"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Again it's the same issue - VAT isn't really a big cost to low paid workers - so the winners would again be the better paid workers with more discretionary none food spending.
But I wasn't expecting to provide detailed tax plans of my own. I was just pointing out that there are always alternative. Saying, "Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" is silly when there are so many different ways you could change taxes.
But cutting VAT saves someone on benefits a handful of quid a week, and a footballer tens of thousands of quid a week.
Scrapping the TV Licence saves everyone £157 a year, it’s the most progressive tax cut.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Last time inflation was a serious problem commodity prices shot up and kept going up. The oil price shock in the mid seventies was followed by escalating oil prices for the next six years. Oil prices more than doubled in 1974 but they continued rising to more than double that again by 1980.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
"If" is doing all your heavy lifting here.
The problem we have on the horizon is 10 to 12% inflation over the next months which is domestically rather than internationally driven. Wage-price inflation in particular which you assured me two years ago would not happen. Increases in mortgage rates from zip to 4 or 5% is another issue you are ignoring that could bite the national arse.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
If that were the case I'm not sure why he would release the Azovstal defenders in exchange for a washed-up pro-Russian Ukrainian politician.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
When Britain mobilised 3000 reservists in April 2020, did they let any of them hop on Eurostar to France?
IIRC there hasn’t been any compulsion used in the call up of U.K. reservists since conscription ended, at the least.
How does a reservist avoid callup? Surely they have to answer and they can't just ignore the notice.
It is fairly trivial to get out of, when called up, IIRC. Fitness is a classic.
Quite a few people avoided Afghanistan and Iraq, in the later stages, I believe.
From the HAC people I know, it is about being willing to serve that is their reason for being in the reserves.
I know they are the enemy, but watching footage of ordinary Russians, who clearly already have very little, waving their families goodbye is pretty pitiful.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Last time inflation was a serious problem commodity prices shot up and kept going up. The oil price shock in the mid seventies was followed by escalating oil prices for the next six years. Oil prices more than doubled in 1974 but they continued rising to more than double that again by 1980.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
"If" is doing all your heavy lifting here.
The problem we have on the horizon is 10 to 12% inflation over the next months which is domestically rather than internationally driven. Wage-price inflation in particular which you assured me two years ago would not happen. Increases in mortgage rates from zip to 4 or 5% is another issue you are ignoring that could bite the national arse.
Wage-driven inflation would be a good thing and is something I've been calling for. The lack of wage-driven inflation has led money going to asset-driven inflation in the past (see: House Prices) instead and has been replaced with commodity-driven inflation.
A fall in commodity prices, a fall in asset-prices and a rise in wages is almost too good to be true territory, if that's what you're expecting.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
Absolutely, lower earners already benefit by not paying the tax that higher earners are now saving. But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
Feck me. The poor are the lucky ones!
Not at all, but the point is we pay a % based on income over a certain level, not a levy, so tax cuts will mean more savings for those that pay more. If you are on low income, thats already recognised in the system in that you pay little or no income taxes. Tax cuts are not MEANT to be redistributive, they are for generating growth, or attempting to do so. If everything is boiled down to 'the rich vs the poor' and what each policy means for them you might as well confiscate all income and possessions and dole out necessities. Who decides where we cut off tax cuts? Are those on 17,000 to be punished for saving more tax than those on 14,000? Its infantile.
The IMF says the most effective way for tax cuts to generate growth is to target them at middle earners. If you want to generate growth, we'll get more bang for our buck by doing that.
When Britain mobilised 3000 reservists in April 2020, did they let any of them hop on Eurostar to France?
IIRC there hasn’t been any compulsion used in the call up of U.K. reservists since conscription ended, at the least.
How does a reservist avoid callup? Surely they have to answer and they can't just ignore the notice.
It is fairly trivial to get out of, when called up, IIRC. Fitness is a classic.
Quite a few people avoided Afghanistan and Iraq, in the later stages, I believe.
From the HAC people I know, it is about being willing to serve that is their reason for being in the reserves.
British reservists are also likely to be rather less reluctant than their Russian counterparts to see some action. These people sign up as reservists knowing and not minding that they might see some action. They know their chances of being killed in action are not negligible, but also not massive (unlike their Russian counterparts), that they will be moderately well looked after by worldwide military standards (unlike their Russian counterparts), and that they will be given kit that's probably rather less than 30 years old (unlike their Russian counterparts).
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
When Britain mobilised 3000 reservists in April 2020, did they let any of them hop on Eurostar to France?
IIRC there hasn’t been any compulsion used in the call up of U.K. reservists since conscription ended, at the least.
How does a reservist avoid callup? Surely they have to answer and they can't just ignore the notice.
It is fairly trivial to get out of, when called up, IIRC. Fitness is a classic.
Quite a few people avoided Afghanistan and Iraq, in the later stages, I believe.
From the HAC people I know, it is about being willing to serve that is their reason for being in the reserves.
I know they are the enemy, but watching footage of ordinary Russians, who clearly already have very little, waving their families goodbye is pretty pitiful.
There’s already 55,000 Russian soldiers that won’t be coming back from Ukraine, that’s a lot of wives and mothers who have lost already, to stoke Putin’s imperial ambitions.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Problem 1: Applies to any tax cut, surely? Problem 2: True, to an extent, but a single point of inflation that should be short-lived and with known cause, unlikely to cause big problems (consider the 17.5-20% increase - problems?) Problem 3: I think you'll find if you look at bondegezou's post that VAT cuts benefitting the poor most is a feature, not a bug (I agree)
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
... and fail anyway.
That would be good.
However, a note of caution. Embarrassing as the loss of Izyum is for Russia, and however damaging is for their morale, it amounts to less than 5% of the Ukrainian territory that the Russians have occupied in the last eight years.
Or to put it another way, they need to have more than 20 such dazzling successes as they have had in Izyum to clear the Russians out of their land.
That will take a very long time, and the Ukrainians themselves will suffer very heavy losses.
If of course they were able to recapture Mariupol and cut the Russians in Crimea, Kherson and the other western areas off from Russia itself that would make a real difference, but at the moment it doesn't look as though that's happening, or at least will not happen this year.There is an awfully long way to go in this conflict and even on the best case scenario it's going to cause more damage to Ukraine before it's finished.
The only positive thing we can say is that Putin has already utterly failed in every single objective he set himself, namely the conquest of Ukraine with the consent of its people to expand his empire towards the old Soviet Empire. Not only has Ukraine comprehensively rejected him, but so has every other part of the former Soviet Empire.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
If that were the case I'm not sure why he would release the Azovstal defenders in exchange for a washed-up pro-Russian Ukrainian politician.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
I am surprised more is not being made in the media about the prisoner exchange. I think it is hugely significant.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
If that were the case I'm not sure why he would release the Azovstal defenders in exchange for a washed-up pro-Russian Ukrainian politician.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
That mostly seems plausible. Even at the most blinkered he knows things are not going very well, hence the mobilisation, and so shoring things up internally such that even if things go even more pear shapred in Ukraine he is fine, makes sense.
Shipping costs plummeting towards the status quo ante.
There's going to be a very large fall in inflation next year, potentially even deflation.
The Fed are being too aggressive in their rate rises.
Thing is investors are maybe looking at history. Last time inflation was a serious problem, US rates got to 20%.
Last time inflation was a serious problem commodity prices shot up and kept going up. The oil price shock in the mid seventies was followed by escalating oil prices for the next six years. Oil prices more than doubled in 1974 but they continued rising to more than double that again by 1980.
This time most commodity prices went up but are already starting to reverse. Unlike the seventies, if prices are falling next year instead of continuing to rise further and further, then that's going to play out very, very differently.
"If" is doing all your heavy lifting here.
The problem we have on the horizon is 10 to 12% inflation over the next months which is domestically rather than internationally driven. Wage-price inflation in particular which you assured me two years ago would not happen. Increases in mortgage rates from zip to 4 or 5% is another issue you are ignoring that could bite the national arse.
Wage-driven inflation would be a good thing and is something I've been calling for. The lack of wage-driven inflation has led money going to asset-driven inflation in the past (see: House Prices) instead and has been replaced with commodity-driven inflation.
A fall in commodity prices, a fall in asset-prices and a rise in wages is almost too good to be true territory, if that's what you're expecting.
Now I know you are talking bollocks economics.
If you take commodity price averages over the last 12 months rather than the last twelve days, I suspect you are wrong too.
The financial losses of Putin's war will take 5 years for Russia to recover from. The military losses will take 10-15. But the loss of the young, educated, middle class is going to screw them for 50 years plus.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
If you raised the income tax personal allowance threshold from lets say 12,000 to 13,000, someone on 30k per annum saves 200 quid, someone on 12,001 per annum saves 20p, because they only currently pay 20p
Indeed. But you could cut taxes in a different way.
How else would you cut them?
Given income tax is staggered higher at higher incomes, a flat 1.25% cut in tax reduces taxes on the poorest proportionately more than the richest. Given that the poorest get their income via PAYE while the wealthiest have non-PAYE income, a flat NI tax cut benefits the poorest more than any other income-related tax cut would.
I'm not in charge, so I'm not certain there's much value in asking me what I'd do! I'd not start from here. Merge NI into income tax, as you've also argued for. Introduce a property-based wealth tax.
If you're going to do that then cutting NI is a good first step in transitioning to that, since a merge in one go is going to be very dramatic.
Realistically all taxes that can be cut, except possible tobacco duty, will benefit the richest the most since they pay the most taxes. Cut VAT and people who spend a lot of money on VAT-rated goods and services will get a bigger tax cut.
Apart from things like tobacco or fuel duty, the only tax that's not a tax that would be more progressive in my view than an NI tax cut is cutting the taper rate on UC. That should be done in my view, but NI is next best to that and the most progressive of the actual taxes to cut.
I don't think one can paint a tax cut bung funded by borrowing as being a good thing because it's sort of like being on the way to merging income tax and NI.
It is not true that all taxes that can be cut must benefit the richest the most. You can easily keep the tax for people above a certain threshold while abolishing it for others. It's a choice. The Truss Govt has made this choice.
Senior Tories furious after Deputy PM Therese Coffey meets with China vice president Wang Qishan. Beijing says the UK wants "to strengthen cooperation with China in trade, environmental protection, climate change and multilateral affairs." https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1572976779198971906/photo/1
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
Absolutely, lower earners already benefit by not paying the tax that higher earners are now saving. But, foot stamp politics demands we find outrage in all things
Feck me. The poor are the lucky ones!
Not at all, but the point is we pay a % based on income over a certain level, not a levy, so tax cuts will mean more savings for those that pay more. If you are on low income, thats already recognised in the system in that you pay little or no income taxes. Tax cuts are not MEANT to be redistributive, they are for generating growth, or attempting to do so. If everything is boiled down to 'the rich vs the poor' and what each policy means for them you might as well confiscate all income and possessions and dole out necessities. Who decides where we cut off tax cuts? Are those on 17,000 to be punished for saving more tax than those on 14,000? Its infantile.
The IMF says the most effective way for tax cuts to generate growth is to target them at middle earners. If you want to generate growth, we'll get more bang for our buck by doing that.
Middle earners benefit nicely from this reversal. Or rather are not punished by its imposition
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Not if you don't want it to.
Well, yes, if you want to be vindictive you can beat up the tenth man.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Again it's the same issue - VAT isn't really a big cost to low paid workers - so the winners would again be the better paid workers with more discretionary none food spending.
But I wasn't expecting to provide detailed tax plans of my own. I was just pointing out that there are always alternative. Saying, "Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" is silly when there are so many different ways you could change taxes.
That's quite old (2011). And it's Sir Richard of Murphy riding in on his white charger mainly to argue by assertion, and I don't think he convinces.
Much of it is an argument about what should be measured - VAT vs income, or VAT vs expenditure.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
If that were the case I'm not sure why he would release the Azovstal defenders in exchange for a washed-up pro-Russian Ukrainian politician.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
I am surprised more is not being made in the media about the prisoner exchange. I think it is hugely significant.
He just wanted his mate Medvedchuk back I think. Consistent with the general gist that all Russian policy is essentially for the benefit of a handful of very rich individuals in the Kremlin.
Regardless of the perceived 'fairness' of the NI hike/cut, the simple truth is that it should have been levied in the first place.
A direct tax on jobs on the brink of recession is and was the economics of the madhouse.
Truss remains a weirdo oddball but on this one single measure she has got it right.
The Tories, generally, look utterly chaotic however.
The problem remains what it was before 2017, though.
The UK has social care needs that have to be paid for, somehow. Two attempts to find that money (housing wealth and NI) have now been rejected by the body politic. The idea that anyone is going to accept Income Tax going up is for the birds.
Trussonomics seems to say just borrow the money. Which will be fine if there's enough growth to get that money back later- which seems like an awfully big if. But if it goes wrong, the biggest problems are for future generations, and they're not voting right now, eh?
As St Augustine almost said, "Lord, give me fiscal prudence but not just yet..."
Senior Tories furious after Deputy PM Therese Coffey meets with China vice president Wang Qishan. Beijing says the UK wants "to strengthen cooperation with China in trade, environmental protection, climate change and multilateral affairs." https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1572976779198971906/photo/1
JUST IN: Judge Aileen Cannon altered her order requiring a special master review of the materials seized in Mar-a-Lago, bringing her order in accordance with ruling from the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals to exclude the documents marked as classified from 3rd-party review. https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1572980787229896705
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
If Putin falls he will be replaced by another autocrat unless there is an actual revolution rather than palace coup by generals or oligarchs.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.
I find it mightily hard to call Putin’s next move. He will have his referenda in the next week and will nominally incorporate 20% of Ukrainian territory into Russia. Then what?
The latest nuclear sabre-rattling hasn’t had the intended effect so where does he go from here? Presumably he needs to hold the territory at least at current levels for a number of months with the aim of stalemate, in which case he might be able to come to the table to agree on the handover of some territory? The problem is that I just don’t think the Ukrainians will be down for that stalemate or no, and the West don’t appear to be in any mood for appeasement.
Are we now essentially waiting for Putin to to be defenestrated?
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
If Putin falls he will be replaced by another autocrat unless there is an actual revolution rather than palace coup by generals or oligarchs.
And ditto in Iran. Meanwhile Bolsonaro looks likely to be democratically voted out.
Philip Thomson pint of milk NI refund on its way as Social Care loses the money it needs
Cuts to National Insurance will save the poorest 63p a week and the richest £150 a week.
"Tax cut benefits people who pay tax" shock.
I get that this is the line that the Tory followers are trotting out, but it’s still stupid. There is a choice in terms of who benefits. This Government has chosen to benefit the richest. We’re just pointing out this choice has been made.
Tax cuts by definition benefit people who pay tax.
But we could have tax cuts that benefit the poorer more and the richer less.
How, if the poorer pay less or no tax to start with?
The "10 men drinking beer" tax analogy is a little twee, but none the less valid for that.
You can do better than 63p for the poorest and £150 for the richest.
Also, cut a different tax! Nearly everyone pays VAT. Cut VAT.
Plenty of problems with a VAT cut. Is it temporary or permanent (if the former formulate in your head the political appeal of promising to raise taxes)? Also if it's temporary (somehow) then that will mean price reversion when it is reversed and hence higher inflation. Plus the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth on VAT than the rich. Food, for example, represents a larger share of income for poorer households than richer ones.
Er, food is mostly zero-rated - but not takeaways, or catering, notably.
Yes not the best example. But VAT does take up more of the poor's income than the rich. It is the case, however, that generally just about any tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor.
Clothing, obviously, for one thing. But reverting to food, I'm not actually sure that VAT on food isn't an issue - and not just on crisps for packed lunches etc. It might well be that food VAT is a non-trivial issue for those people and families who rely in part on takeaways for practical reasons such as shift working. Perhaps significantly more pro rata than the better off middle class couple who eat out once a week.
So you plan to cut VAT by 5%. How do you ensure that 5% cut is passed on to purchasers and isn't just pocketed by companies hoping to insulate themselves from the next forthcoming set of price rises / other costs...
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
If Putin falls he will be replaced by another autocrat unless there is an actual revolution rather than palace coup by generals or oligarchs.
Yes and I don’t think, sadly, the forces that could assemble a return to democracy in Russia are strong enough to mount a successful challenge in the fog of war of any interregnum. There is no Yeltsin in 2022. Navalny is the closest, but surely he does not have the strength in numbers/supporters to mount a takeover.
Regardless of the perceived 'fairness' of the NI hike/cut, the simple truth is that it should have been levied in the first place.
A direct tax on jobs on the brink of recession is and was the economics of the madhouse.
Truss remains a weirdo oddball but on this one single measure she has got it right.
The Tories, generally, look utterly chaotic however.
The problem remains what it was before 2017, though.
The UK has social care needs that have to be paid for, somehow. Two attempts to find that money (housing wealth and NI) have now been rejected by the body politic. The idea that anyone is going to accept Income Tax going up is for the birds.
Trussonomics seems to say just borrow the money. Which will be fine if there's enough growth to get that money back later- which seems like an awfully big if. But if it goes wrong, the biggest problems are for future generations, and they're not voting right now, eh?
As St Augustine almost said, "Lord, give me fiscal prudence but not just yet..."
There's not really much grown up debate about this anymore. When the May proposed taxing wealth as a means to solve this issue, Labour (of all parties) rushed to the defence of the asset-rich middle class. Now that particular avenue has been blocked off.
Agree with you that balancing the books doesn't seem to be anyone's priority at the moment.
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
Plenty of autocratic regimes to choose from. Hopefully fewer though.
I find it mightily hard to call Putin’s next move. He will have his referenda in the next week and will nominally incorporate 20% of Ukrainian territory into Russia. Then what?
The latest nuclear sabre-rattling hasn’t had the intended effect so where does he go from here? Presumably he needs to hold the territory at least at current levels for a number of months with the aim of stalemate, in which case he might be able to come to the table to agree on the handover of some territory? The problem is that I just don’t think the Ukrainians will be down for that stalemate or no, and the West don’t appear to be in any mood for appeasement.
Are we now essentially waiting for Putin to to be defenestrated?
I assume the endgame moment will be when/if the Ukrainians can seek to reverse the 2014 incursions (at least in Donbas) - at that point either his bluff is called, he's removed as a madman, or its major escalation time.
Until then, regimes can survive terrible losses and humiliations.
"This is a huge line of cars on the border of Russia and Georgia. This is how Russian men want to fight against Ukraine. And rightly so, because here they either face capture or death. #UkraineWillWin"
Queues at the border will dissipate as soon as any male of fighting age attempting to cross the border is drafted on the spot into the army. Surprised it isn't happening already.
Apparently the roads are now being closed. Russia is sealing itself off
Putin is preparing for Total War. He will do everything needed to defeat Ukraine
If that were the case I'm not sure why he would release the Azovstal defenders in exchange for a washed-up pro-Russian Ukrainian politician.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
I think that is spot on. One of the lesser commented facts is that Russia has lost huge numbers of internal security troops in the conflict. In some cases, the leadership of some of Russia's security apparatus (eg Omsk) has been killed. These newly enforced troops will take their place. Makes it interesting from the Ukrainian standpoint - attack now and maybe wipe some more out of the internal security people out.
PS the Azov exchange is huge - no other way to read it than as you have.
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
If Putin falls he will be replaced by another autocrat unless there is an actual revolution rather than palace coup by generals or oligarchs.
A revolution seems highly unlikely, but a palace coup leading to an even harder line leader feels unlikely too. I know those people exist but they are at the margins. Not sure the general public would have much appetite for them.
I could imagine some sort of bloodless palace coup ("time to retire Vlad") with a new leader who's by no means democratic but decides it's time to tone down the international sabre rattling and rebuild the basics. Focus on the economy and living standards, and get a negotiated exit from Ukraine. I think people do get exhausted after a while. A Deng Xiaoping kind of development.
Having said that we've had 3 palace coups in succession in the Tory party and each one has ended up more hardline than the last, so maybe there's a bit of time to run.
Putin entering his end stages in Russia, the Ayatollahs facing an uprising in Iran, Bolsonaro flailing in his attempt at re-election in Brazil. The autocratic everywhere are facing problems. China is going to be very isolated in the 21st century.
If Putin falls he will be replaced by another autocrat unless there is an actual revolution rather than palace coup by generals or oligarchs.
Revolutions also often lead to autocrats of course.
The f***ing Fed keep jacking up rates which is tanking Sterling, we'd better do a 0.5% rate rise in order to at least do something to keep it relatively in line.
Comments
Scrapping the TV Licence saves everyone £157 a year, it’s the most progressive tax cut.
The problem we have on the horizon is 10 to 12% inflation over the next months which is domestically rather than internationally driven. Wage-price inflation in particular which you assured me two years ago would not happen. Increases in mortgage rates from zip to 4 or 5% is another issue you are ignoring that could bite the national arse.
I think he's preparing to hold onto power in Russia following defeat in Ukraine. The new conscripts will be used to hold the frontline while the internal security forces currently deployed are withdrawn, rested, and prepared to defend the regime from internal unrest.
Returning the Azovstal POWs is a genuine goodwill gesture that can only mean an attempt at face-saving negotiations is in the offing. It otherwise makes zero sense. Putin knows he's lost in Ukraine. Now he's trying to save his life. And that means the more important fight for him is against other Russians inside Russia.
Which is why the Tories keep increasing VAT.
Which taxes do they cut? Amazingly, its the taxes that impact the wealthy.
I know they are the enemy, but watching footage of ordinary Russians, who clearly already have very little, waving their families goodbye is pretty pitiful.
A fall in commodity prices, a fall in asset-prices and a rise in wages is almost too good to be true territory, if that's what you're expecting.
Problem 2: True, to an extent, but a single point of inflation that should be short-lived and with known cause, unlikely to cause big problems (consider the 17.5-20% increase - problems?)
Problem 3: I think you'll find if you look at bondegezou's post that VAT cuts benefitting the poor most is a feature, not a bug (I agree)
However, a note of caution. Embarrassing as the loss of Izyum is for Russia, and however damaging is for their morale, it amounts to less than 5% of the Ukrainian territory that the Russians have occupied in the last eight years.
Or to put it another way, they need to have more than 20 such dazzling successes as they have had in Izyum to clear the Russians out of their land.
That will take a very long time, and the Ukrainians themselves will suffer very heavy losses.
If of course they were able to recapture Mariupol and cut the Russians in Crimea, Kherson and the other western areas off from Russia itself that would make a real difference, but at the moment it doesn't look as though that's happening, or at least will not happen this year.There is an awfully long way to go in this conflict and even on the best case scenario it's going to cause more damage to Ukraine before it's finished.
The only positive thing we can say is that Putin has already utterly failed in every single objective he set himself, namely the conquest of Ukraine with the consent of its people to expand his empire towards the old Soviet Empire. Not only has Ukraine comprehensively rejected him, but so has every other part of the former Soviet Empire.
If you take commodity price averages over the last 12 months rather than the last twelve days, I suspect you are wrong too.
It is not true that all taxes that can be cut must benefit the richest the most. You can easily keep the tax for people above a certain threshold while abolishing it for others. It's a choice. The Truss Govt has made this choice.
Senior Tories furious after Deputy PM Therese Coffey meets with China vice president Wang Qishan.
Beijing says the UK wants "to strengthen cooperation with China in trade, environmental protection, climate change and multilateral affairs." https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1572976779198971906/photo/1
Much of it is an argument about what should be measured - VAT vs income, or VAT vs expenditure.
A direct tax on jobs on the brink of recession is and was the economics of the madhouse.
Truss remains a weirdo oddball but on this one single measure she has got it right.
The Tories, generally, look utterly chaotic however.
A direct tax on jobs on the brink of recession is and was the economics of the madhouse.
Truss remains a weirdo oddball but on this one single measure she has got it right.
The Tories, generally, look utterly chaotic however.
The UK has social care needs that have to be paid for, somehow. Two attempts to find that money (housing wealth and NI) have now been rejected by the body politic. The idea that anyone is going to accept Income Tax going up is for the birds.
Trussonomics seems to say just borrow the money. Which will be fine if there's enough growth to get that money back later- which seems like an awfully big if. But if it goes wrong, the biggest problems are for future generations, and they're not voting right now, eh?
As St Augustine almost said, "Lord, give me fiscal prudence but not just yet..."
200 the target for Pakistan.
https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1572980787229896705
The latest nuclear sabre-rattling hasn’t had the intended effect so where does he go from here? Presumably he needs to hold the territory at least at current levels for a number of months with the aim of stalemate, in which case he might be able to come to the table to agree on the handover of some territory? The problem is that I just don’t think the Ukrainians will be down for that stalemate or no, and the West don’t appear to be in any mood for appeasement.
Are we now essentially waiting for Putin to to be defenestrated?
Meanwhile Bolsonaro looks likely to be democratically voted out.
Agree with you that balancing the books doesn't seem to be anyone's priority at the moment.
Until then, regimes can survive terrible losses and humiliations.
PS the Azov exchange is huge - no other way to read it than as you have.
I could imagine some sort of bloodless palace coup ("time to retire Vlad") with a new leader who's by no means democratic but decides it's time to tone down the international sabre rattling and rebuild the basics. Focus on the economy and living standards, and get a negotiated exit from Ukraine. I think people do get exhausted after a while. A Deng Xiaoping kind of development.
Having said that we've had 3 palace coups in succession in the Tory party and each one has ended up more hardline than the last, so maybe there's a bit of time to run.