more lenient immigration rules? The US? Australia? Japan?
净移民数一直保持在约30万的历史高位。你所说的更严格的移民的点在哪里？我是一个欧盟国家的成员，我花了30分钟就填好了一份获得无限期居留的定居身份的在线表格。还有，哪个值得去的国家有更宽松的移民规则？美国？澳大利亚？日本？
Where will this growth come from?
你说的增长来自哪里？
Money printer go brrrrrrrr
印钞机，开动！
Pork markets, people making plum jam… the opportunities are endless.
猪肉市场、做李子酱的人......机会是无穷的。
Blind optimism and economic ignorance from an aging population.
Definitely not from leaving the world’s largest trading block. Anyone saying increased trade leading to prosperity is just swallowing false economic principles.
人口老龄化带来的盲目乐观和经济无知。
绝对不会来自离开世界上最大的贸易区。任何说贸易增加导致繁荣的人都在接受错误的经济原则。
And the people complaining about tax cuts, in particular on higher earners, where do you suggest growth should come from? Impose even higher crippling taxes?
而那些抱怨减税的人，特别是对高收入者，你认为增长应该来自哪里？施加更高的破坏性税收？
Keep it as is, cry me a river “crippling taxes” for people earning > £150k. You can afford to live, heat your house and buy food whilst people cannot regally afford to turn on their lights and heat their home. How’s the view from the ivory tower eh?
继续为收入超过15万英镑的人哭诉"令人崩溃的税收"吧。你可以负担得起生活，加热你的房子和购买食物，而一般人甚至无法负担得起开灯和加热他们的家。象牙塔里的风景如何啊？
I apologise I aspire to something more than just satisfying my basic needs. I promise I will shed a tear for the poor tonight.
我道歉，我渴望的东西不仅仅是满足我的基本需求。我保证，今晚我会为穷人流下一滴眼泪。
If there’s one thing I do agree with Liz it’s the fact that “We import 2/3 of our cheese…….. that is a DISGRACE!”
如果有一件事我同意丽兹的观点，那就是 "我们的奶酪有2/3是进口的........这是一个耻辱！"
Please provide an example of when trickle down economics worked. The only thing this is going to do is cause even great inequality, a worser economy and tie the hands of the next labour government.
请提供一个涓滴经济学发挥作用的例子。它唯一起的作用是造成更大的不平等，经济更糟糕，并束缚下一届工党政府的手脚。
Exactly this.
OP uses the "benefit scroungers" line to try and prove their point.
Too much Daily Mail and not enough actual critical thinking.
正是如此。
OP用"福利乞讨者"的说法来试图证明他们的观点。
每日邮报含量太高了，而没有足够的实际批判性思维。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That and "focusing on growth", another Tory bullshit slogan designed to dupe those who just listen to their marketing without paying attention to what they actually do.
还有"专注于增长"，这是保守党的另一个狗屁口号，旨在欺骗那些只听他们的营销而不关注他们实际工作的人。
Trickle down economics work very well in Switzerland. By far much superior economic model and much more stable economy than UK or EU combined.
That being said the issue with the Uk model is that its still to high taxes on the lower brackets (to low personal allowance and higher rate starting at 50k) and salaries for working and middle class are too low for the cost of living.
涓滴经济在瑞士运作得非常好。到目前为止，瑞士的经济模式要比英国和欧盟的经济模式优越得多，经济也稳定得多。
虽然如此，英国模式的问题是，它的低档税率仍然很高（个人免税额很低，高税率从5万开始），工人和中产阶级的工资对生活成本来说太低了。
Investing directly in something is much liklier to lead to growth - i.e. green energy projects, focusing on the industries of the future (hint, not manufacturing of cars), reshoring production and so on.
Giving rich people money so they put it into savings is less likely to be successful... Trickle down has been throughly proven not to work.
直接投资于某种事物更有可能导致增长--即绿色能源项目，专注于未来的产业（提示，不是汽车制造），重新布局生产支柱等等。
给富人钱，让他们把钱用于储蓄，不太可能成功...... 涓滴经济学已经被彻底证明是无效的。
You don't stimulate economic activity by fattening the bank accounts of the wealthy, you do it by putting more money in the hands of people who will actually spend it i.e. low to middle income earners.
你不能通过肥了富人的银行账户来刺激经济活动，你要做的是把更多的钱放在真正会花钱的人手里，即中低收入者。
It is clever, rather than the UK being bled dry by underregulated crown dependency Island nations, just become the unregulated tax haven island
I think this model can work for small places like Singapore, Hong Kong etc, but you also need to have a whole country on the side right? I say this as someone who stands to save many thousands under her new budget. As a very high foreign earner, what makes this Island unattractive to me is NHS horror stories, terrible housing situations, weak infrastructure and institutions, that is what makes me worried to invest 2M£ into a house and stay here forever, not the tax burden.
这很聪明，与其让英国被监管不足的王室附属岛国榨干，不如让它成为不受监管的避税岛。
我认为这种模式对新加坡、香港等小地方是可行的，但你也需要有整个国家的支持，对吧？我是作为一个在新预算下能省下不少钱的人这么说的。作为一个非常高的外国收入者，这个岛国对我没有吸引力的原因是NHS的恐怖故事，可怕的住房情况，薄弱的基础设施和机构，这些才是让我担心投资200万英镑到一个房子并永远留在这里的原因，而不是税收负担。
I for one welcome our French overlords as they buy our assets on the cheap and we become the promised vassal state post Brexit.
/s
I think her policy of focusing on growth only misses the trick. It is a very them budget with only the wealthiest benefiting. Truss seems determined to burn down the UK with a massive gamble which appears to not have any merit except inflation. We have a growth problem agreed. We have a wage problem and we have a deficit problem. Investing in the UK is a solution not giving away and duation of what we have. Training our people is the way forward. Not a scorched Earth policy.
欢迎我们的法国霸主，因为他们将廉价购买我们的资产，而我们在脱欧后将成为其附庸国。狗头。
我认为她关注增长的政策是一招臭棋。这是一个非常有针对性的预算，只有最富有的人可以受益。特拉斯似乎决心用一场巨大的赌博来烧毁英国，除了通货膨胀，这么做似乎没有任何好处。我们存在增长问题，同意。我们还存在工资问题、存在赤字问题。在英国投资是一个解决方案，而不是把我们拥有的东西送出去和贬值。培训我们的人民是前进的道路。而不是采取焦土政策。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Most of the tax changes only benefit the extremely well paid. I'm in this bracket, and think the changes are absolutely disgusting. If she really wanted to stimulate growth, the cost of those tax changes should have been applied to raise the personal allowance. You don't get a vibrant economy by 500k rich people having an extra £10k a year to invest, you do get it by 67m people having an extra £200.
Bankers bonus restrictions should be gone, not because bankers like big bonuses, but globally there is a certain amount of banking work to be done, and banks like paying people small salary and large bonus - the UK rules meant the banks had to pay people large salaries and average bonus, so they preferred other locations for people rather than do that. It should mean more banking activities in London, more income tax and more corp tax overall.
大多数的税收变化只对收入极高的人有利。我就在这个阶层，我认为这些变化绝对是令人厌恶的。如果她真的想刺激经济增长，这些税收变化的成本应该被用于提高个人免税额度。你不会因为50万富人每年多了1万英镑的投资而得到一个充满活力的经济，你会因为6700万人多了200英镑而得到它。
对于银行家的奖金限制应该取消，不是因为银行家喜欢大笔奖金，而是在全球范围内有一定量的银行工作，而银行喜欢付给人们小工资和大奖金--英国的规则意味着银行必须付给人们大工资和平均奖金，所以他们宁愿在其他地方找人也不愿意在英国这样做。取消这个限制意味着在伦敦会有更多的银行活动，获得更多的所得税和更多的公司税。
You’re the first person here I’ve seen get the bankers bonus point right. I agree 100% with what you said on that point. Hopefully the UK can attract more banking activity which will then to be taxed.
你是我在这里看到的第一个正确理解银行家奖金观点的人。我100%同意你在这一点上的说法。希望英国能吸引更多的银行活动，然后对其征税。
I think it’s brave but give it about a 20% chance of not blowing up
我认为此举很勇敢，但只有20%的机会不会搞砸。
Nothing you’ve said there couldn’t have been achieved without Brexit.
你说的一切没有一个是需要英国脱欧了才能完成的
“Reap brexit benefits”. Says it all about your view. I don’t share it in the slightest.
"收获英国脱欧的好处"。这表明了你的屁股。我丝毫不赞同。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
OP
The country has voted for Brexit, whether we like it or not.
这个国家已经投票支持英国脱欧，无论我们喜欢与否。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
And it hurts us more and more every day, specifically because there are no benefits to it.
而它对我们的伤害一天比一天大，特别是因为它没有任何好处。
I don’t think that’s true, honestly.
I don’t believe that those who voted leave would have voted for a hard brexit. If there was another vote today the outcome would be different, I think. Whilst some would have still voted for a hard brexit, I don’t think that was the majority’s intention.
老实说，我不认为那是事实。
我不相信那些投票离开的人，会投票支持硬脱欧。我认为，如果今天有另一次投票，结果会有所不同。虽然有些人仍然会投票支持硬脱欧，但我不认为那是大多数人的意愿。
OP
Yet 2019 GE, the country gave BJ a massive victory, he campaigned for Hard Brexit.
然而2019年的大选，这个国家让鲍里斯取得了巨大的胜利，他以硬脱欧为议题竞选。
Can you give us some concrete non-soundbite examples of Brexit benefits please? I.e. you can't just say "trade with other nations", because as you know we could already do that before Brexit and we're not even 1% towards and major new trade deals.
你能不能给我们一些具体的、非空穴来风的例子来说明英国脱欧的好处？也就是说，你不能只是说"与其他国家的贸易"，因为你知道，在英国脱欧之前，我们已经可以这样做了，而且我们甚至没有1%的机会达成主要的新贸易协议。
The remain campaign was so shit. The leave campaign also leant on an emotive reason for Brexit: to get control of our boarders. And leavers wanted that because they are subconsciously or consciously racist/nationalist. But what people didn’t realise is we need non English people do help with jobs that people don’t want to do; cleaning, warehouse work and airport staff. Wonder why there are massive queues at airports over the summer? Compare the workforce with precovid to now
“留在欧洲运动”搞得太糟糕了。脱欧运动还依赖于一个情绪化的理由：获得对我们边境的控制。脱欧者希望如此，因为他们下意识地或有意识地是种族主义者/民族主义者。但人们没有意识到的是，我们需要非英国人帮助从事人们不愿意做的工作；清洁、仓库工作和机场工作人员。不知道为什么夏天机场会出现大量排队现象？将疫情前的劳动力与现在的劳动力比一比就知道了。
You can't even spell her name, Henry, why should we trust you? ;-)
A few things;
Your view of "The whole point of Brexit" is one of potentially hundreds of interpretations. It's whatever you want it to be. Whatever this is though doesn't to me seem lixed to Brexit at all.
If we're focusing more on the US why are we still threatening to cross their red line re: NI and also recently heading over there admitting there's not even preliminary discussions occurring?
Focusing on growth is a great idea, but that is not achieved by giving the wealthy tax breaks who will just save it. It's far better achieved by reducing inequality, not increasing it.
Tax is not too high in the UK, it's in fact quite low for a developed country.
For more, don't listen to me, listen to this Oxford Emeritus professor of economics and the evidence he provides too.
"A budget that harms everyone except the very rich"
你连她的名字都拼错了，亨利，我们为什么要相信你呢;-)
有几件事：
你对"英国脱欧的全部意义"的看法只是潜在的数百种解释中的一种。它是你想成为的任何东西。但不管是什么，对我来说，这似乎与英国脱欧完全没有关系。
如果我们更关注美国，为什么我们仍然威胁要越过他们的红线：北爱尔兰，而且最近还前往那里，承认甚至没有发生初步的讨论？
注重增长是一个伟大的想法，但这不是通过给富人减税来实现的，因为富人只会把钱存起来。它最好是通过减少不平等，而不是增加不平等来实现。
在英国，税收并不高，事实上，对于一个发达国家来说，这里的税收是相当低的。
更多内容，就算不听我说，也要听这位牛津大学经济学荣誉教授和他提供的证据：
"除了非常富有的人，一个损害所有人的预算方案"（链接）
"Idlers on benefits"..
I've never met anyone who has this view that wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and doesn't know anyone who's been on benefits.
Most people on benefits have a job for fuck sake, some of them have mental health problems or disabilities, they're not chilling out having a great time.
If its so amazing why don't you do it? All aboard the gravy train!
"享受福利的闲人"。
我所知道的持有这种观点的人，不是含着银汤匙出生的，就是从来不认识一个领取福利的人。
大多数领取福利的人都有一份工作，他们中的一些人有精神健康问题或残疾，他们并没有放松下来享受美好的时光。
如果它这么棒，你为什么不领呢？所有的人都应该加入到这列财富列车中来!
Anyone can say that their policy is about promoting growth because economics is complicated and multifaceted. Lowering taxes is one such policy that you could argue promotes growth in the right circumstances but it is also a policy that conveniently answers a sense of Thatcherite nostalgia held by Tory members. The other side to it is higher inflation, higher borrowing, duation of the pound and more money hoarded by people that are not going to put it back in to the economy. The markets have shown very little confidence in the idea that these policies are actually going to promote growth. I don't believe Tory ministers really believe it is going to promote growth. It's just a bone to throw their members dressed up as some sort of long term strategy.
任何人都可以说他们的政策是为了促进增长，因为经济是复杂且多方面的。减税就是这样一项政策，你可以说它在适当的情况下促进了增长，但它也是一项可以方便地回应保守党成员所持有的撒切尔式怀旧之情的政策。另一方面是更高的通货膨胀、更高的借贷、英镑贬值以及更多不愿将它投入经济的人们会囤积的更多资金。对于这些政策实际上将促进增长的想法，市场几乎没有表现出信心。我不相信保守党部长真的相信它会促进增长。这只是把他们打扮成有某种长期战略的样子而丢出的一块骨头。
If she had announced she was cutting corporation tax in half for companies bringing new operations to the UK, I would agree with you. But that’s not what she did, she cut income tax by 1% (still higher than in some European countries) and cut tax for her voters because they are panicking about the next election.
如果她宣布为在英国开展新业务的公司减半征收公司税，我会同意你的观点。但她没有这样做，她把所得税削减了1%（仍然高于一些欧洲国家），并为她的选民减税，因为他们对下一次选举感到恐慌。
It’s the tens of billions for energy bills which is a joke, What’s the point in a laissez-faire tax and regulation policy when you are borrowing to subsidy the oil and gas industry? Not to mention all the money pumped into the economy during COVID.
We could have put that £60 billion into a infrastructure development fund and built schools, hospitals and developing our green energy industry.
当你借钱补贴石油和天然气行业时，自由放任的税收和监管政策有什么意义？更不用说在COVID期间注入经济的所有资金了。
我们本可以将这600亿英镑投入到基础设施发展基金中，建造学校、医院和发展我们的绿色能源产业。
You are right but posting on Reddit which is left as fuck, the tories wouldn’t get support on reddit even if they invented cold fusion.
你是对的，但在Reddit上发帖，这里左得要命，保守党即使发明了冷核聚变，也不会在Reddit上得到支持。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
How do you explain the pound tanking and lowest growth in G20 except russia. What are the reasons for this? Think about it. The answer is Tory politics.
你如何解释英镑贬值和G20国家中除俄罗斯外的最低增长。这其中的原因是什么？想一想吧。答案是保守党的政治。
Look at the EUR and USD. The answer is more complicated and it sounds like you need someone to blame and a simple answer.
看一下欧元和美元。答案比较复杂，听起来你需要一个人来指责和一个简单的答案。
The pound was 1.44 before the brexit vote in 2016. Now 1.08
2016年英国脱欧投票前，英镑为1.44。现在是1.08
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
GBP has been dropping for decades. But fine, BrExitTT and FuK TOrieesSS.
英镑几十年来一直在下跌。不过没事，都怪脱欧和特拉斯就行了。
How do you explain huge drop in imports since brexit and lowest growth in G20 apart from Russia?
你如何解释英国脱欧后进口的巨大下降，以及除俄罗斯外G20国家的最低增长？
OP you’re gonna get butchered but I don’t completely disagree with the sentiment.
The problem is the budget announcements were pretty disappointing. If they had first announced meaningful tax cuts for the middle or working class and later come out with the tax cut for the top 5% that would have been better received imo.
But generally I agree less red tape, less nanny state is a good thing. We’ll have to wait and see if they actually deliver that though. This was not it imo.
OP，你会被骂，但我并不完全不同意你的看法。
问题是，预算公告相当令人失望。如果他们首先宣布对中产阶级或工人阶级进行有意义的减税，然后再宣布对前5%的人减税，那么我认为会有更好的效果。
但总的来说，我同意减少繁文缛节，减少保姆式管理是一件好事。但我们必须等待，看看他们是否真正实现了这一点。不过我并不看好。